None of which is substantial enough to control the temperature of the earth, none of which is controlling the temperature of the earth; which is why all of the computer models that are based only on religious data are spectacularly wrong.
“Peer review” is a STUPID idea and doesn’t “prove” anything except that the reviewers SHARE the biases of the one being reviewed. It’s the ultimate quid pro quo situation. “You give ME a good review and I’ll do the same for you.”
And yet the evidence is that temperature rising appears to prove that it’s true.
Evidence that you don’t don’t understand peer review.
I understand it perfectly…hence my above comment.
Because you’re presenting on the wrong subject; looking at what the titles of his papers were, would have told you what you should have been investigating here, and didn’t bother to.
It’s not whether his environmental science is right; it’s whether he’s right about the effect of draconian anti-hydrocarbons policies would have on people vis-à-vis substituting green sources immediately.
And he’s completely ******** right. You would kill people, or let them starve, if you did this.
He’s also right on the out-sized priority Global Warming receives vs the effects, and he’s right that the Paris protocol is a waste, next to simply investing in new energy tech.
What Bjorn represents, is the recognition that Climate Data, doesn’t tell us what the best approach is to save human lives, both in the immediate and long term. Because that determination is dependent on things far afield of just environmental science; now you’re talking about sociology, and the effects of energy poverty.
I don’t need him to be one. I just need him to be capable of plotting a cost curve, and contrasting the human death toll from things such as in-home air pollution vs extreme weather.
Basically everything he says here, is correct, but if you think you can find a fault, be my guest.
Citation and peer review do not credibility make; absence of credibility and peer review does not credibility break.
As to “experts,” they can lie and get things wrong (and have done so), and they can be not as expert as they’re touted to be (and have been). I couldn’t hope to keep up with the arguments of a financial expert; but if he uses his expertise to tell me why socialism or debt is a good thing, I’ll throw the hogwash flag on that play. I couldn’t hope to keep up with the arguments of a physicist; but if he uses his expertise to tell me why his design for a perpetual motion machine would actually work, I’ll throw the hogwash flag on that play. I couldn’t hope to keep up with the arguments of a very learned child phychologist; but if he uses his expertise to tell me why sex with a kid is a good thing, I’ll throw the hogwash flag on that play. And I might be tempted to pick up a ball bat and beat the everloving crap out of him.
Yes, experts absolutely get things wrong. And you know who figures it out? Other experts. You know how they do it? The process of peer-review.
It’s funny, because science, throughout history, over a long enough timeline, has always improved. It’s funny how when science conflicts with deep seeded belief suddenly, it’s years of evidence and experiments are wrong. The facts about the earth getting warmer and evolution are two examples.
Does that mean that everything that is peer-reviewed is gold stamped correct? NO! That’s the point of peer-review. Those papers that stand up to the scrutiny of their peers are the ones that represent the best evidence for a particular position.
“Well isn’t it just a case of people confirming other peoples work?”
No, no one makes a name for themselves proving something right. If you want to be famous and recognized, you find a paper everyone believes is correct and you prove it wrong.
History is replete with people who have done this. Those are the names you remember. Science believed that the earth traveled through something called the aether (as a way to describe the wave properties of light). There was lots of evidence that this might be true, but it took only one experiment, called the Michelson–Morley experiment (perhaps you are familiar) to prove it wrong.
Here is a list of theories that were all believed and were later proven wrong, BY SCIENCE. Peer-review is part of that process.
Ditto. I recall that it was a teen-ager who pointed out that for Einstein’s theory to be correct (Remember E equals MC squared), then as one approaches the speed of light, MASS would have to increase exponentially as well, which NOBODY had considered previously.
Then why does Bjorn feel the need to mislead by cherry-picking the data and intentionally misleading people?
Look, for what it’s worth, I agree with you that there is a real conversation to be had about what the best ways to proceed if we assume that global warming is caused by humans.
I’m not an alarmist. I think the earth will change substantially and we will adapt. The unfortunate result will be harm to lots of people, but I know human nature well enough to know that people won’t take the problem seriously until it’s already well underway.
I don’t think “carbon credits” are a good idea, but I do think funding into “green tech” research is a good idea. Course we’ve already hashed this out in another thread where we debated electric cars and battery tech.
I’ve also said that I believe we are 20-40 years away from the capacity to cost-effectively move away from the worst of the carbon fuels. One of the reasons I support the expansion of nuclear in the form of Molten Salt reactors. I think they could provide safe energy over the next 50 years to get us over the gap and, ironically, reduce nuclear fuel waste in the process from what it is today.
Here we have an example of where economics is truly the foundation of policy. We disagree on how the economy works and as a result, we disagree on the policies that result, which is why arguing these sort of things with each other ends up being a waste of time until we agree how the economy really works.
It’s what he’s reduced to when the rest of community he needs to bounce off of to get accurate data, doesn’t
respond to the criticisms he brings with anything other than “You’re a denier”.
Because he’s isolated, he gets things wrong, I’m not surprised. But why is he isolated? Because next to none of the people within the Environmental movement, and the scientists they serve as patrons for, want to unchain the reality of Global warming, from their “chosen” methods to fix it.
Deny one, you deny both. There can be no nuance, no alternative, no cost curves. The asceticism of our cause must be upheld at all costs. Support what the groups wants, or we disown you.
Well, for what it’s worth, I can separate the two and I agree that the two should be separated, even if we disagree on how to proceed.
Why do folks keep egging certain folks on on subjects those certain folks know absolutely NOTHING about but will argue until the moon turns blue. It is one of the things that keeps me at a distance here.
Why hide? Just come out and say what you mean, who knows nothing? About what?
Neither do you…
See where that get’s us?
I’m not weighing in on the climate debate per se here (although I have my opinions), but recent history is replete with a lot of lauded bull masquerading as science (for that matter, not even that recent; when Sigmund Freud took the position that a lot of sex abuse of juveniles was taking place in society, he got a lot of “professional” blowback in spite of his evidence; ultimately, he recanted (and set the fight against child molesting back the better part of a century) for no reason other than that he didn’t want to believe it was true (just like his peers)). Peer review is only as good as the peers doing the reviewing; and there’s a lot of politics invading science these days, and a lot of agenda-driven “scientists” for “peers.”
BS on a shingle. Neither RET nor anyone else here claims that “the entire body of science is all corrupt.” What we ARE saying is that there IS an element, claiming “scientific credentials”, that’s as corrupt as the liberals upon whom they rely for their incomes. As we’ve all seen, they are willing to fudge the data (the infamous “hockey-stick” chart) and ignore–and even HIDE–data that tends to disprove their theses in order to keep the “research” dollars flowing their way. Sorry, but that’s NOT “science.”
And yet you continue on with discredited statements striving to get a rise out of folks, and waste peoples’ time.
By the way I know much more than I’ll let you know about. I don’t blow into empty bags