Nature accomplished what Science couldn't accomplish

I have, answer the question.

 

BTW, you are pedaling a conspiracy theory.

 

Because I have nothing to say about the rest. Couldn't find any content to comment on.

 

Answered in my sig.

 

A peer review is an opinion that they believe the study is accurate. It is nothing more than opinion because there are numerous assumptions and coefficients which can not proved that they are one hundred per cent accurate. Unless they have a computer big enough to track every molecule and what object it will encounter and what effect it will have on whatever it encounters, there are numerous assumptions and coefficients. Those coefficients and assumptions are based on both statistical observations and scientific estimates. Think of the earth at the rest of the universe as a massive computer which you are trying duplicate here on earth with our puny little computers.

 

No no no no. Peer reviewers don't evaluate if the study is accurate or not. Rejecting a study because you disagree with the conclusion would be a huge no no. The review would be appealed, the Editor would get involved, and the peer-reviewer would be expeditiously dismissed.

I once assisted a peer-reviewer, when I was in College. Which is the only time of your life when you are thrilled to be an "unpaid assistant" to one of the resident "gurus" in your field of interest. There is a list of things they must assess. Whether the study is accurate or not is not one of them. They check methodology, the validity of the source of the raw data, how the study relates to other related studies and if discrepancies are accounted for... and many other things. It's a structured format that they must follow faithfully. Attempts to forward opinions about the study are very much frowned upon. And usually unnecessary. The editor, who is usually not even an expert in the field of the study, makes the final decision if there is any disagreement. The fact that somebody who is not an expert in the field can make the definite assessment should give you an idea of how structured the process is.

 

But, peer review is still an opinion. Otherwise, you would only need one person to do the peer review because they would all come to the same conclusion.

 

I will maintain that man made global climate change is a hoax! Al Gore said Miami would be underwater by now, why isn't it?

 

CHINA followed by INDIA far and away pollute more than the USA. We could shutdown right now and it wouldn't make a fart in the winds difference.

 

You left-wingers think that floods and storms started yesterday.

Psssssst! Floods and storms have been going on for 4.6 billion years for God Sake!

 

The climate change hysteria is nothing more than anti capitalism.

 

It's not opinion about the validity of the study they review. If anything, only about the methodology. But it's so structured it's hardly an opinion. The reason there is usually more than one is that one might miss something. It depends on the complexity, and how controversial the study might be. That's why now much weight is given also to post-publication peer-review.

 

I agree with the "Green New Deal, but not its timeline which is impractically short. BTW, the United States has been engaged in environmental activity and energy efficiency for at least forty years. The public is aware of EPA restrictions, Energy Star Ratings, Projected energy consumption of appliances and other consumer products, and the availability of of solar and wind power. Are incandescent light bulbs even available? We need to give ourselves more credit because in many ways, the United States has led in energy and climate initiatives.

Business has invested heavily in energy and environmental projects and stands ready to pursue opportunities in those segments. Milage standards in cars has gone up and up, now we are moving to hybrids and electric vehicles. Business has established energy standards for buildings, malls, and office complexes. The High Tech industry has moved fast in this area - consider how incredible fast and energy efficient are today's laptop computers. That extends to all electronic devices. These trends will continue and accelerate because they are good for business.

 

So the reviewers are not checking to see whether they think it is a valid study. Only that it is structured correctly. Apparently a peer does not even have to know anything about the subject. We are down to a single author and reviewers who may or may not know anyhing about the subject and you claim the science is one hundred percent.

 

Look... guys. I don't mean to be disrespectful but I have to make a point.

There was a time for explaining Science, and CO2 and statistics, ... and all those things. We're past that. 20 years trying to explain to you what AGW is, and what Science is and how statistics work, and ... all those things... is enough. You guys missed the boat.

Now we come to the stage when people are actually dying. We told you 20 years ago this would happen. It is now a reality: Puerto Rico, Bahamas, Texas, Missouri,.... wildfires in California.... One year after the other break record heat. Any one of these happening in a single year would be astounding. But all happening within the same year... it's just ridiculous.

So enough is enough. It doesn't matter that you don't understand the Science. There is no more time to explain it. It's now clear that you are not going to contribute to solving the problem. So why bother explaining it to you? Now you just need to step aside, and let responsible folk do their job. It might be too late to reverse the effects. But at least we can mitigate.

But at this point, waiting for you guys to catch up is just not possible.

 

Your questions are about how Science, in general, works. This is no longer about Global Warming. If you want to question all Science, that would be material for another thread.

 

Yeah yeah yeah, and there were some 'scientists' that all agreed the science was settled in the mid 1970's that the 80's would bring a new ice age. Global cooling. Hole in the ozone layer....letting all the heat escape. No more hairspray and R-12 freon.

I guess they should bring back R-12 freon and hairspray....problem solved.

Al Gore is laughing his fat ass of at all of you that believe this garbage "climate change".

 

I very likely know more about AGW than you do. I know it is not an exact science as you are trying to claim just like weather forecasting is not an exact science or as you are trying to claim, 100%.. Any claim to the contrary is pure BS.

You are the one who claimed the great accuracy of the studies because of the peer review. Then you shot yourself in the foot with claims that the peer review was not about the validity of the study of the study, more a review of the methodology or as you said "It's not opinion about the validity of the study they review. If anything, only about the methodology."

 

I do not believe anyone denies that the climate changes. It is called "seasons".

 

People aren't dying because of AGW.

People are dying because we live on this thing called Earth that is 4.6 billion years old and has a climate that is always changing.

Stop living in fear for God Sake!

 

Besides warning of coming apocalypse, what are you doing to “save the planet”? You sequestering carbon? Growing your own food? Live in a tiny house off grid?

Or are you begging for a government to force you to do things you aren’t serious enough to do voluntarily? If you want to be taken seriously lead by example. Believing in AGW doesn’t change anything. Three hundred million people believing in it doesn’t change anything. This constant moaning reminds me of a TV evangelist preaching about temperance and charity while living like a Russian mobster.

 

Sorry no we are not past it nor will we be anytime soon. There is no real correspondence between increases in CO2 and temperature. While both have trended upwards over the last few years so have a hell of a lot of things. A shared trend does not prove correspondence or even a connection.

 

The most ridiculous bit about this OP is the claim it will convince the deniers of man made global warming. It does not even fit any of the events the alarmists are warning us about. It is not a severe storm nor is the damage due to rising sea levels. It is a tropical storm which has not reached hurricane conditions and which became quasi-stationary in a particularly bad location. As a result, it has dumped a lot of rain. The fact that it became stationary at this location is not due to man made conditions. It is due the geography of the region which has been there for hundreds of thousands of years or more.

Imelda did not have the environmental conditions required to develop into even a category one hurricane. It became quasi-stationary. Usually, when a tropical disturbance becomes quasi-stationary, it tends to move very slowly in unpredictable directions. Also, as a tropical storm moves onshore, it loses its fuel source, warm water and the storm weakens and loses it warm core tropical characteristics. However, this storm moved onshore very slowly. Because it was moving very slowly, the center of the storm kept reforming near its fuel source, warm surface water. So the center of circulation stayed right there on the coast. This storm will remain there until some upper air impulse causes it to move or it runs out of fuel. In the mean time it will continue to dump record amounts of rain.

The bottom line is that Golem wants the people from Houston to become believers in AGW because of conditions that have little to nothing to do with AGW. Dishonesty at its finest.

 

Which would make it way worse.

What you need to learn is what Science is and how it works. But, as I said above, in respect to Global Warming, your already missed the boat. You can try and jump in if you want. But it's too late to teach you how to board. Now responsible people need to start discussing mitigation. Science denialists have kept us from focusing on this for 20 years. And the consequences of this are now very visible and very tragic. They had their chance to learn... and they blew it!

 

If you believe that science has nothing to do with what scientists believe, you have had little to do with science. Ultimately, that is what it is all about.