Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 02:49:36 UTC No. 16418529

if only we had abolished private property and bowed to our feudal masters when greta told us to! why didn't we listen???

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 02:54:36 UTC No. 16418538

>>16418461
What do you think peer review actually is? All they do is email a PDF to a handful of people and they respond back "LGTM"
>looks good to me
If you're LUCKY they actually opened the PDF to look at the pictures.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 09:25:39 UTC No. 16418903

>>16418538
They do it for free

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:10:05 UTC No. 16418945

>>16418538
Peer review is only really necessary for truly original research. It looks like this was pretty much a fairly standard analysis that's been done before, like the one they did on hurricane ian. So yes, in that case it almost quite literally consists of LGTM

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 10:49:10 UTC No. 16418982

>>16418945
>Peer review is only really necessary for truly original research.
>durr when a researcher has no peers is when peer review is most useful

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:04:05 UTC No. 16418993

>>16418945
Peer review is usually the most bullshit and done by scientists who feel like being jannies, done for free. Usually its a very basic sensibility filter, and most of the time its peer reviewer failing to understand thebpapaer and wanting some bullshit changes.

When actually new groundbreaking stuff happens peer review is useless and to validate the findings you meed to fund replication studies

And most importantly all your hard work writing, all the work put on by peer reviewers for free is then taken by a journal which doesn't compensate neither authours or reviewers to be sold 50 bucks an article, or oven worse, charge exorbant "open access" fees.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:30:14 UTC No. 16419014

>>16418461
if you're trying to imply that they "faked" the research, let me remind you just how more infinitely plausible it is that they destroyed Tennessee months/years ago, and they were just waiting for the right time to finally release the news.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 11:36:15 UTC No. 16419018

>>16419014
1. Menacing isn't a scientific term outside of perhaps psychology. It has no place in climate science.
2. The findings are pretty much tautological in that they boil down to "if the storm had less energy, it would have had less energy".
3. Global Warming is a dog whistle for "this is the fault of anyone who won't obey our 'Green' dictates".
The analysis has zero value outside of the realm of political and ideological persuasion. It's an attempt to twist a simple "water is wet" type analysis into a call for action to conforms to a political cause.

Anonymous at Thu, 10 Oct 2024 17:04:24 UTC No. 16419428

>>16419018
>Posts a news article
>Complains about diction