Alarmists keep telling me to use the peer review process. I am all for that.
Journals should send me articles for review, and I will restore the climate peer-review process to respectability.
Once the process becomes legitimate, then I will publish.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
- EPA Climate Change Arrest
- Nothing Nuclear Winter Can’t Fix
- “We Are From The Government And We Are Here To Help”
- Blinken Not Happy Yet
- Chief Executive Kamala
Recent Comments
- Ulric Lyons on Woke Grok
- Gamecock on Woke Grok
- Disillusioned on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Jehzsa on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- arn on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- czechlist on Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- arn on Woke Grok
- Francis Barnett on Woke Grok
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Gordon Vigurs on Maldives Underwater By 2050
Sorry Steven, but you are peerless. 😉
Rats and weasels have many peers upon which they can rely for support.
Ha! Best laugh I have had today!
Sadly, “peer review” has become the scientific equivalent of “star chamber”. Thank God for digital information technology! Open review on the Internet is MUCH closer to the true philosophy of science than what “peer review” has become.
+1
Peer review, among people paid to say there is AGW, has absolutely no meaning.
That…was brilliant. (Spit my coffee out and gave a bit of a ‘hurrah’!) Amen to that!
We’re already doing that with our blogs, to the extent it can be done at all right now–which is to say, all we can do is present definitive evidence that their system has brought forth a failed science. They won’t embrace any criticism, much less the actual disproof that has been handed them–and neither will the “lukewarmers” like Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Curry, Watts, and many more. (And even you still believe in the radiation transfer theory to calculate global warming from CO2, and I would not pass any paper that argued such wrong-headedness–the Earth is NOT a blackbody emitter, putting out more than the mean incident solar irradiation–390 vs. 342 W/m^2–for one thing. They measure temperature and call it radiation intensity. Really incompetent, totally clueless “science”.) There is NO valid climate science and no competent climate scientists.
“the Earth is NOT a blackbody emitter, ”
This needs further clarification otherwise it looks just plain wrong on the surface.
Can you provide the Planck Curve that best describes the earth’s emitted spectra?
Can you google blackbody emiter?
Thanks, but the question was for Harry.
i thought what would have been clear from the text I had quoted, but, apparently not.
I believe the downfall of Kirchoff’s law is relevant to this point. Carbon emissivity actually drops with increase in temperature. At all pressures.
Pierre Marie Robitaille On The Validity of Kirchoff’s Law- Electric Universe Conference 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hstum3U2zw
It’s actually Stefan’s Law ( the principle that the energy radiated per second by unit area of a black body at thermodynamic temperature T is directly proportional to T- 4th power) that carbon DIOXIDE doesn’t follow. Nor any gas. It actually does drop with temp.
Hmmm … “Electric Universe Conference” … Hmmm …
Thank you for sharing. I had not watched this one yet. Very good presentation. If he is correct, and it certainly appears so on the surface, then there goes the proverbial “green house effect” hypothesis… As I have stated before, the GHE is not possible in this universe, and this discussion further bolsters that claim.
How do you spell ‘To Shay’?
touche or touché
thks
According to peer-reviewed research, most peer-reviewed research findings are wrong.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/
I thank Steve for his gracious willingness to help correct this problem, and I look forward to the improved science that will surely result.
🙂
Great article, thanks!
Peer-review is meant only to reduce the amount of crap that is published; it’s not a mechanism for divining absolute truth. Sadly, many alarmists will tell you that it is; the irony being that many articles discrediting CAGW theory have been peer-reviewed. Double irony: many alarmists downplay or totally ignore this fact.
” Peer-review is meant only to reduce the amount of crap that is published; ”
Sounds like the editors make use of selected specialists to review material they are not versed or well-versed in … understandable, and as you point out, no Imprimatur as to accuracy or authenticity.