Climate and Weather
- Thread starter espola
- Start date
Leghorn is the chicken and you my friend are the egg head...
Sheriff Joe
DA
Wez
DA
Show me liar
I'm coming out of UCI at around 1:30 Sunday and can pop in to a beer summit in that area while taking the kid for a burger. Not that anybody needs a lawyer around...
Wez
DA
Playing Pats DA on Sunday?
Sheriff Joe
DA
Last time I had a beer with Ricky and Brah, somebody ate all my jerky and stole my pizza.
I ate the jerky.
I do have to say it was delish.
Did I ever tell you the story about the lawyer I threw in his own pool?
He had amnesia and couldnt find his checkbook.
I stayed calm, and used my head.
I thought maybe a splash of cold water would break the amnesia spell.
He thought I was crazy and was a little combative at first, but after he went in the pool his amnesia was gone and he remembered exactly where his checkbook was.
I think I could have been a great psychologist.
I have another story about a lawyer who remembered where his checkbook was but forgot there wasnt any money in that account.
I helped him find the right account.
I love lawyers.
Thats why I love to help them so much.
I helped him find the right account.
I love lawyers.
Thats why I love to help them so much.
Wez
DA
https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
"Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication."
Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5
"Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication."
Wez sells so much " Pussy " on this Forum he could change his moniker to Dennis Hof.
Hüsker Dü
DA
Shock therapy?
