> > > > On Friday, December 27, 2019, 4:07:15 PM EST, Andrew Strasfogel > > > > via Mercedes wrote: > > > > > > > > Sounds like complete and utter BS/propaganda. Provide a peer > > > > reviewed article to that effect please.
I don't know if there is a peer-reviewed article which addresses the point at which solar electric installations require more CO2 generation than they elimate, but there are many peer-reviewd articles which say CO2 is not a problem: 1) Thru 2014 http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html = 1350± 2) 2015 https://notrickszone.com/250-skeptic-papers-from-2015/ = 280± 3) 2016 https://notrickszone.com/skeptic-papers-2016/ = 500± 4) 2017 <https://notrickszone.com/2018/01/04/485-scientific-papers-published-in-2017-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/ > = 485± 5) 2018 <https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/03/consensus-500-scientific-papers-published-in-2018-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/ > = 500± 6) 2019 https://notrickszone.com/2019/06/17/consensus-200-new-2019-papers-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarmism/ (thru June) = 200± TOTAL of AGW skeptical peer-reviewed papers ~ 3300! As the fellow who set up my other email list said (with a few edits to remove the name of the one person to whom it was directed), The sad thing about such compilations is that quantity makes no difference whatsoever. When Albert Einstein's critics published a book titled "One Hundred Against Einstein," he famously replied "Why one hundred? One man can prove me wrong!" Just as "Peer-Review" provides no more than an evaluation by two or three colleagues that a paper may be worthy of publication, so a collection of papers provides a compendium of guesses that more likely than not support a prevailing paradigm. On the other hand, a paper that breaks new ground may not find any supporters, even if it is brilliant work. Such was the case with one of my professors at the University of Chicago who submitted a paper to the Astrophysical Journal in the 1950s, hypothesizing a "solar wind". All referees rejected it. (We called them "referees" in those days, because their job was merely to advise the editor of the journal and not to certify correctness, as those who insist on peer review believe.) Fortunately the editor, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, recognized the value of Eugene Parker's work and published his paper. By the mindset of those who insist on peer review, the paper was rubbish, because it had no support among Parker's peers. That paper was, however, one of the triumphs of solar system physics, spelling out the existence and characteristics of the now well known supersonic plasma called the solar wind. But how do we know that Professor Parker was correct? Did we count the number of subsequent "peer-reviewed" papers that agreed with Parker and compare those with the number that disagreed? Heavens no! We built space probes to get beyond the Earth's magnetosphere and look for the solar wind and the spiral solar magnetic field carried by it. The probes found a solar wind that was precisely what Parker had predicted. That should tell those who insist on peer review as the criterion for validity that logic and evidence form the basis of real science, not consensus thinking, disguised as "Peer-Review". Parker went on to become a distinguished professor at the University of Chicago, as did Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar. At age 92, Parker is still alive and recently witnessed the NASA launch of the "Parker Probe" to study the origins of the solar wind near the surface of the Sun. Chandra won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983 but is now long gone. Both men had offices a few doors from mine at the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research. The days of such hugely competent science are obviously long gone. Science has become a political and economic exercise that chases massive government largesse, attacks any who criticize, and cares very little to nothing about the truth. Also, Dear John, Yes, it is often worthwhile to try to show those who are headed down the wrong path where it will lead them. But those who are members of the Climate Cult are part of a larger political/religious movement that considers ALL arguments as one way streets. They never allow them to be reversed against them. They are involved in a logic that sounds strange to us, because it starts with the premise that they are correct and refers all counter-arguments to point number one: they are right. And what is remarkable is that they see absolutely nothing wrong with that! This was certainly the mindset prior to the Age of Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, and the Age of Science. Today's "intellectuals" have reverted to an earlier era where politics and religion determined everything. Period. They are perfectly happy as members of the Inquisition. When they are combating us, they are combating heresy. Something which is worthwhile for everyone on this Mercedes List to view is the comments by Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on the scientific method. If you go to http://www.richardfeynman.com/, "The Official Site of Richard Feynman", you will be asked to download "Feynman on Scientific Method.mp4" (at least it works that way on my antiquated browser). Download it and view it. One of Feynman's quotes is, The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Craig _______________________________________ http://www.okiebenz.com To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/ To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
