1.It does not say anything about being a peer reviewed journal. It's not a journal LOL, click around till you can make sense of things. 2. Again, you seem to have problem reading numbers, here, let me make it easier for you https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?graph_id=242679# 3. You were not right in 2012 and even in 2016 - you have to keep harping about October polls while ignoring the November ones.
1. exactly... you said it was peer reviewed and then try to insult me saying I did not undestand the word. your troll ignorance is breathtaking. 2. you really are economically ignorant. you must be a paid troll consulting your paid troll database without any comprehension of the mean of the graph you are posting. . That is a chart dividing receipts by gdp. The goal of tax cuts is to grow the economy and because of that tax receipts go up and become a smaller in relation to gdp. I would like to see that chart go down to 1 percent... and hold tax receipts steady. So you should you if you think people should have more money. 3. there are only about 10 morons in the entire country arguing the polls were not wrong. (even though they unskewed in the very end) you are one of them.
1 " you said it was peer reviewed' If you did rudimentary research and checked their wiki page or their FAQ page, you would know about the peer reviewed material 2."That is a chart dividing receipts by gdp." You cannot study a data set without normalizing, that's why I suggested you take a math remedial class 3. there are only about 10 morons in the entire country arguing the polls were not wrong. (even though they unskewed in the very end) If they were so wrong then why are you harping about October polls instead of bringing up November ones. You think I don't see your bullshit?
1. you are full of shit.. it should embarrass whoever is paying you.. no wonder that berkeley earth page does not mention they are peer reviewed. they submitted (some ) of their work to to a pay for publication predatory open access journal. And it seems to be the data oriented part of the work. Not the guess work modeling. But... nevertheless it was one of those fake predatory journals. here is what your beloved wiki quote says... a. "The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were published in journals operated by OMICS Group, a predatory open access publisher beginning in December 2012. The study addressed scientific concerns including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias." here is what wikipedia says... when you click on OMICS - you troll clown... b. OMICS Publishing Group is a publisher of open access journals that is widely regarded as predatory.[2][3][4][5][6][7] It issued its first publication in 2008.[8] According to a 2012 article in The Chronicle of Higher Education about 60 percent of the group's 200 journals had never actually published anything.[9] Academics and the United States government have questioned the validity of peer review by OMICS journals, the appropriateness of author fees and marketing, and the apparent advertising of the names of scientists as journal editors or conference speakers without their knowledge or permission.[3][4][5][6][7] As a result, the U.S. National Institutes of Health does not accept OMICS publications for listing in PubMed Central and sent a cease-and-desist letter to OMICS in 2013, demanding that OMICS discontinue false claims of affiliation with U.S. government entities or employees.[6] OMICS has responded to criticisms by avowing a commitment to open access publishing, claiming that detractors are traditional subscription-based publishers who feel threatened by their open access publishing model,[10] and threatening a prominent critic with a US$1 billion lawsuit.[9] ... OMICS operates on an open access model, wherein the author pays for publication and the publisher makes the articles available for free. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, some open access journals are legitimate, while others are vanity publications "that accept virtually any article to collect fees from the authors." There is not always a clear distinction between the two.[3] The publication fee for OMICS journals vary from the low hundreds up to $2,700. OMICS also charges a withdrawal fee (stated as 30% of the article processing charge) should a paper be withdrawn more than a week after submission. 2. Why the hell would you normalize the data if the question is... did revenues go up after the tax cuts that is the question. I made the statement your chart proved and you are still trying to deny and lie. Isn't the point of tax cuts to grow the economy? We expect taxes to be a smaller part of a bigger ecnomomy....That is the goal increase revenues by increasing the economy.
1.no wonder that berkeley earth page does not mention they are peer reviewed. You still haven't checked their FAQ and are selectively quoting 2 . Because it's not the same economy, the base changed, population and trade increased - how can you say that revenues went up because of tax cuts when other factors changed
2. I did not say because of tax cuts... you are such a troll. 1. no matter what you write or say... you are dead ass wrong and when you said the science is indisputable. You have not even produced any peer reviewed science. You have produced no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming. You have not even posted anything legitimately peer reviewed that says co2 causes warming. Check the faq page yourself and make the argument with science troll. The journal is a pay for inclusion predatory journal. Its a fricken joke and so are you.
1. "because of tax cuts" Hahahah, right, you just implied it as if they were disjointed statements 2 "the science is indisputable." That's not how even science works, you understand that right?
you must be two paid trolls working the same account or you are meds. yesterday you said it was not even disputable. That was your argument you fool. "man made co2 is causing warming" It is, it's not even disputable and the funny thing is ... you have produced no science supporting your argument.
Again grandpa - there is no such thing in science that's indisputable, maybe read up on the scientific process before making a fool of yourself
hey asswipe get on some meds. ... you are the one who said the science is not even disputable... not me. And I am not a grandpa. finally troll... you are misrepresenting the publications... . why don't you tell us which one of these papers states man made co2 is causing warming. hint they don't even say co2 is causing warming... from the abstracts I read.. http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/ Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Consider Fracking (December 5, 2013): Richard A. Muller and Elizabeth A. Muller Why Every Serious Environmentalist Should Favor Fracking Decadal Variations paper (June 10, 2013): Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Decadal Variations in the Global Atmospheric Land Temperatures. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 118, 5280–5286, doi:10.1002/jgrd.50458. Station Quality paper (May 20, 2013): Richard A. Muller, Robert Rohde, et al. (2013) Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:3. doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000107. Urban Heat Island paper (March 14, 2013): Charlotte Wickham, Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104 Methods paper (March 05, 2013) and its appendix: Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:2. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000103 Results paper (December 07, 2012): Robert Rohde, Richard A. Muller, et al. (2013) A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:1.. doi:10.4172/gigs.1000101