User Controls
World to hit temperature tipping point 10 years faster than forecast
-
2023-06-22 at 8:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Ecological tipping points could occur much sooner than expected, study finds
You should try researching the acknowledgments at the bottom of the study to determine credibility before posting worthless garbage: "S.W. received funding from NE/W005050/1, NE/T00391X/1, ES/T007877/1, ES/R009279/1, AH/W003813/1 and BB/X010961/1. G.S.C. received funding by the UKRI-GCRF Action Against Stunting Hub (project ref. MR/S01313X/1)." -
2023-06-22 at 8:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ You should try researching the acknowledgments at the bottom of the study to determine credibility before posting worthless garbage: "S.W. received funding from NE/W005050/1, NE/T00391X/1, ES/T007877/1, ES/R009279/1, AH/W003813/1 and BB/X010961/1. G.S.C. received funding by the UKRI-GCRF Action Against Stunting Hub (project ref. MR/S01313X/1)."
Um, tell me again who cares what you think is credible? -
2023-06-22 at 8:38 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 8:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ It's not about what I think, though, it's about independent sources.
That's literally just what you think.
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ If the source isn't independent, then it's just religion, not science.
You quote actual scripture all the time.
The credibility of scientific studies is not solely determined by their funding source. While independent funding can be one factor that contributes to the credibility of research, it is not the sole determinant. The credibility of a scientific study depends on various factors, including the study's design, methodology, transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
Independent funding is often considered desirable because it helps minimize potential biases that could arise from conflicts of interest. When studies are funded by parties with a vested interest in the research outcomes, there is a possibility of bias or influence that may compromise the integrity of the study. Independent funding, on the other hand, is often seen as less prone to such biases and can enhance the credibility of the research.
However, it is important to note that the mere presence of independent funding does not automatically guarantee the credibility of a study. The research methods employed, the expertise of the researchers involved, adherence to ethical standards, transparency in reporting, and the ability to replicate the findings are all crucial aspects that contribute to the credibility of scientific studies.
Peer review, where experts in the field evaluate the study's methodology, results, and conclusions, also plays a vital role in assessing the credibility of research. Peer-reviewed studies have undergone scrutiny by independent experts, which helps validate their scientific rigor and enhance their credibility.
In summary, while independent funding can contribute to the credibility of scientific studies by reducing potential biases, it is just one aspect among several that determine the overall credibility of research. Rigorous methodology, transparency, peer review, and reproducibility are equally important factors to consider when evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. -
2023-06-22 at 8:44 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe The credibility of scientific studies is not solely determined by their funding source. While independent funding can be one factor that contributes to the credibility of research, it is not the sole determinant. The credibility of a scientific study depends on various factors, including the study's design, methodology, transparency, peer review, and reproducibility.
Independent funding is often considered desirable because it helps minimize potential biases that could arise from conflicts of interest. When studies are funded by parties with a vested interest in the research outcomes, there is a possibility of bias or influence that may compromise the integrity of the study. Independent funding, on the other hand, is often seen as less prone to such biases and can enhance the credibility of the research.
However, it is important to note that the mere presence of independent funding does not automatically guarantee the credibility of a study. The research methods employed, the expertise of the researchers involved, adherence to ethical standards, transparency in reporting, and the ability to replicate the findings are all crucial aspects that contribute to the credibility of scientific studies.
Peer review, where experts in the field evaluate the study's methodology, results, and conclusions, also plays a vital role in assessing the credibility of research. Peer-reviewed studies have undergone scrutiny by independent experts, which helps validate their scientific rigor and enhance their credibility.
In summary, while independent funding can contribute to the credibility of scientific studies by reducing potential biases, it is just one aspect among several that determine the overall credibility of research. Rigorous methodology, transparency, peer review, and reproducibility are equally important factors to consider when evaluating the credibility of scientific studies.
You ever heard the term "follow the money"? You should try it sometime. -
2023-06-22 at 8:47 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 8:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe I followed the money and it didn't lead anywhere of significant interest.
It led to the WEF, an organization run by a self-professed Nazi who believes people should own nothing and eat bugs. But you don't see an issue with that. Just goes to prove who the problem really is here. -
2023-06-22 at 9:49 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 9:50 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 9:50 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 9:52 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 9:53 PM UTC
-
2023-06-22 at 9:54 PM UTC
-
2023-06-23 at 4:55 AM UTC
-
2023-06-23 at 1:54 PM UTCPseudoscience, on par with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny..
-
2023-06-23 at 2 PM UTC
-
2023-06-23 at 4:03 PM UTCSounds like Obbe's mind is easily bought by a few pieces of paper.
The world got in the mess it's in by sheep like him believing everything he is told and/or reads.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2023-06-23 at 4:22 PM UTC
-
2023-06-23 at 4:26 PM UTC
-
2023-06-23 at 4:36 PM UTCThey want you to ignore the pollution and focus on a man-made climate change hoax instead. Lots of free cash to be made that way.
