Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (203515)

11/4/2017 11:29:33 AM

From: GUNSNGOLD

2 Recommendations

Recommended By
Investor Clouseau
TideGlider

Respond to of 224858

Sorry, your precious NYT is not a Peer Review eligible report. Please stick to the facts. You posted a couple the other day that were irrelevant to any current argument, but they were facts none the less.

Global Warming and Peer Review
By S. Fred Singer | Posted: Thu. November 2, 2017, 12:08pm PTAlso published in American Thinker on Mon. October 30, 2017

An essay in the current issue (Oct. 2017) of Eos, the house organ and newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), is titled “Red, Blue—and Peer-Review” (P.R.).

The essay asserts that P.R. is superior to a debate between a (red) team of climate skeptics and a (blue) team of alarmists. I disagree strongly and will point to prominent cases where P.R. is misused to keep contrary opinions and facts from being published and thus enforce a “consensus.” A classic case is described by Douglass and Christy here.

I can cite many more examples—assuming that the IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) represents a kind of P.R., as constantly claimed by alarmist IPCC proponents.

I have shown, and convinced many others, that the “evidential facts” in support of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), cited by the first three Assessment Reports (A.R.s) of 1900, 1996, and 2001, are based on spurious analyses and data.

Recently, I discovered that the evidence used by A.R. 4 (2007) and A.R. 5 (2013) does not really exist; it is fake, an artifact of incomplete data analyses. I refer here to the reported surface warming of 1978-1997 (for details, see this).

But publication of such a result is difficult. It involves finding a sympathetic and courageous journal editor who will not send the manuscript to unfriendly, biased reviewers.

Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies—or at least bring them to light. Thus, one understands why consensus-enforcers try to keep out inconvenient facts, avoid debates, and prefer peer review.

Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer is a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute).

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (203515)	11/4/2017 1:38:09 PM
From: lorne	3 Recommendations Recommended By Investor Clouseau rayrohn TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224858

comrade...."U.S. Report Says Humans Cause Climate Change, Contradicting Top Trump Officials".... The climate has been changing for millions of years on Earth and always will until Earth is no more, what caused climate change before humans?????