[RAGNAR]

Originally Posted by SlowButSteady

Nope. That is how science is done.

That's an important way of getting your proposition checked and brought to a forum people respect. The "doing" isn't anything like that.

And as we've said before: the peer review process has the weight it has if and only if there's both efficacy and intellectual honesty on the part of all involved. What you fail to understand is that that simply hasn't been the case for some time now, in way too many cases -- and it's getting worse.

do not use TV documentaries as the primary means by which they disseminate their findings and conclusions.

True. Shame it isn't relevant to anything stated here recently. It could, however, be tortured into yet another strawman.

If a modern scientist does write a book about a topic, or participates in the production of a documentary, etc., it is only after the findings relating to the topic have been published in the primary, peer-reviewed literature.

Usually. But as has been explained to you any number of times, that doesn't apply to all scientists, it doesn't apply to a disproportionate number of the geniuses who've made the biggest contributions, and it need not apply to someone whose looking to apply what's accepted to the latest proposition.

I can point you to TV documentaries "proving" the existence of Bigfoot, extra-terrestrial visitors (and their various spacecraft), ghosts, faked manned lunar landings, and spontaneous human combustion; all of which were produced by people, many trying to pass themselves off as "scientists", unable to publish anything in the primary literature (or, unwilling to even attempt such)

And I can point you to the techniques you and anyone could use to refute them.

The peer-review system isn't perfect, but the fact that global climate change nay-sayers (and creationists, and flat earthers) don't publish in such outlets is indicative of their complete lack of scientific rigor.

Not only have they, but they've been given awards for their work (see the credentials of some of the scientists that participated in the documentaries I linked to.)

And, once again, I state that academia has been in a bad way for some time now. The forces involved in the GW thing have decimated the field of meteorology, and made a sham of the process you're so determined to squeeze into relevance here. (It was the only way to make room for this nonsense.)

Wanna be a real scientist?

Wanna make a point? Stop tossing irrelevant references to valid mechanisms ignored by people in this particular field -- people you're citing as authorities in lieu of reasoning.

Publish your findings in a real scientific journal.

Point us to five journals that are open to refutations of the GW hypothesis.

And, once again: no one needs to either qualify for publication, or have some massively specialized degree to analyze a given issue. If that were true, you'd have to shut down. (You don't have papers in any how-to-find-authorities-to-obey journals, do you?)