Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You didn't read the study. It was a peer-reviewed study. Thank you for illustrating to everyone that you're not only a liar, but you refuse to hold yourself to the same standard that you hold everyone else too.Obviously, I did I read the kook propaganda piece. That's how I know it's not a peer-reviewed scientific study. It's a gish gallop of conspiracy babbling.
No you're not. You've been challenged half a dozen times now and all you've done is throw a tantrum like a toddler. You claimed the study was "flawed" but you haven't read it nor have you pointed out even a single "flaw" in it.I'm still ready to discuss the topic.
How so? You claimed you wanted to "discuss" in depth but so far you're "discussing" like a 1st grader on the playground. Nuh-uh is not substance, sweetie. Either point out how it is "all wrong" or run away again like you normally do.And It's all wrongYou asked to discuss the paper. I clearly highlighted in blue what I wanted to discuss.
How so? You claimed you wanted to "discuss" in depth but so far you're "discussing" like a 1st grader on the playground. Nuh-uh is not substance, sweetie. Either point out how it is "all wrong" or run away again like you normally do.
Actually snowflake, it just shows how stupid your posts are. There is a lot to laugh at and I like to break it down so everyone can thoroughly enjoy it.How so? You claimed you wanted to "discuss" in depth but so far you're "discussing" like a 1st grader on the playground. Nuh-uh is not substance, sweetie. Either point out how it is "all wrong" or run away again like you normally do.
First, when you respond to me 4 times for one post, it shows just how butthurt you are, and thus how severely you were spanked.
Dumb cocksuck, where in the hell was that 'bombshell study' published? I see no evidence that it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal. The Blaze and WUWT are not peer reviewed journals, in fact, they are yellow rags. I doubt that you have ever read a peer reviewed article in any discipline in your whole life.That's not true at all. 100% of the science/data proves that "Global Warming" is a hoax. And here is the latest. A new peer review study (I repeat: a peer review study) found that the biggest cause of "Global Warming" is scientists. Yes, scientists - who fake data to "prove" something which does not exist. Oops.Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.
‘Bombshell’ climate-change study could totally dismantle the claim humans are causing global warming
That's because you're illiterate. Here is the list of qualified experts who reviewed the study and agreed with it:I see no evidence that it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal.
That is not a peer reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed journal is a publication that is available for access by all who wish to examine the report via the public publication. What you are displaying is a private self-published report with a list of people who agree with the report. Peer review means both positive and negative views are included. Your example is one which only includes the positive reviews. Any criticisms or disagreements are eliminated and left out of your so-called "peer review".That's because you're illiterate. Here is the list of qualified experts who reviewed the study and agreed with it:I see no evidence that it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal.
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
And here is the study in full:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
. Ok, so you all grabbed on to the meaning or non-meaning of peer review, but how about the contents of the review (or) is it the matter of whether it was a peer reviewed study or not that is theee most important info about the review as was found in this OP or not ??That is not a peer reviewed journal. A peer-reviewed journal is a publication that is available for access by all who wish to examine the report via the public publication. What you are displaying is a private self-published report with a list of people who agree with the report. Peer review means both positive and negative views are included. Your example is one which only includes the positive reviews. Any criticisms or disagreements are eliminated and left out of your so-called "peer review".That's because you're illiterate. Here is the list of qualified experts who reviewed the study and agreed with it:I see no evidence that it was ever published in a peer reviewed journal.
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA. BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc. Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T. B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
And here is the study in full:
https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
Well for starters, if you actually looked at science, you wouldn't care at all about the "Global Warming" scam. However, since you don't look at science, you should be outraged that he has a carbon footprint the size of China. But since he votes left-wing totalitarianism, you're willing to cheer him on for engaging in the very thing you claim to oppose. Oops.Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.
It was reviewed. By peers. Making it a "peer-reviewed study", you dumb fuck.That is not a peer reviewed journal.
Aaaaaaaand....what? You think this study is locked down inside a vault at the CIA? I wonder how I was able to get a hold of it then since you contention is that it is not "available for access by all". Good grief you are a special kind of stupid.A peer-reviewed journal is a publication that is available for access by all who wish to examine the report via the public publication.
What you are displaying is an astounding level of stupidity. There was nothing "private" about it, you dumb fuck. The fact that I've posted here on USMB pretty much illustrates its public to anyone who isn't an idiot.What you are displaying is a private self-published report with a list of people who agree with the report.
Why would there be "negative reviews" of fact, sparky?Peer review means both positive and negative views are included. Your example is one which only includes the positive reviews. Any criticisms or disagreements are eliminated and left out of your so-called "peer review".
First - thank you for a rare moment of honesty from the left that you don't know.Well for starters, if you actually looked at science, you wouldn't care at all about the "Global Warming" scam. However, since you don't look at science, you should be outraged that he has a carbon footprint the size of China. But since he votes left-wing totalitarianism, you're willing to cheer him on for engaging in the very thing you claim to oppose. Oops.Obviously, you care very much about Johnny Depp, but why should we care? We look at the science, not at Hollywood celebrities.
We don't know for sure if there is or isn't global warming. Shouldn't we err for caution?
Your angry insecurity driven rant confirms your lack of education. That you do not know the difference between a self-published report with endorsements and a peer-reviewed journal shows your complete lack of ability and qualifications to discuss the topic you are making believe you know something about. You out yourself in the very opening of your post. The comments that followed are just more confirmation that you probably never did a freshman year in a real college.It was reviewed. By peers. Making it a "peer-reviewed study", you dumb fuck.That is not a peer reviewed journal.
Aaaaaaaand....what? You think this study is locked down inside a vault at the CIA? I wonder how I was able to get a hold of it then since you contention is that it is not "available for access by all". Good grief you are a special kind of stupid.A peer-reviewed journal is a publication that is available for access by all who wish to examine the report via the public publication.
What you are displaying is an astounding level of stupidity. There was nothing "private" about it, you dumb fuck. The fact that I've posted here on USMB pretty much illustrates its public to anyone who isn't an idiot.What you are displaying is a private self-published report with a list of people who agree with the report.
Why would there be "negative reviews" of fact, sparky?Peer review means both positive and negative views are included. Your example is one which only includes the positive reviews. Any criticisms or disagreements are eliminated and left out of your so-called "peer review".
Your angry insecurity driven rant confirms your lack of education, sparky. I have a college degree - from a real university. You're a moron who wants everyone to believe you are some highly educated, highly enlightened poster than everyone needs to follow.The comments that followed are just more confirmation that you probably never did a freshman year in a real college.
Now, to address your question - there is a lot we don't know. Should we create an endless array of unconstitutional, job-killing regulations which leave people both destitute and without energy for each and every one of the items we don't know about? Does that make any sense to you?
Furthermore - even if "Global Warming" was real - so what? People come first. You don't sacrifice people to save the planet. You sacrifice the planet to save people. We could theoretically live on aircrafts in space or inhabit another planet should Earth become uninhabitable as the drama queens love to cry about. But what good is a perfect Earth if everyone is dead because they had no jobs and no energy for heating, cooling, healthcare, etc.?
The problem is - you gave yourself away when you claimed it wasn't "peer-reviewed" despite having half a dozen PhD's reviewed it and when you laughably claimed the study was "private"
The fossil fuel will eventually run out.
Who is this "our"? You don't have a "plan". You're an angry parasite looking to mooch off of society and duped by the people who promise you they can make it happen.Under your plan, the whole world gets left shivering in the dark, forever. Under our plan, humanity gets a future of limitless energy.
Even if any of that absurdity were remotely true (and it's clearly not) - why is a "plan" required? All you have to do is develop "renewable energy" which is cheaper than fossil fuels and produces the same or more energy as fossil fuels.The fossil fuel will eventually run out. Under your plan, the whole world gets left shivering in the dark, forever. Under our plan, humanity gets a future of limitless energy.
