It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They found something that is to big to exist.
Gotta love the sound of settled science being punched in the face.
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
The "regular people" (creationists)
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Answer
You are wound a little too tight with your need to impress yourself and everyone else. My reply to you was flippit and an obvious attempt at humor.
But thank you for giving another example as to how many people here are virtually "devoid" of humor.
originally posted by: ngchunter
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
The "regular people" (creationists)
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)
You're a scientist too? Pleasure to meet you. What is your field of study? What was the focus of your doctoral dissertation?
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
The "regular people" (creationists)
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)
If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.
The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.
Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.
The problem is that it can be very, very difficult to get a grant to produce said research or gain peer review if your hypothesis and research go too far against the orthodox views of settled science.
originally posted by: ngchunter
originally posted by: ketsuko
originally posted by: Answer
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
The "regular people" (creationists)
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)
If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.
The problem is, most "non-mainstream" scientists choose to write blogs and post YouTube videos to present their "evidence." They would rather preach to the choir instead of truly challenging accepted theories with peer-reviewed research.
Anyone can go online and post whatever harebrained idea they want... and someone will likely believe it. That's not how science works.
The problem is that it can be very, very difficult to get a grant to produce said research or gain peer review if your hypothesis and research go too far against the orthodox views of settled science.
As a scientist myself let me tell you that getting grant funding is always hard. If you want to go against "orthodox views of settled science" then you had better be prepared to fully justify your proposal with supporting evidence. Mainstream research can result in overturning previously held theories, but you don't get there by jumping to conclusions that "orthodox views are wrong." You get there by carefully and systematically investigating apparent discrepancies. In fact, gaps in our understanding are always ripe areas for grant proposals.
originally posted by: ketsuko
No I understand that, I'm talking about all the times I see an abstract about something where they suddenly throw in a sentence starting with "Of course, climate change ..." and then proceed to somehow link the idea to whatever they are studying when they really don't have to because the climate or its change really aren't all that relevant to the topic. It just seems a blatant grab for funding by appealing to a prominent pop-science focus at the moment.
It just irritates me is all because it seems a sign of how much money is tied up in climate study. So much that even completely tangential stuff seems to have an easier time getting funding through that avenue.
originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: ketsuko
The article basically says that with this new evidence or discovery, call it what you will, just took all the current "models" and made them wrong. So why exactly is it such a big stretch to think all the global warming models are wrong?
This just proves that a theory needs proven correct or proven wrong.
originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: Answer
Okay fair enough. I run into this quite often and I swear the next million-dollar invention on the Internet will go to the guy that can make a decent sarcasm emote.
Oh and dick-ish seems a little juvenile I prefer the term asshole.
If those non-mainstream scientists can produce valid evidence to support their hypotheses and present their research for peer-review, then they'll get a solid look.
originally posted by: ngchunter
originally posted by: Char-Lee
a reply to: Answer
The "regular people" (creationists)
I was not referring to creationists. I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)
You're a scientist too? Pleasure to meet you. What is your field of study? What was the focus of your doctoral dissertation?
I was referring to the scientists who are not mainstream and are rejected because they don't agree and people who look into the subject and feel the mainstream science is jumping to conclusions. (myself)