Google Scholar so you can do your own homework

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Google Scholar so you can do your own homework > Page 3

Page 3 of 3

18-02-2024 23:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14507)	Im a BM wrote: You might have noticed that my threads have virtually nothing to do with politics. You make it clear that you seek to reduce CO2, which is pure political agenda and totally stupid from a science perspective. You know this, and here you are blatantly lying about your dedication to your political cause. Several times you ramped up on the "Climate Change" push which is pure Marxism and totally stupid from a science perspective, and here you are playing coy that you somehow aren't pushing politics. You are a liar and a warmizombie troll. Im a BM wrote: I was hoping to use this website as a short cut to get attention for ocean chemistry issues. For political issues, not for science. I offered you a platform for hosting all of the documentation you wanted to make available, and you recoiled at the offer because you have no such plans. It appears that all you came here to do is to whine like a toddler and to bemoan being an eternal victim. Your Climate religion is stupid and you know this, which is why you simply will not engage in any science discussion concerning your faith. Im a BM wrote: I have never heard ANY politician express concern about the depletion of the ocean's alkalinity. Correct. The ocean is not losing alkalinity and you won't explain why any rational adult should believe that it somehow is. All you hear are scheisters, such as yourself, who demonstrate scientific illiteracy by making unsupported claims that the ocean somehow is losing its alkalinity and somehow requires bizarre measures involving mangroves to magically fix the ocean. Im a BM wrote: I have never heard of ANY kind of "acidification tax" I don't think anyone has. Im a BM wrote: Yet, ALL the local trolls felt the need to contribute to the mockery. You're one of those dishonest leftists who refers to anyone who disagrees with you as a "troll." The only troll here is you ... and sometimes Swan. Can you do anything beyond whine and bitch and moan and complain and gripe and cry like a baby? Im a BM wrote: And why did you need to comment at all about groundwater arsenic chemistry? And why won't you ever define your terms?
RE: target audience would be scientifically literate19-02-2024 08:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	IBdaMann, please try to understand. Trolls were never the target audience. The amount of remedial education required to help you understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect... You should have learned these things at least nine years ago, if you were capable of understanding them. Yet, you felt compelled to post more often on my threads than I did. The target audience would have been people who already understood what virtually ALL of the world's scientists have been saying about the global warming impact of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. They would have been wanting to learn more about what regulates these things in natural ecosystems. Besides, you have been an obnoxious dick from the get go. Making false accusations since your very first response, and throwing in personal insults at every turn. You don't have the aptitude to understand science at the level I wish to discuss it. And I don't think your inexcusable behavior at this website should be rewarded in any way. I suspect that most of the false accusations you made against me are actually true statements about yourself. No, I don't think you are a Marxist puppet being controlled by evil entities who sent you here to.. whatever it was you claimed I was doing. But you ARE scientifically illiterate, having never earned any degree in chemistry or any other field of science. In fact, I'm pretty sure you never even passed one single lower division, undergraduate course in physics, chemistry, or anything else that would make you knowledgeable about climate change mitigation. You just want to play stupid word games and throw insults. You don't want to learn anything, and you don't have the aptitude even if you wanted to. If you and the other scientifically illiterate trolls could stop cluttering EVERY thread with your useless crap, some of the 1690 members who gave up on the website might come back. In less than a month, it will be two years since my first post - to which you were the first to respond with the bizarre BS that I would soon learn was all you had to offer. During those two years, about 120 new members joined. The fact that you felt compelled to attack them contributed greatly to the fact that NONE of them stuck around long. Your contribution to the discussion might be characterized as "value removed" (since you love to say "value added") I think you are basically a disgusting person and I have no interest in discussing "science" with someone such as yourself.[/quote]
19-02-2024 22:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14507)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann, please try to understand. Trolls were never the target audience. I know. Your Climate congregation was the intended audience. You certainly didn't want to preach to anyone who would ask you any questions. sealover wrote: The amount of remedial education required to help you understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect... Fortunately, I don't wish to learn your religion. Just explain why you believe that a body of matter can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional energy. Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance. Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance. Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface. You should have learned all of this at least nine years ago, if you were capable of understanding them. sealover wrote: Yet, you felt compelled to post more often on my threads than I did. False. sealover wrote: The target audience would have been people who already understood what virtually ALL of the world's scientists have been saying about the global warming impact of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Nope. Your target audience is the congregation of gullible scientifically illiterates who don't know enough to call booooolsch't when they should and who won't insist you define your terms, as all scientists do. sealover wrote: They would have been wanting to learn more about what regulates these things in natural ecosystems. There is no Climate goddess. Nobody "regulates" anything in nature (according to science). Besides, you have been a dishonest fuqq from the get go. It all started with polite, straightforward requests for you to simply define your fuqqing terms ... and you subsequently refusing ... because doing so would reveal the scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent religious underpinnings of your preaching. Define your terms and answer the questions posed to you. That's what scientists do or they get fired. Otherwise, be content in knowing that everyone is aware that you are simply preaching a crappy religion that HATES science. You don't have the aptitude to understand science at the level this board wishes to discuss, and this board doesn't seem interested in your religion or your preaching. And I don't think your inexcusable spamming of this website should be rewarded in any way. sealover wrote: I suspect that most of the false accusations you made against me are actually true statements about yourself. I claimed that Dominican coral reefs are dead? I didn't define my terms? I have refused to answer any questions? Let me think about this one for a moment. sealover wrote: But you ARE scientifically illiterate, having never earned any degree in chemistry or any other field of science. Sure, I'm an eighth-grader with no credentials. Why won't you answer my questions? Why won't you define your terms? sealover wrote: In fact, I'm pretty sure you never even passed one single lower division, undergraduate course in physics, chemistry, or anything else that would make you knowledgeable about climate change mitigation. None of the aforementioned topics are components of your WACKY religion. In fact, those who understand that material know that your religion is nothing but a violation of physics. You should have paid attention in school. You don't want to learn anything, and you don't have the aptitude even if you wanted to. All you can do is whine. sealover wrote: If you and the other scientifically illiterate trolls could stop cluttering EVERY thread with your useless crap, some of the 1690 members who gave up on the website might come back. It's more likely that they stop in, read some of your posts, or of Pete Rogers' posts, or of tmiddles' posts, or trafn's posts, i.e. whoever happens to be spamming the board at the time) and decides that they don't want to deal with your crap. After all, they probably had already visited dozens of sites destroyed by warmizombie censorship-mongers and were hoping to find one devoid of people like you, free from whining and bitching and crying ... where they can just have a conversation without being hit with spam like it's being hurled by a flack-thrower. sealover wrote: In less than a month, it will be two years since my first post ... and in that time you have managed to make maybe two posts that have something interesting. You managed to provide more personal information about yourself so that you can cry about having doxx'ed yourself than interesting information that anyone can use. You had plenty of opportunities to be value added by answering questions posed to you, but you instead decided to spam the board as a way to run interference. Define your terms. Answer the questions. It should be too easy. sealover wrote: During those two years, about 120 new members joined. And it didn't take long for warmizombies to turn them off. sealover wrote: I think you are basically a disgusting person ... because I define my terms and I answer questions. sealover wrote: and I have no [ability to discuss] "science" with someone such as yourself.
24-02-2024 07:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21879)	sealover wrote: I posted this in March, 2022. And posting again changes nothing. Repetition fallacy (chanting). sealover wrote: I had high hopes for this website. Why? Because you thought there were enough here to worship your BS? sealover wrote: Search engines indicated that it was a frequently visited discussion site. Search engines don't count frequency of visits. There is no way for them to track them. All a search engine sees is how many clicked the links provided by the search engine. sealover wrote: I thought I'd share my own paper, in the hope of eventually discussing the many implications for management of agroecosystems to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. There is no such thing as the word 'agroecosystem' except as a religious artifact. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' except as a religious artifact. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. sealover wrote: The same issue of Nature (1995, volume 377) had a review article titled "New cog in the nitrogen cycle", discussing some of the implications of my discovery. There is even a photo of me in the "new cog in the nitrogen cycle" review. Denying science and publishing buzzwords is not science. sealover wrote: You don't get credited for making a paradigm-shifting discovery by being "gullible" and conforming to some kind of "religion". You haven't made any discovery. Science is not religion. sealover wrote: Sadly, there was nobody still here who was interested in a discussion of real world science. You deny science. sealover wrote: The website owner had long since given up all interest in maintaining any kind of common decency in the discussion. Branner does a great job. He leaves people like you be, despite all your useless buzzwords and attempts to thound thmart with thience. You know, he doesn't get paid to run this website, and it has been a very reliable piece of software. Sure, there are no rules here (other than those imposed by legal requirements), just guidelines. Branner can and does occasionally ban people that ignore those guidelines enough, like you are doing. sealover wrote: But, the offer still stands. A nothing of an offer is still a nothing. sealover wrote: A new member might join, or an old member among the 1690 who gave up on the site might come back. There are not and never have been 1690 active posters on this site. sealover wrote: Here is an opportunity to discuss a paper that has been cited in something like 800 different peer-reviewed articles and textbooks with the actual AUTHOR. Science is not an article, paper, textbook, website, pamphlet, academy, college, university, or any government agency. Science does not use consensus. It has no voting bloc. sealover wrote: Some trolls will feel compelled to defecate all over it, but a rational discussion might still be possible. I'll be happy to point out the silliness of your theince and buzzwords. sealover wrote: If I am desperately trying to get attention, You are. The only attention you draw, however, is not the kind you want. sealover wrote: the fact is I would actually be quite happy if this post gets no reply at all for days or even weeks. Blatant lie. sealover wrote: That way, if a new viewer stumbles across the thread, they will see that the website isn't 100% troll dominated. It isn't. There are several people that know and understand science and mathematics, what they are, and their limitations. You are not one of them. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2024 07:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21879)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: Some trolls will feel compelled to defecate all over it, but a rational discussion might still be possible. Nope. There's only you blaming your intellectual cowardice on others. Whenever anyone tries to engage you in a science discussion, no excuse is too lame for you to use to flee to the hills. sealover wrote:I thought I'd share my own paper, in the hope of eventually discussing the many implications for management of agroecosystems to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. You came here to preach your WACKY Climate Change religion, not to "discuss" anything, much less science. Let's verify. I would honestly like to know what greenhouse gas is. Can you explain it to me? No human has thus far been able. Once you teach me what this greenhouse gas is, I'd like to question your assumption that we should somehow minimize such "emissions." Can you engage in a rational science discussion? It would be most welcome and value added. --------------------------------------- Trolls were never the target audience. The amount of remedial education required to help you understand the basic physics of the greenhouse effect... So you have no intention of defining 'greenhouse effect'. Buzzword fallacy. sealover wrote: You should have learned these things at least nine years ago, if you were capable of understanding them. Learned what? What is 'greenhouse effect'? sealover wrote: Yet, you felt compelled to post more often on my threads than I did. Paradox. Irrational. sealover wrote: The target audience would have been people who already understood what virtually ALL of the world's scientists have been saying about the global warming impact of gases such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. No gas has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. sealover wrote: They would have been wanting to learn more about what regulates these things in natural ecosystems. What is a 'natural ecosystem'? Buzzword fallacy. Nothing regulates anything. sealover wrote: Besides, you have been an obnoxious dick from the get go. Making false accusations since your very first response, and throwing in personal insults at every turn. You are describing yourself again. sealover wrote: You don't have the aptitude to understand science at the level I wish to discuss it. You deny science, including the 1st law of thermodynamics. sealover wrote: And I don't think your inexcusable behavior at this website should be rewarded in any way. You don't get to declare what is 'inexcusable behavior'. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: I suspect that most of the false accusations you made against me are actually true statements about yourself. Everything he said about you has been accurate. sealover wrote: No, I don't think you are a Marxist puppet being controlled by evil entities who sent you here to.. whatever it was you claimed I was doing. But you ARE scientifically illiterate, having never earned any degree in chemistry or any other field of science. In fact, I'm pretty sure you never even passed one single lower division, undergraduate course in physics, chemistry, or anything else that would make you knowledgeable about climate change mitigation. You are describing yourself again. Climate cannot change. There is nothing to mitigate. sealover wrote: You just want to play stupid word games and throw insults. You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame YOUR problems on anybody else. sealover wrote: You don't want to learn anything, and you don't have the aptitude even if you wanted to. You are describing yourself again. sealover wrote: If you and the other scientifically illiterate trolls could stop cluttering EVERY thread with your useless crap, some of the 1690 members who gave up on the website might come back. There have never been 1690 active posters on this site. Stop repeating (chanting) this. sealover wrote: In less than a month, it will be two years since my first post - to which you were the first to respond with the bizarre BS that I would soon learn was all you had to offer. Science and mathematics is not 'bizarre BS'. You just don't want to learn it. sealover wrote: During those two years, about 120 new members joined. So? Most are not active posters. sealover wrote: The fact that you felt compelled to attack them contributed greatly to the fact that NONE of them stuck around long. He didn't. They never posted. sealover wrote: Your contribution to the discussion might be characterized as "value removed" (since you love to say "value added") You are describing yourself again. sealover wrote: I think you are basically a disgusting person and I have no interest in discussing "science" with someone such as yourself. Too bad. IBDaMann knows quite a bit of science. So do I. Your insistence on denying it and turning to your BS religion and buzzwords instead is YOUR problem. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2024 07:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21879)	Im a BM wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Unfortunately, this isn't a moderated site, nor is it a discussion site. The title should have tip you off, 'Climate-Debate'. Isn't the goal of debating, to win an argument? Debate is a 'sport', or 'game' some people play. It's not about being right or wrong, only winning. I prefer not to play the 'game', usually abandon threads, when the head in that direction. Discussion, at that point is no longer possible. I do believe climate-change is a political scam, and has nothing to do with human activity. Mann's correlation is just clever application of math and statistical analysis of patchwork data. Correlation is not causation. In this case, it's coincidence, at best. With good marketing, you can sell even the worst, useless products... --------------------------------------------------- Hi Harvey, You might have noticed that my threads have virtually nothing to do with politics. They DO have everything to do with religion though. The Church of Global Warming is a religion. Im a BM wrote: The carbon and nitrogen cycling stuff rarely gets mentioned in any political debate. Meaningless buzzwords are used by you for political purposes (a foolish attempt to gain fame). Im a BM wrote: My published research, and the two thousand papers, textbooks, etc., that cite it has no political content. Blatant lie. Im a BM wrote: But the carbon and nitrogen cycling stuff already gets enough attention from other scientists. You deny science. Im a BM wrote: I was hoping to use this website as a short cut to get attention for ocean chemistry issues. There are no 'ocean chemistry issues', except as a religious artifact. Im a BM wrote: I have never heard ANY politician express concern about the depletion of the ocean's alkalinity. Because it isn't depleting. Im a BM wrote: I have never heard of ANY kind of "acidification tax" or other potential "scam" to exploit the "hoax" of alkalinity depletion in the ocean. It isn't depleting. Im a BM wrote: Yet, ALL the local trolls felt the need to contribute to the mockery. I'm happy to mock you. You deserve it. Im a BM wrote: You should read some of your own posts on the threads about ocean "acidification". You cannot acidify an alkaline. Im a BM wrote: And why did you need to comment at all about groundwater arsenic chemistry? You obviously don't know anything about it. There is no such thing as 'groundwater arsenic chemistry'. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Maybe the "debate" is all you are here for. There are no debates here (despite the name). Only conversations. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Internet search for science papers01-05-2024 19:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject. If you were hoping to find disinformation from pseudo journals such as Energy and Environment, conservative think tanks, etc., you will be disappointed. If you want to find peer-reviewed scientific papers from credible journals, I think Google Scholar has about 50 thousand (literally) different journals to access. By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have. One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited. This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question. This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie. The older a paper is, the more suspicious it might be that hardly anyone cited it. Reproducibility is one of the requirements of the Scientific Method. Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact? In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question. This can quickly guide you to the most recent papers on the subject of interest. These papers can also be used to verify if the results of the original paper were reproducible or not. Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science.
02-05-2024 00:42
Into the Night★★★★★ (21879)	sealover wrote: Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Science is not a paper. sealover wrote: Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com Science is not a website or search engine. sealover wrote: You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject. Science is not a keyword. sealover wrote: If you were hoping to find disinformation from pseudo journals such as Energy and Environment, conservative think tanks, etc., you will be disappointed. If you want to find peer-reviewed scientific papers from credible journals, I think Google Scholar has about 50 thousand (literally) different journals to access. Science is not a think tank, paper, journal, website or search engine. sealover wrote: This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? Science is not a community. sealover wrote: The numbers don't lie. Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). sealover wrote: Reproducibility is one of the requirements of the Scientific Method. Science is not a method or procedure. sealover wrote: Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science. Science is not a 'truth'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Science is not an opinion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: Science is not a banana02-05-2024 00:49
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (725)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: ! Science is not a paper. sealover wrote: m Science is not a website or search engine. sealover wrote: . Science is not a keyword. sealover wrote: . Science is not a think tank, paper, journal, website or search engine. sealover wrote: ? Science is not a community. sealover wrote: . Argument from randU fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). sealover wrote: . Science is not a method or procedure. sealover wrote: . Science is not a 'truth'. It is not possible to prove any theory True. Science is not an opinion. -------------------------------------------------------- To this most informative response I can only add: Science is not a banana. (How do you know? Were you there?)
12-05-2024 05:32
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject. If you were hoping to find disinformation from pseudo journals such as Energy and Environment, conservative think tanks, etc., you will be disappointed. If you want to find peer-reviewed scientific papers from credible journals, I think Google Scholar has about 50 thousand (literally) different journals to access. By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have. One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited. This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question. This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie. The older a paper is, the more suspicious it might be that hardly anyone cited it. Reproducibility is one of the requirements of the Scientific Method. Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact? In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question. This can quickly guide you to the most recent papers on the subject of interest. These papers can also be used to verify if the results of the original paper were reproducible or not. Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science.
12-05-2024 05:34
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Finding credible scientific papers is easy! How do you search for science papers when you don't know what science is? ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm glad you asked me how I search for science papers. I've got some tips that could help the rookie make rapid headway. When you first enter keywords, shoot for the moon. Use as many keywords as it takes to find a paper that will address your specific question. There is a fair chance you will get a short list of papers that very specifically address your questions. Especially after you get a knack for choosing keywords. You may have to shorten the list if the first attempt doesn't pan out. The opposite approach is to start super basic and then add more keywords until you find the one that specifically answers your question. Here's a way that might even be easier for the beginner. It works if there is already a paper you know about and want to learn more about the topic it addresses. First, check to see who has cited it most recently. You can find more up to date papers on the same topic. You can read the titles to see if they seem like they might have what you're looking for. Second, internet search engines like Google Scholar can actually give you a list of related papers on the topic, even though they may not have cited the paper you began the search with. A long list of papers can be intimidating. You don't have to read them all. You don't even have to read every abstract. Just cruise through the titles until something jumps out that looks like it's about your subject of interest.
12-05-2024 05:36
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	When I dabbled in the Internet climate change debate about 10 years ago, the disinformation campaign was touting a list of "500 peer-reviewed papers" that all scientifically refuted the global warming hoax. A disproportionately large minority of them all came from a single journal. Energy and Environment. One of those articles from Energy and Environment was especially impressive. Like all the others, the abstract suggested that they had scientific evidence to dispute what virtually all the world's scientists understood to be true. I'm guessing that the people who compiled the list, and maybe even the "peers" who "reviewed" it, didn't actually read past the abstract. The scientific genius who wrote the paper concluded that the sun therefore must be made mainly of iron. When they expanded their list to "1000 peer-reviewed papers" debunking global warming, they dropped that particular article. Somebody DID read past the abstract and it had become a cause for ridicule. Still, there expanded list included a whole lot more articles from Energy and Environment. Energy and Environment looks at first glance like the real thing. How do you spot the "peer-reviewed" bunk from the credible science? Well, if you started with an article from that list and entered it into a scientific citation search engine, such as Google Scholar, you could get some clues very quickly. How many times was that article cited in genuine peer-reviewed scientific journals? If the article claims to have made a paradigm-shifting discovery, this would be something other scientists would want to cite. At least if it were reproducible. One thing all the articles in Energy and Environment have is that nobody cites them except each other. And if the only place they cited it was in Energy and Environment, it won't even show up on any legitimate scientific citation index. Contrarian claims have a high bar to pass, as they contradict what was previously accepted as proven to be reproducible. They need to be extra reproducible if they are to supercede in the Scientific Method. If no credible scientist is citing it, it's either only been out for a few months, or it's probably "peer-reviewed" bunk. Check the date. The older an allegedly paradigm-shifting discovery is, the more likely it is to have hundreds of citations. Unless it just wasn't reproducible.
12-05-2024 05:37
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	finding a specific paper in Google Scholar. Let's say you have the following information and want to find a paper. 1995. Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Nature. 377:227-229. In this case, the easiest way to go is search: "Nature 377:227-229" This IMMEDIATELY finds the exact paper with a link to a pdf of the entire thing. Entering "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", the exact title, also IMMEDIATELY finds the exact paper with a link to a pdf of the entire thing. If you have just a little information about a paper, missing part of the reference, maybe missing MOST of the reference. If your keywords are exactly the same as some or all in the title, year, journal, volume, pages... You can usually find the paper.
12-05-2024 05:41
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	Example #1 Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter. Go to scholar.google.com It is a safe website to open links in. Use the keywords "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" You will see at the top of the list a paper with a academia pdf link. Open the link to see the entire paper. This example will be used to show how a CONTRARIAN assertion regarding the dominant paradigm is made within the scientific community. They thought they had the nitrogen cycle all figured out a LONG time ago. They thought it was an absolute fact that organic forms of nitrogen in decaying organic matter (amino acids, etc.) had to be mineralized to ammonium or nitrate before plants could take it up. Turns out now, 27 years and 750 citations later, that a LOT of plants get their nitrogen supplied to them by mycorrhizal fungi capable of short circuiting the mineralization step of the nitrogen cycle. But the extraordinary contrarian assertion required extraordinary objective evidence to be presented. Even then, it took decades to confirm that the falsifiable hypothesis produced a reproducible result when others tested it. Only THEN can an extraordinary contrarian assertion claim credibility.
12-05-2024 05:42
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	Example #1 - Full Disclosure In the same issue of Nature was a separate "news and reviews" essay by Terry Chapin. Title: New cog in the nitrogen cycle. Scientific journals such as Nature often highlight the papers in each issue that are expected to be of greatest interest. A respected expert writes a review about the significance of the new paper. sealover did NOT prove the new cog in the nitrogen cycle. Were that the case, the paper would have been cited 75000 rather than 750 times by now. One valuable feature of Google Scholar is that it shows how many times the paper has been cited by other papers in credible peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you click on the number of times cited for the "polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter", you get a list of the papers that cited it. Each paper on that list shows how many times it has been cited. Every paper in the first pages of papers on the list has been cited thousands of times. Far more than the meager 750 for sealover's paper. What it did prove was that pine needle chemistry minimizes the mineralization of organic nitrogen to ammonium or nitrate, and causes dissolved organic nitrogen to be the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in nitrogen fluxes. People didn't even bother measuring dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) before that. Turns out the DON is the dominant vehicle of nitrogen transport in many surface waters, and is a significant vehicle of nitrogen transport in most surface waters. Before that, they had only been measuring ammonium and nitrate. They've gone back to the records now to estimate how much nitrogen they missed. Typically guesstimating that it was a minimum of 1:10, they add a new data column showing the minimum underestimate of total nitrogen. With more specific data for the typical ratio of DON ammonium + nitrate) of a specific surface water, they can make better guesstimates. Meanwhile, they've made a point to always actually MEASURE DON as well in ongoing monitoring. The first sentence of Example #1: The importance of dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) in ecosystem nutrient fluxes and plant nutrition is only beginning to be appreciated." I didn't prove jack about the plant nutrition or new cog in the nitrogen cycle part.
12-05-2024 05:48
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	Example #1 - The unsupported mycorrhizal connection. In the abstract of the "Polyphenol control of nitrogen release from pine litter" paper, published in the journal Nature (1995), one of the sentences says: "Apparently, this feedback to soil conditions controls the dominant form in which litter nitrogen is mobilized, facilitating nitrogen recovery through pine-mycorrhizal associations..." The paper provided conclusive evidence for the first part of the sentence. There was irrefutable feedback along a soil chemistry gradient, with polyphenol concentration doubling along a three point gradient. There was irrefutable proof that this controlled the proportion of litter nitrogen released in organic versus mineral form. But some of my colleagues were enraged that I was allowed to publish the second part of that sentence. I hadn't even confirmed WHICH mycorrhizal fungi were associated with the Pinus muricata (Bishop pine). Bruce Caldwell had already published compelling evidence that Amanita muscaria associated with a different pine species could short circuit the nitrogen cycle in this manner. We saw plenty of Amanita muscaria around the Bishop pine, but didn't prove them to be symbiotic partners. David Read had already published compelling evidence that Ericaceous plants with the unique ericoid mycorrhizal fungi actually mobilized organic nitrogen from protein-tannin complexes (tannins are polyphenols), unambiguously short circuiting the nitrogen cycle so that organic nitrogen is never mineralized before plants take it back up again. But pines are gymnosperms and ericaceous plants are angiosperms. And ericoid mycorrhizal fungi are quite different than those associated with pines. I didn't prove any of that with the Bishop pines. Some of my friends were pissed at me, and at the journal, for allowing me to simply speculate with an educated guess what was probably happening.
12-05-2024 05:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	My fifteen minutes of fame in science was 1995. By then it was beyond doubt. The only "debate" that remained within the scientific community was about how bad it could get, and how quickly it could get bad. Beyond the Ivory Tower an astroturf debate was being synthesized. According to echo chamber, scientists were deeply divided. The brave new revolutionaries were risking their careers and funding to expose the truth about the great global warming hoax. There two camps. The mavericks and the blind followers. Within the Ivory Tower, scientists were deeply divided. There were two camps. The five-alarm fire alarmists and the cautious moderates who wanted to be sure there was 100% absolute certainty before they started a panic. The moderates won. The predicted timelines for changing conditions only included the worst case scenarios as unexpected outliers. The astroturf debate relied heavily on the uncertainty of the predictions, and the fact that nothing was expected to really start happening for decades. Sounds like a hoax all right. But then it started happening sooner than predicted
12-05-2024 05:56
sealover ★★★★☆ (1560)	The 8 consecutive posts above this one get into more detail. Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject. If you were hoping to find disinformation from pseudo journals such as Energy and Environment, conservative think tanks, etc., you will be disappointed. If you want to find peer-reviewed scientific papers from credible journals, I think Google Scholar has about 50 thousand (literally) different journals to access. By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have. One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited. This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question. This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie. The older a paper is, the more suspicious it might be that hardly anyone cited it. Reproducibility is one of the requirements of the Scientific Method. Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact? In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question. This can quickly guide you to the most recent papers on the subject of interest. These papers can also be used to verify if the results of the original paper were reproducible or not. Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science
13-05-2024 01:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21879)	sealover wrote: Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Science is not a paper. Science is not 'credibility'. You don't get to determine 'credibility' for anyone. Omniscience fallacy. sealover wrote: Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com Science isn't Google. Stop spamming. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-05-2024 01:25

Page 3 of 3

Join the debate Google Scholar so you can do your own homework:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft and other tech firms agree to AI safeguards set by the White House	0	21-07-2023 19:45
AI banned from nuclear launch decisions, after Google creates self-aware computer program	1	29-04-2023 20:43
Is homework good or bad for students?	6	26-11-2022 05:12
Google and NASA achieved quantum supremacy in 2019	50	20-11-2022 23:20
How A New Business Model Can Easily Destroy Big Tech Companies Like Google, Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Al	9	10-01-2021 04:45