How about the words "Mike's nature trick"?
Do you have a doctorate in Climate Science? Ok then. Look for the words PEER REVIEWED. PEER REVIEWED.
Do you even know what real peer review IS?? No you don’t
It is a full study REPEATING the the experiments used in the first Article, and then publishing the results.
Forgive me for being a complete bitch here, but I am in a lot of pain and I don’t feel like mincing my words.
So, have YOU attended a Lecture by Linus Pauling? No? I HAVE when he PEER REVIED the scientists work during the Cold Fusion Brouhaha. He tore it to shreds. I know Peer Review from INSIDE the community.
There is NOT ONE peer review of Miskolczi work that tears it to shreds. Every point made is either a gross miss-statement, meant solely to confuse the public, or simply incorrect, or only takes a part of the equation into consideration with out addressing the whole.
Kinda like saying “Oh well Miskolczi is saying 2+4 = 9”, using only PART of the equation he corrected. And of course that statement is not correct. BUT, you are leaving out part of the equation in a blatant attempt to confuse the public into believing it because it has the credibility of the government behind the “Science”,
Its bull&^%t all the way around. The equation is really 2 + 4 + 3 = 9, and when the whole equation and concept is given OF COURSE ITS CORRECT.
Don’t give me ANY BS about not having a background in science, BECAUSE I DO. I am no PhD and I don’t pretend to be, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t have the background to UNDERSTAND and translate it!
There is NO Peer Review of Miskolczi’s work that disproves it.
NONE.