There are 95 comments.

1. Member
   Steven Seward

   @StevenSeward

   12:16 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 8, 2022

   The Reticulator (View Comment):

   “Registered Reports.” A quick internet search tells me that’s the term that is used for this style of research and publication. I also found this opinion article by one researcher on her attempt to use this method: Peer review of methods before study’s onset may benefit science.

   The article was published in 2018 and says that nearly 150 journals at that time accepted Registered Reports as well as the traditional form of research submissions. I’d still like to learn more about which scientific disciplines are doing registered reports.

   I was kind of disappointed to find out from my wife what was involved in the peer review process.  She writes scientific papers on infectious disease, mostly having to do with which drugs are effective, and she occasionally gets involved with helping review new papers.

   I always expected that “peer review” meant that another researcher or scientist tried to replicate the results from the submitted paper to see if it worked.  On the contrary, peers don’t have time to check results.  All they do is read over the material and see if it makes sense to them or see if they can find any obvious errors in methodology.  It doesn’t sound very rigorous to me.

2. Coolidge
   CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill

   @CarolJoy

   1:49 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 8, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) (View Comment):

   Henry Racette (View Comment):

   Why? Maybe because the rural dwellers understand that it is not possible for a poke-y little place like Lake County Calif to have 75 planes all in the sky at one time, all flying at wildly banking angles to leave our skies like this:

   

   That seems like a testable hypothesis. There must be records of commercial flight paths that could be consulted. I suppose military aircraft wouldn’t be included in that, but it would be a place to start.

   Looking at the current FlightRadar, it seems that Lake County is on the approach path to SFO, which is a very busy airport.

   Maybe the chem trail demons are just targeting busy airports? Is that the real reason airports have mask mandates??

   There are no busy airports within seventy miles of my house. Besides that, if the weather is going o be calm and sunny, from the Monday before Thanksgiving until that day itself, there are clear skies. (Despite the SF and Oakland and San Jose Calif airports all having a busy day.)

   Sure while I do yard duty, I will note a plane or two at cruising altitude between 1Pm and 4:30 Pm when it gets dark, but nothing like what I see when it is going to rain in 72 hours.  (Thanksgiving week is one of the top three busiest weeks for air travel each year.)

   I know  the bureaucrats who now run the way every single issue is presented via the CIA/Military/Industrial/Surveillance-controlled media tell us “do not rely on your senses; do not rely on your experiences,” we old people remember being taught in HS science classes that observation is the primary principle on which to begin having scientific postulates and reality checks.

    

3. Member
   Miffed White Male

   @MiffedWhiteMale

   

   3:27 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 8, 2022

   CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
   we old people remember being taught in HS science classes that observation is the primary principle on which to begin having scientific postulates and reality checks.

   But every cop and lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

4. Member
   Old Bathos

   @OldBathos

   3:50 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 8, 2022

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   The Reticulator (View Comment):

   “Registered Reports.” A quick internet search tells me that’s the term that is used for this style of research and publication. I also found this opinion article by one researcher on her attempt to use this method: Peer review of methods before study’s onset may benefit science.

   The article was published in 2018 and says that nearly 150 journals at that time accepted Registered Reports as well as the traditional form of research submissions. I’d still like to learn more about which scientific disciplines are doing registered reports.

   I was kind of disappointed to find out from my wife what was involved in the peer review process. She writes scientific papers on infectious disease, mostly having to do with which drugs are effective, and she occasionally gets involved with helping review new papers.

   I always expected that “peer review” meant that another researcher or scientist tried to replicate the results from the submitted paper to see if it worked. On the contrary, peers don’t have time to check results. All they do is read over the material and see if it makes sense to them or see if they can find any obvious errors in methodology. It doesn’t sound very rigorous to me.

   In some climate science circles they use “pal review.” That was one of the findings of the NSF report to the congressional hearings on the hockey stick–the same handful of guys review each other’s papers and appear as co-authors.

   The bogus attempts to defend the infamous hockey stick were being rejected even by the CAGW-sympathetic journals. But the rejected crapfest was smuggled into print in time to included in the 4th IPCC report to prop up the Hockey Stick. The suddenly resurrected uncorrected paper was dubbed by critics as the “Jesus paper.”

   As 2005 neared its end, two important events loomed large. The first was the year end deadline for submission of papers for the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report on the state of the climate, and realisation soon dawned on McIntyre and the observers of the goings-on at GRL: the IPCC needed to have the Wahl and Amman papers in the report so that they could continue to use the hockey stick, with its frightening and unprecedented uptick in temperatures. Mountains were going to be moved to keep the papers in play.

   See: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    

5. Coolidge
   Flicker

   @Flicker

   5:07 PM EDT ⋅ Aug 8, 2022

   Miffed White Male (View Comment):

   CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):
   we old people remember being taught in HS science classes that observation is the primary principle on which to begin having scientific postulates and reality checks.

   But every cop and lawyer knows that eyewitness testimony is the least reliable form of evidence.

   But they’re really just lawyers.  They generally make their money no matter which side of the case they argue.  They’re trained that way.  Scientists look for for reproducible observations, but generally they only see what they’re paid to see.  (Not that there’s anything wrong with that.)

   I’m not arguing that chem trails are what the popular explanation is, only that what you see and what you photograph really counts as your own personal observations and are not merely believing what others tell you to believe.