Climate-Denier Scientist Caught Accepting Bribes from Koch Brothers
- Thread starter tay
- Start date
for a claimed "earth-sciences" scientist, it is very odd that the guy doesn't know how peer-review works... hello, peer-response... as in response, if the paper directly challenges (another paper's findings) and/or is viewed significant enough for other scientists to bother with! But hey now, I thought NO skeptical papers could ever get published given the absolute "gate-keeping" within the peer-review process! Isn't that the forevah trumpeted denier talking point?
Troposphere is the lowest layer of atmosphere sampled by the satellites that show the stratosphere is cooling. The ones the skeptics love so much. But I'm sure you knew that. :lol:
ETA: Because everyone loves charts!
Troposphere warming:
Stratosphere cooling:
Warning Avertissement Peligro
Goal post moving in progress
Goal post moving in progress
Land surface temperature is how hot the “surface” of the Earth would feel to the touch in a particular location. From a satellite’s point of view, the “surface” is whatever it sees when it looks through the atmosphere to the ground. It could be snow and ice, the grass on a lawn, the roof of a building, or the leaves in the canopy of a forest. Thus, land surface temperature is not the same as the air temperature that is included in the daily weather report.
ok, from what I have just read over the last couple of pages, "peer review" means nothing now? I have always had "peer review" thrown at me as if it was the ULTIMATE in published papers. If a paper wasn't "peer reviewed" it wasn't worth shyte. That is what I have been told by the AGW crowd. Now I'm hearing that "peer reviewed" published papers aren't necessarily worth shyte. Do I have that right? Or is it "peer reviewed" papers written by AGW supporters are golden but not ones written by AGW opponents?
didn't you say you were undecided... on the fence? :mrgreen: Of course, peer-review is the standard; however, the full cycle includes peer-response. And, of course, the particular journal being targeted... and the journal rating is of significance. "Some number" of skeptic papers get shopped around when they fail to get published in the more relevant/major journals... often ending up in journals less relevant/specialized in the subject matter... or something like the last refuge "Energy & Environment", a journal created by a denier. Notwithstanding the relatively recent rise of "open access" journals (or so-called "pay-to-publish" journals) where scientists can get their paper published for a fee they pay.
I think you're right, Petros. I think that maybe Ton should distance himself from this latest AGW ally. He's doing more harm than good.
there's really no wedge here to support your play... please try again/try harder! Here: Journal Ranking... try to educate yourself - you're welcome!
Cooooooool.... a wiki article. You do realize what is required to post to wiki, right? You do realize that ANYONE with an account can edit articles in wiki.
the page is strictly informative; there's really nothing there for you, or anyone, to question/dispute. But, uhhh... keep up your barking charade!
again, this page is strictly informative... what's to question, what's to dispute? What on this page are you having such difficulty with? For someone, YOU, who knew nothing of peer-review, you're sure quick to leap and, apparently, question/dispute a most basic information page on Journal Ranking. How many more posts before you become a real expert on the issue, hey?
Who said that?
No, Petros thinks that I'm moving goal posts. You can probably count in the tens the number of times I've mentioned the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere if you search this site. It's one of the telltale signs that an enhanced greenhouse gas is trapping heat in the lower atmosphere. Obviously if less heat is escaping to space, the layers above will cool...