Is "peer review" science?

[Ringel05]

Frank, stick to subjects you actually know something about............ This obviously isn't one of them.

You should have said, "I'm at a loss here, but feel I need to respond, so here goes nothing" that would have been honest and far more accurate as well

Well, it does appear you have projection down to a T. Tell you what, explain 'Peer Review' without looking it up.........

In the context of what passes for climate "science", Peer Review is a substitution for presenting any lab work. It's a circle jerk, but with climate "scientists"

I could care less about 'climate science', I asked you to explain 'Peer Review' without googling it.

Will this go on my permanent record?

No but it will count towards your final grade.........

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

No, science is science.

 

[james bond]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

It isn't done to fail a theory . It's done to evaluate someone's hypothesis and check their work. It also provides a chance to bring in criticism and discuss it's merits and weaknesses. It's evaluation of one's work by others who have expertise in the same field. It isn't about consensus. What you are confusing is differences of scientific opinion which can be quite serious. One's life work could end up being right and the other wrong. Then you give an example of separate large theories by Einstein that one cannot just compare to other theories. While one part may appear sound, another may be questionable and there is no correct answer. I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is. Do you want to learn about peer review or just give us your erroneous interpretation for us to "peer review" and get entertainment value from your silly comments.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

CNM- Wrong! Consensus is not a test?

I don't understand why you write that in response to my assertion the consensus is Einstein's theory has failed a test. Are you a moron?

Why are you diverting to Einstein? Actually-scratch that. I’ve read the last few post of yours and you are not capable of discussing science, so I won’t bother.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The problem with Global warming or climate change or whatever the name du jour is for it, is so many have a real financial interest in the perpetuation of the current “consensus”. It clouds and distorts the real science.

There are always dissenters. Always. That's why it's the consensus that counts. If you want to believe there is no scientific consensus that human activity emitted greenhouse gases are the primary driver of climate change I will be the last to be surprised.

edit...Too, if you want to believe that the consensus about AGW is driven by money, e.g. 'they're in it for the grants', well, that too is not unexpected on USMB.

Nowhere in any true scientific analysis is consensus or opinions consider proof of a theory. Facts, data and unemotional evaluation is the basis of science, not pictures of polar bears floating on a lone ice berg.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

It isn't done to fail a theory . It's done to evaluate someone's hypothesis and check their work. It also provides a chance to bring in criticism and discuss it's merits and weaknesses. It's evaluation of one's work by others who have expertise in the same field. It isn't about consensus. What you are confusing is differences of scientific opinion which can be quite serious. One's life work could end up being right and the other wrong. Then you give an example of separate large theories by Einstein that one cannot just compare to other theories. While one part may appear sound, another may be questionable and there is no correct answer. I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is. Do you want to learn about peer review or just give us your erroneous interpretation for us to "peer review" and get entertainment value from your silly comments.

The point being that real science does not rely on "peer review" but subjects itself to rigorous testing. For example, some say that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm over 140 years will cause a massive increase in retained heat.

Ok, show us how this works is a lab setting.

I've not seen one on point experiment that controls all variables save a 120ppm increase in CO2.

 

[james bond]

The actual scientific method ruthlessly and relentlessly tries to find ways to FAIL a theory.

No one accepted Einstein's theories at face value. Despite 100 years of passing every test, were Relativity to FAIL a test, it must be rejected and a new theory accounting for the result proposed.

Where does "consensus" come in? Nowhere!

Where does "Peer Review" come in? Nowhere!

That's how you tell the difference between science and a Death worshipping Cult. One insists on science, the other tells you "we have consensus!"

It isn't done to fail a theory . It's done to evaluate someone's hypothesis and check their work. It also provides a chance to bring in criticism and discuss it's merits and weaknesses. It's evaluation of one's work by others who have expertise in the same field. It isn't about consensus. What you are confusing is differences of scientific opinion which can be quite serious. One's life work could end up being right and the other wrong. Then you give an example of separate large theories by Einstein that one cannot just compare to other theories. While one part may appear sound, another may be questionable and there is no correct answer. I'm not even sure what the point of this thread is. Do you want to learn about peer review or just give us your erroneous interpretation for us to "peer review" and get entertainment value from your silly comments.

The point being that real science does not rely on "peer review" but subjects itself to rigorous testing. For example, some say that increasing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm over 140 years will cause a massive increase in retained heat.

Ok, show us how this works is a lab setting.

I've not seen one on point experiment that controls all variables save a 120ppm increase in CO2.

You're changing the subject and putting it on me to explain your unfounded neurosis. The experimental results are in peer review to be evaluated. While peer-review isn't without flaws and giant mistakes, it has been done for the past 300 years.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The point being that real science does not rely on "peer review" but subjects itself to rigorous testing

Real science does both, as it is better to get the opinions of others on the validity of the methods (the rigorous testing) than not to get the opinion of others.