+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 207

Thread: Another Troubling Climate Article

  1. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Central Wisconsin
    Posts
    124

    Default

    http://notrickszone.com/2017/04/10/a....Ih4q97w4.dpbs

    A 'Little Ice Age' is coming. Here is a bunch of scientists that are using science (for you science guys and scientists).

    There's lots of 'theories' out there.
    Last edited by Wannabe; 04-23-2017 at 08:21 AM.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Howell, mi
    Posts
    820

    Default

    I’ve been following along in this thread, but given the topic I’ve been reluctant to jump in.

    A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.

    Since there is a high level of interest in this thread, the paper is relevant to the conversation, and there is likely to be little circulation elsewhere, I submit for your review:

    The paper itself:
    https://thsresearch.files.wordpress....al041717-1.pdf

    And an article to sum it up:

    http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/ex...totally-false/

    The above relates to the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding which allows the agency to regulate CO2 as a pollutant.
    42.67N 84.02W


    350 taps- 300 on vacuum, 50 buckets
    JD gator 625i Sap hauler w/65 gal tank
    Leader 2X6 drop flue

    Homemade auto draw-off
    Homemade preheater
    Homebrew RO, 2- xle-4040's
    LaPierre double vertical releaser
    Kinney KC-8 vacuum pump

    12X24 shack
    Lots of chickens and a few cats.

  3. #133
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    6,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tweegs View Post
    A peer reviewed research paper has just been published and it’s doubtful that it will receive much attention in the press.
    Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

    Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  4. #134
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Center, Underhill Ctr, VT
    Posts
    6,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wannabe View Post
    A 'Little Ice Age' is coming. Here is a bunch of scientists that are using science (for you science guys and scientists.
    Actually, Kenneth Richard (the author of those posts) is not a scientist. He is a blogger. He writes a weekly blog...which is not peer-reviewed.
    Dr. Tim Perkins
    UVM Proctor Maple Research Ctr
    http://www.uvm.edu/~pmrc
    https://mapleresearch.org
    Timothy.Perkins@uvm.edu

  5. #135
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Ugh, I had a longer response typed up but closed out the tab on my computer. This response will be shorter...

    I think you found an online document that was written by some of the (only) 3% of climate scientists who do not feel the data support the notion that we are changing our climate. Actually, two of the three lead authors are indeed either climatologists or meterologists, but both are on the books as being supported by think-tanks funded by large business, including the fossil fuel industry (Cato and Heartland Institutes). The other author appears to be an engineer, but I can't find much on him.

    This is great you found an online "peer-reviewed" document, but it is not the same as a peer-reviewed journal manuscript. Papers from peer-reviewed journals are generally peer reviewed "blindly", so you do not know who you are getting as a reviewer and they don't know you. This document seems to be written by folks that on the books for the aforementioned think-tanks, and "agreed with" (peer reviewed?) by other folks on the books by the same think-tanks. That is not peer-review. Further, this report is rather shoddily produced. Some of the things I find troublesome include the random and inconsistent capitalization of various words; figures produced without the broadly-accepted practices of labels and figure captions; poor punctuation; random and inconsistent highlighting of random statements; and a poorly performed and inconsistent attempt at citing sources.

    To be blunt, if I had an undergraduate student turn in a document that contained many of these errors, they would not be getting a good grade. I am surprised that the authors, most of whom have advanced degrees, put together a document as poorly produced as this. This document is not a true peer-reviewed document, it appears to be a politically and monetarily motivated attempt to discredit real scientific reports. It is sad to see individuals with advanced degrees have their names on such a poorly produced article. Now, if they clean this up and make a real report that is consistent with the generally accepted scientific practices INCLUDING having it actually peer-reviewed in a robust and ethical manner, I will take the findings of the report more seriously.

  6. #136
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    WNY
    Posts
    471

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DrTimPerkins View Post
    Exactly where is this paper published and who peer-reviewed it? This doesn't appear to be a main-stream science journal of any type.

    Those three authors are well known for their clever manipulation and cherry picking of data. Most scientists just ignore them completely as their methods are not reliable and are mainly geared at generating controversy in the public.
    Dr. Perkins beat me to it.

  7. #137
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Howell, mi
    Posts
    820

    Default

    Hey, don’t shoot the messenger.
    I don’t have a dog in this hunt.
    I’m merely pointing out that a paper has just been released that contradicts EPA’s findings.

    The paper was “released”, not actually published…poor choice of words on my part.
    Three different news sources reporting on the paper’s release cited it as peer reviewed, I just went with it.

    I’m not holding this paper up as evidence to support an opinion, nor am I criticizing the authors or body of work.
    It popped up on my news sites this morning, was relevant to the thread, so here you go.
    Now if you folks want to pick it apart, have at it.

    I’m really more interested in what people have to say about it.
    So far, we have the paper should be disregarded because it was sloppily written by 3 kooks, it wasn’t actually published and the peer review claim is suspect.
    Those points are duly noted and no offense taken or intended to be given.

    It does remind me of an engineer I work with though.
    80% of the time he’s wrong. It’s the 20% he’s right that irritates me to no end.
    Much as I’d like, I can never dismiss him out of hand.
    42.67N 84.02W


    350 taps- 300 on vacuum, 50 buckets
    JD gator 625i Sap hauler w/65 gal tank
    Leader 2X6 drop flue

    Homemade auto draw-off
    Homemade preheater
    Homebrew RO, 2- xle-4040's
    LaPierre double vertical releaser
    Kinney KC-8 vacuum pump

    12X24 shack
    Lots of chickens and a few cats.

  8. #138
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Hoosick Falls
    Posts
    2,000

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mudr View Post
    Breezy, this final soap box

    Wow, Somebody please explain what a joke is.

    By the way I am a successful beef farmer and feed manufacturer for livestock. And some people are fat, sorry if you took this personally, but don't think for a second that if you eat some veggies you are going to lose weight. Losing weight is a caloric balance issue.

    Floods of 100-200-500 year magnitude are happening more often but it can be directly connected to the increase of paved areas. As well as the number of humans on earth that produce those same gases that cows make...that some say are destroying the Ozone layer.

    I too am frustrated with advocacy. It has been said that farming today is responsible for more pollutants than during the 1940's. Perplexing how this is possible with more fuel efficient tractors, average corn planter is 18 rows in a single pass were in the mid '40's it was the 2 row planter and the ford 8n & 9n tractor that was used to plant about 95 million acres of corn. Then factor in that much of corn is panted no till will in the '40's the land needed to be plowed, disked, harrowed and finally planted...and don't forget at least 2 or often 5 trips thru the field to cultivate.

    There is an old saying that figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure. Seems that those that were saying by 2015 the world be a oddly different place, misinterpreted the data.

    When this happens and then the VP Gore refuses to give an interview, it becomes harder and harder for the masses to except the findings.

    Thank you for remaining "civil" I expect nothing less.
    Last edited by BreezyHill; 04-24-2017 at 01:50 PM. Reason: puncuation errror

  9. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Greenwood, Me
    Posts
    974

    Default

    aren't most fertilizers and pesticides petrochemicals? I believe that is the carbon footprint that's being discussed.

    >Floods of 100-200-500 year magnitude are happening more often but it can be directly connected to the increase of paved areas.

    cite?
    2024 - New Maine resident, 12X12 sugar shack under construction
    2019 - New 12X12 boiling pavilion
    2018 - New Mason 2X3 Hobby XL and homemade RO

  10. #140
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Birdsboro PA
    Posts
    1,326

    Default

    Eustis I'm still waiting for that answer as to what caused the "bang"
    first year 2012 50 taps late season made 2 1/2 gals.

    2013 2x6 homemade arch 180 taps. 20 Gals.

    2014 40 on 3/16 gravity 160 on buckets.

    http://omasranch.wix.com/omasmaple

+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 21 FirstFirst ... 456789101112131415161718192021 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts