Won't be published in a magazine that relies on peer pressure to insure the article tows the line.
ACTUAL SCIENTIST: "Climate Change is a Scam!"
- Thread starter canada-man
- Start date
Which has nothing whatsoever to do with peer review. At the good journals like Nature or Science the peer reviewers identities are not revealed to the authors entirely eliminating any possibility of peer pressure or other under influence.
But you would know that if for one moment you stopped being a troll and went and googled peer review like I told you to.
Instead here you are proving to us that you will never, ever let ignorance stop you from posting something stupid.
I see so the water level is rising, but there will be a drought.
Its a bit confusing, I always thought water didnt leave our atmosphere but rather just came back down after it evaporated.
I realize that you are a confused person. I gave you specific reasons you haven't answered so here they are again:
The areas that are farmable will change. In Canada the prairies will experience drought and while the Canadian shield will grow more trees, it isn't farmable.
My god fuji,...get some sleep,...who gives a shit who the reviewers identities are,...the magazines are the peer pressure,...follow the party line,...or don't get published,...its really not that complicated,...well for some anyway.
But you would know that if for one moment you stopped being a troll and went and googled peer pressure like I told you to.
Instead here you are proving to us that you will never, ever let ignorance stop you from posting something stupid.
Oh you mean like in the dirty 30's,...when climate change or is it global warming now,...was something the west could only dream of,....
So now the unemployables can predict with a "reasonable confidence",... love that squirm,...that the prairies will become arid,...and not possibly overly wet.
All of those stock market experts have it all wrong,...we all should be reading nature magazines,.. for what to bet on.
Notice how the more I try to piece together what you are saying the more idiotic I sound? Ok so im with you fuji, rising water levels, prarie deserts, what else? Any religious events or does that come much later?
So nothing new then,...
But keeps nature magazines in business,... though not informed enough to have heard of the dirty 30's.
Let me try to decifer your Engwish.
1st,..."Nobody knows",...can only mean that you are nobody,...and you don't know,...
WOW,...didn't know what the consequences of a drought was,...thanks for that fuji,...
But as far as the dirty 30's,...that actually highlights the incompetence of nature magazines,...and anybody who is deemed incompetent enough,...and/or willing to toe the company line,... to be allowed to publish in them.
Might as well stake your credibility versus Uniforum,...the Unifor magazine,...just another biased magazine.
Mind you,...your article would have to be "peer reviewed" first,...and there would obviously be no bias there either,...would there fuji,...
You lose.
If climate change is a scam, why is the City of Miami spending so much money on seawalls?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170403-miamis-fight-against-sea-level-rise
Climate change isn't a scam, its real always has been always will be. The scam is when people start blaming it on C02 emission.
Its like someone is having a cigarette on a bench in the summer, then a hippy comes along and places a slushy onto the bench and says the cigarette is causing the slushy to melt. Then minutes later the hippy points at the juice left behind as proof the cigarette smoker melted the slushy insisting they were correct.
italianguy74 your analogy is silly, I would as you not to do it again and move on to something decent and military.
On their own CO2 emissions shouldn't make much of a difference but there are accumulative factors. Instead of typing them out I'll post the articles.
https://polluting-plastic.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwjunJBRDzl6iCpoKS4G0SJACJAx-Viholc_ygEJSA1zG-65BRbtjatFc1Mr0ExXYak_ZYQBoCsRDw_wcB
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/orange-roughy-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%98sustainable%E2%80%99-fish-certification-too-far-20160621
On their own CO2 emissions shouldn't make much of a difference but there are accumulative factors. Instead of typing them out I'll post the articles.
https://polluting-plastic.com/?gclid=CjwKEAjwjunJBRDzl6iCpoKS4G0SJACJAx-Viholc_ygEJSA1zG-65BRbtjatFc1Mr0ExXYak_ZYQBoCsRDw_wcB
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/blog/oceans/orange-roughy-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%98sustainable%E2%80%99-fish-certification-too-far-20160621
