|
|
|
|||
| Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8~9 [Next] | ||||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts 
|
Quote:
On , Dannydoyle wrote: Again, these were submitted to conferences, not journals. There are considerably looser constraints on conferences than there are on journals (and not all journals are equal). In fact, many local conferences exist for little purpose other than giving graduate students a place to rehearse. The number of low-quality conference papers is much much higher than 120, I assure you. I don't know if the fake paper generator has been used this way, but I suspect you could get into a few "in-house" publications that call themselves "peer-reviewed". I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of how peer-review actually works and what it means. If I get more time this afternoon, I'll give my thoughts on the matter. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Your point of these being conference papers with looser constraints than on journals is much better than your initial claim of "peer review in action" seeing as how these weren't really found through peer review and had apparently never been reviewed. I suspect that it probably more points to the fact that some conferences will print just about anything submitted. Although your and Bob's first responses also seem to point to your knee jerk willingness to defend the 'process' and Bob's knee jerk desire to name call anyone he disagrees with.
|
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On , rockwall wrote: Guilty of knee-jerk. I quickly glanced but did not read. I then went back for the details. I have started a new thread on peer-review.
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 21282 Posts
|
Peer review is indeed quite misunderstood and it is a term thrown around by people whether or not something is actually peer reviewed. That is the danger. Often each side will grab on to a term or a phrase like "economists from both sides all agree" when that is really the furthest thing from the truth.
Again the problem is this is not a scientific debate in the least. It is a political one. Having so many papers submitted on ANY level should indicate that much.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Quote:
On , rockwall wrote: Like this TOTALLY false statement you made about me?: Quote:
A majority of scientists believe 1. that the climate has warmed in the last 100 years and 2. that man has been the cause of some of that warming. Those are two pretty innocuous statements that we can both agree that most scientists believe in. Yet, those like Bob will use those two statements to expand on those two claims to include every exaggerated threat made to humanity by the alarmists and claim it's because he 'understands the science'. Since I NEVER used the fact that nearly ALL scientists accept the first proposition and over 90 percent accept the second to support the ridiculous idea that all threats to humanity are caused by AGW, your statement is blatantly false. I have repeatedly stated that NO individual weather event can be attributed to AGW.' Sadly, because of your self-imposed blindness and irrationally partisan denial of science, you fail to see that YOU are the knee-jerk responder here. And, yes, unlike you, I do believe I have a fundamental understanding of the science. This is a GLOBAL issue, not the local political one your corporate masters would have you believe. Glad to see, though, that you FINALLY acknowledge that at least "most" scientists disagree with you. |
|||||||||
|
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts
|
Quote:
On , rockwall wrote: BTW, did you read the blog post carefully enough to notice the "so much for peer review" was unwarranted? If so, why did you post it?
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Obviously, he only posted it to punctuate and confirm his denial of a fundamental part of the scientific process.
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
I posted it, largely because I found it pretty funny.
(And possibly because I wanted to see Bob's knee jerk response.) 
|
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On , mastermindreader wrote: Any yet, I don't see anything false about that statement. |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Please provide proof of the following nonsense:
Quote: (Emphasis added as an aid to comprehension)
Bob will use those two statements to expand on those two claims to include every exaggerated threat made to humanity by the alarmists and claim it's because he 'understands the science'. I won't hold my breath. |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Well, since most of it's been deleted, how about just providing us with one or two examples of exaggerated threats made to humanity regarding AGW that you don't believe.
|
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
You made the allegation- you have the burden of proving it. I have stated repeatedly on all of the AGW threads that no single weather event can be conclusively linked to AGW.
I didn't expect you to provide anything to support your false statement. This deflection is hardly surprising. |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16554 Posts
|
What single weather event has not been conclusively linked to AGW by your so called experts Bob?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
NO single weather event can be conclusively linked to AGW. And no "so-called experts" have ever said otherwise.
Your question, therefore, makes no sense. But that's to be expected, I guess. |
|||||||||
Peter McMillan Elite user St. George, Utah 497 Posts
|
Global warming/cooling is 100% true. Every aspect of it. There is no argument.
Do you still take aircraft to conventions to be crowned a legend? Or did you drive? Are you still connected to the electrical power grid? Do you use any product that required power of one kind or another? Do you grow your own fruits and vegetables, slaughter your own meat, sew your own clothes and foot wear? How many other convinces do you enjoy while the polar ice caps are destroyed, droughts continue to plague regions of the earth. Again, global warming/cooling is a FACT!
Spiritus Dictum Artifacts ~ Tools of the Craft for Serious Workers http://petemcmillan.wixsite.com/sd-artifacts/artifacts
~ www.SantaPeteUtah.com |
|||||||||
|
tommy Eternal Order Devil's Island 16554 Posts
|
If NO single weather event can be conclusively linked to AGW. And no "so-called experts" have ever said otherwise. Then why is Obama lying?
If there is a single truth about Magic, it is that nothing on earth so efficiently evades it.
Tommy |
|||||||||
|
Russell Davidson Inner circle Hampshire, England 1108 Posts
|
'No single weather event can be conclusively linked to AGW'.
Agreed. Climate change is nothing new & will happen regardless of human intervention. So why the endless debate? |
|||||||||
|
mastermindreader 1949 - 2017 Seattle, WA 12586 Posts
|
Because ninety percent of scientists believe that human activities are partially responsible for AGW. The debate is over what we should do about it. Those who deny the science do so simply as a reason for doing nothing to reduce carbon emissions. And that's exactly what big oil companies and their political allies want, since regulations cut into their profits. As noted many times, the denialist research comes, to a large extent,from the same pseudo-scientists who told us that tobacco was harmless and non-addictive.
But I ask the same question- why the debate? The science is settled. We should be discussing what we can do to ease the problem. |
|||||||||
|
rockwall Special user 762 Posts
|
Quote:
On Feb 26, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: I suspect the reason you can't come up with any exaggerated claims that you don't cling to is because you find none of the claims exaggerated. Quote:
On Feb 26, 2014, mastermindreader wrote: Yes, I'm sure you do believe that. |
|||||||||
|
Peter McMillan Elite user St. George, Utah 497 Posts
|
Discussion? Action! What is the individual who professes the necessity of correcting the current trend of the climate doing to eliminate their carbon footprint? Waiting for regulation of their behavior and lifestyle? Have they no self control to initiate the reduction themselves?
Come on gang, lets turn off the usage and walk the walk. Otherwise our argument has no validity and we are paper tigers.
Spiritus Dictum Artifacts ~ Tools of the Craft for Serious Workers http://petemcmillan.wixsite.com/sd-artifacts/artifacts
~ www.SantaPeteUtah.com |
|||||||||
Posted: Feb 26, 2014 06:07 pm 