Quote:
Originally Posted by dougjb
Let's see...I am debating whether to believe a world reknowned Ivy League professor (deceased) with multitudinous peer reviewed science articles written by him...namely Carl Sagan....OR should I believe one of these Village jesters who go on and on about how the whole world is wrong but they are correct about global warming being incorrect. These Village jesters do so by merely expressing their opinion without providing even one single peer reviewed science article substantiating their opinion. Perhaps it is because there are no peer review articles to support their denialism. Meanwhile, there are literally thousand and thousands of scientifically based, peer review articles supporting the general thesis that global warming is real and it is caused, in part, by human activities. Oh well, the climate change deniers will claim that peer review articles are part of a grand conspiracy against their opinions. Yet, anyone even closely connected to scientific thought, understands that peer reviewed articles are the gold standard in scientific thought.
When I first moved to the Villages I loved these clubs as presenting speakers who were experts in their field and now sharing their knowledge with other Villagers. How exciting! We have some real experts in their fields who have retired to the Villages. But, this presenter is not one of them. After hearing this speaker rattle on about the global conspiracy supporting global warming and not hearing this speaker EVER present a single well researched and peer reviewed science (despite a request being made), I really am wondering why clubs even allow this presenter to continue speaking. In actuality, the speaker who will be presenting this talk is a meteorologist, in other words, a weatherman. I do not know his educational credentials. But, those credentials would not appear to provide him with a basis to discuss climatology beyond presenting only his own opinion. If this club invites this speaker to present again, I would urge the club to change its name to Science, Technology and Fables. Maybe the next topic to be discussed is why the earth is flat...or why the sun revolves around the earth!
If you go to his presentation, try not to laugh at the presenter's imagination in presenting his material. Indeed, ask him to provide the citation for even one peer review article...and see him twist in the wind in his response. Or ask what his credentials are to speak on climatology. Did I hear crickets?
|
As a scientist (not a climatologist), and even having had a graduate course in paleoclimatology, I would agree with you 99.5% of the time.
However, once a scientific concept becomes highly politicized with trillions of dollars on the line for those that can control the narrative, the whole game changes.
read the post from the TOTV member whose son
IS a climatologist, but disagreed with anthropogenic global warming.-----Grants---DENIED, tenure---DENIED publications----DENIED. Professional reputation ruined. Family to feed, a career ahead of you, most of would just tell the world what the powers that be want them to. And "the peers" that review your research are in exactly the same boat. Then they come out with the claim that "96% of climate scientists are in agreement". Of course they are. Just as 96% (probably more) of people with a gun to their head will tell you that the Earth is a cube. Many early renaissance scientific advancements came from France, until the French Academy of Sciences in the early-mid 1700's became politicized and had to push only "approved" concepts. All new ideas and concepts that were at odds with the "accepted" narrative were squashed and scientific advancement moved on to England and Germany. Same here with climate change. Then, the narrative continues to claim that anyone who disagrees with "the science" (THEIR science) is a nut job or ignorant. Example----Believe Oswald wasn't a lone gunman?----you're a nut job, conspiracy theorist or worse.
So if I publish another paper in a journal, maybe something about the microorganisms in the carposphere of Laccaria trullisata, I would expect unbiased peer review. But I pity any climatologist who tries to publish anything contrary to the global warming narrative.