TailingsPond + 874 GE March 11 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Nope, H2O is the dominant greenhouse gas and CO2 is just not enough to be a significant contributor to global warming. "From this data it is concluded that H2O is responsible for 29.4K of the 33K warming, with CO2 contributing 3.3K and CH4 and N2O combined just 0.3K. Climate sensitivity to future increases in CO2 concentration is calculated to be 0.50K, including the positive feedback effects of H2O, while climate sensitivities to CH4 and N2O are almost undetectable at 0.06K and 0.08K respectively. Using that paper again are we? Post the link, quote cherry picker, the authors actually disagree with most of what you say. It straight out says CO2 has caused 3.3K of warming, that is huge. It also comments on the positive feedback loop it causes. They also used a oversimplified, now outdated, climate model. With science you can't get one result you like and then just stop. You have to repeat, refine, get peer reviewed, publish, take criticism, and then continue to improve your work. You are quoting a paper that used a simple model running off a data set over 5 years old - get with the times old man. Edited March 11 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turbguy + 1,540 March 11 6 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Using that paper again are we? Post the link, quote cherry picker, the authors actually disagree with most of what you say. I agree, a link or reference would be helpful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Polyphia + 83 LT March 11 1 hour ago, turbguy said: I agree, a link or reference would be helpful. Since I have my doubts that he will provide a link... https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/91655013/Coe_Fabinski_Wiegleb_on_Greehouse_Gases-libre.pdf?1664340568=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Impact_of_CO2_H2O_and_Other_Greenhou.pdf&Expires=1710203949&Signature=RqohJtqN9UxZcpXMerzwLkunxBVVpcPsE8IlTKp-4XUFV7s29heQR0Mwu2pQKVyPPyBueTYjdfiBgSn-DmoY6Nuj~y9n3ps6VEmDcvFYySYmUYwQRNWWYj2TRBeYkdAish2T6wI~B0Dk4yX63CVmc3WigXquwRZmEupgsNMy0rUA3HSYc3mManwRo1t93E~PS3Hj1tXC74nchnY3~quOjQiiQ5w1M2o8McrsJUL0Kv9Ty8HSVjljWFlIqGu4HMdHPF4Tm3rLx8R2JLW5XaR8dHN0VraFtmBOCyXJZk~BI98MCvI~B~9JGUBMsq2FiNVDW5DQj9Hj-HBsB-0Eg91IYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 12 https://news.umich.edu/nearly-15-of-americans-deny-climate-change-is-real-ai-study-finds/ a new University of Michigan study reveals that nearly 15% of Americans deny that climate change is real. worth the read...........click on the link above for the full article Nearly 15% of Americans deny climate change is real, AI study finds Published On: February 14, 2024 Written By: Nayiri Mullinix, U-M School for Environment and Sustainability Public figures such as Trump play outsized role in influencing beliefs Climate change denial and belief relative to political affiliation. Image credit: Gounaridis and Newell in Scientific Reports, February 2024 Study: The social anatomy of climate change denial in the United States DOI 10.1038/s41598-023-50591-6 (available once embargo lifts) Using social media data and artificial intelligence in a comprehensive national assessment, a new University of Michigan study reveals that nearly 15% of Americans deny that climate change is real. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 (edited) 6 hours ago, turbguy said: I agree, a link or reference would be helpful. I gave you the links. No excuse, and the references on this study indicate the standard literature. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12 Here for other greenhouse gases, "[15] M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood and K. P. Shine, Radiative Forcing of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide: A Significant Revision of the Methane Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614 (2016)". "[17] K. W. Thoning, A. M. Crotwell, and J. W. Mund (2021), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2019, Version 2021-02 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USA." Edited March 12 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 (edited) 4 hours ago, Polyphia said: Since I have my doubts that he will provide a link... https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/91655013/Coe_Fabinski_Wiegleb_on_Greehouse_Gases-libre.pdf?1664340568=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+filename%3DThe_Impact_of_CO2_H2O_and_Other_Greenhou.pdf&Expires=1710203949&Signature=RqohJtqN9UxZcpXMerzwLkunxBVVpcPsE8IlTKp-4XUFV7s29heQR0Mwu2pQKVyPPyBueTYjdfiBgSn-DmoY6Nuj~y9n3ps6VEmDcvFYySYmUYwQRNWWYj2TRBeYkdAish2T6wI~B0Dk4yX63CVmc3WigXquwRZmEupgsNMy0rUA3HSYc3mManwRo1t93E~PS3Hj1tXC74nchnY3~quOjQiiQ5w1M2o8McrsJUL0Kv9Ty8HSVjljWFlIqGu4HMdHPF4Tm3rLx8R2JLW5XaR8dHN0VraFtmBOCyXJZk~BI98MCvI~B~9JGUBMsq2FiNVDW5DQj9Hj-HBsB-0Eg91IYQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLOHF5GGSLRBV4ZA This link appears to not work, can you fix it? I am attempting to stop laughing here. Edited March 12 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: I gave you the links. No excuse, and the references on this study indicate the standard literature. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12 Here for other greenhouse gases, "[15] M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood and K. P. Shine, Radiative Forcing of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide: A Significant Revision of the Methane Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614 (2016)". "[17] K. W. Thoning, A. M. Crotwell, and J. W. Mund (2021), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2019, Version 2021-02 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USA." "The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity" "extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations" You may like simple methods, but nature is a bit more complicated. Do you really want to listen to people who want a simplistic model and then extrapolate on the crap? It is an old garbage paper you like to quote. Two of the three authors are retired. I can't find any progress from their crap "research" group. Real climate scientists are way ahead of this simple model. Look up the authors - very low quality research. Edited March 12 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 12 1 hour ago, Ecocharger said: This link appears to not work, can you fix it? I am attempting to stop laughing here. Can you find a reputable paper more recent then 2021? You are a running joke. Computer technology and the climate models progress rapidly fossil human. Are you still using the same smartphone you had in 2021? If you are poor or dedicated to being a Luddite, that is fine; but if you had bought a new phone since 2021 you might notice some improvements. Now consider that same the level of improvement has happened since that garbage paper you love was published. I could post many links to real climate science but you don't want that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, TailingsPond said: "The aim of this paper is to simplify the method of achieving a figure for climate sensitivity" "extrapolating that result to calculate the expected warming due to future increases of greenhouse gas concentrations" You may like simple methods, but nature is a bit more complicated. Do you really want to listen to people who want a simplistic model and then extrapolate on the crap? It is an old garbage paper you like to quote. Two of the three authors are retired. I can't find any progress from their crap "research" group. Real climate scientists are way ahead of this simple model. Look up the authors - very low quality research. There has been no challenge to the paper, and science works by challenges. If new research stands unchallenged then it acquires increased credibility. But there is nothing controversial about this paper, it used standard calculations to measure the impact of CO2 and H20. No one has found a problem with the results. On the contrary, NASA has generally accepted the concept that H2O is the predominant greenhouse gas. Edited March 12 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 12 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: There has been no challenge to the paper, and science works by challenges. If new research stands unchallenged then it acquires increased credibility. But there is nothing controversial about this paper, it used standard calculations to measure the impact of CO2 and H20. No one has found a problem with the results. On the contrary, NASA has generally accepted the concept that H2O is the predominant greenhouse gas. Those are junk authors that nobody of credibility bothers to pay attention to, just like you; why would they reply? If anybody cared what you thought it would be publicized. Furthermore, remember 2/3rds are retired authors - are they going to rebut from the old folks home? Good papers are referenced a lot, this one is not. You found one old article, using a simple model by the own authors admission, running off an old data set. It literally says the goal of the paper is to be simple, you lack enough understanding to realize a that simple model is not the truth, especially when extrapolated. Just find some other new paper man, if you can find a valid one I will read it with an open mind. If you think that crap paper settled the science you are a lost cause. Find anything less than 2 years old using fresh data sets. Ideally less than one year old with modern measurements. You have to compare that old garbage model with actual measurements. Edited March 12 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 12 Get on my level people! Weak sauce on this forum, bunch of fools. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 EVs are still taking a beating on the markets...so what is new? https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Chinas-EV-Exports-Soar-Despite-Domestic-Sales-Slowdown.html BEV sales in China saw a lower growth rate in early 2024 compared to previous years, prompting major price reductions by leading manufacturers like BYD. Hybrids and new energy vehicles are becoming more popular due to their practicality and affordability, leading to an overall increase in EV sales despite the BEV slowdown. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 13 hours ago, TailingsPond said: Get on my level people! Weak sauce on this forum, bunch of fools. Wake up, and learn how science works. No one has challenged the new research because they can't!! Don't you think the Climate Panic scientists would debunk this work if they could? Of course they would. This paper simply does the hard work of calculating the various components of greenhouse effects. Why does the climate charade bloc refuse to do that work? Because they know that it would show up the weaknesses of what they are doing...which is pathetic. That is not science. Science means that you have to subject your work to challenges and if that work does not survive the challenge, it gets redefined or discarded. That is just how science works. There are no free lunches in science. You may borrow my handkerchief and weep some more. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 12 (edited) 17 hours ago, Ecocharger said: I gave you the links. No excuse, and the references on this study indicate the standard literature. https://www.sciencepublishinggroup.com/article/10.11648/j.ijaos.20210502.12 Here for other greenhouse gases, "[15] M. Etminan, G. Myhre, E. J. Highwood and K. P. Shine, Radiative Forcing of Carbon Dioxide, Methane and Nitrous Oxide: A Significant Revision of the Methane Radiative Forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 12614 (2016)". "[17] K. W. Thoning, A. M. Crotwell, and J. W. Mund (2021), Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Dry Air Mole Fractions from continuous measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, Barrow, Alaska, American Samoa and South Pole. 1973-2019, Version 2021-02 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Global Monitoring Laboratory (GML), Boulder, Colorado, USA." your publication ????? here is the word on the street Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, (check out the wiki link/info for the publisher below................) they are a pay to publish outfit based out of Pakistan..... No reputable Scientific Journal requires authors to pay to publish love the articles written by "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). and one of the authors of your cited paper Gerhard-Wiegleb????? the only one who is a researcher........ makes no mention of ever being an author of your paper..........You should check out to see if your papers have any credibility before posting garbage Here is a link to Gerhards real papers (Gerhard did not publish anything in 2021.....when your so called cited paper was published) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-Wiegleb enjoy the read, next time find a real article published in a reputable Journal with real authors oh the article is listed as JUNKSCIENCE junkscience.com https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/... [PDF] 10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 - JunkScience.com webSep 10, 2021 · David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb. The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures. International Journal of … File Size: 615KB Page Count: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group Science Publishing Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 'American Journal of Information Science and Technology' redirects here. Not to be confused with Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ISSN 2330-1635) published by Wiley-Blackwell. 'Bioprocess Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Bioprocess Engineering' (ISSN 0178-515X), now known as 'Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering' (ISSN 1615-7591) published by Springer. 'Humanities and Social Sciences' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia' (ISSN 1022-4483) published by the University of Latvia. 'Industrial Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Industrial Engineering' (ISSN 1866-2269) published by Marcel Dekker. 'International Journal of Data Science and Analysis' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'International Journal of Data Science and Analytics' (ISSN 2364-415X) published by Springer. 'International Journal of Science, Technology and Society' redirects here. Not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society (ISSN 0971-7218) published by SAGE Publications Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] and many of its journals are named American Journal of..., but the company is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7] SPG uses a Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by scientific experts before publication.[8] In October 2022, most to all of its journals did not have a scientific editor-in-chief. Criticism of publishing practices[edit] The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university business professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1] Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, using more than 200 pseudo-publications like American Journal of Applied Mathematics or International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology.[1][10] The publisher uses techniques related to scams like aggressive emailing (spamming campaigns) with replaced characters (α for a, for example) or invitations to publish in exchange for a payment in order to fool unsuspecting scholars.[11][12] Edited March 12 by notsonice 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Polyphia + 83 LT March 12 19 minutes ago, notsonice said: your publication ????? here is the word on the street Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, (check out the wiki link/info for the publisher below................) they are a pay to publish outfit based out of Pakistan..... No reputable Scientific Journal requires authors to pay to publish love the articles written by "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). enjoy the read, next time find a real article published in a reputable Journal with real authors oh the article is listed as JUNKSCIENCE junkscience.com https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/... [PDF] 10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 - JunkScience.com webSep 10, 2021 · David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb. The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures. International Journal of … File Size: 615KB Page Count: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group Science Publishing Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 'American Journal of Information Science and Technology' redirects here. Not to be confused with Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ISSN 2330-1635) published by Wiley-Blackwell. 'Bioprocess Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Bioprocess Engineering' (ISSN 0178-515X), now known as 'Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering' (ISSN 1615-7591) published by Springer. 'Humanities and Social Sciences' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia' (ISSN 1022-4483) published by the University of Latvia. 'Industrial Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Industrial Engineering' (ISSN 1866-2269) published by Marcel Dekker. 'International Journal of Data Science and Analysis' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'International Journal of Data Science and Analytics' (ISSN 2364-415X) published by Springer. 'International Journal of Science, Technology and Society' redirects here. Not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society (ISSN 0971-7218) published by SAGE Publications Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] and many of its journals are named American Journal of..., but the company is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7] SPG uses a Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by scientific experts before publication.[8] In October 2022, most to all of its journals did not have a scientific editor-in-chief. Criticism of publishing practices[edit] The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university business professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1] Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, using more than 200 pseudo-publications like American Journal of Applied Mathematics or International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology.[1][10] The publisher uses techniques related to scams like aggressive emailing (spamming campaigns) with replaced characters (α for a, for example) or invitations to publish in exchange for a payment in order to fool unsuspecting scholars.[11][12] Thanks for the information about the predatory publishing by the journal--I was not aware of that. For clarification, the Coe et al. article is not listed as "junk science" by junkscience.com. Rather, it is used by the site in a similar way that Ecocharger is using it--to "disprove" the mainstream climate change findings. The site is "a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a columnist for FoxNews.com. In the past Milloy was Director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group set up by Philip Morris in 1993 and run by the public relations firm APCO & Associates." The above is from the Desmog site, and there are other sites that, to put it nicely, question Milloy and his claims. Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as a "Conspiracy/Pseudoscience source" and includes the summary below. "In review, the JunkScience blog serves the purpose to deny human-caused climate change through the use of fossil fuels. The blog also focuses on denying that secondhand smoke is harmful. Mr. Milloy has also written books such as this one, which claims the EPA is simply trying to destroy jobs. The blog also serves to promote Donald Trump while denigrating Democrats. Steve Milloy has a lengthy bio on the credible pro-science Desmog blog and SourceWatch. Milloy is also praised by the right-leaning fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. In general, the website’s theme is that “Green” is simply a grand conspiracy to destroy capitalism." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 12 38 minutes ago, Polyphia said: Thanks for the information about the predatory publishing by the journal--I was not aware of that. For clarification, the Coe et al. article is not listed as "junk science" by junkscience.com. Rather, it is used by the site in a similar way that Ecocharger is using it--to "disprove" the mainstream climate change findings. The site is "a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a columnist for FoxNews.com. In the past Milloy was Director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group set up by Philip Morris in 1993 and run by the public relations firm APCO & Associates." The above is from the Desmog site, and there are other sites that, to put it nicely, question Milloy and his claims. Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as a "Conspiracy/Pseudoscience source" and includes the summary below. "In review, the JunkScience blog serves the purpose to deny human-caused climate change through the use of fossil fuels. The blog also focuses on denying that secondhand smoke is harmful. Mr. Milloy has also written books such as this one, which claims the EPA is simply trying to destroy jobs. The blog also serves to promote Donald Trump while denigrating Democrats. Steve Milloy has a lengthy bio on the credible pro-science Desmog blog and SourceWatch. Milloy is also praised by the right-leaning fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. In general, the website’s theme is that “Green” is simply a grand conspiracy to destroy capitalism." For clarification, the Coe et al. article is not listed as "junk science" by junkscience.com. Rather, it is used by the site in a similar way that Ecocharger is using it--to "disprove" the mainstream climate change findings... thanks it shows that the article itself is bouncing around the web in dark corners in an effort to give it credence Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 (edited) 1 hour ago, Polyphia said: Thanks for the information about the predatory publishing by the journal--I was not aware of that. For clarification, the Coe et al. article is not listed as "junk science" by junkscience.com. Rather, it is used by the site in a similar way that Ecocharger is using it--to "disprove" the mainstream climate change findings. The site is "a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a columnist for FoxNews.com. In the past Milloy was Director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group set up by Philip Morris in 1993 and run by the public relations firm APCO & Associates." The above is from the Desmog site, and there are other sites that, to put it nicely, question Milloy and his claims. Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as a "Conspiracy/Pseudoscience source" and includes the summary below. "In review, the JunkScience blog serves the purpose to deny human-caused climate change through the use of fossil fuels. The blog also focuses on denying that secondhand smoke is harmful. Mr. Milloy has also written books such as this one, which claims the EPA is simply trying to destroy jobs. The blog also serves to promote Donald Trump while denigrating Democrats. Steve Milloy has a lengthy bio on the credible pro-science Desmog blog and SourceWatch. Milloy is also praised by the right-leaning fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. In general, the website’s theme is that “Green” is simply a grand conspiracy to destroy capitalism." You are saying that Milloy wrote the Coe article? That sounds rather a strange claim, do you have any support for that claim? There is nothing unusual about scientists self-publishing, many of the greatest science breakthroughs came from self-published science treatises. For example, Darwin's Origin of Species was self-published, not peer-reviewed for a journal. What counts in science is not whether or not an article or treatise is accepted by a group of editors pursuing their own paradigms. The most significant research breaks the existing paradigms and opens new ground, and those are the type of articles which are often self-published. However, the Coe article is not a revolutionary article, it just applies the accepted information on greenhouse gases and builds a comprehensive measurement of the various strengths of the components. The fact that no one has attempted to challenge the results tells us everything we need to know about the science. I give the attempts to distract and obfuscate a failing grade on this showing. Article Processing Charges by scientific journals are fairly common in the science community. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge Edited March 12 by Ecocharger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 12 2 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: You are saying that Milloy wrote the Coe article? That sounds rather a strange claim, do you have any support for that claim? who knows who wrote it, one of the Authors Wiegel does not mention it anywhere where he takes credit for publications https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-Wiegleb.....please check out his articles....no mention of it at all so your publication ????? most likely faked here is the word on the street Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, (check out the wiki link/info for the publisher below................) they are a pay to publish outfit based out of Pakistan..... No reputable Scientific Journal requires authors to pay to publish love the articles written by "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). and one of the authors of your cited paper Gerhard-Wiegleb????? the only one who is a researcher........ makes no mention of ever being an author of your paper..........You should check out to see if your papers have any credibility before posting garbage Here is a link to Gerhards real papers (Gerhard did not publish anything in 2021.....when your so called cited paper was published) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-Wiegleb enjoy the read, next time find a real article published in a reputable Journal with real authors oh the article is listed as JUNKSCIENCE junkscience.com https://junkscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/... [PDF] 10.11648.j.ijaos.20210502.12 - JunkScience.com webSep 10, 2021 · David Coe, Walter Fabinski, Gerhard Wiegleb. The Impact of CO2, H2O and Other “Greenhouse Gases” on Equilibrium Earth Temperatures. International Journal of … File Size: 615KB Page Count: 12 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group Science Publishing Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 'American Journal of Information Science and Technology' redirects here. Not to be confused with Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ISSN 2330-1635) published by Wiley-Blackwell. 'Bioprocess Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Bioprocess Engineering' (ISSN 0178-515X), now known as 'Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering' (ISSN 1615-7591) published by Springer. 'Humanities and Social Sciences' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia' (ISSN 1022-4483) published by the University of Latvia. 'Industrial Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Industrial Engineering' (ISSN 1866-2269) published by Marcel Dekker. 'International Journal of Data Science and Analysis' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'International Journal of Data Science and Analytics' (ISSN 2364-415X) published by Springer. 'International Journal of Science, Technology and Society' redirects here. Not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society (ISSN 0971-7218) published by SAGE Publications Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] and many of its journals are named American Journal of..., but the company is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7] SPG uses a Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by scientific experts before publication.[8] In October 2022, most to all of its journals did not have a scientific editor-in-chief. Criticism of publishing practices[edit] The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university business professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1] Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, using more than 200 pseudo-publications like American Journal of Applied Mathematics or International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology.[1][10] The publisher uses techniques related to scams like aggressive emailing (spamming campaigns) with replaced characters (α for a, for example) or invitations to publish in exchange for a payment in order to fool unsuspecting scholars.[11][12] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 12 (edited) 2 hours ago, Polyphia said: Thanks for the information about the predatory publishing by the journal--I was not aware of that. For clarification, the Coe et al. article is not listed as "junk science" by junkscience.com. Rather, it is used by the site in a similar way that Ecocharger is using it--to "disprove" the mainstream climate change findings. The site is "a website maintained by Steven J. Milloy, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the Competitive Enterprise Institute and a columnist for FoxNews.com. In the past Milloy was Director of The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC), a front group set up by Philip Morris in 1993 and run by the public relations firm APCO & Associates." The above is from the Desmog site, and there are other sites that, to put it nicely, question Milloy and his claims. Media Bias/Fact Check rates them as a "Conspiracy/Pseudoscience source" and includes the summary below. "In review, the JunkScience blog serves the purpose to deny human-caused climate change through the use of fossil fuels. The blog also focuses on denying that secondhand smoke is harmful. Mr. Milloy has also written books such as this one, which claims the EPA is simply trying to destroy jobs. The blog also serves to promote Donald Trump while denigrating Democrats. Steve Milloy has a lengthy bio on the credible pro-science Desmog blog and SourceWatch. Milloy is also praised by the right-leaning fossil fuel-funded Heartland Institute. In general, the website’s theme is that “Green” is simply a grand conspiracy to destroy capitalism." Apparently many science journals use Article Processing Charges, so this is not the least bit unusual. It appears that the better known journals charge the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge In fact, this appears to be very common in well known journals. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read "For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read Prominent family of highly selective journals expands open-access option" "The Nature journals are jumping into open access for all authors now "because we see that's the future, that's where the scientific enterprise is naturally going to go," said James Butcher, the group's vice president of journals." "The Lancet, which has a higher journal impact factor than Nature, charges an open-access publishing fee of $5000." That is the current system. Darwin had to pay out of his own pocket to publish Origin of Species, and apparently things are similar today. Edited March 12 by Ecocharger 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 13 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ecocharger said: Wake up, and learn how science works. No one has challenged the new research because they can't!! Don't you think the Climate Panic scientists would debunk this work if they could? Of course they would. People of real talent ignore chatter from the ignorant masses. You pretend the low quality authors did any real work. By the own authors admission it was a simple model extrapolated. Try again. Edited March 13 by TailingsPond 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TailingsPond + 874 GE March 13 He seriously believes that crap paper is not being rebutted because it is too hard for leading scientists to discredit. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 13 (edited) 41 minutes ago, TailingsPond said: People of real talent ignore chatter from the ignorant masses. You pretend the low quality authors did any real work. By the own authors admission it was a simple model extrapolated. Try again. So simple that not one of the Climate Panic brigade can offer any challenge. That is how science progresses. There is a difference between being simple and being a simpleton. I guess the Climate Brigade is not in the former group. Edited March 13 by Ecocharger 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 13 As the spring approaches gasoline demand increases. https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Inventory-Draws-Across-The-Board-Jolt-Oil-Prices.html "Crude oil inventories in the United States fell this week by 5.521 million barrels for the week ending March 8, according to The American Petroleum Institute (API), largely contradicting analysts, who had predicted a 0.4 million barrel build." "Gasoline inventories also fell this week, adding to the bullish sentiment. Gasoline inventories fell 3.750 million barrels, on top of the 2.8 million barrel inventory drop in the week prior. As of last week, gasoline inventories were about 2% below the five-year average for this time of year, according to the latest EIA data. Distillate inventories also fell this week, by 1.162 million barrels, on top of last week’s 1.8 million barrel drop. Distillates were already 10% below the five-year average for the week ending March 1, the latest EIA data shows." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
notsonice + 1,255 DM March 13 28 minutes ago, Ecocharger said: So simple that not one of the Climate Panic brigade can offer any challenge. That is how science progresses. There is a difference between being simple and being a simpleton. I guess the Climate Brigade is not in the former group. and the authors??? none of them ever have written an article on climate change....... They are not active researchers in climate change Zero credibility when you post garbage and their article....................no one is citing your article anywhere as being credible Love that you put me on ignore so you do not get upset when you are called out for posting BS Climate brigade??? what do you call yourself??? The Great BSer? Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, (check out the wiki link/info for the publisher below................) they are a pay to publish outfit based out of Pakistan..... No reputable Scientific Journal requires authors to pay to publish love the articles written by "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). and one of the authors of your cited paper Gerhard-Wiegleb????? the only one who is a researcher........ makes no mention of ever being an author of your paper..........You should check out to see if your papers have any credibility before posting garbage Here is a link to Gerhards real papers (Gerhard did not publish anything in 2021.....when your so called cited paper was published) https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gerhard-Wiegleb enjoy the read, next time find a real article published in a reputable Journal with real authors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_Publishing_Group Science Publishing Group From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 'American Journal of Information Science and Technology' redirects here. Not to be confused with Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (ISSN 2330-1635) published by Wiley-Blackwell. 'Bioprocess Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Bioprocess Engineering' (ISSN 0178-515X), now known as 'Bioprocess and Biosystems Engineering' (ISSN 1615-7591) published by Springer. 'Humanities and Social Sciences' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Humanities and Social Sciences. Latvia' (ISSN 1022-4483) published by the University of Latvia. 'Industrial Engineering (journal)' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'Industrial Engineering' (ISSN 1866-2269) published by Marcel Dekker. 'International Journal of Data Science and Analysis' redirects here. Not to be confused with 'International Journal of Data Science and Analytics' (ISSN 2364-415X) published by Springer. 'International Journal of Science, Technology and Society' redirects here. Not to be confused with Science, Technology and Society (ISSN 0971-7218) published by SAGE Publications Science Publishing Group (SPG) is an open-access publisher of academic journals and books established in 2012.[1] It has an address in New York City[2] and many of its journals are named American Journal of..., but the company is actually based in Pakistan.[3] The company has been criticized for predatory publishing practices.[4][5][6] As of 2019, it publishes 430 journals in various fields.[7] SPG uses a Gold open-access model of publishing which charges the authors. The company claims that articles are peer reviewed by scientific experts before publication.[8] In October 2022, most to all of its journals did not have a scientific editor-in-chief. Criticism of publishing practices[edit] The company has been criticized for predatory open-access publishing.[4][5][6] In an experiment, university business professor Fiona McQuarrie submitted an article to International Journal of Astrophysics and Space Science from Science Publishing Group, using pseudonyms "Maggie Simpson" and "Edna Krabappel" (characters from the cartoon series The Simpsons). Although the article had been generated by the SCIgen computer program and was nonsense, it was accepted for publication.[9] Librarian Jeffrey Beall, creator of a list of predatory open-access publishers, cites a nonsensical article in American Journal of Applied Mathematics, containing an alleged proof of Buddhist karma.[1] Science Publishing Group has also been cited more directly as a predatory journal and a scam, using more than 200 pseudo-publications like American Journal of Applied Mathematics or International Journal of Transportation Engineering and Technology.[1][10] The publisher uses techniques related to scams like aggressive emailing (spamming campaigns) with replaced characters (α for a, for example) or invitations to publish in exchange for a payment in order to fool unsuspecting scholars.[11][12] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ecocharger + 1,459 DL March 13 Apparently many science journals use Article Processing Charges, so this is not the least bit unusual. It appears that the better known journals charge the most. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_processing_charge In fact, this appears to be very common in well known journals. https://www.science.org/content/article/9500-nature-journals-will-now-make-your-paper-free-read "For €9500, Nature journals will now make your paper free to read Prominent family of highly selective journals expands open-access option" "The Nature journals are jumping into open access for all authors now "because we see that's the future, that's where the scientific enterprise is naturally going to go," said James Butcher, the group's vice president of journals." "The Lancet, which has a higher journal impact factor than Nature, charges an open-access publishing fee of $5000." That is the current system. Darwin had to pay out of his own pocket to publish Origin of Species, and apparently things are similar today. 1 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Most Active Members
Recently Online
Popular Members