And you don't think other publications do the same thing? What the hell is a "single paper"? Most scientists spend their carriers generating papers. And you don't think other publishers don't do the same thing for their politics? She allows helps publish papers that go against the "system" ideology. . She's written more papers than you've had birthdays, has been published widely and is a respected climatology authority.
Single papers is the standard fare of WUWT. They pick a paper that seems to them to support their view. The paper may have value, but how it fits with the entire picture of climate change is more important.
This makes no sense. How many papers can you at one time? It's up to the reader for determine how each paper fits into the overall picture.
Just like Einstein. “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough. [In response to the book "Hundred Authors Against Einstein"]” ― Albert Einstein
WHAT? Are you serious. We're constantly beat over the head by "science" to alter our actions and behaviors. And "science" is continually used to dictate actions, force behaviors, and force our silence and increase our taxes. Or just critical.
Yes. Politics is how we combine science with other factors in order to produce policy. So, when policy is egregiously wrong with respect to science, there will be people who point that out. This isn't news. It's how our system has worked for a long time.
And which scientists do you think will get the most patronage from politicians? Those that say AGW is a massive problem or the ones that say "yeah, we're seeing a small temperature rise ( 0.2C/decade)". HELLO! What do you think people like Curry and others are doing? There and thousands of papers out there that are doing that. LOL, only if by "working" you mean committing billions of dollars on hypotheses that haven't been tested adequately, if at all. Or tearing our hairout because a totally factious single number labeled Global Surface Temperature increased .2C since the last high - which was only a few years ago.
Electrical charging stations, EV subsidies, developing rules to ban ICE, researching climate change, hobnobbing with the political swells at Davos, John Kerry's salary and travel costs,.....
The US government subsidizes oil, which is the fuel for ICEs. Suggesting ending study of climate is like suggesting ending the study of geology or oceanography, or physics or chemistry ... You're running on empty.
From where I sit the environmentalists have a small, childish view of America. They have no clue how much heat goes into the manufacturing of things made out of metal, plastic, or glass. They have no idea why Alcoa Aluminum parked its self next to a hydroelectric plant. They have no concept of how charging delays buckles up our supply chain. Every trucker cannot stop and charge in the sunlight. The seasonal energy needs for California's truck fleets during harvest time are legendary. The industries I mentioned cannot be stopped and easily restarted. They have to operate at near capacity whether there is product in it or not because it takes too long to cool, and days or weeks to be coaxed back up to operating temperature.
Aluminum manufacturing is parked next to major sources of low cost energy, because aluminum requires massive amounts of electricity. Who suggested there are charging delays in trucking? Do you seriously think that trucking companies don't know their own industry?? And, that goes for California agriculture, too. These industries, and others that require energy are not run by IDIOTS. I really think you are missing something significant here.
No it doesn't, never has. That particular trope dates back to the Clinton Administration. Somebody did a study that claimed that a gallon of gas, which at the time retailed for maybe $2, should really cost $15. He then went on to list a bunch of "subsidies". Turns out they were all a bunch of government programs, like helping poor people with their winter home heating costs. Not a proper subsidy (like the ones Tesla gets to promote EVs) among them. For reference, here's how you can do a quick math check of oil prices. 1. Find the international price of a barrel of oil. 2. Divide by 64 (the number of gallons in a barrel). 3. Add about a dime or so for processing. Distillation is an incredibly efficient and cheap process requiring very little manpower. 4. Throw on another dime or two for transportation. 5. Profit margins are typically about 5-6% for oil companies so tag on 6% just to be certain. 6.Throw in another 6% for the folks that run the gas stations. 7. Look up the taxes on gas in your jurisdiction (might be anywhere from 60-70 cents in low priced states to maybe $2-3 for places like Cailfornia. 8.Check your local gas station and see how close you are. Then wonder where the heck the "subsidies" are hiding. That's how business actually works if you're not familiar with it.
Bingo and thanks. I've understood it was something like that, but I would not have been able to present it it so clearly and succinctly.
Actually it does - ever heard of a thing called “evidence based practice” and things called “systematic reviews”. See about 20 - 30 years ago medicine realised that an awful lot of medical practice was being guided by “best guess” and “we have always done it that way”. That is when research was collated using a process called “systematic reviews and “meta-analysis of research” to identify “best practice”. This done throughout nearly all fields of science even disciplines like cosmology where one group is studying one factor whilst others are studying other factors, each a part of the puzzle. Until a systematic review nd meta analysis are done the full picture is not clear. It is this process that scientists refer to as consensus
I was referred to our governor trying to mandate all trucking be EV's. The guy has clearly never taken a road trip in America. The companies running the industries are not spoken to by the governor.
Pity it has scientific backing then https://skepticalscience.com/history-FLICC-5-techniques-science-denial.html
You are fundamentally confused. "Best practice" relates to professional methodology, not research results. It's ironic that you cited cosmology, since that is a field currently riven by quite significant divides.
