Trudope was too late with his carbon tax.........

[irv]

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS 

 

The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists.

After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible.

Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labeled science deniers.

According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.

“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.

“Medicine, epidemiology, population science, and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.

When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.

Regarding climate change papers, the peer-reviewed papers are likely even less reliable – before even considering the inescapably political nature of the topic – because many papers address predictions and models for which it is impossible to test the paper’s conclusions against objective evidence.

For example, when a scientist invents a climate model predicting rapid global warming or seriously negative future climate impacts, and when a paper summarizing the results of his or her model appears in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way at the time of publication to compare the climate predictions against real-world observations.

This adds an additional level of doubt to the accuracy of global warming predictions published in peer-reviewed science journals.

And this is before taking into consideration the inherently political nature of the global warming debate and the political agendas of journal editors and their carefully selected article reviewers.

The lesson to be learned is the liberal media engage in laziness or deliberate misrepresentation when they cherry-pick certain peer-reviewed studies and claim that anybody who questions them is “attacking science,” “attacking scientists,” or being a “denialist.”

Sound science requires critically testing theories and predictions – including those published in peer-reviewed science journals – against objective evidence.

[Tinker]

On 4/30/2019 at 5:41 PM, revkevsdi said:

Since our population is 0.5% of the world doesn't your 1.6% figure mean we are contributing over 3 times what we should?

 

 

No. It means the rest of the world produces 98.4 % of greenhouse gases.

WTF does that have to do with a complete contradiction to Global Warming and taxation that will not reduce carbon emissions by a micron ?

If I had my head up my ass I wouldn't expect everyone else to be blind too

[irv]

Dear Canada: Politicians can’t control the weather

The mitigation debate, defined by federal Environment Minister Catherine McKenna yelling at Conservative leader Andrew Scheer that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has a climate plan and he doesn’t, is based on a fantasy.

That fantasy — clung to by many bloviating media pundits — is the absurd idea anything Canada does to mitigate climate change will stop natural disasters like the current flooding in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick in our lifetimes, or our children’s, or our grandchildren’s.

The folly of focusing on mitigation at the expense of adaptation was illustrated by McKenna on a recent visit to Toronto, where she blamed flooding at the south end of the city’s Don Valley Parkway on man-made climate change.

Except that area has been flooding since the glaciers retreated 12,000 years ago, made worse by decades of urban development in an area we’ve known for centuries is flood prone.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-dear-canada-politicians-cant-control-the-weather

[revkevsdi]

4 hours ago, Tinker said:

No. It means the rest of the world produces 98.4 % of greenhouse gases.

WTF does that have to do with a complete contradiction to Global Warming and taxation that will not reduce carbon emissions by a micron ?

If I had my head up my ass I wouldn't expect everyone else to be blind too

It also means that if the rest of the world produced at the same rate as us, there would be 3 times as much produced. 

On 4/30/2019 at 8:24 PM, irv said:

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS 

 

The “peer-review process” typically involves the editor sending a submitted article to a team of reviewers who are outspoken climate activists.

After the paper is published, global warming activists and their media allies typically cite the peer-reviewed nature of the paper as evidence that its conclusions are infallible.

Any who question the methodology or alarmist conclusions are then labeled science deniers.

According to Ioannidis, the peer-review process guarantees little in terms of trustworthiness even before political agendas compromise the issue.

“[W]hen studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test,” AFP reported, summarizing Ioannidis’ findings.

“Medicine, epidemiology, population science, and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them,” according to AFP.

When only a third of peer-reviewed studies reach the same results when they are replicated by outside authors, this is a serious problem.

Regarding climate change papers, the peer-reviewed papers are likely even less reliable – before even considering the inescapably political nature of the topic – because many papers address predictions and models for which it is impossible to test the paper’s conclusions against objective evidence.

For example, when a scientist invents a climate model predicting rapid global warming or seriously negative future climate impacts, and when a paper summarizing the results of his or her model appears in a peer-reviewed journal, there is no way at the time of publication to compare the climate predictions against real-world observations.

This adds an additional level of doubt to the accuracy of global warming predictions published in peer-reviewed science journals.

And this is before taking into consideration the inherently political nature of the global warming debate and the political agendas of journal editors and their carefully selected article reviewers.

The lesson to be learned is the liberal media engage in laziness or deliberate misrepresentation when they cherry-pick certain peer-reviewed studies and claim that anybody who questions them is “attacking science,” “attacking scientists,” or being a “denialist.”

Sound science requires critically testing theories and predictions – including those published in peer-reviewed science journals – against objective evidence.

This is even more damning for the scientists who deny climate change since none of their studies can be replicated. 

[revkevsdi]

On 4/30/2019 at 5:46 PM, ArcticCrusher said:

Our green canopy makes us carbon negative, don't be so fucking stupid.  It's hard, I know.

Btw. Will you remember this argument when the permafrost starts to melt?

[Tinker]

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

It also means that if the rest of the world produced at the same rate as us, there would be 3 times as much produced. 

This is even more damning for the scientists who deny climate change since none of their studies can be replicated. 

It's by nation Jackass and if the other 22 contributors generated 1.6% there would be a 64.8% reduction on GHG

At least we can agree on 1 thing, the Carbon Tax that has 0 criteria or ability to reduce Carbon Emissions will be a success... Much like declaring a Balanced Budget with a Deficit 

1 minute ago, revkevsdi said:

Btw. Will you remember this argument when the permafrost starts to melt?

You don't need anyone else, you could start an argument in an empty room

[revkevsdi]

9 minutes ago, Tinker said:

It's by nation Jackass and if the other 22 contributors generated 1.6% there would be a 64.8% reduction on GHG

At least we can agree on 1 thing, the Carbon Tax that has 0 criteria or ability to reduce Carbon Emissions will be a success... Much like declaring a Balanced Budget with a Deficit 

You don't need anyone else, you could start an argument in an empty room

WOW!  That’s some grade A stupid you are spewing there. 

[ArcticCrusher]

5 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Btw. Will you remember this argument when the permafrost starts to melt?

Its called climate change for a reason retard.

 

So the perma frost was always there?

[Tinker]

1 hour ago, revkevsdi said:

WOW!  That’s some grade A stupid you are spewing there. 

Fuck am I relieved you think that's stupid, I started to worry about my own mental capacity relating to you. I keep thinking maybe there's a higher level of sarcasm or satire you function on and 1 day you'll laugh at your "unique" perspectives you've carried on so long but nope, apparently you're just that unique, Cheers

[revkevsdi]

2 minutes ago, Tinker said:

Fuck am I relieved you think that's stupid, I started to worry about my own mental capacity relating to you. I keep thinking maybe there's a higher level of sarcasm or satire you function on and 1 day you'll laugh at your "unique" perspectives you've carried on so long but nope, apparently you're just that unique, Cheers

Check your math you fucktard.  Working out carbon footprint by country instead is per capita is ridiculous. 

[Tinker]

2 minutes ago, revkevsdi said:

Check your math you fucktard.  Working out carbon footprint by country instead is per capita is ridiculous. 

No, trying to create your own data to create your own point is ridiculous... Can't wait for your new Perma Frost Tax idea

[irv]

Poor Kevy has gone...... 

[Snake]

4 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Btw. Will you remember this argument when the permafrost starts to melt?

[snopro31]

5 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Its called climate change for a reason retard.

 

So the perma frost was always there?

I’m just quoting this to bring it back to the top for @revkevsdi

[1trailmaker]

9 hours ago, ArcticCrusher said:

Its called climate change for a reason retard.

 

So the perma frost was always there?

Yes  now its not - 

 

[Rod]

10 hours ago, revkevsdi said:

Btw. Will you remember this argument when the permafrost starts to melt?

And exposes the frozen trees and mammoths under it?

[Rod]

38 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Yes  now its not - 

 

No, it wasn’t. Holy fuck 

[snopro31]

2 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

No, it wasn’t. Holy fuck 

looks like ditch road

[irv]

51 minutes ago, 1trailmaker said:

Yes  now its not - 

 

And one end of Hawaii is sinking into the ocean while the other end is coming out and growing. It also moves on a tectonic plate about 4 cms a year. Is this something that can also be stopped with tax?  

[irv]

15 minutes ago, DUMPY said:

And exposes the frozen palm trees and mammoths under it?

Fixed it for you. 

Right from National Geographic even but read the fear mongering. No wonder the alarmists are in a constant state of anxiety and can't think straight. 

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160523-climate-change-study-eight-degrees/

[1trailmaker]

19 minutes ago, irv said:

And one end of Hawaii is sinking into the ocean while the other end is coming out and growing. It also moves on a tectonic plate about 4 cms a year. Is this something that can also be stopped with tax?  

AC asked about permafrost 

Its melting and causing grief 

that is all I said 

 

I'm saying Cao and trade was good compared to carbon tax - ooth will have little affect on your day to day so I won't lose sleep 

 

Doug costs us everyday  

[irv]

1 minute ago, 1trailmaker said:

AC asked about permafrost 

Its melting and causing grief 

that is all I said 

 

I'm saying Cao and trade was good compared to carbon tax - ooth will have little affect on your day to day so I won't lose sleep 

 

Doug costs us everyday  

Cap and trade was also a crock of shit too but in order for the Lie-berals to look like they care, they implemented it. Everything, whether you call it C&P or the Carbon Tax, or anything else, it is still a tax. 

[1trailmaker]

Just now, irv said:

Cap and trade was also a crock of shit too but in order for the Lie-berals to look like they care, they implemented it. Everything, whether you call it C&P or the Carbon Tax, or anything else, it is still a tax. 

interesting how nothing went down when doug cancelled it   

 

he cost us illions and cost companies millions and millions  

[Tinker]

Ah fuck, who opened the door on the short bus ?

[franks pond]

Randal Carlson you tube,great info