The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process, so why should I bother? If the very people who wrote it didn't think it would withstand anonymous peer review, clearly it isn't worth spit.

I'm sure you read every word of it yourself. You find a blog saying something you like to hear, it has a link to a paper - and you eagerly click over to read over every word, checking its references, even, right?

This post was edited on 6/16/14 at 12:39 pm

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by WeeWee

Member since Aug 2012

40253 posts

Posted on 6/16/14 at 10:43 pm to SpidermanTUba

quote:
Great. It does nothing to establish the MWP was globally warmer.

well the only way to actually know that would be to have records of temperature. The computer models may or may not be accurate because a whole hell of alot goes into temp than Co2 levels.

quote:
And it was written by complete shills doing fake science.

tell me how it is fake.

quote:
The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process, so why should I bother? If the very people who wrote it didn't think it would withstand anonymous peer review, clearly it isn't worth spit.

why would he expose it to peer review, when everybody that challenges the prevailing thought is automatically written off.

:begin hijack/rant:
There is a book you should read it is called the Soul Made Flesh by Carl Zimmer. It deals with medicine and the study of anatomy over the centuries. The parrallels between the current GW/CC scenario and the centuries of "medical research" are extremely similar. You have a central power that preaches a doctrine for political power (the Catholic Church and other religious groups dting back to the ancient Greeks and Romans in the book and IPCC today). They do everything in their power to discredit anybody who disagrees with them by the same tactics that you are using (except the AGW ppl haven't gone to burning at the stake yet). It turns out some of the ppl that were discredited for not doing proper techniques (aristotelian or building on the work of Galen) or using "fake science" were actually right.

:end hijack/rant:

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by WeeWee

Member since Aug 2012

40253 posts

Posted on 6/16/14 at 11:14 pm to SpidermanTUba

quote:
The authors of the paper didn't see fit to expose it to criticism by the peer review process,

you want peer reviewed here ya go 1 page summary

quote:
NIPCC is an international network of some 50 independent scientists from 15 countries, many of
them distinguished and with no financial stake in the debate. Their new report consists of two
volumes, each approximately 1,000 pages long, together citing nearly 6,000 peer-reviewed
studies.
Here is what the scientists found:
# There is no scientific consensus on the human role in climate change.
# Future warming due to human greenhouse gases will likely be much less than IPCC
forecasts.
# Carbon dioxide has not caused weather to become more extreme, polar ice and sea ice to
melt, or sea level rise to accelerate. These were all false alarms.
# The likely benefits of man-made global warming exceed the likely costs.
Here is what this means for public policy:
# Global warming is not a crisis. The threat was exaggerated.
# There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and no point in attempting to do so.
# It’s time to repeal unnecessary and expensive policies.
# Future policies should aim at fostering economic growth to adapt to natural climate change.
What about those who still say global warming is a crisis?
# The UN’s new report walks back nearly a dozen earlier claims, contains more than a dozen
errors, and tries to cover up new discoveries that contradict its earlier claims.
# The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) relies heavily on the UN’s reports for its
finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant. That finding is now falsified.
# Environmental g