GeneralBored
Don’t be Boring!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Posts
- 14
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2022/12/23/more-snow-and-then-sun-on-the-way-in-toronto-as-massive-storm-delivers-white-knuckle-christmas/_1stormdowntown.jpg "Queen Street east of Yonge Street as a winter storm hit Toronto, cancelling the last day of school and interrupting holiday shopping before the Christmas break in Toronto.")
Are we being weather-gamed to curry support for various new energy schemes?
Storm Politics?
- Thread starter GeneralBored
- Start date
Are we being weather-gamed to curry support for various new energy schemes?
Rotadom
Satan's Plaything
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Posts
- 8,689
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 50,416
No
Are we being weather-gamed to curry support for various new energy schemes?
GeneralBored
Don’t be Boring!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Posts
- 14
I think weather patterns are changing.
Are we being weather-gamed to curry support for various new energy schemes?
I also think the effects are being oversold.
Rotadom
Satan's Plaything
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2017
- Posts
- 8,689
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 50,416
GeneralBored
Don’t be Boring!
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
- Posts
- 14
I say reporting is eggagerated as well as corporate green plans.
https://www.natureworldnews.com/art...hurricane-ida-reporter-exaggerated-report.htm
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60248830.amp
https://www.natureworldnews.com/art...hurricane-ida-reporter-exaggerated-report.htm
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-60248830.amp
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 50,416
Nature world news is agenda driven horseshit and should not be used in any capacity for actual news and factual data.
SubzeroGirl
I voted for Trump
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2021
- Posts
- 2,910
Elon Musk controls the weather
People all too often are putting their personal preferences into something vaguely termed as "Science."
When you have an agenda, you see and interpret that which you feel bests supports your feelings...
Here's a parallel example that I just ran across at Reason.com (Libertarian):
The World Journal of Oncology recently retracted a February 2022 article claiming that nicotine vapers face about the same cancer risk as cigarette smokers. "After publication of this article," the editors explain, "concerns have been raised regarding the article's methodology, source data processing including statistical analysis, and reliability of conclusions." Because "the authors failed to provide justified explanations and evidence for the inquires [sic], subsequently this article has been retracted at the request of Editor-in-Chief."
Some of the concerns raised by this article are similar to the problems with other studies that have linked vaping to smoking-related diseases. Most conspicuously, this study failed to address the question of whether diagnoses were made before or after people started vaping, a minimum requirement for inferring causation. In 2020, the same problem led to the retraction of a Journal of the American Heart Associationarticle that reported an association between vaping and heart attacks.
The World Journal of Oncology article—which was attributed to no fewer than 13 researchers at institutions such as the University of Missouri, Temple University Hospital, the Mayo Clinic, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai—has other obvious problems that should have been apparent before publication. It features enough inconsistencies, writing errors, non sequiturs, and failures of reasoning to make you wonder whether peer reviewers and editors actually read it, let alone carefully evaluated its strengths and weaknesses.
https://reason.com/2023/01/04/a-medical-journal-retracts-a-2022-study-that-linked-vaping-to-cancer/
For some time now, I have suspected that the pressure to publish or perish in academia has led to a corruption of the peer-review process which turns it into more of a handshake quid pro quo among researchers. I'll give you a passing grade on your paper in the expectation of the same professional courtesy on your part when I publish my next paper.
When you have an agenda, you see and interpret that which you feel bests supports your feelings...
Here's a parallel example that I just ran across at Reason.com (Libertarian):
The World Journal of Oncology recently retracted a February 2022 article claiming that nicotine vapers face about the same cancer risk as cigarette smokers. "After publication of this article," the editors explain, "concerns have been raised regarding the article's methodology, source data processing including statistical analysis, and reliability of conclusions." Because "the authors failed to provide justified explanations and evidence for the inquires [sic], subsequently this article has been retracted at the request of Editor-in-Chief."
Some of the concerns raised by this article are similar to the problems with other studies that have linked vaping to smoking-related diseases. Most conspicuously, this study failed to address the question of whether diagnoses were made before or after people started vaping, a minimum requirement for inferring causation. In 2020, the same problem led to the retraction of a Journal of the American Heart Associationarticle that reported an association between vaping and heart attacks.
The World Journal of Oncology article—which was attributed to no fewer than 13 researchers at institutions such as the University of Missouri, Temple University Hospital, the Mayo Clinic, and the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai—has other obvious problems that should have been apparent before publication. It features enough inconsistencies, writing errors, non sequiturs, and failures of reasoning to make you wonder whether peer reviewers and editors actually read it, let alone carefully evaluated its strengths and weaknesses.
https://reason.com/2023/01/04/a-medical-journal-retracts-a-2022-study-that-linked-vaping-to-cancer/
For some time now, I have suspected that the pressure to publish or perish in academia has led to a corruption of the peer-review process which turns it into more of a handshake quid pro quo among researchers. I'll give you a passing grade on your paper in the expectation of the same professional courtesy on your part when I publish my next paper.
Sounds like there are several posters in this thread who are ready to scrap all of science based on anecdotal outliers and go with their "feelings" instead.
Isn't that special. Before the internet came along, these folks would only have their dog as an audience to express their special hunches and feelings.
Isn't that special. Before the internet came along, these folks would only have their dog as an audience to express their special hunches and feelings.
Philthy_Phil
I win !
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2021
- Posts
- 9,884
Is he little person like the OP?My BIL is also a conspiracy honk and a moron as well.
You're in great company!
The bottom line of Chobhambbad's wall of text is, he is one of those people who has a certain idea, then scours the interwebs to find dubious and often non-factual sources to prove his idea, even if most everyone with a brain knows that idea is bogus.
Its like, suppose I really enjoy smoking four packs of cigarrettes a day, and a diet of nothing but french fries and McDonalds burgers. And I hate excersizing.
Most every health professional in the world would say, that is an extremely unhealthy lifestyle. That is, health experts with advanced college degrees in health science, along with pretty much any scientist, doctor, surgeon or basic biology major.
But I LIKE smoking 4 packs a day, love french fries and love me some McDonalds. So, after spending weeks scouring the internet I come across an article by a Dr. Adolf Mengele Von Heydrich, on the White Nationalist News Network, who claims that a "New Study" shows that smoking 4 packs a day is actually healthy ("Tobacco kills resperatory viruses!" or something) as is McDonalds ("if it tastes good, then of course it's good cholesterol") and excercising is harmful because "It hurts your joints, and joggers could get hit by cars."
So then, because this validates my opinion, I link to this article and post it on every forum I can find- never mind that "Dr Adolf Mengele Von Heydrich"'s only medical qualifications are that he watched an episode of "House" one time a couple years ago. It must be True because "Dr. A.M. VonHeydrich" is a "Medical Expert!"
This is exactly why I get so tired of people like JonEBChobham/Hisarpcanhelp, and the O.P, with their stupid and ill conceived "opinions."
It's not just a question of "Educating yourself." but knowing HOW to educate yourself, and how to distinguish whose "knowledge" is relevant and factual and whose is not.
