Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
OK, two of the links you posted are from blogs/newspapers. That is not science, that's journalism. I've read enough scientific reports in newspapers to have an idea on how accurate they are. The GKSS paper you published is superseeded by the one I linked to before. It's newer, and it's by the same authors. Sorry. And finally you have an online petition.
Funnily, one of the link starts with the following phrase: "More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S..... And ends with the following statement: "The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.". Well, 31000 > 9021, which means that they are using the term scientist to many people without PhDs. Mmm... not very good. Let me tell you that all the people in the latest GKSS link have PhD, plus have several contributions in peer-reviewed journals in the relevant field.
Are you able to link to a paper in a peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor greater than 1 that proves (at least with mild success), that CO2 emissions have no effect on the climate? Can you?
This is a meritocracy, and not all thoughts are created equal.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
Miguel wrote:Well, 31000 > 9021, which means that they are using the term scientist to many people without PhDs. Mmm... not very good. Let me tell you that all the people in the latest GKSS link have PhD, plus have several contributions in peer-reviewed journals A in the relevant field.
A PhD does not necessarilly qualify one and is not required to be a scientist. Peer-review in a relevant or specific field of study however is but this does not confer a phd in itself particularly if the study was not afficalliated to a university or if the affiliated instution does not award such qualifications. Effectively one can be an 'eminent' scientist even without an academic qualification
Regarding the scientific consensus I find "is or will" bit in the following misleading
Miguel wrote:-How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will
be, a result of anthropogenic causes?
Average answer: 5.7 +- 1.4. Median answer. 7 (34.5%)
They should specify which.
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..
The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
mcdenife wrote:A PhD does not necessarilly qualify one and is not required to be a scientist. Peer-review in a relevant or specific field of study however is but this does not confer a phd in itself particularly if the study was not afficalliated to a university or if the affiliated instution does not award such qualifications. Effectively one can be an 'eminent' scientist even without an academic qualification
Although the latter is possible, it is exceedingly rare. This is a personal anecdote distorted because I work in academia, but I've never met what I'd call a scientist either without a PhD or working towards getting it. Furthermore, having a PhD does mean that you have been able to produce original, possibly relevant, research work. At least in fields close to mine. Thus, if I were going to listen to two different persons talking about something I'm not well versed, I'm more likely to trust a PhD than someone without it. What kind of medical advice do you prefer? Mine or that of an MD?
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
Miguel wrote:Thus, if I were going to listen to two different persons talking about something I'm not well versed, I'm more likely to trust a PhD than someone without it. What kind of medical advice do you prefer? Mine or that of an MD?
Most likely an MD but depends on the medical advise and the expertise of the MD. But the point being made was a phd (or qualifications, relevant or otherwise) does not make someone the more (or the most) knowledgeable in a specific field than anyone else. Also, the fact you work (or are 'in') academia is the exact reason why should NOT be quick to trust a phd (rather than someone without it) on something, unless you actually happen to know the 'phds' field and his expertise within said field).This was drummed into our heads from first year eng students right through to postgrad studies - check, question, verify (background work)and dont be afraid to disagree with the 'experts'.
Long experience has taught me this about the status of mankind with regards to matters requiring thought. The less people know and understand about them, the more positively they attempt to argue concerning them; while on the other hand, to know and understand a multitude of things renders men cautious in passing judgement upon anything new. - Galileo..
The noblest of dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
mcdenife wrote:Most likely an MD but depends on the medical advise and the expertise of the MD. But the point being made was a phd (or qualifications, relevant or otherwise) does not make someone the more (or the most) knowledgeable in a specific field than anyone else. Also, the fact you work (or are 'in') academia is the exact reason why should NOT be quick to trust a phd (rather than someone without it) on something, unless you actually happen to know the 'phds' field and his expertise within said field).This was drummed into our heads from first year eng students right through to postgrad studies - check, question, verify (background work)and dont be afraid to disagree with the 'experts'.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, and I'm completely with you here. I mean, I do have a PhD, but my medical advise is worth... well... politely speaking, not too much. I thought it was obvious nobody is going to ask someone whose qualifications are a PhD in history for advice in how to build a superconducting device.
BTW: I think I belong to the "disagreeing with the experts" group. I have a hard time believing the true existence of dark matter and dark energy. What's that? Why is it up there and not down here? To me, it looks a lot like the ether hypotheses that were en vogue at the end of the 19th century. Does dark matter make sense? Yes, in the sense that it makes our previously available theory (general relativiy) work beeping well. None of the opposing hypotheses work nearly as well for cosmology without breaking existing knowledge. I just can't get over the fact that it seems they are using some kind of arcane trick. But then again, all this could be down to my deep misunderstanding of GR.
I am not amazed by F1 cars in Monaco. I want to see them driving in the A8 highway: Variable radius corners, negative banking, and extreme narrowings that Tilke has never dreamed off. Oh, yes, and "beautiful" weather tops it all.
"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
