Nature retracts study predicting catastrophic climate change costs.

Whether it is considered acceptable for scientists to comment outside their discipline is a nuanced issue in the scientific community, balancing the need for specialized expertise with the value of interdisciplinary, critical thinking.

While peer review generally requires that scientists only comment on areas where they have expertise, in broader public or academic discourse, it is often viewed as acceptable—and sometimes encouraged—provided the scientist acknowledges the limits of their knowledge and does not pose as an expert in that new field.

When It Is Generally Unacceptable or Risky
  • Peer Reviewing Outside Expertise: Reviewers should generally decline to review papers outside their area of expertise, as they may lack the necessary context to provide a valid review.
  • Dismissing Expert Consensus: It is rarely considered wise or acceptable for a scientist to challenge the expert consensus of another field, as they often lack the deep knowledge required to do so properly.
  • Asserting Authority: When experts step outside their field, they are, in effect, laypeople. If they present their opinions with the same authority as their own specialized research, it can lead to misinformation or damage their credibility.
- Gemini
 
Bartelby said:
Peer reviewed, then corrected and republished.

As a doctor, you get to bury your mistakes!
Click to expand...

Does the CCP need to reach peak emissions by 2030? And likewise the Western nations?
Are there dire consequences if that milestone is not reached?
We need to have closure instead of endless fear-mongering and hysteria.
What are your latest Climate Doomsday Dates my dearest? Or will you keep pushing those doomsday dates out?
:rolleyes:



www.livescience.com

China's emissions are flatlining — and may be falling — in critical turning point for biggest emitter, report says

The carbon emissions of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter have plateaued for nearly two years.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
Whether it is considered acceptable for scientists to comment outside their discipline is a nuanced issue in the scientific community, balancing the need for specialized expertise with the value of interdisciplinary, critical thinking.

While peer review generally requires that scientists only comment on areas where they have expertise, in broader public or academic discourse, it is often viewed as acceptable—and sometimes encouraged—provided the scientist acknowledges the limits of their knowledge and does not pose as an expert in that new field.

When It Is Generally Unacceptable or Risky
  • Peer Reviewing Outside Expertise: Reviewers should generally decline to review papers outside their area of expertise, as they may lack the necessary context to provide a valid review.
  • Dismissing Expert Consensus: It is rarely considered wise or acceptable for a scientist to challenge the expert consensus of another field, as they often lack the deep knowledge required to do so properly.
  • Asserting Authority: When experts step outside their field, they are, in effect, laypeople. If they present their opinions with the same authority as their own specialized research, it can lead to misinformation or damage their credibility.
- Gemini
Click to expand...
Peer review is not always the way that science works, as there are many areas of overlap among the sciences. Mathematics and statistics is common to all sciences, and someone who has a specialty in those areas can comment with some expertise on them.

However, if you have no science education, then you have no basis to evaluate the developments within them.

Peer review usually applies to science journals, whereas many key scientific developments are not published in journals and do not get peer reviewed.
New science may be under private ownership or national security and therefore do not get published, just used to advise companies or governments.

The current Princeton/MIT climate models used to advise the current federal government in Washington are not published in journals but are key tools to advise the government.

 
Last edited:
Mathematics and sciences may be common to all sciences, but this doesn't give you any right to ride roughshod over specialists in the field.

In any event, you have outed yourself as a Trump-supporter so your choices are political.

Dan Lobb said:
Peer review is not always the way that science works, as there are many areas of overlap among the sciences. Mathematics and statistics is common to all sciences, and someone who has a specialty in those areas can comment with some expertise on them.

However, if you have no science education, then you have no basis to evaluate the developments within them.

Peer review usually applies to science journals, whereas many key scientific developments are not published in journals and do not get peer reviewed.
New science may be under private ownership or national security and therefore do not get published, just used to advise companies or governments.

The current Princeton/MIT climate models used to advise the current federal government in Washington aare not published in journals but are key tools to advise the government.
Click to expand...
 
America could do far worse than following China on emissions and its two targets.

I see more fear-mongering and hysteria in the USG, but it concerns Iran and not the climate.

Nuclear doomsday may come as Trump's next war, petal, so belt yourself in for a rocky night!

Better_Call_Raul said:
Does the CCP need to reach peak emissions by 2030? And likewise the Western nations?
Are there dire consequences if that milestone is not reached?
We need to have closure instead of endless fear-mongering and hysteria.
What are your latest Climate Doomsday Dates my dearest? Or will you keep pushing those doomsday dates out?
:rolleyes:



www.livescience.com

China's emissions are flatlining — and may be falling — in critical turning point for biggest emitter, report says

The carbon emissions of the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter have plateaued for nearly two years.
www.livescience.com www.livescience.com
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
America could do far worse than following China on emissions and its two targets.
Click to expand...
Kindly open your eyes and look at the graph.
Tell us what you see my dearest.
:rolleyes:





American emissions (which accounts for only 11% of world emissions) are clearly on a downward trend.
And even if America misses Bart's targets, it is a relatively small emitter on the world stage.
The focus should be whether the world's biggest emitter reaches Bart's 2030 Climate Doomsday Date target.

Our apologies if the data makes our favourite Bart uncomfortable.
:(

 
Last edited:
I see American deindustrialisation, which is now irreversible. But:

1. United States (The Largest Historical Emitter)
  • Contribution: The US is responsible for the largest share of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850, accounting for approximately 20% to 25% of all historical CO2.
  • Total Emissions: By 2021, the US had emitted over 509 GtCO2 (gigatonnes of carbon dioxide) since 1850, more than double that of China.
  • Key Drivers: The US contribution began in earnest during the 20th century with widespread use of coal, followed by the rapid growth of the automotive industry and high per-capita energy consumption.
  • Current Status: While overtaken annually by China in 2005, the US remains the top cumulative emitter, and its per-capita emissions are still roughly double those of China.

Better_Call_Raul said:
Kindly open your eyes and look at the graph.
Tell us what you see my dearest.
:rolleyes:





American emissions (which accounts for only 11% of world emissions) are clearly on a downward trend.
And even if America misses Bart's targets, it is a relatively small emitter on the world stage.
The focus should be whether the world's biggest emitter reaches Bart's 2030 Climate Doomsday Date goal.

Our apologies if the data makes our favourite Bart uncomfortable.
:(

Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
Mathematics and sciences may be common to all sciences, but this doesn't give you any right to ride roughshod over specialists in the field.

In any event, you have outed yourself as a Trump-supporter so your choices are political.
Click to expand...
You are the one who ignores the specialists. I merely present them to you.

Climate scientists are reliant on advice from those who specialize in mathematics and statistics, so there is no actual boundary between them. Any scientist will agree with that.
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Kindly open your eyes and look at the graph.
Tell us what you see my dearest.
:rolleyes:





American emissions (which accounts for only 11% of world emissions) are clearly on a downward trend.
And even if America misses Bart's targets, it is a relatively small emitter on the world stage.
The focus should be whether the world's biggest emitter reaches Bart's 2030 Climate Doomsday Date target.

Our apologies if the data makes our favourite Bart uncomfortable.
:(

Click to expand...
Careful, you are confusing Bart with the facts.
 
Bartelby said:
I see American deindustrialisation, which is now irreversible. But:

1. United States (The Largest Historical Emitter)
  • Contribution: The US is responsible for the largest share of cumulative CO2 emissions since 1850, accounting for approximately 20% to 25% of all historical CO2.
  • Total Emissions: By 2021, the US had emitted over 509 GtCO2 (gigatonnes of carbon dioxide) since 1850, more than double that of China.
  • Key Drivers: The US contribution began in earnest during the 20th century with widespread use of coal, followed by the rapid growth of the automotive industry and high per-capita energy consumption.
  • Current Status: While overtaken annually by China in 2005, the US remains the top cumulative emitter, and its per-capita emissions are still roughly double those of China.
Click to expand...
None of which is of any significance.

"The corresponding temperature changes, as absorptivity varies with CO2 concentration, are as shown in the following Table 2 and Figure 14. Increasing CO2 concentrations from the current 400 ppm to 1600 ppm will increase global temperatures from 288K to 289K, an increase of just 1 Kelvin."

"It is of some interest to calculate the increase in temperature that has occurred due to the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels from the 280 ppm prior at the start of the industrial revolution to the current 420 ppm registered at the Mona Loa Observatory. (K. W. Thoning et. al. 2019). The HITRAN calculations show that atmospheric absorptivity has increased from 0.727 to 0.730 due to the increase of 140 ppm CO2, resulting in a temperature increase of 0.24 Kelvin. This is, therefore, the full extent of anthropogenic global warming to date."

file:///C:/Users/grace/Downloads/ijaos.20210502.12.pdf

Further work supporting this view,


"The carbon cycle is of great importance to understand the influence of anthropogenic emissions on the atmospheric CO2 concentration, and thus, to classify the impact of these emissions on global warming. Different models have been developed, which under simplified assumptions can well reproduce the observed CO2 concentration over recent years, but they also lead to quite contradictory interpretations of the human impact. In this contribution we consider, how far such suppositions are realistic or must be made responsible for significant misinterpretations. We present our own calculations based on the Conservation Law, which reproduce all details of the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration over the Mauna Loa Era. From these calculations we derive an anthropogenic contribution to the observed increase of CO2 over the Industrial Era of only 15%. The importance of only one unitary time scale for the removal of anthropogenic and natural CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, characterized by an effective absorption time, is discussed."
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
I see American deindustrialisation, which is now irreversible. But:

1. United States (The Largest Historical Emitter)
Click to expand...

Our favourite Bart constantly fear-mongers with near-term do-or-die climate doomsday deadlines. Must peak emissions by 2030.
But now our Bart is pivoting to historical emissions.

Imagine we're on a sinking lifeboat rated for just 600 pounds total—with three passengers weighing 150, 150, and 300 pounds respectively.
Obviously, to stay survive right now, we must prioritize constraining the 300-pounder (the big emitter).

But Captain Bart would continue feeding the 300-pounder ice cream while whining about historical calorie consumption.
:(

 
What the world produces, the world presumably mostly needs.

If China produces more goods currently than the US, then this is excellent ...

as China is reducing carbon emissions whereas America does not follow the science.

Better_Call_Raul said:
Our favourite Bart constantly fear-mongers with near-term do-or-die climate doomsday deadlines. Must peak emissions by 2030.
But now our Bart is pivoting to historical emissions.

Imagine we're on a sinking lifeboat rated for just 600 pounds total—with three passengers weighing 150, 150, and 300 pounds respectively.
Obviously, to stay survive right now, we must prioritize constraining the 300-pounder (the big emitter).

But Captain Bart would continue feeding the 300-pounder ice cream while whining about historical calorie consumption.
:(

Click to expand...
 
Today is Andrew's birthday.
Is someone trying to send a message?
:unsure:
Andrew-Mountbatten-Windsor-640x479.jpg
 
Bartelby said:
They are still not investigating his sex crimes.
Click to expand...
While Charles is publicly calling for the ending of fossil fuel subsidies, his brother is profiting off of fossil fuel exploration.
These elites have inside info on financial markets.
:unsure:

According to emails released in February 2026 by the US Department of Justice, the shared information included:
  • Confidential Investment Briefings: A specific "confidential brief" detailing high-value investment opportunities in the
    Helmand Province of Afghanistan
    . This briefing, prepared by UK government officials, highlighted mineral deposits such as gold, uranium, and lithium, as well as oil and gas potential.
  • Official Trade Visit Reports: Summaries and "visit reports" from Andrew's official government trips to
    Vietnam, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Shenzhen, China
    .
  • Market-Changing Data: Documents described as potentially "market-changing" that were sent to Epstein just minutes after Andrew received them from his special adviser.
 
Bartelby said:
You staked your reputation on only making scientific arguments against climate science, but Trump's state disavowal of the same has revealed your true colours.
Click to expand...
I don't care which politician dismantles the climate scam, so long as it gets dismantled. That is a good move for the American people.
 
You have a national treasure in Mark Carney and you can't see it. He's not even a greenie, unlike Trudeau, but he does "Follow the science!"

Dan Lobb said:
I don't care which politician dismantles the climate scam, so long as it gets dismantled. That is a good move for the American people.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Bartelby said:
You have a national treasure in Mark Carney and you can't see it. He's not even a greenie, unlike Trudeau, but he does "Follow the science!"
Click to expand...
He is still learning the science. But he is moving in the right direction. He is fortunate in having an American partner to guide him.
 
According to my thorough research and studies, if no climate catastrophe occurs before year’s end, we should be in good shape, unless Earth is struck by a meteorite larger than 25 km in diameter, depending on the impact location.
 
What about a nuclear war this week or next? Where does that catastrophe fit into your calculations. According to my research, this is the immediate danger.

Sudacafan said:
According to my thorough research and studies, if no climate catastrophe occurs before year’s end, we should be in good shape, unless Earth is struck by a meteorite larger than 25 km in diameter, depending on the impact location.
Click to expand...
 
Let's kindly pray that advanced alien civilizations come down and talk sense into these climate catastrophists.
:unsure:

'Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War to begin the process of identifying and releasing
Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)'

We will also aim to release 'any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.'
 
Last edited:
Why not get the Department of Justice to follow the law as well as getting the Department of War to try peace for a change?

Better_Call_Raul said:
Let's kindly pray that advanced alien civilizations come down and talk sense into these climate catastrophists.
:unsure:

'Based on the tremendous interest shown, I will be directing the Secretary of War to begin the process of identifying and releasing
Government files related to alien and extraterrestrial life, unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP), and unidentified flying objects (UFOs)'

We will also aim to release 'any and all other information connected to these highly complex, but extremely interesting and important, matters.'
Click to expand...
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Let's kindly pray that advanced alien civilizations come down and talk sense into these climate catastrophists.
:unsure:…
Click to expand...

A thousand pardons but I can’t sift through the mountain of verbal diarrhea that you’ve let loose on this thread. Kindly clarify whether an alien invasion will be a benign force or something for Gentle Readers to fear.
 
Bartelby said:
What about a nuclear war this week or next? Where does that catastrophe fit into your calculations. According to my research, this is the immediate danger.
Click to expand...
Your "research" is contradicted by every intelligence analyst in the world who state that the mullahs do not currently possess nuclear weapons.
And given that America has neither the need nor the intent to use them, the chance of nuclear war this week is zero.
Stop frightening Gentle Readers with your baseless fear-mongering.
:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Better_Call_Raul said:
Your "research" is contradicted by every intelligence analyst in the world who state that the mullahs do not currently possess nuclear weapons.
And given that America has neither the need nor the intent to use them, the chance of nuclear war this week is zero.
Stop frightening Gentle Readers with your baseless fear-mongering.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

IMG
 
Of course Iran has not got nuclear weapons, but your dearly beloved thinks that they have.

If Iran causes havoc with its hypersonic missiles, America can't be trusted not to escalate.

And Israel is also a nuclear weapons power with little sense of responsibility.

Russia and China are arming Iran so this is a nuclear-powers stand-off.

Better_Call_Raul said:
Your "research" is contradicted by every intelligence analyst in the world who state that the mullahs do not currently possess nuclear weapons.
And given that America has neither the need nor the intent to use them, the chance of nuclear war this week is zero.
Stop frightening Gentle Readers with your baseless fear-mongering.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
www.bbc.co.uk

China is becoming a green superpower as Trump retreats from climate goals - BBC News

How the world's biggest carbon emitter is now at the helm of a renewables revolution.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

As Trump retreats from climate goals, China is becoming a green superpower
Click to expand...

This kind of dishonest headline is why no one trusts the media and people hate the left wing hacks that are employed there.

It isn't until later on in the article that one comes across this kernel of truth in a pile of manure:

Oversupply has also become a domestic challenge.
Solar manufacturers have been cutting prices to stay competitive, while investing to keep up with the latest tech and rising raw material costs. The result: the country's top solar panel makers predicted they would lose up to 38.4 billion yuan ($5.5bn; £4bn) for 2025, Nikkei reported last month. Six provinces reportedly cancelled 143 wind and solar projects with a combined capacity of 10.67 GW in the second half of last year.
Click to expand...
What they leave out is that China has more coal powered plants than the rest of the world combined. China also is the country that imports the most oil. It imports more oil than the #2 and #3 countries(US and India) combined.
 
This vast majority will take time to erode, but America has made this inevitable.

Dan Lobb said:
The vast majority of Canadian trade has always been and still is with the U.S., and that will not change now. Do not be fooled by the atmospherics and bargaining postures.
Click to expand...
 
Complaining about the media for publishing a balanced account is a sign of intellectual weakness.

Bhagi Katbamna said:
www.bbc.co.uk

China is becoming a green superpower as Trump retreats from climate goals - BBC News

How the world's biggest carbon emitter is now at the helm of a renewables revolution.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk



This kind of dishonest headline is why no one trusts the media and people hate the left wing hacks that are employed there.

It isn't until later on in the article that one comes across this kernel of truth in a pile of manure:


What they leave out is that China has more coal powered plants than the rest of the world combined. China also is the country that imports the most oil. It imports more oil than the #2 and #3 countries(US and India) combined.
Click to expand...
 
Better_Call_Raul said:
Constitutional Checks And Balances.
Tariff refunds on the way.
:)

Click to expand...
The ones the USSC rejected on the basis of certain sections of the IEEPA will be reimposed on the basis of national security.(And Trump already has done it)

Also the court did not address if the money needed to be refunded. That will keep the case going.
 
The new tariff is only 10% for a time limited 150 days so if you think that is a victory then I have a bridge in San Francisco to sell you.

If the tariff was illegal then refunds follow. The markets are up on the basis of this return to sanity.

Bhagi Katbamna said:
The ones the USSC rejected on the basis of certain sections of the IEEPA will be reimposed on the basis of national security.(And Trump already has done it)

Also the court did not address if the money needed to be refunded. That will keep the case going.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top