Welcome to Thunderdome

I mean, I think most people here would think that by default...

but even the widely quoted ones have issues.

Reproducibility 'crisis'

Lots of studies have samples that are way too small to be relevant. This was mentioned in the book The Undoing Project which I read over vacation. Good book, but it's content was already known to me via economics, and the story is mostly about the relationships. Which, while it had some interesting moments, had way too many words than it needed.

TheCatt wrote: Lots of studies have samples that are way too small to be relevant.

Like using weather data from less than 200 years of a planet that's been here for millions of years?

Leisher wrote:

TheCatt wrote: Lots of studies have samples that are way too small to be relevant.

Like using weather data from less than 200 years of a planet that's been here for millions of years?

An argument can be made we can infer a lot of historical weather data from geological phenomena. And that 200 years might be enough information to see some changes.

An argument can be made, yes. To proclaim anything is definitive is incompetence. To parrot it is pathetic. To deify it is scary.

TheCatt wrote: An argument can be made we can infer a lot of historical weather data from geological phenomena.

As Gordon said, an argument could be made, but it would have to ignore a LOT. (It has been made, and does ignore a lot.)

I'm a complete climate change BELIEVER, so this isn't some "it's all bullshit" blah, blah, blah argument.

My point is that their predictions keep missing...by a lot. Taking less than 200 years worth of data and considering it the end all be all is crap, particularly when we know certain eras of warming and cooling lasted thousands of years. Many of the "it's us" crowd have been criticized by other scientists for not considering other factors like that big ball of fire in the sky that completely controls our weather.

I am 100% anti-pollution and believe as a species we could be doing better by Mother Earth, but do I believe 100% in the stuff Gore and his cronies are selling? No.

Leisher wrote: Many of the "it's us" crowd have been criticized by other scientists for not considering other factors like that big ball of fire in the sky that completely controls our weather.

We've talked about the most prominent solar flare proponent being completely wrong already... show me more. And the big ball of fire does not completely control our weather.

TheCatt wrote: We've talked about the most prominent solar flare proponent being completely wrong already... show me more.

The solar flare argument was always dumb. One argument that has gotten attention and I know we've discussed is warming/cooling periods for the sun. That has been suspected as a possible factor, but to what extent nobody knows.

TheCatt wrote: And the big ball of fire does not completely control our weather.

Not "literally" on a day to day basis, no, but that wasn't the intent of my statement. I mean, shift the Earth's axis and see what happens. However, have the sun expand by 10,000 miles or simply snuff out and see what happens to our planet.

10k miles is only 1.2% wider...

Figured it was too low. Just throwing a number out there. Still, I'm pretty sure that would affect us, I just don't know how much.

Eventually it will expand and swallow us.

I'm starting to think psychology is more art than "science.

I remember seeing somewhere many years ago that of all the theories about psychology, exactly zero have been proven scientifically.

Leisher wrote: I remember seeing somewhere many years ago that of all the theories about psychology, exactly zero have been proven scientifically.

I would argue that most cannot be 'proven' per se, rather than just accumulating evidence or supporting data.

TheCatt wrote: I would argue that most cannot be 'proven' per se, rather than just accumulating evidence or supporting data.

I agree with this, but I'm seeing more and more stories where studies have been contaminated in order to influence an outcome that conforms to the beliefs of the examiner. The Stanford Prison experiment is still cited a lot today and was proven to be heavily biased in its execution.

When results can be skewed by, "Depends on her mood," then it's difficult to call it "data."