You know, 3 years ago I came to this section with much questioning about AGW. It was during the time of climategates emails and the 10 years without much warming. I read comments from some of the proponents that did not make any sense, such as "paper thin atmosphere" or "global warming shrinks the atmosphere" and all kind of nonsense. I was even called scientifically and linguistically illiterate by scientifically illiterates, so I identified with the deniers, whom I found funny.

So I asked this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

It was my first encounter with pegminer whom sounded like an anal retentive shmoot in that question and it wasn't until another encounter that I realized he was one of the rare people here who could (or remember how to?) do the math.

For the same reason that people who don’t understand how the disingenuousness of pervasive sampling leads to inherent uncertainties in the dynamic climatologies across transitional boundaries are able to comment on the subject of global warming.

By your logic, if you’re unable to provide an answer to the point I raised, then you have to question why you’re posting questions/answers in this section of Answers.

You are aware that it’s you that keeps “Blabbering about peer review”, no-one else has brought up this subject recently.

And if your referencing of differential equations is some sort of throw-back to the recent discourse we had, then you would do well to remember that I stated in response to your question that I do know what differential equations are but hadn’t used them in the particular calculation we were discussing.

Why are you writing a question without spell-checking it before you post? Sorry, I just had to haze you a bit since your question was more of a rant than a real question warranting feedback.

People will always comment on thing witch they know nothing about because they want to feel valid in society. Beside that, it is much easier to repeat something you heard some idiot say on the news to subdue the public, than to actually do research and be informed.

Yeah, what is it with that? Apparently, all you have to do is grab a book about differential equations and the you can come back here with an air or confidence, a real stride in your step. I recommended starting here: http://www.amazon.ca/Differential-Equati...

Within a week or two, anybody can be fully versed on differential equations and be able to interpret the physical differential equations that go into climate models and perhaps suggest some new and different boundary values or water cycle feedback assumptions.

The same way a bunch of physicists decided to become Food Police.

Blabbering about peer review is no excuse for ignorance especial;y from people who are aware that Einstein did not pass review and had no chance of ever doing so.

Did any major physics theory ever pass peer review??? I'm almost sympathetic to the Deniers because thev Nobn-Deniers are anti-scientific people.