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 1 of 3

Google Scholar so you can do your own homework12-03-2022 04:31
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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.
12-03-2022 04:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:Finding credible scientific papers is easy! How do you search for science papers when you don't know what science is? By the way, science is not a paper. Science is not someone's opinion in a document. On a different topic, I can tell you that it is an exhilarating feeling both knowing what science is and having a solid education in it. Being good at math as well takes that feeling to new levels. Let me know when you have science questions.
RE: how do I search for science papers?12-03-2022 05:18
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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.
12-03-2022 05:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote: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. How do you discern science that answers your question from the abundance of Marxist gibber-babble when you don't even know what science is? How do you avoid religious dogmababble when you think science is a religion based on subjective consensus? sealover wrote:There is a fair chance you will get a short list of papers that very specifically address your questions. There is almost zero chance I will get any papers with science. I know this because I know what science is. sealover wrote:Just cruise through the titles until something jumps out that looks like it's about your subject of interest. Specifically, look for titles with as many undefined buzzwords as possible, e.g. "Scientists Warn that Global Warming Acceleration is Worse than Previously Feared"
RE: it is worse than previously feared12-03-2022 05:55
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: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. How do you discern science that answers your question from the abundance of Marxist gibber-babble when you don't even know what science is? How do you avoid religious dogmababble when you think science is a religion based on subjective consensus? sealover wrote:There is a fair chance you will get a short list of papers that very specifically address your questions. There is almost zero chance I will get any papers with science. I know this because I know what science is. sealover wrote:Just cruise through the titles until something jumps out that looks like it's about your subject of interest. Specifically, look for titles with as many undefined buzzwords as possible, e.g. "Scientists Warn that Global Warming Acceleration is Worse than Previously Feared" -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

12-03-2022 06:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:My fifteen minutes of fame in science was 1995. Being famous in your own mind is good enough. sealover wrote:The only "debate" that remained within the scientific community was about how bad it could get, and how quickly it could get bad. I imagine that your scientific illiteracy caused you to become so enthralled by the sheer quantity of undefined buzzwords that you were rendered unable to call bullshytt on the notion that there are somehow debates in science. Debates occur in religious communities, not in science. Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference so you get a pass. When someone such as you is under tremendous pressure to believe an absurd religious dogma, if the pressure reaches a high enough threshold, the mind starts making excuses to just believe and get out from under the pressure. I totally get it. If all you have to do is to delude yourself into thinking that you are a science genius and a Climate justice superhero, well, that's not so bad and it's easy enough to do. I totally get it. At the same time you have to realize that no rational adult has any reason whatsoever to believe your physics violations just to prop up your delusion. Cheers.
RE: fresh blood for the climate debate12-03-2022 06:53
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:My fifteen minutes of fame in science was 1995. Being famous in your own mind is good enough. sealover wrote:The only "debate" that remained within the scientific community was about how bad it could get, and how quickly it could get bad. I imagine that your scientific illiteracy caused you to become so enthralled by the sheer quantity of undefined buzzwords that you were rendered unable to call bullshytt on the notion that there are somehow debates in science. Debates occur in religious communities, not in science. Again, I don't expect you to understand the difference so you get a pass. When someone such as you is under tremendous pressure to believe an absurd religious dogma, if the pressure reaches a high enough threshold, the mind starts making excuses to just believe and get out from under the pressure. I totally get it. If all you have to do is to delude yourself into thinking that you are a science genius and a Climate justice superhero, well, that's not so bad and it's easy enough to do. I totally get it. At the same time you have to realize that no rational adult has any reason whatsoever to believe your physics violations just to prop up your delusion. Cheers. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The first time I viewed this site was years ago. It was easy to find with an Internet search. The site name was promising. Some of the same posters here now were here then, having a very similar kind of discussion as they are having now. Looked like a rabbit hole. A year ago I even signed up. Getting into a climate debate discussion seemed worth another try. But then I read the kind of stuff being posted... It just seemed tragic. A promising site, so easy to find for those with the shared interest. But what do they find. When I posted the first time, I read about a hundred thread titles. Maybe three of them were related to climate debate in a meaningful way. Things are different today. The newcomer will see some thread titles that might have something to do with the kind of thing they were looking for. I'm not too thin skinned about being accused of scientific ignorance. I don't know if it will be days or weeks, but I expect some higher quality questions will be coming in soon enough.
12-03-2022 07:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:The first time I viewed this site was years ago. Hold on, you're not confusing this site with a coral reef, are you? Are you about to lament a demise? This is not the Dominican Republic if that's what you're thinking. sealover wrote:It was easy to find with an Internet search. It was easy for you because you are, you know, a science genius. sealover wrote: The site name was promising. ... because you only read the first word of the name. sealover wrote: Getting into a climate debate discussion seemed worth another try. But then I read the kind of stuff being posted... Differing viewpoints, eh? There's nothing like free thinking to ruin a promising safe space. sealover wrote:I'm not too thin skinned about being accused of scientific ignorance. You worry about it tremendously because the "science genius" schtick is your cover. You are pretending to be an authority so you can set up shop on a site and convert/indoctrinate the unwary to your Marxist cult and maybe volunteer for a marine deployment with Greenpeace. Preachers like you absolutely HATE pesky people like me who actually understand the science you are pretending to wield and who expose your WACKY dogma for the gibber-babble that it is. sealover wrote:I don't know if it will be days or weeks, but I expect some higher quality questions will be coming in soon enough. Do you mean questions that don't require you to define your terms?
12-03-2022 19:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Science isn't a paper, magazine, website, or pamphlet. sealover wrote: Just go into Google Scholar scholar.google.com Google isn't God. sealover wrote: You can enter keywords to search for any scientific subject. Science isn't a 'subject'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. 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. Science isn't a journal or magazine. sealover wrote: 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. Consensus is not used in science. There is no voting bloc in science. sealover wrote: By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have. Science isn't a paper, magazine, journal, or voting bloc. sealover wrote: One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited. Science isn't a statistic. sealover wrote: This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question. There is no voting bloc in science. Consensus is not used in science. sealover wrote: This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie. Science isn't a community. Science isn't numbers or data. sealover wrote: 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. Science isn't a method or procedure. sealover wrote: Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact? I read the Bible 20 times. I came to the same conclusion. Therefore, it's science. Do you understand how ridiculous you sound???!? sealover wrote: 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. Science isn't a 'Truth'. Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, pamphlet, community, voting bloc, Google search, scientist, any group of scientists, political group, religion, government agency, university, study, data, or observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. No theory can ever be proven True. 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
12-03-2022 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: 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. Science isn't papers. 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
12-03-2022 19:57
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: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. How do you discern science that answers your question from the abundance of Marxist gibber-babble when you don't even know what science is? How do you avoid religious dogmababble when you think science is a religion based on subjective consensus? sealover wrote:There is a fair chance you will get a short list of papers that very specifically address your questions. There is almost zero chance I will get any papers with science. I know this because I know what science is. sealover wrote:Just cruise through the titles until something jumps out that looks like it's about your subject of interest. Specifically, look for titles with as many undefined buzzwords as possible, e.g. "Scientists Warn that Global Warming Acceleration is Worse than Previously Feared" -------------------------------------------------------------------- My fifteen minutes of fame in science was 1995. Science isn't fame. sealover wrote: 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. Science isn't a community. sealover wrote: Beyond the Ivory Tower an astroturf debate was being synthesized. According to echo chamber, scientists were deeply divided. Scientists are pretty much always deeply divided. Meh. sealover wrote: The brave new revolutionaries were risking their careers and funding to expose the truth about the great global warming hoax. Define 'global warming'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. sealover wrote: There two camps. The mavericks and the blind followers. Within the Ivory Tower, scientists were deeply divided. So? sealover wrote: 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. Fortune telling. sealover wrote: 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 What started happening? The Church of Global Warming was starting to get converts? 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: "Peer-reviewed" Bunk how to spot it13-03-2022 12:39
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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. sealover wrote: 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.
13-03-2022 16:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote: 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. ... and that pissed you the F off, reading how everything you were told by your new religion was just a lie to manipulate you into investing all of your emotional equity into the Church of Global Warming By reading Energy and Environment, you were injured. You were made to realize that your WACKY religious cult targeted you for recruitment because you were obviously very stupid, very gullible and could be easily manipulated. You could only imagine how Global Warming recruiters salivated when they saw your natural disdain for science. You knew immediately that they must have rushed to get to you before any Scientology recruiters did. The one lesson you learned in all this was that from now on, you would blame the publisher for making you face your own self-delusion and your gullibility. You knew that you had already spent every last ounce of your ego, pride and self identity into becoming the Climate Justice Warrior you had always secretly desired to be, and that it would be totally devastating for you to place the blame where it rightfully belongs, i.e. at the feet of your stupid, anti-science gullibility. No, blame instead the journal that upholds academic standards of honesty and maintains rigid adherence to the scientific method. How the F could this be allowed to even continue? sealover wrote:A disproportionately large minority of them all came from a single journal. ... the one journal that would NOT compromise its standards and lower itself to recruiting for your Church. sealover wrote: Energy and Environment. I noticed that my first sampling of 48 abstracts from this publication revealed only one with the word "climate" (an article exploring the least expensive methods for converting biomass to vehicular fuel) and zero containing the word "greenhouse.". I could tell right away that there were standards being upheld and valuable information being published. Yes, I could see why you would be envious and spiteful. sealover wrote:One of those articles from Energy and Environment was especially impressive. ... and we have only your honest word to take on this matter since you won't provide a link for us to read it ourselves. Energy and Environment seems like a pretty decent publication on the surface, and your demonization pretty much seals the deal. I'll make it a point to cite Energy and Environment articles more often for you. Cheers.
RE: Do you think the sun is made of iron?13-03-2022 18:05
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote: 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. ... and that pissed you the F off, reading how everything you were told by your new religion was just a lie to manipulate you into investing all of your emotional equity into the Church of Global Warming By reading Energy and Environment, you were injured. You were made to realize that your WACKY religious cult targeted you for recruitment because you were obviously very stupid, very gullible and could be easily manipulated. You could only imagine how Global Warming recruiters salivated when they saw your natural disdain for science. You knew immediately that they must have rushed to get to you before any Scientology recruiters did. The one lesson you learned in all this was that from now on, you would blame the publisher for making you face your own self-delusion and your gullibility. You knew that you had already spent every last ounce of your ego, pride and self identity into becoming the Climate Justice Warrior you had always secretly desired to be, and that it would be totally devastating for you to place the blame where it rightfully belongs, i.e. at the feet of your stupid, anti-science gullibility. No, blame instead the journal that upholds academic standards of honesty and maintains rigid adherence to the scientific method. How the F could this be allowed to even continue? sealover wrote:A disproportionately large minority of them all came from a single journal. ... the one journal that would NOT compromise its standards and lower itself to recruiting for your Church. sealover wrote: Energy and Environment. I noticed that my first sampling of 48 abstracts from this publication revealed only one with the word "climate" (an article exploring the least expensive methods for converting biomass to vehicular fuel) and zero containing the word "greenhouse.". I could tell right away that there were standards being upheld and valuable information being published. Yes, I could see why you would be envious and spiteful. sealover wrote:One of those articles from Energy and Environment was especially impressive. ... and we have only your honest word to take on this matter since you won't provide a link for us to read it ourselves. Energy and Environment seems like a pretty decent publication on the surface, and your demonization pretty much seals the deal. I'll make it a point to cite Energy and Environment articles more often for you. Cheers. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Do you think the sun might be made mainly of iron? If you want to start citing articles from ANYWHERE, that would be a huge improvement.
13-03-2022 21:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:Do you think the sun might be made mainly of iron? Let me ask you, why should any rational adult discard the possibility? Who do you know who has sampled the sun's core? Have you? On the one hand, I personally am inclined to believe that the sun is comprised of a lot of plasma but on the other hand, the scientific method precludes me from discarding the possibility that there is a crapload of iron in that there fireball, .... even if holding that possibility open means that scientifically illiterate morons are threatening to mock me. Is that what you want to do? Are you going to "mock me" for considering a possibility? Please bring it on. sealover wrote:If you want to start citing articles from ANYWHERE, that would be a huge improvement. Why would I want to cite articles while I wait for you to define your terms?

RE: Eugene Odum told me just write a book15-03-2022 20:38
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote] Why would I want to cite articles while I wait for you to define your terms? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Citing articles can be a nuisance. One of the hurdles they make you jump is that you have to justify every sentence with a citation. At least every sentence that contains an assertion that isn't already so widely accepted that it is already in the text books. It's not that it goes without saying for those assertions. Just that you don't have to keep using citations to make those same assertions anymore. Everyone knows where it came from by then. But it's a nuisance. Eugene Odum, author of Fundamentals of Ecology and the man who coined important "buzzwords" like "ecosystem" had some advice. Just write a book. It doesn't have to go through peer-review. You don't have to cite literature for every point you make. You don't have to cite literature for ANY point you make. But even writing a book isn't all that easy. Especially if you are a perfectionist. On the other hand, perfectionist instincts can be overcome when putting little science lessons on an Internet website. However, this thread isn't about putting our own citations into a paper. It's about papers that have already been cited and how to find them.
16-03-2022 00:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote] Why would I want to cite articles while I wait for you to define your terms? --------------------------------------------------------------------- Citing articles can be a nuisance. What's the point? sealover wrote: One of the hurdles they make you jump is that you have to justify every sentence with a citation. Who are 'they'? Some priests? sealover wrote: At least every sentence that contains an assertion that isn't already so widely accepted that it is already in the text books. Not every sentence is in a text book. sealover wrote: It's not that it goes without saying for those assertions. Just that you don't have to keep using citations to make those same assertions anymore. Everyone knows where it came from by then. But it's a nuisance. Eugene Odum, author of Fundamentals of Ecology and the man who coined important "buzzwords" like "ecosystem" had some advice. Bet he never defined that buzzword either, just like you. sealover wrote: Just write a book. It doesn't have to go through peer-review. You don't have to cite literature for every point you make. You don't have to cite literature for ANY point you make. But even writing a book isn't all that easy. Especially if you are a perfectionist. On the other hand, perfectionist instincts can be overcome when putting little science lessons on an Internet website. However, this thread isn't about putting our own citations into a paper. It's about papers that have already been cited and how to find them. So you write a book. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a book. 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: Any idiot can write a book16-03-2022 01:00
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Eugene Odum, author of Fundamentals of Ecology and the man who coined important "buzzwords" like "ecosystem" had some advice. Bet he never defined that buzzword either, just like you. So you write a book. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a book. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scientists are so gullible, they all bought into the "ecosystem" buzzword without even asking what it meant. Nobody bothered to check. Now we're stuck with it. Any idiot CAN write a book. It's true. You got me. But how did you find out my pseudonym? Did you buy it on Kindle, or did you just hack my computer? Shit! I've been doxed.
16-03-2022 01:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: sealover wrote: Eugene Odum, author of Fundamentals of Ecology and the man who coined important "buzzwords" like "ecosystem" had some advice. Bet he never defined that buzzword either, just like you. So you write a book. Big hairy deal. Any idiot can write a book. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Scientists are so gullible, they all bought into the "ecosystem" buzzword without even asking what it meant. Nobody bothered to check. Now we're stuck with it. Some are. Not all. So what? 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: there is no coherent argument here16-03-2022 01:35
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	Into the Night wrote: Some are. Not all. So what?[/quote] -------------------------------------------------------------- Let's tear these sentences apart, word by word. What doe this even mean? Define the term "Some"! Define the term "All" Define the term "So what?" There is no coherent argument here and there are multiple fallacies.
16-03-2022 02:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: Some are. Not all. So what? -------------------------------------------------------------- Let's tear these sentences apart, word by word. What doe this even mean? Define the term "Some"! Define the term "All" Define the term "So what?" There is no coherent argument here and there are multiple fallacies.[/quote] Mockery. No argument presented. 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: Let's put an end to mockery!16-03-2022 02:23
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	Into the Night wrote: [quote] Mockery. No argument presented. ----------------------------------------------------- In my own "debate" experience, I only find myself inclined to mockery after multiple insults and absurd accusations. Anyway, I'd love to see less mockery around here. If you were worth it, I'd compile a list of your mockery just during my brief time here. According to what you say, and according to what I saw in previous visits, you have been doing it for years and years. I promise to never, ever visit one of your threads. No risk of mockery from me. Deal?
RE: Welcome to the Marxist Cult?16-03-2022 03:36
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:The first time I viewed this site was years ago. It was easy to find with an Internet search. The site name was promising Getting into a climate debate discussion seemed worth another try. But then I read the kind of stuff being posted... --------------------------------- You worry about it tremendously because the "science genius" schtick is your cover. You are pretending to be an authority so you can set up shop on a site and convert/indoctrinate the unwary to your Marxist cult and maybe volunteer for a marine deployment with Greenpeace. Preachers like you absolutely HATE pesky people like me who actually understand the science you are pretending to wield and who expose your WACKY dogma for the gibber-babble that it is. Do you mean questions that don't require you to define your terms? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Welcome newcomers! Yes, I am trying to "set up shop" on this website! The above post offers an example of how different this website is than others you might be familiar with. It's a unique challenge. It's also a unique opportunity. Inside the belly of the beast there is now an island of rational scientific discussion about climate change.
16-03-2022 03:56
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	Welcome newcomers! Yes, occasionally you will encounter a Marxist who is trying to set up shop on this website as sort of a mini, online religious chapter for one of the many prevalent Marxist religions. The intention is to create an expanding island of rebellion against any sort of critical reasoning whereby science itself is discarded and then demonized, and the label of "science" then applied to the religion in question. Climate Change is but one of the many religious faiths discussed here on this site. As such, there can be no science discussion thereof. There can be no science of any religion.
16-03-2022 06:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote] Mockery. No argument presented. ----------------------------------------------------- In my own "debate" experience, I only find myself inclined to mockery after multiple insults and absurd accusations. I haven't insulted you. If you want to be insulted, I can certainly oblige. sealover wrote: Anyway, I'd love to see less mockery around here. Then stop mocking people. sealover wrote: If you were worth it, I'd compile a list of your mockery just during my brief time here. Inversion fallacy. sealover wrote: According to what you say, and according to what I saw in previous visits, you have been doing it for years and years. Inversion fallacy. sealover wrote: I promise to never, ever visit one of your threads. No risk of mockery from me. Paradox. sealover wrote: Deal? No deal. I don't deal with idiots. You see? THAT was an insult. You asked for it, and you got it. 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
16-03-2022 06:42
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	sealover wrote: ...In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question.... Sealover, I think a very worthwhile question to answer is: What is an effective strategy to determining the truth about anything? Of course we have our own experience, empirical direct observation. As for 2nd hand information the reservations would be two: 1- Is the source competent 2- Could the source be biased or lying Competence is the easier of the two to establish. An optometrist or chiropractor giving testimony about virology for example doesn't check all the boxes. As for bias/lying here is where the conspiracist goes wild. However lying requires a motive. No one lies for no reason at all as there is a risk to doing it. So two situations where information is highly reliable: 1- When the information comes from someone who would prefer it were otherwise. In court this is called a Declaration against interest A situation where the bias and motive to lie is actually counter to the information given. 2- When the information's source doesn't care at all and had no reason to care. For many conspiracy theories there is a timeline that makes participation before a certain date impossible. This comes up here hilariously enough in claiming that a global warming conspiracy caused textbooks on thermodynamics written 100 years ago to be wrong, when global warming wasn't on anyone's mind 100 years ago. Also the Russian Venera Venus probes all took place before AGW was an issue. I think very often when a totally BS theory is supported by the conspiracists formula of: "well that info contradicts my theory because there is a fast conspiracy out there..." Information is often available that is highly reliable simply because it came from a source that could not have cared to lie about it. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
16-03-2022 06:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	tmiddles wrote: sealover wrote: ...In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question.... Sealover, I think a very worthwhile question to answer is: What is an effective strategy to determining the truth about anything? Of course we have our own experience, empirical direct observation. Not reliable. See the problems of phenomenology. tmiddles wrote: As for 2nd hand information the reservations would be two: 1- Is the source competent 2- Could the source be biased or lying The only source you accept are those biased and lying. tmiddles wrote: Competence is the easier of the two to establish. To you, anyway. Does the source conform to the scripture of the Church of Global Warming? tmiddles wrote: An optometrist or chiropractor giving testimony about virology for example doesn't check all the boxes. An optometrist is quite capable of discussing virology. tmiddles wrote: As for bias/lying here is where the conspiracist goes wild. However lying requires a motive. No one lies for no reason at all as there is a risk to doing it. The Democrat party is a conspiracy. tmiddles wrote: So two situations where information is highly reliable: 1- When the information comes from someone who would prefer it were otherwise. In court this is called a Declaration against interest Ooooh. Oooooh. You found a new buzzword on Wikipedia! tmiddles wrote: 2- When the information's source doesn't care at all and had no reason to care. For many conspiracy theories there is a timeline that makes participation before a certain date impossible. This comes up here hilariously enough in claiming that a global warming conspiracy caused textbooks on thermodynamics written 100 years ago to be wrong, when global warming wasn't on anyone's mind 100 years ago. Abusing the work of poor ole' Arrhenius again, eh? tmiddles wrote: Also the Russian Venera Venus probes all took place before AGW was an issue. Yet YOU try to use them to 'prove' your religion! tmiddles wrote: I think very often when a totally BS theory is supported by the conspiracists formula of: "well that info contradicts my theory because there is a fast conspiracy out there..." Information is often available that is highly reliable simply because it came from a source that could not have cared to lie about it. How do you know? Omniscience fallacy. Right back to the tmiddles pattern. 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: finding a specific paper in Google Scholar28-03-2022 09:52
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	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. ------------------------------------------------------------ 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? By the way, science is not a paper. Science is not someone's opinion in a document. On a different topic, I can tell you that it is an exhilarating feeling both knowing what science is and having a solid education in it. Being good at math as well takes that feeling to new levels. Let me know when you have science questions.
28-03-2022 10:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	...repaired severely damaged quoting... sealover wrote: 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? By the way, science is not a paper. Science is not someone's opinion in a document. On a different topic, I can tell you that it is an exhilarating feeling both knowing what science is and having a solid education in it. Being good at math as well takes that feeling to new levels. Let me know when you have science questions. 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. You completely ignored IBdaMann's post. Science is NOT a paper, magazine, PDF, website, book, or pamphlet. False authority fallacies. 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 28-03-2022 10:19
28-03-2022 14:31
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I had a look and it is a study on soil.Is there a point?I have no doubt new things were discovered and it is science.What does it mean?

28-03-2022 15:17
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:finding a specific paper in Google Scholar. First, above all else, one needs to be able to read for comprehension otherwise one will not be able to understand any paper so discovered. You were not able to read my post for comprehension. You missed my point entirely and did not answer my question. For you, seeking documents is putting the cart before the horse. sealover wrote: Let's say I have the following document I want others to read. I post the link to it. Too easy. That way nobody has to search for it. Well, you got something right. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: This is ALMOST a debate now.28-03-2022 16:50
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	This is ALMOST a debate now. "You were not able to read my post for comprehension." Well, it's not too late. Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. You can prove your superior knowledge of chemistry again and show everyone how little chemistry seal over understands. Then we can look at some of the papers that CITE THIS WORK BECAUSE IT IS RELATED VERY DIRECTLY TO CLIMATE CHANGE. You can show the world what a scientific faker I am. Someday I'll give you the exact count how many times you called me a "liar". I know, this one is kind of long. 32 pages of pseudo scientific ranting. Why do they let liars publish 32 pages of meaningless buzzwords anyway? SCIENCE IS NOT PAPERS! A TRUE scientist NEVER writes papers. A TRUE scientist refuses to even READ papers. It's all just lies, buzzwords, and fallacies anyway, right? Of course you have no idea what all those words mean. NOBODY DOES! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:finding a specific paper in Google Scholar. First, above all else, one needs to be able to read for comprehension otherwise one will not be able to understand any paper so discovered. You were not able to read my post for comprehension. You missed my point entirely and did not answer my question. For you, seeking documents is putting the cart before the horse. sealover wrote: Let's say I have the following document I want others to read. I post the link to it. Too easy. That way nobody has to search for it. Well, you got something right. .
28-03-2022 16:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. I didn't see any link. You forgot to post it. You can email the document to IBDaMann@yahoo.com if you wish; just let me know if you do.
RE: Your local college MUST have a library.28-03-2022 17:05
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	Your local college MUST have a library. Google Scholar can give you direct access to complete drafts of most papers you might seek. But there are better search engines, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, available in ANY COLLEGE LIBRARY. I would not have been able to read many papers if I had depended on the authors to post links or e mail them to me. That's not part of the job. People are supposed to know how to do their own homework. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. I didn't see any link. You forgot to post it. You can email the document to IBDaMann@yahoo.com if you wish; just let me know if you do.
28-03-2022 22:08
Swan★★★★★ (5898)	sealover wrote: Your local college MUST have a library. Google Scholar can give you direct access to complete drafts of most papers you might seek. But there are better search engines, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, available in ANY COLLEGE LIBRARY. I would not have been able to read many papers if I had depended on the authors to post links or e mail them to me. That's not part of the job. People are supposed to know how to do their own homework. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. I didn't see any link. You forgot to post it. You can email the document to IBDaMann@yahoo.com if you wish; just let me know if you do. Google will not decide the fate of the Earth no matter how much you want it too
29-03-2022 02:19
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	...fixing severely damaged quoting... sealover wrote: IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. I didn't see any link. You forgot to post it. You can email the document to IBDaMann@yahoo.com if you wish; just let me know if you do. Your local college MUST have a library. Google Scholar can give you direct access to complete drafts of most papers you might seek. But there are better search engines, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, available in ANY COLLEGE LIBRARY. I would not have been able to read many papers if I had depended on the authors to post links or e mail them to me. That's not part of the job. People are supposed to know how to do their own homework. So you don't want to provide any kind of a reference...gotit. 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
29-03-2022 02:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	Swan wrote: sealover wrote: Your local college MUST have a library. Google Scholar can give you direct access to complete drafts of most papers you might seek. But there are better search engines, such as ISI Web of Knowledge, available in ANY COLLEGE LIBRARY. I would not have been able to read many papers if I had depended on the authors to post links or e mail them to me. That's not part of the job. People are supposed to know how to do their own homework. IBdaMann wrote: sealover wrote:Try this one. 1998. Polyphenols as regulators of plant-litter-soil interactions. Examples from northern California's pygmy forest. Biogeochemistry. 42:189-220. I didn't see any link. You forgot to post it. You can email the document to IBDaMann@yahoo.com if you wish; just let me know if you do. Google will not decide the fate of the Earth no matter how much you want it too Quite right. Indeed, Google is having trouble deciding the fate of itself! 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: Easy to find scientific papers21-04-2022 04:08
sealover ★★★★☆ (1769)	Easy to find scientific papers Most of the papers that can be found through Google Scholar include links to be able to see the entire thing. This website is NOT a safe place to open links. Some of these people are off their meds. I could never figure out how to post anything here other than typing it in free hand. Scientist rarely expect other scientists to do their homework for them. Anyone with honest intellectual curiosity can locate papers given just a little information. Anyone who claims to be a credible scientist learned how to do this in college. Sorry, that was just a response to being called a "liar" because I won't provide a link, which I don't even know how to post, because it wasn't enough to give them the year, publication, volume, and page numbers. But the purpose of this thread is to help others learn how to do their own homework. It may be some weeks before this one gets followed up on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sealover wrote: 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.
21-04-2022 04:15
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14886)	sealover wrote:Easy to find scientific papers ... and yet you fail at finding ANY of the papers you want to post. Get back to us when you can find the documents you want others to read and post the link. You've got to be a moron to ask people to scour the internet for documents that you can't even find! Too funny.
21-04-2022 05:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (22643)	sealover wrote: Easy to find scientific papers Science isn't a paper, book, website, pamphlet, or scripture. Science is set of falsifiable theories. sealover wrote: Most of the papers that can be found through Google Scholar include links to be able to see the entire thing. Nothing to do with science. sealover wrote: This website is NOT a safe place to open links. Some of these people are off their meds. I could never figure out how to post anything here other than typing it in free hand. Because your a nothing that seems to have a lot of trouble learning. sealover wrote: Scientist rarely expect other scientists to do their homework for them. I guess you have never heard of the indentured student lab assistant. sealover wrote: Anyone with honest intellectual curiosity can locate papers given just a little information. Anyone who claims to be a credible scientist learned how to do this in college. Science isn't a paper. sealover wrote: Sorry, that was just a response to being called a "liar" because I won't provide a link, No, you were called a liar because you make shit up, lie about what you said, lie about what other people said (word stuffing), create socks, make up buzzwords to sound techno-babble smart, and imagine yourself a scientist or a chemist. But you are a nothing. sealover wrote: which I don't even know how to post, We know. I have to delete or fix severely damaged quoting regularly from you. sealover wrote: because it wasn't enough to give them the year, publication, volume, and page numbers. Irrelevant. sealover wrote: But the purpose of this thread is to help others learn how to do their own homework. Not homework. False authority fallacy. sealover wrote: Finding credible scientific papers is easy! Science isn't a paper. sealover wrote: 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 has no voting bloc. Science isn't a paper, journal, magazine, website, or book. sealover wrote: By combining enough of the right keywords, you can quickly find papers directly relevant to the questions you may have. Nothing to do with science. sealover wrote: One valuable resource within Google Scholar is that it list how many times the paper in question has been cited. Science does not use consensus. It's not a popularity contest. sealover wrote: This tells you the number of peer-reviewed scientific papers that cited the paper in question. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science. sealover wrote: This alone tells you a lot. Was this paper taken seriously by the scientific community? The numbers don't lie. Science isn't a community. People lie with numbers all the time. See: government statistics. sealover wrote: 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. Science isn't a method or a procedure. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. sealover wrote: Were their results reproducible? So, why isn't anybody citing them for that fact? Irrelevant. sealover wrote: In Google Scholar, you can click on the number of times cited and get a list of papers that cited the paper in question. Irrelevant. sealover wrote: 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. Irrelevant. sealover wrote: Then you can form your own opinion about what is true in science. You are not discussing science. Science isn't a paper, website, book, citation, Truth, or any form of consensus. It is not any scientist or group of scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. It has no politics. It has no religion. It is not people at all. It does not use consensus. It has no voting bloc. It does not use peer review. It has no method or procedure. It does not depend on reproducibility. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. 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

Page 1 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