LaxPower Back-Up Stick

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:31 am**

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.

GREAT !!!!

Will wait for the link that describes the process.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:43 am**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:31 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
GREAT !!!!

Will wait for the link that describes the process.

I won't be doing that leg work for you. You can however find descriptions of those processes at each scientific journal - the process they follow. For grants, you can obtain those from the granting agencies. For federal government, they are online at the granting agency web site. Have fun.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:45 am**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:31 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
GREAT !!!!

Will wait for the link that describes the process.

Here is one! :

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_16

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:47 am**

RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
We are speaking of two sorts of peer review - that for obtaining grant funding (almost always a large group effort in the sciences) and that used for determining worth of publication. The latter is much smaller, but always involves one or more editors, who have proven their worth in science, plus at a very minimum of two experts in the particular subfield being presented. If there are any questions over the review process, more are involved to make sure.

When you are first starting out as a researcher, you will not be involved in the peer review process for any publications. Only after you have achieved some success in both publishing and usually obtaining grants will you get involved at that level.

Grant application review boards/committees generally require even more seniority and respect within the field to become part of.

Agreed. It is also true that in interdisciplinary disciplines like AGW, the number of reviewers on panels / boards tends to be larger. This is also true for the more "controversial" disciplines.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm**

jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:47 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
We are speaking of two sorts of peer review - that for obtaining grant funding (almost always a large group effort in the sciences) and that used for determining worth of publication. The latter is much smaller, but always involves one or more editors, who have proven their worth in science, plus at a very minimum of two experts in the particular subfield being presented. If there are any questions over the review process, more are involved to make sure.

When you are first starting out as a researcher, you will not be involved in the peer review process for any publications. Only after you have achieved some success in both publishing and usually obtaining grants will you get involved at that level.

Grant application review boards/committees generally require even more seniority and respect within the field to become part of.
Agreed. It is also true that in interdisciplinary disciplines like AGW, the number of reviewers on panels / boards tends to be larger. This is also true for the more "controversial" disciplines.

You keep on making claims with no verification of links to a specific process. From what I understand there is ZERO written process's from the scientific community, only the EDITORS control the process. Editors of specific publications.

The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.

Was the Hartford civic center "peer " reviewed ? How about the Florida College bridge?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/b ... -NTSB.html

The Louis Berger Group had been hired by Figg to conduct an independent peer review of the bridge design. That review should have caught Figg’s critical miscalculations. Yet Louis Berger’s review was inadequate, the N.T.S.B. found.

Regarding "science".....why than, is science ignored when it comes to sexual biology in humans? Hypocrites

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:04 pm**

Oldbarndog wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:24 am Wish we could move on from the constant fixation with temperature and focus on pursuing the means to utilize resources in a way that will leave my grandkids with cleaner air and water, safe food sources and the means to earn a decent living. To lock into one data point and downplay or minimize the rest as both sides push agendas is ridiculous. Regardless of your position on CC/GW, is there any logical reason why this can't happen?

It takes away the political football. You can't do that.

Same reason they won't fix immigration.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.

Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:12 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:47 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:23 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:16 am
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 11:06 am
jhu72 wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:59 am
I have never sat on a peer-review (grant application) board with less than 20 reviewers (frequently more). This an interdisciplinary peer-review. I am sure climate review boards do work the same way. The applicate is given every advantage to make their case. If it is felt that one or two or three reviewers are unreasonably withholding their approval those reviewers are replaced by others in the community and the application is reconsidered by the new board. I have never heard of, or seen a peer review board made up of one reviewer.
It sounds like there is no "official" process to claim peer review than?
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is a highly (written) process driven discipline. Largely subject matter independent.
We are speaking of two sorts of peer review - that for obtaining grant funding (almost always a large group effort in the sciences) and that used for determining worth of publication. The latter is much smaller, but always involves one or more editors, who have proven their worth in science, plus at a very minimum of two experts in the particular subfield being presented. If there are any questions over the review process, more are involved to make sure.

When you are first starting out as a researcher, you will not be involved in the peer review process for any publications. Only after you have achieved some success in both publishing and usually obtaining grants will you get involved at that level.

Grant application review boards/committees generally require even more seniority and respect within the field to become part of.
Agreed. It is also true that in interdisciplinary disciplines like AGW, the number of reviewers on panels / boards tends to be larger. This is also true for the more "controversial" disciplines.
You keep on making claims with no verification of links to a specific process. From what I understand there is ZERO written process's from the scientific community, only the EDITORS control the process. Editors of specific publications.

The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.

Was the Hartford civic center "peer " reviewed ? How about the Florida College bridge?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/22/us/b ... -NTSB.html

The Louis Berger Group had been hired by Figg to conduct an independent peer review of the bridge design. That review should have caught Figg’s critical miscalculations. Yet Louis Berger’s review was inadequate, the N.T.S.B. found.

Regarding "science".....why than, is science ignored when it comes to sexual biology in humans? Hypocrites

Reputable scientific journals will provide you with their written review process.

Here is one publishers overview for all of their journals. https://www.springer.com/gp/authors-ed ... s/10534962 They point you at other documentation they will provide. If you don't see what you want, contact them and ask. There will be differences publication to publication. For fine detail you need to inquire of that particular publication. Springer publishes hundreds of journals. The other way to get more details is to simply write an article for one of the journals and go through the process, in my experience they will supply you with a detailed description of the peer review process for that publication or family of publications.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:14 pm**

Is THIS the process of peer review?

https://cgscholar.com/cg_support/en/docs/40

Good money could be placed on "believers" pooh, poohing the credentials of THIS editor. Michael Gueldry/International man of mystery. Also, international "$tudieS". NO stem background, eh?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?

Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:28 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?

Keep on gazing out the window and watch the RAIN come down, while stoking the fire. Take note of MY environment. Is wood a fossil fuel ?

AFAN, always with the net moving, one side only please.

Sailing in the islands with good friends/family, a family very familiar with motorboats, but had never been on a vessell they could actually sleep on.
One of the daughters, a D1 lacrosse players, forgot to switch it to "holding tank" and flushed you know what out to the water. Literally could not have scripted it any better. Snorkeling dad bumps his head into the "dewTEE", unlike Spaulding.
What's this MDlax type story have to do with climate change, or global warming?

Moral of prose: who cares what the water temp is......there's poop in the water.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 pm**

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.

Logic?

That would be like southern California having 10 million bike riders instead of cars.........because you can't show up at the Jimmy Dean sausage after Oscars party stepping out of a prius or covered bike/trike

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:33 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:28 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Keep on gazing out the window and watch the RAIN come down, while stoking the fire. Take note of MY environment. Is wood a fossil fuel ?

AFAN, always with the net moving, one side only please.

How on Earth am I moving the nets here? I'm asking you a simple question, with a simple answer.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:37 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.
Logic? Yes...it's logical to say that if you can't accept the science supported by 97% of the scientific community, you can't support the science that is supported by the remaining 3%.

That would be like southern California having 10 million bike riders instead of cars.........because you can't show up at the Jimmy Dean sausage after Oscars party stepping out of a prius or covered bike/trike No clue what you re trying to say.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:39 pm**

a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?

Nothing logically about what you wrote. I was being VERY specific, describing how my PHYSIC's Phud cousing doing the writing for "peer" reviews b/c his "boss" told him to review the research papers. If you know, you know.....what I am talking about.

Peer review is where I am stuck, not "science". Who peer reviewed Salk? Issac Newton? Tesla ? Hipparchus ?

JHU72 is throwing mints at the starving ...........we are left empty headed in understanding the PEER review process. It's literally a free for all. Sure, basic structure. BUT........AFAN, can YOU answer the question.

Are any articles of "science" peer reviewed by only ONE person, evah?

exactly

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:50 pm**

foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:37 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.
Logic? Yes...it's logical to say that if you can't accept the science supported by 97% of the scientific community, you can't support the science that is supported by the remaining 3%. What does ANY of what you wrote have to do with ONE peer reviewing an article?

That would be like southern California having 10 million bike riders instead of cars.........because you can't show up at the Jimmy Dean sausage after Oscars party stepping out of a prius or covered bike/trike No clue what you re trying to say. that makes three of us

You guys are just weird. When did I ever say anything about NOT believing anything. Or believing?

If I question where you (collective) are getting your "data" from, that is NOT accepting science? So, anytime you guys post a link citing NOAA data.......and I actually RESEARCH that cited data..........my conclusions are flawed b/c I can't accept my own research? huh

Basing economic policy on science that relies on "if" "could" "may" 'possible" along with 'catostrophic" "devastating" and calling any weather event
EXTREME is just silly.

Very logical questions that remain unanswered. By many. Banned for just asking the questions.

WHAT climate are we changing too? (answering the idiotic: more this, that.......be specific. Why this is such a problem to answer is telling )

What is the carbon footprint of solar panels?

Why don't believers support NUKE energy ?

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:01 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:50 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:37 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.
Logic? Yes...it's logical to say that if you can't accept the science supported by 97% of the scientific community, you can't support the science that is supported by the remaining 3%. What does ANY of what you wrote have to do with ONE peer reviewing an article?

That would be like southern California having 10 million bike riders instead of cars.........because you can't show up at the Jimmy Dean sausage after Oscars party stepping out of a prius or covered bike/trike No clue what you re trying to say. that makes three of us

You guys are just weird. When did I ever say anything about NOT believing anything. Or believing?
Only going by what you post

If I question where you (collective) are getting your "data" from, that is NOT accepting science? So, anytime you guys post a link citing NOAA data.......and I actually RESEARCH that cited data..........my conclusions are flawed b/c I can't accept my own research? huh Huh?
Are you qualified, based on expertise, to conclude that the research and data is flawed?

Basing economic policy on science that relies on "if" "could" "may" 'possible" along with 'catostrophic" "devastating" and calling any weather event
EXTREME is just silly.
You realize all economic policy is based on "what if's". Have you ever run a Monte Carlo simulation on the potential outcomes of your retirement plan? All based on unknowns.

Very logical questions that remain unanswered. By many. Banned for just asking the questions.
Banned...who has been banned from what?

WHAT climate are we changing too? (answering the idiotic: more this, that.......be specific. Why this is such a problem to answer is telling )

What is the carbon footprint of solar panels? Try google if you care enough.

Why don't believers support NUKE energy ? In my view, nuclear has to be part of the asnwer. Disposal of the waste is still a big issue.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:04 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:50 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:37 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:31 pm
foreverlax wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:22 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:07 pm
runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:01 pm
The reason I bring this up is one of the books I read, (A disgrace to the Profession/Steyn ) focusing on the horrible Mike Mann's hockey stick, is that only ONE person PEER reviewed Mann's work.....or that Mann, alone, peer reviewed fellow believers work. Mild searching over the years has provided nothing of substance. It's a free for all. PEER REVIEW is a joke. My Cousin got his PHD from a Boston are school..........while HE did the peer reviewing as a grad student, his name appears NO WHERE. Yup....physic's phd. He's laugh's when PEER review is bantered about like it's some mystical badge of respect.
Problem here is: you're stuck. Now you can't believe in any science. Not only can you not believe papers claiming global warming is happening, you can't believe in papers citing that global warming isn't happening.

So what are you going to do now?
Lordy...that logic stuff does make sense.
Logic? Yes...it's logical to say that if you can't accept the science supported by 97% of the scientific community, you can't support the science that is supported by the remaining 3%. What does ANY of what you wrote have to do with ONE peer reviewing an article?

That would be like southern California having 10 million bike riders instead of cars.........because you can't show up at the Jimmy Dean sausage after Oscars party stepping out of a prius or covered bike/trike No clue what you re trying to say. that makes three of us

You guys are just weird. When did I ever say anything about NOT believing anything. Or believing?

If I question where you (collective) are getting your "data" from, that is NOT accepting science? So, anytime you guys post a link citing NOAA data.......and I actually RESEARCH that cited data..........my conclusions are flawed b/c I can't accept my own research? huh

Basing economic policy on science that relies on "if" "could" "may" 'possible" along with 'catostrophic" "devastating" and calling any weather event
EXTREME is just silly.

Very logical questions that remain unanswered. By many. Banned for just asking the questions.

WHAT climate are we changing too? (answering the idiotic: more this, that.......be specific. Why this is such a problem to answer is telling )

What is the carbon footprint of solar panels?

Why don't believers support NUKE energy ?

Here you go champ:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/solar-wind- ... prints/amp

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-carbon- ... ntire-life

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:12 pm**

TLD,

from your link, do you conclude that solar panels carbon footprint is large? Interesting that not one of the "answers"

mentions vegatation maintenance. You know, someone driving to a solar farm. Fenced in. Destroying natural habitats for animals.

logic would also say one would have to wash the panels from time to time, less they become in-efficient. Also, doesn't account for the days the solar panels are completely covered in snow/ice, generating NOTHING.

How much kWh are solar panels in Colorado generating, after yet another climate change storm. It's NEVER snowed in Denver in October....how extereme.

Posted: **Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:24 pm**

runrussellrun wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:12 pm TLD,

from your link, do you conclude that solar panels carbon footprint is large? Interesting that not one of the "answers" mentions vegatation maintenance. You know, someone driving to a solar farm. Fenced in. Destroying natural habitats for animals.

logic would also say one would have to wash the panels from time to time, less they become in-efficient. Also, doesn't account for the days the solar panels are completely covered in snow/ice, generating NOTHING.

How much kWh are solar panels in Colorado generating, after yet another climate change storm. It's NEVER snowed in Denver in October....how extereme.

You asked if anyone knew the carbon footprint of solar panels. I did some leg work for you. I don’t have a reference point or the experience to make that determination.....but one thing I know for certain...you can and will.

LaxPower Back-Up Stick

All Things Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment

Re: Climate Change & The Environment