Researchers find climate change already playing major roles

Researchers find climate change already playing major roles
While much attention is being paid to forecasts of climate change, Berkeley researchers say current alterations in climate are often as extreme as those predicted for the future. Credit: iStock photo

A new study published today in the journal Science by researchers at UC Berkeley demonstrates that while the effects of future climate change will be significant, the social and economic impacts of our current climate today are often just as severe.

Tamma Carleton, a Ph.D. student in agricultural and resource economics, and Solomon Hsiang, chancellor's associate professor of , worked together at the Global Policy Lab at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy to review more than 100 studies—leveraging what they say has been an explosion of data unleashed by advances in computing, and statistical analyses—to demonstrate that the current global already is a major force in human affairs.

"So much attention is focused on the future effects of that hardships imposed by the climate today, which are often just as large, are ignored," Hsiang said. "If we solve these problems today, we'll benefit everyone, both in this generation and the next."

The authors looked at current climate impacts on areas such as economy, agriculture, trade, energy, violence, migration and more. They calculate, for example, that high temperatures currently drive up rates of civil conflict in sub-Saharan Africa by 29 percent and slow the growth rate of the global economy by 0.25 percentage points per year.

Almost as surprising as these results is the fact that we didn't already know them, lamented Hsiang.

"People get so used to hot days, since they happen all the time, that they never stop to consider what those days are costing them," he said. "But if people use different technologies or organize their lives differently to adapt to their climate, then we might be able to do dramatically better."

Hsiang and Carleton note the importance of sorting out the causes and possible solutions to numerous climate "adaptation gaps," where populations don't make adjustments to protect themselves from the harmful impacts of climate change.

"The failure to adapt could represent intelligent decision-making, if the costs of implementing changes are very high, or they could simply indicate persistently poor judgment," explained Carleton. Figuring out which is the case is a trillion-dollar question, according to the team.


Explore further

Climate change could trigger tropical evacuations, researchers advise

More information: T. A. Carleton et al. Social and economic impacts of climate, Science (2016). DOI: 10.1126/science.aad9837
Journal information: Science

Citation: Researchers find climate change already playing major roles (2016, September 9) retrieved 15 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-09-climate-major-roles.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
121 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 09, 2016
I remember when we had a chance to prevent a global catastrophe. Now we are trying to decide if we will adapt due to cost, and who decides, and what value will they give to those who live in less developed areas of the world? When will the corporate science deniers like the Koch brothers, the oil companies, and the paid propagandists be brought to justice, if there can ever be justice for such a major crime against the people?

Sep 09, 2016
I remember when we had a chance to prevent a global catastrophe. Now we are trying to decide if we will adapt due to cost, and who decides, and what value will they give to those who live in less developed areas of the world? When will the corporate science deniers like the Koch brothers, the oil companies, and the paid propagandists be brought to justice, if there can ever be justice for such a major crime against the people?

Conspiracy!

Sep 09, 2016
+Researchers find climate change already playing major roles"
Meanwhile, readers find climate change already luring major trolls.

Sep 09, 2016
When will the corporate science deniers like the Koch brothers, the oil companies, and the paid propagandists be brought to justice, if there can ever be justice for such a major crime against the people?

Tell us when did you stop consuming food and power generated from fossil fuels?
Don't look at yourself, lest you want to see a Chicken Little retard braying like the jackass it is.
It's the likes of you who keep the Koch brothers and oil companies in business. It is the retard like you who pay them to burn fossil fuels.

Sep 10, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 10, 2016
The fuck

Sep 10, 2016
@tinitus
I also drink a cup of snake oil every day.
Against bad luck.

You mean this kind of "bad luck", right, the kind the Marxists are trying to bring down on all of Gaia with their totalitarian "solutions" to AGW?

"Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as "bad luck."

― Robert A. Heinlein


But not to worry, I'm sure the nomenklatura, who will still be fat and prosperous, will protect all their useful idiots...until last.

Sep 10, 2016
"Tamma Carleton, a Ph.D. student in agricultural and resource economics, and Solomon Hsiang, chancellor's associate professor of public policy, worked together at the Global Policy Lab at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy to review more than 100 studies....."

GIGO

A study of studies, otherwise know as a multiplication of errors.

Sep 10, 2016
"http://www.npr.or...ge-laws"

Here is the type of law that the Global Policy Lab at UC Berkeley's Goldman School of Public Policy is responsible for. I know some of you will be cheering but others see the grave danger that runaway governments represent.

Sep 10, 2016
If geokstr hates socialism so much, is he going to vote for Trump, the unwitting agent of Putin?

And I guess 166 likes his kids to breathe polluted air. We do not. And if you want to pollute, do it in your own dirty state, not ours. We have already seen the disgusting residue of runaway capitalism.

Sep 10, 2016
MR166
A study of studies, otherwise know as a multiplication of errors.
The difference that makes this report notable is that Tamma Carleton is looking for the effects of climate change on human affairs, not the for the cause of climate change.

Sep 10, 2016
A study of studies, otherwise know as a multiplication of errors.


Nope. In general, the more studies you have, the more accurate they are as an aggregate. That's why repeatibility is such an important part of science -- when more people research an issue, the quality of their findings goes *up*, not down.

Sep 10, 2016
Marxists are trying to bring down on all of Gaia with their totalitarian "solutions" to AGW?
----
1955 is asking for its rhetoric back, Mr. McCarthy. Should I have it call back?

Sep 10, 2016
Marxists are trying to bring down on all of Gaia with their totalitarian "solutions" to AGW?
----
1955 is asking for its rhetoric back, Mr. McCarthy. Should I have it call back?


Also, I literally have no idea what that statement even means. I feel like he accidentally leaned on his keyboard and activated the "random neocon word macro" or something. Dark matter, Marxist, Gaia, Hoax. All it needs is a quantum and an Agenda 21 and it could be constructed from a green ink Wordpress run by somebody called ChemtrailsKill.

Is it just me or is this site really laying on the crazies lately?

Sep 10, 2016
@leetennant
Is it just me or is this site really laying on the crazies lately?
It's just you. :-)

BTW,
Our evidence for climate change isn't gained through models. Our evidence is gained through the verifiable mechanism and the observations.
Please explain "verifiable mechanism" and how it applies to gaining evidence.

Sep 11, 2016
"Nope. In general, the more studies you have, the more accurate they are as an aggregate. That's why repeatibility is such an important part of science -- when more people research an issue, the quality of their findings goes *up*, not down.

Let's face it most so called climate studies are based on faulty computer climate models and earth temperature data that has been adjusted. Now if these inputs are incorrect the studies that use this data are also incorrect. Thus analyzing 100s of such papers still results in garbage.

Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 11, 2016
The science already learned to bypass the reproducibility criterion easily: simply by avoiding the attempts for replications. When no attempts for replications exist, then the "problem" gets "solved" by itself by sweeping it under the carpet.
That is the way the cabal on PO works too. No answers, just ridicule.

Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

RNP
Sep 11, 2016
@tinitus
The lack of peer-reviewed attempts for replications of cold fusion, .......................;
Arthur Schopenhauer: "Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants." The scientists simply cannot shift their own priorities - someone else must do it instead.


There were a number of peer reviewed papers published on cold fusion, ALL reporting no reproducible effects (Wikipedia lists a few). There are also a number of papers reporting positive effects. However, none of them could (or, more often than not, did not even try to) stand up to the peer review process. You will believe what you want to, I know. But, don't try and change history.

I am also curious..... Do you think YOU are the one that will shift the priorities of science?

Sep 11, 2016
Do you have a question on science ?
From 180 years
You should have realised that 10.000 years ago people were not mining fossil fuels,...
Then what caused the global warming if there really was any warming at all?
From 180 years
Can anyone provide a link to a similar report that covers two or more millennia?
From tug of war
Humans burn fossil fuels. We have proof.
Therefore humans are the cause of global warming.

Do you consider that as valid?
From tug of war
On the question of the hypothesis - just what is it that are we trying to accomplish?
From tug of war
Our evidence for climate change isn't gained through models. Our evidence is gained through the verifiable mechanism and the observations.
Please explain "verifiable mechanism" and how it applies to gaining evidence.
From Hawaiian birds
From the graph you are obviously wrong.
How should I read that graph? Some loose ends over the past few days in just my own postings.

Sep 11, 2016
There were a number of peer reviewed papers published on cold fusion, ALL reporting no reproducible effects (Wikipedia lists a few). There are also a number of papers reporting positive effects. However, none of them could (or, more often than not, did not even try to) stand up to the peer review process
That's a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness without valid references because you did the same thing, and because I know it's a lie.

Sep 11, 2016
Do you have a question on science ?
AGW science tells us that a small increase in CO2 will cause a large increase in temperature. This graph http://[url=http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx showing 400,000 years of CO2 and temperature appears to indicate a superficial similarity but on closer examination shows frequent diversion and incongruity.

Climate is a complex system. How do we know that CO2 is _THE_ cause of global warming?

Sep 11, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 11, 2016
Cold fusion is still just cold fussin'...

Sep 11, 2016
Upon what is the Denier ideology based?

Political prejudice?

Sep 12, 2016
Upon what is the Alarmist ideology based

Political prejudice?

Sep 12, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Sep 12, 2016
AGW science tells us that a small increase in CO2 will cause a large increase in temperature.


A doubling of CO2 will cause 2-4 C of temperature increase, yes. But a doubling is not a "small increase". If your boss said "hey, I want to double your income", would you call that a small raise?

This graph http://[url=http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx showing 400,000 years of CO2 and temperature appears to indicate a superficial similarity but on closer examination shows frequent diversion and incongruity.


I don't see it. On close examination, CO2 and temperature have a very high correlation over climatic timespans (decades to ~century).

Climate is a complex system. How do we know that CO2 is _THE_ cause of global warming?


We've looked extremely carefully at all of the major drivers of climate. The Sun, volcanoes, orbital forcings, greenhouse gases, etc. The only one that fits is CO2.

Sep 12, 2016
That's a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness without valid references because you did the same thing, and because I know it's a lie.
This is a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness because neither you nor anyone else has been able to show that the process is real or feasible.

Put up or f**k off.

Sep 12, 2016
There were a number of peer reviewed papers published on cold fusion, ALL reporting no reproducible effects (Wikipedia lists a few). There are also a number of papers reporting positive effects. However, none of them could (or, more often than not, did not even try to) stand up to the peer review process
That's a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness without valid references because you did the same thing, and because I know it's a lie.


He *did* provide references. Wikipedia has them, and you could find them after seconds of googling and glancing at wikipedia.
https://en.wikipe...apers-62

On the other hand, wikipedia does also list some journals that continued to publish cold fusion research into the '90s.

Peer review can't catch problems with experimental setups. If you've got a faulty thermometer or faulty wiring, there's no way for the reviewer to see that. That's why we have replication.

Sep 12, 2016
Let's face it most so called climate studies are based on faulty computer climate models and earth temperature data that has been adjusted. Now if these inputs are incorrect the studies that use this data are also incorrect. Thus analyzing 100s of such papers still results in garbage.


No, most climate studies are not based on computer models, faulty or otherwise.

Plenty of studies use temperature data, though, sure. And that temperature data *should* be adjusted when the adjustments improve the quality and accuracy of the data.

As a crude example, say that fifty years ago, we measured the temperature at noon. And say that we now we measure it at 4 pm. On average, it's warmer at 4pm than noon, so if you just spliced the data from fifty years ago on to the data from today, you'd get some "fake" warming which really came from a change in how you measured the data.

What you *should* do, then, is to adjust the data to account for this methodology change.


Sep 12, 2016
"Upon what is the Alarmist ideology based

Political prejudice?"
-------------------------------------

Science.

Got a thermometer?

Sep 13, 2016
Hey tuffguy
That's a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness without valid references because you did the same thing, and because I know it's a lie.

This is a lie. And I can say this in all seriousness because neither you nor anyone else has been able to show that the process is real or feasible.

Put up or f**k off
Sorry your strawdog is not about peer-reviewed papers which was what I was responding to, and which I have referenced many times in the past, and which you know full well exist.

But you just wanted to get your butch on didn't you? Curious that you are too timid to spell out 'fuck' though.

Performance issues?

Sep 13, 2016
He *did* provide references. Wikipedia has them, and you could find them after seconds of googling and glancing at wikipedia.
https://en.wikipe...apers-62
At the bottom of this page under external links is a nice synopsis by Louis Dechiaro of the naval surface warfare center of the state of LENR as of 2015.
On the other hand, wikipedia does also list some journals that continued to publish cold fusion research into the '90s
-And the Dechiaro presentation lists many since then.

Your wiki page says that US patents aren't granted for cold fusion but Rossi got one last year.

So the wiki page is missing a few things.

Sep 13, 2016
Peer review can't catch problems with experimental setups. If you've got a faulty thermometer or faulty wiring, there's no way for the reviewer to see that. That's why we have replication
-So youre saying that peer review can't confirm or deny experimental results?

If you look over the latest Rossi 3rd party peer review you see that they took great pains to address your issues.
http://ireport.cn...C-976257

-and the review was positive.

I have to say that Rossi is now involved in a lawsuit with his financial backer IH, which came at just the right time to delay production, and which smells pretty bad.

But even though guys like magnuts love jumping to premature ejaculatory conclusions, it doesn't invalidate the peer reviews nor does it mean that LENR is a farce.

Sep 13, 2016

Upon what is the Alarmist ideology based

Political prejudice?

Can't be.
Proof: Only in the US is climate change a political issue. Climate science, however is done the world over.
So unless you are saying that all the scientists in the world are working to further some US-specific agenda then such a conjecture is bunk. (And why would they? Scientists care nothing for politics. And even less so for politics of another country. Politics is anathema to everything that science stands)
And if you are actually saying that all scientists the world over are in cahoots then you are so deep in conspiracy theory territory that no amount of sanity/rationality is ever going to get you out of it.

Sep 13, 2016
The lack of peer-reviewed attempts for replications of cold fusion, room temperature superconductivity, antigravity drives, etc. is quite apparent
@ZEPH-TROLL
and this means it must be because of conspiracy obviously, right?

you do know you have the ability to "prove" all the above with evidence and get it validated, right?

all ya gotta do is skip the pseudoscience crap and actually make a verifiable experiment that can be validated by secondary sources

then you get rich
.

.

Upon what is the Alarmist ideology based
@dustybrain
1- all "ideologies" are based upon politics - https://en.wikipe...Ideology

2- climate science is NOT ideological based

science (period) is evidence based (see AA_P post above)

if you have an actual evidence based argument, post references that are equivalent to scientific studies, not beliefs or links to biased sources or religious delusional BS

IOW- provide scientific evidence that can be validated

Sep 13, 2016
So youre saying that peer review can't confirm or deny experimental results?


Seems pretty obvious when you stop and think about it, right?

If you're reviewing someone else's report of their own work and conclusions, you're just reviewing what *they* said. You can't necessarily confirm or deny that the data is sound, you can only check that the methodology makes sense, and you can check that the conclusions follow from the data they present.

Sep 13, 2016
Seems pretty obvious when you stop and think about it, right?

If you're reviewing someone else's report of their own work and conclusions, you're just reviewing what *they* said. You can't necessarily confirm or deny that the data is sound, you can only check that the methodology makes sense, and you can check that the conclusions follow from the data they present
You didnt follow the link or review the report. They conducted their own experiment using their own equipment.

There are different kinds of peer review which you arent aware of yes? Here is the forbes article
http://www.forbes...711757e4

Sep 13, 2016
And just 'cause I have a little time to waste,

"Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people of similar competence to the producers of the work (peers). It constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are employed to maintain standards of quality, improve performance, and provide credibility."

-which is not paper review. Paper review is

"In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication."

Sep 13, 2016
You didnt follow the link or review the report. They conducted their own experiment using their own equipment.

There are different kinds of peer review which you arent aware of yes?


No, that's not what we'd call "peer review". That would be independent replication or verification. Except, this isn't even independent. It's at the same facility, and on the same equipment as the original.

...Looking around, this replication hasn't managed to make it through peer review yet, either. (ArXiv is not a peer-reviewed journal).

Sep 13, 2016
Normally in science, when we're talking about "peer review", we're talking about scholarly peer review. (No surprise there). What you call "paper review".

Sep 13, 2016
And for those who scrolled up a ways and saw that otto was indeed talking about peer-reviewed papers, yeah well so? The paper produced by the third party experimenters was indeed peer-reviewed. It was also published on arxiv

"Although the arXiv is not peer reviewed, a collection of moderators for each area review the submissions"

Heres an earlier physorg thread where this was all discussed ad nauseum.
http://phys.org/n...her.html

Sep 13, 2016
Normally in science, when we're talking about "peer review", we're talking about scholarly peer review
I dont see that distinction anywhere. What sort of science are you talking about?

Another point to make - this is not science per se but engineering, the evaluation of an apparatus and its product without necessarily a scientific theory to explain it.

"Many other professional fields have some level of peer review process: accounting, law, engineering (e.g., software peer review, technical peer review), aviation, and even forest fire management."

You guys seem to insist that there needs to be a valid theory on HOW it works but thats not what rossi and the others are concerned with. They are trying to produce a dependable, validatable, and code-compliant product.

And rossi has apparently convinced the US patent office that he has this very thing, which he has described in sufficient detail.

And patent review is itself considered peer review in this respect.

Sep 13, 2016
If you're reviewing someone else's report of their own work and conclusions, you're just reviewing what *they* said. You can't necessarily confirm or deny that the data is sound, you can only check that the methodology makes sense, and you can check that the conclusions follow from the data they present.

You can only check the correctness of method, data and analysis against public knowledge.
At least that is how I see it.

Of course that's how YOU see it.
Relax you've already won the Retard of the Year award.

Sep 13, 2016
And for those who scrolled up a ways and saw that otto was indeed talking about peer-reviewed papers, yeah well so? T


In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
http://www.cato.o...r-review

Sep 13, 2016
Peer review goes like this:

As a reviewer you get a paper from a journal or conference. You check that:
- the author knows what else goes on in the field based on the state-of-the-art section
- the methodology and data gathering process are clearly explained
- references for prior work by others are given
- the work is novel
- the statistical methods used are applicable for the type of data
- the math is correct
- the drawn conclusions are warranted
- obvious shortcomings and areas where future work is needed are noted in the discussion section

Based on this you give feedback (which can be incorporated by the author into a revised article, or argued by the author that the criticisms are incorrect). This may lead to further round(s) of peer review.

What you don't have as a reviewer is access to the actual data.

Here's how peer review looks from the POV of a journal (See diagram further down the page)
https://www.elsev...r-review

Sep 13, 2016
Peer review goes like this
I think you mean

"Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book. The peer review helps the publisher (that is, the editor-in-chief or the editorial board) decide whether the work should be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions, or rejected."

-which is only a subset of 'peer review'.

Yes?

Sep 13, 2016
This whole AGW climate hoax will have very little meaning in the near future as the One World Government types plunge the West into civil war! Well I suppose that I am making a YUGE assumption here that those living in their I PHONE virtual reality world would actually give a damn enough to get off their collective ass.

Sep 13, 2016
And for those who scrolled up a ways and saw that otto was indeed talking about peer-reviewed papers, yeah well so? T


In one of the e-mails, East Anglia's Phil Jones, long a power player in the production of these reports, said this about some scientific articles he did not like: "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
http://www.cato.o...r-review


...and notably, he was unsuccessful, both in keeping it out of the IPCC report and in redefining "peer-review". ;-)

Sep 13, 2016
This whole AGW climate hoax will have very little meaning in the near future as the One World Government types plunge the West into civil war! Well I suppose that I am making a YUGE assumption here that those living in their I PHONE virtual reality world would actually give a damn enough to get off their collective ass.


Poe's Law

Sep 13, 2016
Frankly, the only people I see in a virtual reality world are baby boomer conservatives who are so deep in their own delusions they wouldn't know reality if it hit them in the face with a unicorn horn.

Sep 13, 2016
Well good for you Onions and Lee. When things don't work out you will always have Reagan, Bush and possibly Trump to blame.

Sep 13, 2016
Well good for you Onions and Lee. When things don't work out you will always have Reagan, Bush and possibly Trump to blame.


Yes, yes we will. Is this now truism day?

Sep 13, 2016
Wow a politician making promises they are unable to fulfill, that is practically unheard of. Great catch there Onions!

Sep 13, 2016
Always happy to help a stupid denier - who can throw around the term fraud - and ignore 14 straight months of breaking temperature records. Always willing to take a second to point out what an idiot and a hypocrite you are.
The consummate retard brays. Did any of this cross your feeble mind when you went on that gas guzzling 1200 mile, 2 day jaunt? You spewed more than half a ton of CO2 in 2 days, more than a tenth of the annual average. Has that fact caused you any shame? Of course not, how else could you come here and bray like the jackass you are. Of course you won't look at yourself, lest you see the consummate hypocrite and jackass.

Sep 14, 2016
I think you mean

"Scholarly peer review

...

-which is only a subset of 'peer review'.

Which is what we are talking about here. Get with the program.

Sep 14, 2016
And I'm saying that 'we' shouldn't be expecting scholarly peer reviewed papers for as yet undetermined scientific theories.

But I do believe I've found at least 1.

"a peer-reviewed paper from Widom and Larsen, and I believe that the European Physical Journal is a reputable journal. Widom, A., Larsen, L., "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)"

-which we discussed in the 2013 thread.

This tech may very well prove viable without a theory to explain it. And the sort of peer review conducted by the scientists and engineers of the Lugano report is necessary to secure funding and govt approval.
Get with the program
And I suggest 'we' the entire discussion before jumping in.

Sep 14, 2016
The consummate retard brays.


I don't care which side of the argument you're on, comments like this^^ should always be downvoted.

We're all adults here, right? We can have a mature and reasonable discussion.

Sep 14, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGO)
.. latest Rossi 3rd party peer review you see that they took great pains to address your issues.
http://ireport.cn...C-976257
Nah LOL, Beg Pardon latest ? as in 2013 ?

Paper (P1) is https://arxiv.org...3913.pdf

Article claims Cornell released it - how/when - did u check ?

Not notice your CNN link @ near top left:-
"Not verified by CNN"

ie Merely uneducated journalist claim

TGO claims
.. review was positive
Sure, for you !

For those educated, trained & experienced in reading Scientific Papers P1 has huge holes not least of which is "Observer Criteria", it also fails basic "Audit trail" re power flow analysis& many other fails beyond this forum :-(

FFS - Rossi set the Scope !

TGO states
...doesn't invalidate the peer reviews nor does it mean that LENR is a farce
Beg Pardon, how's P1 (scholarly) "peer reviewed" - at least three (3) please ?

Rossi's test/claim = Farce & worse is fraud !

Sep 14, 2016
Hey mikey nice post

You drunk or something?

Sep 17, 2016
Hey mikey nice post

You drunk or something?

No, he was just pointing out that you can goggle the information and come up with a better understanding of why cold fusion does not work than you have displayed on the subject to date.

Still haven't put up Otto. How come you're not fucking off? ( Just about cold fusion BTW. Well, and climate change. Otherwise, you are mostly not an idiot.)

Sep 17, 2016
No, he was just pointing out that you can goggle the information and come up with a better understanding of why cold fusion does not work than you have displayed on the subject to date
And I was just pointing out that his post might have been a little more coherent without a half gallon of port in his belly.

And also you can Google the 'scientific method' and find out why jumping to conclusions is not scientific. NASA doesn't think so.
Still haven't put up Otto. How come you're not fucking off? ( Just about cold fusion BTW. Well, and climate change. Otherwise, you are mostly not an idiot.)
I produced a peer-reviewed publication. Is there anything else I can do for you at the present time?

How about this?
http://brilliantl...a-video/

I'm sure you know it's fake even before you watch it.

Sep 19, 2016
TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGO) wrote disingenuously
Hey mikey nice post
Your approval not required, especially so when you proffer right to judgement giving impression you understood any Physics or even commercial logic & patterns of likely criminal behaviour re Rossi.

TGO wrote
You drunk or something?
No & nothing in my post suggesting drunkenness, if you imagine there is then state it explicitly & not snipe ?

Your jibes & conjunctive preface "nice post" is old ugly defecting tactic to cast aspersions on the poster by playing the man not the subject - since you're unable to discuss Physics at peer level Eg in respect of nucleonics & huge failures of R's experimental method.

I also pointed out to you several months to a year previously & you claim (scholar) peer review, where ?

Please get education & presence of mind to answer questions I raised instead of immature sniping tactics showing you up as a banal facile poster caught lying before Eg S.Pools ?

Sep 19, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923

ie Where please is {scholarly} peer review for
https://arxiv.org...3913.pdf

You understand what peer review is - you give impression but, do you ? or fail/lie again !

Eg Is it CNN - can't be as not confirmed & no physics ?
How about the journalist, can't be no physics ?

Have you rung Cornell & spoken to them ?

Maybe you try first & see how far you get - do you even know *how* to speak to them ?

Again TheGhostofOtto1923, you've been caught lying before Eg Swimming Pools claiming gkam wrote they're routinely used for air-conditioning when he never wrote that, only a post re heat sinking...

Also in response to my earlier post on another thread re common first year at uni's that electrical engineers learn essentials of mechanical & vice versa, they can work as contributors on projects without needing separate certification for project sections...

Each case you're caught twisting words on purpose - you still on meds ?

Sep 19, 2016
Your approval not required, especially so when you proffer right to judgement giving impression you understood any Physics or even commercial blah
Uh it was sarcasm.
No & nothing in my post suggesting drunkenness, if you imagine there is then state it explicitly & not snipe ?
Well a stroke was my second guess.
Your jibes & conjunctive preface "nice post" is old ugly defecting tactic to cast aspersions on the poster by playing the man not the subject
I think I said it was sarcasm?
you claim (scholar) peer review, where
You missed the link above where the widom larsen paper was discussed.
caught lying before Eg S.Pools ?
-More evidence of catastrophic mental disarray. Is your face drooping by chance?
claiming gkam wrote they're routinely used for air-conditioning when he never wrote that
And you missed where I repeated that very claim and george kamburoff said he would do it again. Cretins defending cretins.

Sep 19, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGO)
You've shown nil skill to engage in scientific discourse, what is your problem, why are you here wasting so much time - you only have idle unsupportable claims - need meds TGO ?

TGO claims
You missed the link above where the widom larsen (W/L) paper was discussed
Wrong or articulate:-

Q1 Please intelligently explain clear logic why you imagine W/L is peer review ?

TGO claims
And you missed where I repeated that very claim and george kamburoff said he would do it again
Wrong. I caught & challenged you for twisting words - you plainly lied, gkam (George) was not involved then re my challenge to you, proving you are false yet again !

Obvious you've negligible psychological/intellectual equipment to engage in scientific discourse whatsoever involving straightforward Physics or articulating any position

TGO writes
Cretins defending cretins
15yrs old again ? proof you've no skill in science at all or Eg Answer my Q1above ?

Sep 19, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGO)
You've shown nil skill to engage in scientific discourse, what is your problem, why are you here wasting so much time - you only have idle unsupportable claims - need meds TGO ?
Mikey you can save a little effort and call me otto yes? No?
Q1 Please intelligently explain clear logic why you imagine W/L is peer review ?
The source said it was. Why don't you argue with them?
Wrong. I caught & challenged you for twisting words - you plainly lied, gkam (George) was not involved then re my challenge to you, proving you are false yet again !
So if I was lying then so was george kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath. Why don't you try arguing with him and see how far you get?
Obvious you've negligible psychological/intellectual equipment to engage in scientific discourse whatsoever involving straightforward Physics or articulating any position
Prove it.
skill in science at all or Eg Answer my Q1above ?
Egg is spelled with 2 g's.

Sep 19, 2016
@TheGhostofOtto1923 (TGO) claims
The source said it was
Where ?

Pt 1 - Please check when the "peer review" written - can you do that simple exercise ?

TGO wrote
Why don't you argue with them?
Useless for obvious reasons, simple logic not your strong point is it, see Pt 1.

TGO lost it
So if I was lying then so was george kamburoff the lying cheating psychopath
Insulting again, you still 15 ?

You Failed again to address any point & messed up trying to cover your backside, ie not Science, not dialectic, not even high school debating, why can't you address simple sequence of events, why can't you address any basic Physics ?

TGO challenged
Prove it
Easy, you haven't answered my simple questions re the Science, the Physics, the logic - why can't you see that - its so very simple ?

Tell us TGO how you imagine "peer review" of a paper written in 2013 is reviewed years before it was written ?

What meds u on, time travel psychotropics ?

Sep 20, 2016
mikey says - blah x 100

otto says - gettin anywhere with that?

Sep 20, 2016
[And I was just pointing out that his post might have been a little more coherent without a half gallon of port in his belly.
I doubt it. Maybe if he stopped to breath between sentences or something.
And also you can Google the 'scientific method' and find out why jumping to conclusions is not scientific. NASA doesn't think so.
True that. Which is why they say there is no evidence to support LENR. They also suggest further study.
I produced a peer-reviewed publication. Is there anything else I can do for you at the present time?
You did? I missed it in this thread - did you post under a sock? I checked your posting history - you post alot. Maybe you can post it again?
How about this?
http://brilliantl...ideo/I'm sure you know it's fake even before you watch it.
Pretty! Was there one in particular you were alluding to? DId you have a point? Or just a general "hey watch these pretty videos"?

Sep 20, 2016
Scroll up 15 posts and you will find this:

"a peer-reviewed paper from Widom and Larsen... the European Physical Journal... Widom, A., Larsen, L., "Ultra Low Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Nuclear Reactions on Metallic Hydride Surfaces," Eur. Phys. J. C (2006)"

-and by searching you will find this:

"The European Physical Journal (EPJ) is a series of peer-reviewed journals covering the whole spectrum of physics and related interdisciplinary subjects. EPJ is committed to high scientific quality in publishing and is indexed in all main citation databases."

-and by searching a little further you will find this:

"The European Physical Journal C (EPJ C) is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal covering theoretical and experimental physics. It is part of the SCOAP3 initiative."

-and if you go just a teensy bit further you will find this:

"The Widom-Larsen Ultra-Low-Momentum Neutron Catalyzed Theory of Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs)"

Sep 20, 2016
And so to summarize

Widom larsen, LENR theory, published in a peer reviewed journal, in contrast to
none of them could (or, more often than not, did not even try to) stand up to the peer review process
-which as I said, was a lie.

Now as to experimental peer review, which is distinct from academic paper peer review, rossis lugano report was indeed a peer-reviewed paper of tests of his apparatus performed and documented by 3rd party experts.
Where ?
Where what??

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more