Thursday, July 10, 2014

Peer Reviewed, no less

The climate "scientists" that have foisted the global warming hoax upon us have forever given science in general, a black eye in my personal opinion.
Just about any report that comes out regarding a "scientific study" I look at with skepticism now.

"Peer Reviewed"  scientific papers just don't carry the same weight they used to IMHO, considering the Peer Review process appears to have a history of being rigged.  

 Today I find this is not limited to the climate sciences.

60 scientific articles retracted.    I find my skepticism reinforced rather than abated.


  1. Peer review of climate related papers has morphed into an academic cult approving each others papers which elicit government grants. Biased peer review is de facto censoring.

    An unfunded engineer, in search of the truth, discovered this:

    Two primary drivers of average global temperature have been identified. They very accurately explain the reported up and down measurements since before 1900 with R2>0.9 (correlation coefficient = 0.95) and provide credible estimates back to the low temperatures of the Little Ice Age (1610).

    The influence of CO2 change is insignificant.
    Coefficient of determination, R2 = 0.9049 considering only sunspots and ocean cycles.
    R2 = 0.9061 considering sunspots, ocean cycles and CO2 change.

    Solar cycle duration or magnitude fail to correlate but their combination, expressed as the time-integral of solar cycle anomalies, gives an excellent correlation. A solar cycle anomaly is the difference between the sunspot number for a year and an average sunspot number for many years.

    The calculations use data since before 1900 which are official, accepted as valid and are publicly available.

    The coefficients of determination are a measure of how accurately the calculated average global temperatures compare with measured.

    Everything not explicitly considered (such as the 0.09 K s.d. random uncertainty in reported annual measured temperature anomalies, aerosols, CO2, other non-condensing ghg, volcanoes, ice change, etc.) must find room in the unexplained 9.51%.

    The tiny difference in R2, whether considering CO2 or not, demonstrates that CO2 change has no significant effect on climate.

    The method, equation and data sources are provided at and references.

  2. And people wonder why we don't want the CDC and other government agencies doing "gun violence research"


Comments are not moderated. Disagreement is fine as long as you address the message, not the messenger. In other words, don't be an ass.