"Green" policies are destroying this country

Exactly, peer review just means they have followed the rules, made no obvious mistakes in the calculations they presented in the paper. Peer review does not mean the topic is factually correct or authoritative truth, the paper is just put out there for discussion. Both of us have already covered on this thread how peer review is abused for political considerations especially when it comes to "climate science", and the problems with abuse of peer review extend to other academic disciplines as well. The most recent example of that was provided where a person shaped his paper to line up with expectation to get published, demonstrating the point you just made.

Really.

Yes, really.

Peer review ensures a level of accuracy and credibility before the paper is released. Very few papers are ever withdrawn for inaccuracy or lying or manipulation because of this.

Then a paper is subject to review by the whole academic field so any paper which slips through the initial process is quickly corrected by the greater body of experts.

Academic papers stand or fall on the credibility of their methodology and the repeatability of their results. Only papers which stand up to these tests are accepted as part of academic cannon.

https://www.science.org/content/article/what-massive-database-retracted-papers-reveals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty

I will take this over the personal opinion of a few right wing cranks any day of the week. Really this is only raised by people whos world view diverges from the evidence.

Oooo kay. You're one of them....

Try to stay away from sharp objects

That last bit. Are you referring to the scam some years back in which a person did some word salady stuff in a diversity paper which was obviously rubbish but got through?

Peer review USED to mean something but was usually carried out by under graduates to spot obvious inaccuracies in a paper to bring back to the writer for a rewrite/ edit. That didnt mean the paper's study was accurate as the 'peers' usually didnt go too deep into the subject. And of course, the 'peers' themselves might be highly biased and a kind of group think makes it possible for papers to get through. For me, the more political a subject the less you can trust the peer review. I would usually trust a paper on astro physics or general physics as long as it has nothing to do with the climate or green tech.

The best thing you can do is to look at where the paper comes from. If it has 'climate' in the title that is a red flag. If a 'study' is put forward by a biased 'journalist' who's job it is to push climate alarm like George Lee that is a double nono. Unfortunately once trusted magazines like Nature and Science have been heavily politicised that even their quality of care has been lowered greatly. This has been documented and have lead to the general distrust of science (even by scientists themselves) and institutions with Covid as a prime example. With overreaching institutions like the UN/WHO seeking ever greater powers with less and less players you can clearly see the threat to democracy..

aine lawlor just now on morning Ireland demanding that farmers sell up to halt climate change due to a wet October.typical rte lectures to the unwashed

Don't forget to acknowledge the people who bring you the hydrocarbons that make all this possible. Roads in Ireland started off as paths worn by the movement of cattle (Bóthar), what is bitumen and why is it used on our roads? How would the materials used to make the road signage and barriers be extracted if it was not for energy from hydrocarbons? How is it I can travel from Dublin to anywhere in the country within hours at anytime of day on private transport? The green solution, take your time and walk at the speed your ancestors did when following the cows, i.e. "active transport"

Clean energy (is there such a thing?) simply means the pollution is produced remotely. If an EV drives in a city and the smug Green can't see the exhaust pipe, does it really pollute the atmosphere?

The water we drink is generally cleaner today than when our ancestors drew it from the well, tell me again how typhoid and other water borne diseases were spread in 19th century Ireland, before they had water treatment and sewage disposal. Powering water treatment plants depends on the availability of reliable electricity and reliable electricity generation is only possible in Ireland with the use of hydrocarbons.

There is more biodiversity in Ireland today that there has been in the last 12,000 years. When the ice that shaped the topology we see today covered the country, the place was a wasteland, and it was not so great either when the tundra dominated, when our ancestors arrived circa 8,000 years ago then place was dominated by a few species trees and few animal species, the giant elk had already gone extinct due to climate change. The place was generally impassible and wet, even malaria was an problem (mosquito habitat), this is why most early settlements are found along rivers, it is easier to move along rivers. All the animals we eat were introduced by humans, dogs, cats and rabbits were introduced by humans, chickens and turkey are non-native species. We eradicated wolves and boars and make the country safe for human habitation. All the vegetables we grow and eat are non native species, even better they are selectively bred, the original species of these plants are not very productive and often very toxic to humans. There was a time when being a vegetarian meant starving in Winter, today we import vegetables and fruit out of season that is transported over great distances (why the food miles campaign got dropped) and it's fresh too. How is this possible: hydrocarbon energy.

The horror is Greens want to remove our ability to use hydrocarbons, but not theirs.

Sell up to who exactly? Crazy ideas. Does she know how many billions it would cost to buy all that land?

Isn't coastal erosion along the SE coast due to the soil type where it is primarily sand with little rock?

Spot on.

But the greens think they can cherry pick the good bits without the downside.

Oh boy, I don't disagree with the peer review process. It doesn't do what a lot of people think it does though and in many disciplines it is completely broken. Peer review does nothing to verify the veracity of any claims within a paper. And again, you know nothing of my political beliefs so can I put you down as a mind reader?

I posted a study, was told to ignore it because it was pre print, then when I confirmed that it has been accepted for publication, I was told peer review is meaningless....

I notice you never ever say anything critical of the YouTube and blog content posted by the likes of Pa ElGrande.

Peer review has its flaws, but it's the best tool we have for filtering out the real science from the gallons of toxic sludge that flows freely through the climate change denial blogsphere.

Unfortunately not as close as we could be because of generations of corrupt politicians in the pockets of the Coal, Oil and Gas lobby have been doing everything they can to block any attempt to transition away from fossil fuels. We're decades behind where we should be by now, and the consequences of that are manifesting themselves though the extremes in weather and flooding and crop failures that we're already seeing