re: #112 AJStrata

Wow this is going to take hours to deal with it is a cornucopia of stupid.

I cannot think of a good reading list. The problem, as you note, is having a minimal background in science so as to determine whether something is solid or shaky.

Well here is something good written by actual scientists as opposed to weathermen who work for Fox news.

earthguide.ucsd.edu

ncdc.noaa.gov

In my mind the best blog out there right is Watts Up With That - closest I have come to putting things in common language.

If by that you mean debunked politically motivated propaganda designed to mislead the foolish and gullible sure.

Sadly, you need a serious background in a lot of fields to delve into global climate - something even the so called experts lack. In addition, there is a serious quality control issue as I have been discussing over at Climate Audit.

This now completely places you at the propagandist end of the spectrum. The current journal peer review process seriously broken. The experts, are not so called. Don’t insult people who have dedicated years of their loves actually learning science as opposed to you.

It’s OK for a scientific debating society on the latest theorems and papers. But if you looked at the peer review processes required in a place like NASA for engineering space flight, the process is a joke.

Sure… all of science and peer review is a joke. So let me ask, if the peer review process, which has published pretty much every scientific advance you can speak of, is so flawed as to be dismissed, what does that do fro crank places that are not reviewed and can say anything they want, like the frauds you link to? And they are frauds, because actual peer reviewed papers have data and analysis, not just snarky lies.

When the climate scientists went from debating theory to applying theories to human systems, effecting human lives, they needed to upgrade their review process so knowledgeable people can challenge and refine or reject the theories. In an real world system, there is no hiding behind journalistic self licking ice cream cones.

Uhhh huh… So you really think that all of the scientific journals are like that… OK, so when Einstein’s relativity was peer-reviewd and published, was it false, or was the process, self licking and broken? What about Salk’s work on polio vaccination?

I suppose you really mean that you just hate journals because you can no longer find a credible scientist who publishes you denier fantasies.

I wish I could be of more help, but it takes a lot of experience to sniff out the shady theories verses the hard data. And with so many people pushing untested, unverified claims as proven fact it has become a large garbage collection exercise to find the wheat for the chaf

Now that is true. Only you are one of the one’s putting up chaff.
You see the real science speaks for itself.