Batteries Save Texas Power after Coal Fails

You have made the error feared by alarmists - telling the truth.

 

So what?
He published his major climate findings in a series of posts at Professor Judith Curry's Climate, Etc. blog.

 

His books are climate science; his earlier papers were not.

 

That’s what I said. He wrote those books without any peer reviewed papers (in his field). Obviously he doesn’t want REAL Climate Scientists reviewing his claims.

 

You have no idea who may have reviewed his books.

 

Not a climate scientist

 

Why do you think they are? What criteria are you using to determine the academic rigor of the article? In other words what was your critique methodology you used to determine the standard of the article/s

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Javier-Vinos

 

Sorry, but even the poster agreed they were not.

 

And you do? Go ahead. Cite all the Climate Scientists who peer reviewed the book. I thought not.

 

So what?

 

I have no idea. Books are not commonly peer reviewed.
You are taking refuge in a procedural argument to avoid the science.
I'm not interested in procedural trivia; the science interests me. The point here is that you assumed something that comforted your smug complacency.

 

And yet obviously a smart fellow who has created a climate explanation that fits observations vastly more accurately than orthodox AGW theory.

 

Yes, the papers were peer reviewed but were not on climate science. His books are based on peer reviewed science. There are 442 footnotes in the book “Solving the Climate Puzzle”.

 

Lols! Oh! Lols! If this were a new medication - would you use it on the basis that “ they wrote some stuff and posted it on a blog somewhere”

 

Soooo. He has published peer reviewed papers but not in climate science and certainly not THESE papers?? Peer review is not transferrable

 

So?? Would you take medicine from prescribed by someone NOT a doctor?

 

Yes, the papers were peer reviewed but were not on climate science. His books are based on peer reviewed science. There are 442 footnotes in the book “Solving the Climate Puzzle”.

 

Sure. I prepared for COVID based on the advice of my pharmacist and it worked fine.

 

There is a 46 page bibliography of peer reviewed studies in the book “Climate of the Past, Present, and Future”

 

You continue to run from the science.

 

That’s an irrelevant deflection to avoid the science.

 

Sorry but footnotes are NOT a peer review measure. I wrote a book on the pains experienced during childbirth. Want to buy one?

 

The point is that you’re once again promoting a bunch of unproven nonsense, conspiracy theories, and everything except Climate Science.

 

When the evidence used in support of the conclusions are peer reviewed papers it is very meaningful.