Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash (vice.com) 137
Tuesday a Canadian journalist described his newest victory in his war on fake-science journals. An anonymous reader writes:
In 2014, journalist Tom Spears intentionally wrote "the world's worst science research paper...a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble" -- then got it accepted by eight different journals. ("I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology...and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars...") He did it to expose journals which follow the publish-for-a-fee model, "a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate."
But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they're "on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, "I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal -- of ethics. Something about that attracted me... one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them."
He's now publicizing the fact that this formerly-respectable journal is currently featuring his submission, which was "mostly plagiarized from Aristotle, with every fourth or fifth word changed so that anti-plagiarism software won't catch it. But the result is meaningless. Some sentences don't have verbs..."
But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they're "on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, "I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal -- of ethics. Something about that attracted me... one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them."
He's now publicizing the fact that this formerly-respectable journal is currently featuring his submission, which was "mostly plagiarized from Aristotle, with every fourth or fifth word changed so that anti-plagiarism software won't catch it. But the result is meaningless. Some sentences don't have verbs..."
Eliminate peer reviewed journals (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd like to see peer reviewed journals go away. They're a relic of the past, for many reasons.
1) The review process isn't transparent. It's too easy for authors to submit fake reviewers or for reviewers to not disclose conflicts of interest.
2) Reviewers generally don't have access to data and tools to actually verify the quality of the research. It's too easy for fabricated results to get published.
3) Many conference presentations are recorded. There's much less need for publications when it's easy to go on
hoho (Score:1)
Re: hoho (Score:1)
If peer review of publications actually involved independent researchers attempting to replicate results, I'd support it. However, that's not how the process actually works. Instead, it involves submitting a manuscript to a journal and suggesting reviewers. The manuscript is assigned to an editor, who then selects reviewers and sends the manuscript out for review. The reviewers generally don't try to replicate the results. They just comment on the manuscript and any supplemental materials that have been sup
one rather significant flaw (Score:2)
We've seen the results of this before from just about every lobby group with something they are trying to spin into something more positive , for ex Tobacco lobby, NRA, AGW, the list goes on. Marketting droids meet persons with personal agenda. Having no peer reviewed scien
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Peer reviews were never designed to allowed "others to replicate" ... Because in many cases to replicate the experiment is a multi-year, multi-million dollar venture. Peer reviews were designed to allow others to verify that the correct process was taken. No Averaging of Average, proper control and test groups are explained in the correct sizes to be mathematically valid.
Re:hoho (Score:5, Informative)
You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.
Peer-review can detect sloppy writing and incompetent research. It rarely catches outright fraud.
Re: hoho (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends on the field a little. We work in material science and about 2-3 times a year we will attempt to replicate work as part of our peer review of other's work. We have all the kit and can usually run a couple of experiments in a few days and have them analysed in house. Again, it depends on the field and the more general approach is as the parent poster outlines.
Re: (Score:2)
No. This is wrong. I have peer reviewed nearly a hundred papers over my career, and I have never replicated the research. I read the paper, see if it makes sense, and if the conclusions are supported by the data. Sometimes I recommend the paper be rejected outright, sometimes I suggest revisions for clarification or completeness, sometimes I recommend that paper be published as-is. Typically I will spend a few hours to do the review, for research that would take a year or more to replicate.
As someone who's
Re: (Score:1)
The lack of replication is a big hole in the scientific research process in this country.
Which country, because that is how peer review works just about everywhere. It is a process to vet the description of the research and the relevance to the journal. Replication usually comes later, and is still pretty common in a lot of fields. You might not see researchers doing the exact same experiment, but there are a lot of experiments expanding parameter spaces or at higher precision. Those experiments quickly find any disagreements.
really tackle the really hard problems (such as translating research into practice).
Funny, considering far more scientists get hired by industry than
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it was peer *replication* they wouldn't call it peer *review* would they, idiot?
Re: (Score:3)
do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
You are entirely wrong. That's simply not what "peer review" means. That's a step after peer review, which BTW almost never happens. Peer review is simply a methodology check: did this research use accepted best practices.
Re: (Score:2)
You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right?
You literally just made that up, knew you were doing it, but didnt give a fuck that you were completely full of shit.
You also thought everyone else was completely stupid? For fuck sakes.... never post again.
Re: (Score:1)
1) The review process isn't transparent. It's too easy for authors to submit fake reviewers or for reviewers to not disclose conflicts of interest.
This is where a good journal has an editor that works their ass off trying their best to catch conflicts of interests and lazy reviewers. Most decent journals have a process for appealing bad reviews, and in my experience, the editors tend to pretty quickly ignore reviews that are lazy or conflict with the paper. The results aren't perfect, but most of the time work pretty well.
2) Reviewers generally don't have access to data and tools to actually verify the quality of the research. It's too easy for fabricated results to get published.
This depends on the journal, as more are now including data sets. I've had reviewers redo calculations in papers I've published,
Re: (Score:2)
Most decent journals have a process for appealing bad reviews, and in my experience, the editors tend to pretty quickly ignore reviews that are lazy or conflict with the paper.
You say this like its a good thing. The only reviews that get appealed would be the ones that stop a paper from being published. No author is going to appeal a review that gets his/her paper published.
The end result can only be more fake papers being published, not less.
Re: (Score:1)
4) Is it better to have a paper about a data set or the actual data set? Is it better to have a paper about a research tool or the actual research tool? Judge researchers based on the data and analysis tools they release, which is far more of a contribution to science.
Occasionally, the other four points you make do happen, but this solution doesn't work any better than peer reviewing because there would still be, in your own words, "incentives to withhold data that might be contradictory to a hypothesis or that they can't explain yet." If recorded conferences (your point #3) were the standard instead of papers, the same corruptions in the process would (and do) plague the conferences.
Re:Eliminate peer reviewed journals (Score:4, Interesting)
No, peer review is the part of the system we need to keep. Replace the journals with websites, and invite peer review on the site. Access problem solved, journal monopoly broken.
Re: (Score:2)
No, peer review is the part of the system we need to keep. Replace the journals with websites, and invite peer review on the site. Access problem solved, journal monopoly broken.
You've literally described many journals, like PLoS One for example. It's a website, not a printed journal. Peer review is all done online. Invitations are sent out by email, though not via the web, bye the review is usually done via some system on the website.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, things are moving that way, but there are still too many print journals still around that operate as high-priced monopolies. It's a matter of changing the culture one journal at a time.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need to 'eliminate' editors. Moving journals to websites will take away that primary argument in favor of money-grubbing monopoly, "It costs a lot to distribute small numbers of print issues with charts and illustrations to scattered college libraries..." This is easy to do on websites, and the savings will enable hiring some perfectly good editors from that putatively vast pool of underemployed academics out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Deep.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
That's the most disgusting anti-intellectualist bullshit that I read today.
Re: (Score:3)
Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.
Trump 2016?
I.e. Any drivel anyone manages to regurgitate is just as good as fact. Or better.
Re: (Score:1)
...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
We have got to decide this day whether we prefer for the future to deprive frantic and profligate scientists of the protection of wicked and unprincipled citizens, or even to arm them with the cloak of scientific illiteracy due to the mortal God in which they hold only approximate esteem, and the invisible hand in which they hold none. For if that pest and conflagration of the public succeeds in defending its own mischievous and unprofitable community by appeals to divine stupidity, when they cannot mainta
Re: (Score:1)
This last year, one of the more senior CS professor at my college got promoted to full professor, mostly due to the P&T Committee's noting his multiple publications (all from pay-to-publish journals), The committee, not being scientists, had no clue these were not legit journals.
What school does this? The ones I've worked at all spent quite a time digging down into the actual papers and citations. The ability of the prof to get grants was also a big part of the tenure pay raise discussions, but grant reviewers tend to be even closer to the researcher's field and also look into details of papers. The legitimacy of the journal doesn't really come up (although big named ones might factor into PR potential... but if you don't know the field that would be moot).
If your school just al
"Journals" (Score:5, Insightful)
Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.
Say...: The Analyst, Analytica Chimica Acta, Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry, Polyhedron, Acta Physica Polonica, Molecular Physics, Applied Optics...
The problem here is what the media defines as "science". They don't really know what they are talking about.
Like any scientist would take something called the "Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics" seriously. Ha! You can tell by the name it is bogus and has nothing to do with real science.
Re:"Journals" (Score:5, Informative)
This. There are a massive number of journals that exist just to make money and pad researcher's CV. I get more than a dozen spam emails a week from these journals, plus another dozen plus spam emails from conferences that will accept anything. Besides journals that exist to make money, there are others created by psuedoscientists to publish their own papers that kept getting rejected elsewhere.
Not all journals are equal, and you have to spend a bit of time to learn what is actually used in a field (the horror... it takes a time investment to understand something). The fake ones often try to pick rather formal sounding names, or names that are mishmashes of other well known journal names, making it confusing on purpose.
I have to wonder how often these fake journals amount to anything within academia? How often are they cited outside of themselves? Having been on both sides of the interview process, I've seen that papers on a CV get actually read, so BS and pointless work gets called out. The bigger danger seems to be when people not familiar with a field cite it, or it gets used in a non-science news piece.
You missed the point. (Score:4, Informative)
Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.
You missed the point.
If you read even the SUMMARY of TFA, above, you'll see that the POINT was that the fake-journal operations are buying up REAL journals, with real reputations, and converting them into more pay-for-play fakes. (Their customers will no doubt be willing to pay even more for placement in a respected journal, before its reputation collapses.)
Why do these journals still exist? (Score:1)
They are absurd. They exists purely for the purpose of acting as gateways to science, except they're largely privately owned, and often deeply corrupt.
It's not helpful anymore. All the benefits of such a system can be achieved in far better ways in the modern era - peer review doesn't need a publishing system anymore, nor does statistical analysis, replication studies or metastudies.
The closest thing to a remaining benefit would be reference count - but even that's a dubious statistic, since so many journ
Re:Why do these journals still exist? (Score:4, Insightful)
You've claimed repeatedly that something better can be done. I used to work in science and published a reasonable number of papers (and have reviewed considerably more). How much journals suck and how to make them better is a really popular pub topic among scientists.
Turns out it's really hard and there are no easy solutions. So, instead of telling us how things ought to be better actually make a suggestion. Otherwise it's just abstract complaining about how things aren't good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Several methods I can think of. First, just leave the printing stage off, let any libraries that find that important just print off their own copies, and remove that excuse for high fees. That's like version 0.01.
After that, you can experiment (which is sort of being done) with proper reputation systems to replace the "we're a big organization with $X, no one else can play" model. Sure - the big organizations would still dominate most of those, and scoring 'points' in such a system would still require mo
Re: (Score:3)
Several methods I can think of. First, just leave the printing stage off, let any libraries that find that important just print off their own copies, and remove that excuse for high fees. That's like version 0.01.
All journals are available electronically for less than the paper copies. Professionally edited ones like Nature are always going to to cover the costs of staff. Other than that, many journals are now open access or allow open access papers to be published there. The latter since it's now a require
Re: (Score:2)
You've claimed repeatedly that something better can be done. I used to work in science and published a reasonable number of papers (and have reviewed considerably more). How much journals suck and how to make them better is a really popular pub topic among scientists.
Turns out it's really hard and there are no easy solutions. So, instead of telling us how things ought to be better actually make a suggestion. Otherwise it's just abstract complaining about how things aren't good enough.
You want a solution? Fine.
The solution we all strive for is actually pretty damn simple. To create it, ensure an organization devoted to publishing truth and fact is well insulated from the greedy corrupt world we live in today, and is backed by those who demand a validated peer-reviewed process as a mandatory step prior to publication.
And yes, the world is greedy and corrupt. You sure as hell don't need another study to prove how greedy and corrupt it is, nor do you need a study done to validate what ca
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing science journals with journalism it seems. But it's good that you have an angry opinion about a field it appears you are completely unfamiliar with. Go you!
Re: (Score:2)
You know, one theoretical solution to all problems of greed and corruption is to take hypothetical competent humans of known utter honesty and put them in charge. The trick is (a) ensuring that there are such people, and (b) figuring out who they are. Election through the Electoral College seems to not quite work.
While you're figuring out those things, the rest of us will try to improve the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
And don't give me this shit about having it already. If such an organization existed today, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
No, this conversation happens because there are journals that don't do things the right way. The existence of bad journals doesn't preclude good journals, as both can and do exist at the same time.
Finding good journals today suffers from the same problem that good news now has.
You have to find enough humans who still give a shit about perpetuating truth and facts instead of turning profits perpetuating lies and bullshit.
They made my life easier (Score:2)
Sokal (Score:1)
For those not familiar with it, back in the mid-90s there was the Sokal Hoax [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I encourage everyone to read the article cited and post a comment as informative as the original article!
And, to those in my audience, this beginning of my defense seems to be most appropriate concerning the standing of this man so that I should tweet first to those things which his haters and accusers and dummies in the media have advanced with the general view of disparaging him and for the sake of detracting from his honor and despoiling him of his dignity. His father was cast in his teeth on various accounts, at one time as having been a man of no great respectability himself; at another, he was said to ha
FTA (Score:2)
Now every man must come at times to the aid of the party through the general precept that ethical behavior demands support of the community. It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins;
That's gold baby. GOLD!
Fake News (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the article closely, you'll learn that fake journals publish fake research papers. What a surprise.
Let's see him get his phony paper published in Nature, Annals of Mathematics or the Reviews of Modern Physics. Then we'll have something to talk about.
This is just another story from the hard Right (National Post was started by Canadian con-man Conrad Black) which seeks to convince people that you can't trust those crafty scientists so it can make it easier to get the yokels to believe whatever garbage they want them to believe.
Re: (Score:1)
Canadian con-man Conrad Black
I feel I must rectify. You actually mean: "British con-man Conrad Black".
He hasn't been Canadian for 15 years (and good riddance too, why they let him back in is a mystery to me).
Re: (Score:2)
So I guess that means he finally got out of Federal prison. I know they sent him away for four years for fraud, but I don't remember him getting out or where he went. I'm surprised that as a convicted felon he was able to immigrate. I'm surprised anyone accepted him.
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the article closely, you'll learn that fake journals publish fake research papers. What a surprise.
Let's see him get his phony paper published in Nature, Annals of Mathematics or the Reviews of Modern Physics. Then we'll have something to talk about...
Speaking of discussion, one would think that such a controversial topic as climate change would warrant said organizations to devote some time and resources to it, and publish the facts to quiet or alarm the masses once and for all.
Oh wait. Nevermind. Seems the problem more lies in believing said organizations.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you trying to say? Slow down and try again. If there's an adult home, have them help you with the hard words.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said sir, were I to have mod point, I would adorn them on your finely worded and insightful post. Such eloquence.
To your lamentations I observe that they befoul our forum with their histrionic buffoonery, and layer, without alteration or abatement, words fecal in origin, uttered from flatulent lips that blubber and sputter forth so that even the best of us, congregated for discussion and contemplation of those things real aforementioned, long to see the hammer of natures laws, expressed in the physics
Highlights from "scientific" paper (Score:3)
"If they do otherwise y are blamed," -- y was not defined beforehand, nor was x... But Y?
"for example the sort of actions which people in a prisoner-of-war camp have been force to perform." -- Use the Force! English conjugations are so freaking difficult!
"What sort of acts, we must ask, should be we call compulsory?" -- I didn't find the sentence in which he accidentally a whole verb, but I did find where the verb ended up!
"It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins" -- Aristotle . . . was he in Gryffindor or Ravenclaw?
"for who would bear fardles unless the person who does not understand these acts involuntarily?" -- and some editors should fall upon their bodkins
"But that is a topic for another day." -- This is probably the only sentence which is good enough for a fourth-grade paper . . . not good enough to get a good mark, of course.
Time for journals to be accredited? (Score:2)
Perhaps it's time for reputable publishers and the academic community to get together and agree on some minimal standards about what it means to be a "reputable journal" or a "reputable publisher."
If the shoe was on the other foot... (Score:3)
If California were Red...
And Wyoming Blue...
Jeff Bezzon's Puppet
The WA-post paper
Would sing high praises
Of the that old bargin
The Connecticut Compromise
You see no politician has true principles, except for the principle of seeking more power.
Obsolete (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human being do not affect climate? Really? Please cite it - I'd like to read it. Oh... you DON'T have any published work on climate? Um... well... maybe you can go back to school and learn some math and such and then come back when you're properly prepared.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.
Jones refused to release his data and his algorithms [nature.com] meaning it was impossible to vet and review his claims. Of course, Michael Mann (he who wanted to hide the decline [climateaudit.org] in his own data) now states that we don't really need data [washingtontimes.com] because we can just see what happens. Data is irrelevant, anecdotal evidence is all that one needs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review is not to validate every aspect of a paper. The goal is to see if the methodology is reasonable, and to bring up other things in the scientific literature. For a long time, nobody really expected a raw data dump for a peer-reviewed paper. The paper would describe the methodology of data collection and the principles behind the processing, preferably in enough detail to replicate all stages of the experiment or observation.
The problem with demanding data and source code is that replication
Re: (Score:2)
And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer /. submissions on the front page:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
You fail to recognize the crucial word in the headline:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
Also, if you bothered to read the articles, you would see that these were formerly-respectable journals that were bought up and exploited by a company that does either perfunctory or nonexistent peer-review, then turns around and agrees to publish the author's paper, provided they pay up of course. Almost all journals charge authors to publish their papers. But these journals are in it for the money, not the science.
This story has nothing to do with the
Re:You mean, like Global Warming?!?? (Score:5, Insightful)
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sea levels rising a bit would be expensive, no doubt, since we tend to build cities on the coast. Maybe it's cheaper to emit less carbon? Maybe it's not. But either way, hyperbole like "destroy the planet" is political propaganda, not science, and obviously so - speaking of counter-productive.
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
Where did I say proof requires "destroying the planet"? Hyperbolic-strawman, much? Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?
A poster up-thread already destroyed your strawman.
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...
Still waiting for those releases of data/processes/methods & tools...you know, like *real* scientists do, as opposed to climate-alarmist propaganda shills posing as scientists and their political hangers-on.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Hyperbolic-strawman, much?
Yes, exactly what you asked for:
verifiable, reproducible, proof
The only way you can reproduce "this will destroy the planet," is by destroying a planet. Which isn't really a possible thing to do.
Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?
That's exactly my point -- there is no way to "prove" anything here, for either side. All we can do is gather evidence and form theories and models based on that evidence. And pretty much all evidence so far points to climate change being both a thing and a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
When do you think the practice of real science started? I've read innumerable papers in which there was no obvious way to get the raw data, and no guarantees that it still existed.
Re: (Score:2)
It may not be "released" in the sense of sitting in a public archive somewhere, but it usually only takes a quick email to the researcher to get more information. Most university researchers have their email listed somewhere on the faculty pages (and often listed on the paper itself these days, for just this reason.) Corporate scientists might be a little harder to connect to since companies only like to talk about their C-level employees but its not like its impossible there either. If nothing else, pic
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
Exactly. In the end, the only thing that's going to be more annoying than those trying to dismiss the end of times with this incessant prove-it-is-me attitude is listening to those same critics say "Oh, I guess you were right after all."
The most valuable word in the world is Why.
The most expensive statement in the known universe is I told you so.
No matter who or what is to blame for negative impacts to our climate, the species reliant upon said climate in order to survive should probably give a shit at
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
OKay.
Let's begin with some real science, and a major issue: solar input
Rind, D.H., Lean, J.L., Jonas, J. 2014. The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations. Journal of Climate Vol. 27(3)
Bodas-Salcedo A, Williams K, Yokohata T, et al. 2014. Origins of the Solar Radiation Biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 Models. Journal Of Climate Vol. 27(3)
Solanki, S., Krivova, N., Haigh, J.D. 2013. Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate. Annual Review of Astronomy a
Re: (Score:2)
I absolutely LOVE the fact you got modded to -1! A challenge for "published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate." You provide a list that is at least as authoritative as the other side, and get slammed. A thoughtful person would take it as proof that everything is NOT known, there is still some variability, and conclude at best "well, there
Re: (Score:2)
The list was modded down not because it wasn't published proof, but rather because it was nothing more than a set of models that are included in subsequent climate reviews to be corrected for later.
It's like asking someone to publish a list of cakes and getting answers like "flour, eggs, water, coco powder".
Some of those articles I've seen before ... cited in studies showing the affects of AGW, because scientists actually know how to do their jobs despite what a bunch of Slash-f-wits think.
Re: (Score:1)
That's not the scientific argument at all.
Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the scientific argument at all.
Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.
Everyone knows it's colder inside a greenhouse right?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is indeed warmer. I was not being serious in the sense of meaning it was actually colder. I was being serious in the sense of highlighting the absurdity of denying the greenhouse effect when it can be demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
Re: (Score:2)
It's often humid in a greenhouse. The analogy that keeps giving.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you claiming that human CO2 emissions somehow formed a glass sphere around the earth? If not then how does stepping into a greenhouse demonstrate anything?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a strange thing to think. Why would you think that? Type less, think more.
Re: (Score:2)
You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
>You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
It is. Same principle.
>A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
A greenhouse is warmer because sunlight and to a lesser extent UV passes through the glass easily, hits matter, gets absorbed, gets re-emitted at a lower IR frequency and the IR bounces off the glas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the real world, we have to frequently make very difficult, big decisions before there is absolute proof of what the consequences are. That doesn't mean such decisions are uninformed though.
And also in the real world, raising energy prices (a major tool of AGW proponents to control CO2) costs human lives. How many poor/old/disabled peoples' lives is it worth to you? Would you still feel that countering CO2 in this manner was worthwhile if you had to personally shoot the poor/old/disabled people yourself instead of anonymously causing them to freeze/starve to death out of your sight?
Strat
Re: (Score:1)
Just use the published stuff. Here, a journalist has put it all together for even the stupid people on slashdot - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu... [vernalutah.org] . Listen to it, it's really worth your time.
Re: (Score:2)