13,950 peer-reviews vs 24

13,950 peer-reviews vs 24.png

Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Twitch

  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    Cute, but 99% of those articles are about describing climate, not about supporting CO2 hysteria. Only about 50 of those are in the form of “climate is funky, yo. Oh look, there’s a rich guy over there producing CO2. Let’s blame him for everything!!!”

    You know what causes one hell of a change in the climate? Altering the amount and location of fresh water. You know, like the gazillion of gallons of fresh water currently trapped inside water bottles, beers, sodas, and in the plumbing of cities, and generally water that should be out there in the environment doing what water does best (ie, absorbing heat).

    The problem is that most water is trapped in the plumbing of overpopulated poor countries like China and India, but they can’t blame the poor, now can they, so the invent the CO2 hysteria to blame the rich people for everything.


    I’ve seen the lefty affection for anally plucked “facts” before so I have to ask…. is the activist sure it wasn’t 13,949? If only there wasn’t so much dishonesty and sleaze among the warmer cult, motivated by funding, tenure, employment, publicity etc. There was a time when a heliocentric view was scorned by “peer reviewed” bumpf. The self-aggrandizing, self-enriching posturing of the Gore-ites obscures things like resource depletion, pollution, over population, and more. When the question “will I be funded if I publish contrary data?” is answered with “Not bloody likely!” then the elements of commerce outweigh science.


    So your entire argument is that researchers have an incentive to lie? How about an argument that shows that some other action is creating a slow-but-progressive increase in average temperatures? No? Good luck being taken seriously. The entire conspiracy theory depends on tens of thousands of scientists keeping a secret, when you have already stipulated that these people are sleazy and dependent on publicity. How long would you think a secret like that would remain hidden? Learn how to make a rational argument, please.


    Those 24 articles were probably written by the same 3 dudes who got autism from their vaccinations.


    Cough, cough, bullshit. First of all peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing anymore since there is so much corruption among so called objective scientists who are being courted by funding and tenure and the fame of being published. Michael Mann is a proven liar whose hockey stick nonsense has been debunked and who keeps losing lawsuits over it. Secondly, well, despite the NYT articles – snow isn’t disappearing, artic ice is not receding, and the Earth is not warming. It would be better if it were because that would be preferable to the mini-ice age we are entering.

    Oh, and green energy. It’s a failure. A scam to enrich Al Gore and other blood suckers who are enriching themselves off of tax dollars for a technology that isn’t needed and doesn’t work.

    Oh, yeah, fracking is safe and is one of the few areas that is actually creating jobs in America.

    Now, if you don’t mind I have to go shovel the fricken snow off my driveway for the sixth time this winter and I don’t even live that far North.


    Red flags for intelligent discussion:

    “Evolution is a theory!” -Doesn’t understand what a theory is.

    “Obama is a fascist!” -Means communist. Cannot adequately distinguish between Communism, Socialism, Fascism.

    “Global warming is a hoax! Look at the snow in my driveway!” -Means I have my fingers in my ears.


    Uh….. well wouldja look at his avitar!


    Actually “fascist” isn’t strictly a left wing or right wing concept. Stalin, for example, was both left wing AND a fascist.



    Sort of. The Soviet Union was founded on ‘leftist’ ideology of Marx, but it never really worked in a manner that leftists (or even socialists) would recognize as part of their ideology.


    So, a large number of people on the government payroll are told to express a certain opinion or lose their jobs.

    …and a small number of people are honest.

    What has happened to your generation that you think this is honesty?


    So, when you are given evidence of a scientific consensus among stringent, peer-reviewed papers, you take that as evidence of a government sponsored coverup. You find it more plausible that thousands of experts in this field are just getting paid to lie, after devoting their life to becoming experts. You have essentially disqualified, in your eyes, the people who are best suited to actually understand the science behind climate and weather. So who does that leave you to trust?


    The “97% consensus” is myth. Its from a survey where they polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%


    I am unaware of the study you cite.
    There are quite a number of studies I’ve read that put the percentage of consensus at about 97%…..but I’ve never seen the one you mention.

    A reference perhaps….?


    I found your study…..done in 2008.
    They surveyed a scientists from every discipline if they believed there was a man made cause behind climate change.

    Scientists who studied climate agreed with 97% consensus.
    The overall rate of scientists across all disciplines was over 80%
    Interestingly, petroleum geologists were the only group below 50%.

    Regardless, that’s an 8 year old snapshot, and there’s been a ton of science done and consensus studies since…..showing the science community’s consensus is actually rising.


    Its not my study. Its yours. Its were all the idiots get the “97% of scientists” myth. The methodology of the study was flawed (ie it would have failed peer review)

    They polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%


    Its not my study. Its yours. Its were all the idiots get the “97% of scientists” myth. The methodology of the study was flawed (ie it would have failed peer review)

    They polled 3,146 scientists and then threw out all but 79 to achieve their “97%” (77 of 79)

    The actual number is 77 of 3146 = 0.2%


    You didn’t read the study.
    They polled over 3,000 scientists and found that the consensus was over 80%.
    Then they look specifically at scientists that published papers on climate change, the consensus was 97%.

    So the vast majority of scientists agree.
    And practically all scientists where its their area of study agree.

    Nothing suspicious here.
    You’re the one who quoted the 97% and ignored the rest of the study….not me.



    …oh, and I might add that this graph could also describe the number of people in the 16th century who believed (according to “consensus”)that the sun revolved around the earth.

    …as opposed to Galileo, who preached the truth…and was persecuted for it.


    Actually, the majority of astronomers that got to see Galileo’s theory, immediately recognized it for the accurate model it was.
    The church suppressed his theory, not the science community.

    But, you’ve made some kind of point.
    So….your accurate alternative model to climate change is….?


    Or….are you suggesting that we, like that “majority” of people in the 16th century, are believing the word of a powerful, established industry that has a huge stake in our belief in that fantasy……and not believing the actual science and scientists on this one…..?

    I would say there are strong parallels to the 16th century.
    And once again the scientists are right.


    Fail. Peer review doesn’t mean its true. Peer review only means your paper was cleared for following basic scientific principles. Its common for peer reviewed papers to be debunked once someone tries to replicate the experiments.


    So where are your “debunkings” then…..?

    Remember, that”debunkings” are generally published as peer reviewed papers…..and would have been counted in this study.

    What only 24, compared to over 13,000….?



    You still don’t understand what “peer reviewed” means.

    But I don’t need to convince you. In 5 years you’ll be pretending you never believed in this bullshit.


    How many articles have you actually contributed to peer reviewed publications friend…..?



    only a total jew or negroid would believe in the climate boogie man


    The world being flat was peer reviewed. We all know how that turned out.


    The fact that the Earth is (more or less) spherical was established WELL before the scientific method saw widespread use.


    You know this blog should really stick to pictures of attractive women in costumes… if I want to study out climate change, feminism or politics I have plenty of places reddit available to farking do so.


    Evidence in support of a conpiracy theory proves that the theory is true.

    Evidence against a conspiracy theory proves that the theory is true.

    Evidence that the conspiracy theorist is insane proves that the conspiracy theorist is one of the few sane people left and fuck Obama and his liberal mind control flouride.


    A hot topic indeed. Notice “peer reviewed”. Again the numbers are skewed as described by this video, which EVERYONE should watch (and learn something), whether you believe this “theory” or not. I’ve done plenty of my own research over years, I know for a fact this is a skewed theory.

  • I need your help to support the site.

    Please consider becoming a Patreon or using your Amazon Prime to subscribe to the site’s fish tank on Twitch!  The first sub is free!

  • Here's a few awesome images!