Russ Steele
In all the battles over anthropogenic global warming the liberal demanded that all global warming studies be peer reviewed, especially is they ran counter to their AGW arguments. But, now that they are fighting Proposition 23 they keep coming up with self serving studies to damage the reputation of Prop 23 supporters, or to support their claims that green jobs will save the California economy.
Here is an example from the Ella Baker Center, which is just another self serving non-peer reviewed study to damage the oil companies reputation. If the study had been peer reviewed do you think this inflammatory statement would have survived about the release of hydrogen sulfide (sewer gas) at an oil refinery.
The Next Ten “Many Shades of Green” is often cited to demonstrate the how California will be benefit from a green economy. it is not a peer reviewed research paper. It makes a lots of assertions using glorious graphics, but they are not backed up by sources, methodology, or references. The “Many Shades of Green” is a marketing piece, not a study that should be relied upon for serious policy deliberations according to expert reviewers.
Exit Question: If the liberal/progressives insist on peer reviewed global warming studies, how is it that they get a pass spewing out non-peer reviewed studies refuting the value of Proposition 23? They cannot have it both ways!
In all the battles over anthropogenic global warming the liberal demanded that all global warming studies be peer reviewed, especially is they ran counter to their AGW arguments. But, now that they are fighting Proposition 23 they keep coming up with self serving studies to damage the reputation of Prop 23 supporters, or to support their claims that green jobs will save the California economy.
Here is an example from the Ella Baker Center, which is just another self serving non-peer reviewed study to damage the oil companies reputation. If the study had been peer reviewed do you think this inflammatory statement would have survived about the release of hydrogen sulfide (sewer gas) at an oil refinery.
“The incident led to the release into the air of extremely deadly hydrogen sulfide gas, which was used to inflict mass casualties in World War I.”What? Hydrogen sulfide was used by the British as a chemical agent during World War I twice. It was not considered to be an ideal war gas, but, while other gases were in short supply, it was only used on two occasions in 1916. “ It did not produce “mass casualties” it was a huge failure and was abandoned.
The Next Ten “Many Shades of Green” is often cited to demonstrate the how California will be benefit from a green economy. it is not a peer reviewed research paper. It makes a lots of assertions using glorious graphics, but they are not backed up by sources, methodology, or references. The “Many Shades of Green” is a marketing piece, not a study that should be relied upon for serious policy deliberations according to expert reviewers.
Exit Question: If the liberal/progressives insist on peer reviewed global warming studies, how is it that they get a pass spewing out non-peer reviewed studies refuting the value of Proposition 23? They cannot have it both ways!
