Peer review is not about ensuring the accuracy of a paper ....

Exactly but being gophort seems to think that's what matters as he says here,

So that's a "no" on your claims. No peer-reviewed evidence. But thanks for the same three paragraphs you've posted three other times I've asked for evidence in the past three years.

I give him what he asked for and without all the 'work and inconvenience' of actually having to watch and read any previous links or do any grade school level internet searches that would have lead him to such information any way.

One click and he has what he asked for whether he cares to look at it and read it or not. I did my part of supporting my end of things by the expectations he made so that rest is his problem to defend his views now in a like manor.

 

Exactly but being gophort seems to think that's what matters as he says here,



I give him what he asked for and without all the 'work and inconvenience' of actually having to watch and read any previous links or do any grade school level internet searches that would have lead him to such information any way.

One click and he has what he asked for whether he cares to look at it and read it or not. I did my part of supporting my end of things by the expectations he made so that rest is his problem to defend his views now in a like manor.

Funny..... I didn't see any of the guys in your cute little videos in your list. Did I miss them? As a matter of fact I didn't see any of your reference articles in the list.

 

Maybe we should pick one of @tcmtech skeptic papers to debate.
I kind of like this one:

Viewpoint
Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change:
Are warming spring air temperatures the ‘‘ultimate’’
survival control factor?

 

Everyone knows about the "military industrial complex" warning by President Eisenhower, but he foretold more .... and if you don't want to read it you can listen to the whole Fairwell address.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been over shadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
----Fairwell Address, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm sure you are familiar with the phrase "publish or perish." That's a powerful motive for you to produce a kind review of your friends, after all, it's just "government money." You can bet the government money doesn't all go towards the purpose as there always are administrative costs.

Berstein and Woodward's investigative motto was "follow the money." It works in the Climate Change arena as well. The problem we see in the Climate Change arena casts a dark shadow on the rest of science. You hear the backlash against President Trump from scientists now, but this is what he said on "Earth Day, 2017"

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/04/22/statement-president-donald-j-trump-earth-day

Rigorous science is critical to my Administration’s efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection. My Administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks. As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.

Right not the degree of Climate Change is still a hypothesis. The only thing that has been settled is that "climate changes." Are we still in a cooling cycle as some have said? It had a period of numerous generations, something like 100 millennia.

The State of the Climate Debate ...

 

Berstein and Woodward's investigative motto was "follow the money." It works in the Climate Change arena as well. The problem we see in the Climate Change arena casts a dark shadow on the rest of science. You hear the backlash against President Trump from scientists now, but this is what he said on "Earth Day, 2017"

I'm half tempted to be suspicious those whining the most might also be the same ones who were on the take for doing less than honest research for the obama administration and know that if President Trump is pushing for open honest research they might be in a position to get pinched over past financially driven biases that may get them in trouble if they get a more in depth follow up reviews of their past work.

Long video so I doubt too many/if anyone but me will bother watching it.

Dr Curry sounds like one of my high school teachers.

 

What research?

 

Absolutely true, there was 'Peer review' of that complete BS emdrive paper. The review was about 'scientifically' valid tests, measurements and calculations not conclusions and interpretation of that data.

http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8198/full/

The key to peer reviewed papers is that the reviewer insist that all data and methodology is clearly documented with enough detail that it can be repeated by anyone with enough interest to do so. Also, if anyone disputes the findings, which happens often in science, the initial data is present to so everyone can learn from mistakes.

As for Feymans video, he is exactly right. The first person to put a theory together that models/explains/describes the physical experiment will publish it. It is put out there to be tested, beat up and analyzed.

Over the years, many natural product extracts have been identified by a combination of analytical methods and getting all of those carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the right position with chiral accuracy can be a challenge. One guy publishes his best guess from the evidence he had, next guy points out contradictions in the first guys analysis of the data,manother guy does additional experiments and reports, cycle repeats a dozen times and finally everyone agrees because final result is locked up air tight.

Now that is one molecule with a three dozen carbon atoms and enough heteroatoms to make it functional and hydrogens to fill out the old octet rule. Now, don't you all think there will be some exponential growth into the number of papers required to nail down a correlation of human activity to climate change?

I'm not completely convinced that CO2 combustion coproduct is the key to the globe getti warmer but, there is a nice steady trend of data showing CO2 going from about 270 ppm to over 400 ppm in a nice steady climb. CO2 does absorb infrared bands quite well but there are issues. The earth is warming faster than the additional energy would be expected from 200 ppm of CO2. (So there, I belong on the list of doubters as much as most of the others on the list - because the criteria are literally that low to get in the list no matter how much pro-AGW was published by an individual in their lifetime - I read a dozen of the papers, I found the statements, Did anyone else?).

Anyhow, one could spend their life sitting in the Peanut Seats and claiming the CO2 theory doesn't hold water and therefore, claim "man is not causing global warming". On the other hand, one could use the same amount of energy and spend some time thinking about what other human activity could cause a change in the earth's climate. Like Feynman said, it starts with a guess. The guess starts with all of your education and all of your available data. That starts the lean, then start trying to prove and/or disprove your theory by comparing to available or newly acquired experimental data.

Who is lazy? Who is motivated? Let's hear your theories.
-

 

The key to peer reviewed papers is that the reviewer insist that all data and methodology is clearly documented with enough detail that it can be repeated by anyone with enough interest to do so. Also, if anyone disputes the findings, which happens often in science, the initial data is present to so everyone can learn from mistakes.

As for Feymans video, he is exactly right. The first person to put a theory together that models/explains/describes the physical experiment will publish it. It is put out there to be tested, beat up and analyzed.

Over the years, many natural product extracts have been identified by a combination of analytical methods and getting all of those carbon, nitrogen, oxygen and hydrogen atoms in the right position with chiral accuracy can be a challenge. One guy publishes his best guess from the evidence he had, next guy points out contradictions in the first guys analysis of the data,manother guy does additional experiments and reports, cycle repeats a dozen times and finally everyone agrees because final result is locked up air tight.

Now that is one molecule with a three dozen carbon atoms and enough heteroatoms to make it functional and hydrogens to fill out the old octet rule. Now, don't you all think there will be some exponential growth into the number of papers required to nail down a correlation of human activity to climate change?

I'm not completely convinced that CO2 combustion coproduct is the key to the globe getti warmer but, there is a nice steady trend of data showing CO2 going from about 270 ppm to over 400 ppm in a nice steady climb. CO2 does absorb infrared bands quite well but there are issues. The earth is warming faster than the additional energy would be expected from 200 ppm of CO2. (So there, I belong on the list of doubters as much as most of the others on the list - because the criteria are literally that low to get in the list no matter how much pro-AGW was published by an individual in their lifetime - I read a dozen of the papers, I found the statements, Did anyone else?).

Anyhow, one could spend their life sitting in the Peanut Seats and claiming the CO2 theory doesn't hold water and therefore, claim "man is not causing global warming". On the other hand, one could use the same amount of energy and spend some time thinking about what other human activity could cause a change in the earth's climate. Like Feynman said, it starts with a guess. The guess starts with all of your education and all of your available data. That starts the lean, then start trying to prove and/or disprove your theory by comparing to available or newly acquired experimental data.

Who is lazy? Who is motivated? Let's hear your theories.
-

Damit. I had to give you a like for that one!

So now I have to ask, Who wrote it for you? It's way out of character for who you have been playing yourself to be for the last several months.

 

Damit. I had to give you a like for that one!

So now I have to ask, Who wrote it for you? It's way out of character for who you have been playing yourself to be for the last several months.

You guys get all riled up like sharks smelling blood. Whether it is Hillary's emails or AGW, the anger quickly boils to the surface. When the sharks are circling, there is nothing more interesting (to me) than to sit in my glass bottom boat and add more blood. Today, I'm out of blood and I have to clean the barnacles off of my glass.

PS: thanks for reading my long post.

 

You guys get all riled up like sharks smelling blood. Whether it is Hillary's emails or AGW, the anger quickly boils to the surface. When the sharks are circling, there is nothing more interesting (to me) than to sit in my glass bottom boat and add more blood. Today, I'm out of blood and I have to clean the barnacles off of my glass.

PS: thanks for reading my long post.

You are not on my ignore list so I read all of your posts every time. Always have and always will (until you give me reason to put you there).

Now as for the rest of things. Rarely does any of it have anything to do with any of that stuff. I voted a near perfect three way split between liberal, independent and conservative representatives on my ballot being I make an active effort to look, listen and consider what all sides have to say and to what value each has for me from there. It's who I am.

Same with climate related issues. I know we have some influence but I also know that by the raw numbers it's nowhere near what some claim it to be and not all of it that we do influence is negative either.
Plus of everything I do see of how the climate worldwide is changing much of it is just natural cycles playing themselves out which means that some areas will get less favorable while other get better and at some point they will reverse again.
What concerns me right now is that California's droughts are ending which says to me that more than likely the midwest will be going into a similar drought cycle next. I don't like it but I know that's rather how the North American continental long term weather cycles go and it has very little to do with us humans.

Also on the global scale from every measure I can see what the planet is now shifting towards it's bringing a huge amount good with it. None of that is what the media and certain political and extremist groups want anyone to see and hear which is what I am against.

As for debate related,what it does have a lot more to do with is knowing someone is way more intelligent, professional and informed than they are acting themselves to be. Seeing someone act dumb over and over when there is absolutely no reason for them to do so is insulting to all of us and demeans the concept of having a good friendly educational debate. No one learns anything other than that just maybe we are interacting with someone who has some serious maturity, self image and possibly genuine mental problems.

Largely it's just that some of us have a natural appetite for learning and wanting to know things which when given the chance to have our own views challenged in a rational, professional and educational way with legitimate information that could show us where we may be lacking in understanding of both our own views and in how others see things we are all for it. Not against it.

It's when we are told we are wrong and someone else is right then that person goes into acting like a dim witted uneducated idiot that is thrilled to be that way when it's not true it's an insult to everyone involved. No one learns anything, it just wastes everyone time and nothing good comes from it other than losing respect for someone for dumb reasons they insist on pursuing at all costs.

 

You are not on my ignore list so I read all of your posts every time. Always have and always will (until you give me reason to put you there).

Now as for the rest of things. Rarely does any of it have anything to do with any of that stuff. I voted a near perfect three way split between liberal, independent and conservative representatives on my ballot being I make an active effort to look, listen and consider what all sides have to say and to what value each has for me from there. It's who I am.

Same with climate related issues. I know we have some influence but I also know that by the raw numbers it's nowhere near what some claim it to be and not all of it that we do influence is negative either.
Plus of everything I do see of how the climate worldwide is changing much of it is just natural cycles playing themselves out which means that some areas will get less favorable while other get better and at some point they will reverse again.
What concerns me right now is that California's droughts are ending which says to me that more than likely the midwest will be going into a similar drought cycle next. I don't like it but I know that's rather how the North American continental long term weather cycles go and it has very little to do with us humans.

Also on the global scale from every measure I can see what the planet is now shifting towards it's bringing a huge amount good with it. None of that is what the media and certain political and extremist groups want anyone to see and hear which is what I am against.

As for debate related,what it does have a lot more to do with is knowing someone is way more intelligent, professional and informed than they are acting themselves to be. Seeing someone act dumb over and over when there is absolutely no reason for them to do so is insulting to all of us and demeans the concept of having a good friendly educational debate. No one learns anything other than that just maybe we are interacting with someone who has some serious maturity, self image and possibly genuine mental problems.

Largely it's just that some of us have a natural appetite for learning and wanting to know things which when given the chance to have our own views challenged in a rational, professional and educational way with legitimate information that could show us where we may be lacking in understanding of both our own views and in how others see things we are all for it. Not against it.

It's when we are told we are wrong and someone else is right then that person goes into acting like a dim witted uneducated idiot that is thrilled to be that way when it's not true it's an insult to everyone involved. No one learns anything, it just wastes everyone time and nothing good comes from it other than losing respect for someone for dumb reasons they insist on pursuing at all costs.

That may be true but it is also insulting to everyone when a member takes a contrarian view and starts arguing without even familiarizing themselves about the topic. It commonly happens around here with current events. Some individuals are denying the events occur until a link is posted - that's BS. Members wanting to argue should take the time to inform themselves before denying current event happen.

 

Liberals think this is a good thing.

 

That may be true but it is also insulting to everyone when a member takes a contrarian view and starts arguing without even familiarizing themselves about the topic. It commonly happens around here with current events. Some individuals are denying the events occur until a link is posted - that's BS. Members wanting to argue should take the time to inform themselves before denying current event happen.

Exactly but both sides have done it. The problem was and is that too often it was your side that was shown to have not done the proper reading and research or that showed they got the context of the subject completely wrong then went on to act like trolling ignorant asses to outright illiterate idiots when they got called out on it by most everyone.

Nsaspook, Joe Jester, Killivolt, Alph(0), HP, me and most everyone else here has never done that when we were proven to not be totally up to date in our views and beliefs. You, ronv, and shortbus however took great pride and satisfaction in wallowing in it, and for months at that, over things most everyone else would never give a second thought to. That's where the animosity came from.

No one here will disrespect someone else for them not knowing everything about any subject and getting proven wrong or being shown they are mistaken in their basic views. It's a part of every single person's life to learn new things and filling their own misunderstand in their knowledge and beliefs.

What is disrespectful is when someone proves someone else doesn't know something is instead of them showing some degree of maturity and tact and taking what they said in good intent, going off and acting like their too simple minded and or ignorant to understand it then throwing that game everyones face time after time like their proud to be as stupid as their faking to be even though it's clear everyone knows it's not true.

I don't know everything and I never will and I may not always take having my beliefs disproven or challenge with total professional maturity every time but I will always do my best to act respectful to anyone who has a legitimate proof of something and never play stupid let alone proud to be stupid to get out of having to man up and accept I was mistaken, uninformed of new information or simply wrong.

Now that said, If I am presented with some fool who chooses to act in those ways to avoid having to accept they and their beliefs and understandings are not right, hell yea, I will take great satisfaction and enjoyment in slapping them around and making them look to be just as petty, pathetic, ignorant and outright simple minded stupid as they make themselves out to be!
I'll tear them and their idiots facade apart bit by bit to expose every fallacy and mistake they make every chance I have until either they put their big boy pants back on and join the adult world or they get sick of it and leave.

And if they don't leave but convince me that they are likely and honestly uneducated and incapable of deeper levels of thought and understanding, plus proud to be that way, as they are showing themselves to be I will just ignore them as if they don't exist while taking a great personal satisfaction in using them as reference points as to what a real bonafide arrogant raging fool looks like.

You have kids right? If one or more of them plays the defiant and proud to be the village idiot game to get out of something do you just let them do it or do you get on their ass for acting stupid as a way out of being responsible for themselves and their actions?
Do you think that as adults anyone one of us should be able to do and act in that manor when something we don't want to hear, see or do comes along as well?

I don't!

 

Liberals think this is a good thing.

In some aspects it helps by creating jobs which is good but the problem is to pay the added workforce either the end product costs have to be extremely and uncompetitively high,the workers have to be paid unrealistically low or the money has to come from someplace else.

There are places where solar wind and other AE/RE based power production does work and works well enough to be honestly cost competitive in most markets if ran by knowledgeable and financially responsible entities. The problem is the politics and like tends to put it where it is not able to compete and has it ran by incompetent unrealistic and too often greedy fools.

 

In some aspects it helps by creating jobs which is good...

Some disagree...

Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it's jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels. [Reply to the government bureaucrat of one Asian country who told him that, reason why there were workers with shovels instead of modern tractors and earth movers at a worksite of a new canal, was that: "You don't understand. This is a jobs program."]

 

Some disagree...

And some people would complain if you gave them a pile of gold bars too. Too heavy, too shiny and no one will move any for them without trying to steal some either.

Where I live wind power works and has proven itself cost effective to the point of legitimate competitiveness. Elsewhere however it has proven to be a dismal and costly failure from one end to the other.

Same with solar and most anything. Noting fits every where perfectly 100% of the time. Same with people.

 

Where I live wind power works and has proven itself cost effective to the point of legitimate competitiveness.

Of course it has...

 

Of course it has...

Is any current data available.

 

Of course it has...

And again that's a overall view which I largely agree with given way too much good money has been spent putting AE/RE systems in the wrong places for the wrong reasons.

Wind works well here but only because we have the near ideal wind speeds day in and day out to keep the system running at near optimal efficiency plus we have above average financial management and oversight of the systems in play as well.

Now put solar here, where it's more often cloudy and overcast than not, and have a bunch of greedy idiots running things and it would be total financial disaster like like your chart shows.

This give a fairly accurate and up to date overview of things by state. both the annual production costs and related financial numbers are given. Jus tclick on the state in the mapt to see the numbers.

http://www.awea.org/state-fact-sheets

http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/North Dakota.pdf

From ~ 2013 we went from producing ~ 5% of the state's power output with wind to ~ 21+ % and are gaining more fast.

And by the per capita equivalent of how much wind power we made in 2014 we were #1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_North_Dakota

And have the top potential for wind power production nationwide.

http://just-wind.com/AboutUs/WhyNorthDakota.aspx

So as I have said, Wind works here but I know it does not elsewhere.

 

And again that's a overall view which I largely agree with given way too much good money has been spent putting AE/RE systems in the wrong places for the wrong reasons.

Wind works well here but only because we have the near ideal wind speeds day in and day out to keep the system running at near optimal efficiency plus we have above average financial management and oversight of the systems in play as well.

Now put solar here, where it's more often cloudy and overcast than not, and have a bunch of greedy idiots running things and it would be total financial disaster like like your chart shows.

This give a fairly accurate and up to date overview of things by state. both the annual production costs and related financial numbers are given. Jus tclick on the state in the mapt to see the numbers.

http://www.awea.org/state-fact-sheets

http://awea.files.cms-plus.com/FileDownloads/pdfs/North Dakota.pdf

From ~ 2013 we went from producing ~ 5% of the state's power output with wind to ~ 21+ % and are gaining more fast.

And by the per capita equivalent of how much wind power we made in 2014 we were #1!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_North_Dakota

And have the top potential for wind power production nationwide.

http://just-wind.com/AboutUs/WhyNorthDakota.aspx

So as I have said, Wind works here but I know it does not elsewhere.

I don't disagree that ND is #1 in wind power production. But I would like to see support for this statement:

Where I live wind power works and has proven itself cost effective to the point of legitimate competitiveness.

exclusive of subsidies.