peer reviewed

[Old Rocks]

There are many on this board, even some claiming scientific credentials, that seem to equate faceless blogs with peer reviewed articles. While I can understand that being the case for some of the less than stellar IQs on this board, I can only surmise the reason for those that seem to have a modicum of intelligence.

Peer review vs commercials and spam

Why is that? And what exactly is peer review?

The concept of peer review is about 300 years old and is the cornerstone of modern science. The best analogy for peer review is that it acts as a spam filter: rubbish ideas are kept from being published so that other scientists don’t waste their time reading spam. Only ideas that are not obviously rubbish make it into the literature, and once in the literature, the scientific marketplace of ideas determines their ultimate fate.

Let’s examine how different this process is from just posting one’s ideas on some web page.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's us also examine how Peer Review and Consensus is not how real science is performed

The ultimate irony is OR just posted one’s ideas on some web page to back up his position that posting ideas on a web page is not real science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Was this supposed to be funny because it's hilarious!

 

[daveman]

The peer review process has also been bastardized to support AGW. You may as well be pointing to Cinderella as proof of the existence of fairy godmothers.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck...but it's cheating.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer review process has also been bastardized to support AGW. You may as well be pointing to Cinderella as proof of the existence of fairy godmothers.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck...but it's cheating.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

 

[daveman]

The peer review process has also been bastardized to support AGW. You may as well be pointing to Cinderella as proof of the existence of fairy godmothers.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck...but it's cheating.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

I reviewed it myself, and I concur.

Old Rocks, we have reached consensus. The science is settled.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The peer review process has also been bastardized to support AGW. You may as well be pointing to Cinderella as proof of the existence of fairy godmothers.

It's easy to win if you stack the deck...but it's cheating.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

I reviewed it myself, and I concur.

Old Rocks, we have reached consensus. The science is settled.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit

 

[daveman]

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

I reviewed it myself, and I concur.

Old Rocks, we have reached consensus. The science is settled.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit

Upon further review of your review, I endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that Old Rocks does not exist.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The way Peer review is supposed to work is that the work is put out there with the basic data so that independent reviewers can examine the work and check to make sure the Ts are dotted and the eyes are crossed. It is supposed to instill rigor in the system by making checks on the underlying data.

Peer review in this case was less honest than the "peer review" of a proof of homeopathy by a homeopath or by having psychics prove each others honesty.

The base data never was available, was never reviewed, and the peers reviewing the data were folks submitting papers depending on the worst offenders for payment. Peer review was not an independent tets, it was a monster circle jerk.

 

[Oddball]

I reviewed it myself, and I concur.

Old Rocks, we have reached consensus. The science is settled.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit

Upon further review of your review, I endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that Old Rocks does not exist.

I've peer reviewed these posts, and CrusaderFrank Johnson is right about daveman Johnson being right about CrusaderFrank Johnson being right.

 

[manifold]

So wait, the world is flat afterall?

 

[Oddball]

The ones who insisted the world was flat were those who controlled all the "secret knowledge" that the unwashed masses just couldn't comprehend, which is much more descriptive of the warmist cult than anyone else.

But thanks for playing...Johnny Olson has a case of Bardahl for you, as a parting gift.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

There actually is a flat earth society. They peer review each others papers and tell each other that they are brilliant.

 

[Oddball]

There actually is a flat earth society. They peer review each others papers and tell each other that they are brilliant.

Right...It's also the same method employed by Holocaust deniers, to "prove" that it didn't really exist.

 

[AllieBaba]

And liberals, to "prove" their premises.

 

[daveman]

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit

Upon further review of your review, I endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that Old Rocks does not exist.

I've peer reviewed these posts, and CrusaderFrank Johnson is right about daveman Johnson being right about CrusaderFrank Johnson being right.

If that ain't a consensus, by Gaea, I don't know what is.

I'd tell Old Rocks, but it turns out he doesn't exist.

 

[Mad Scientist]

There are many on this board, even some claiming scientific credentials, that seem to equate faceless blogs with peer reviewed articles. While I can understand that being the case for some of the less than stellar IQs on this board, I can only surmise the reason for those that seem to have a modicum of intelligence.

You won't turn anyone to your way of thinking by treating them like shit under your shoes.

 

[daveman]

There are many on this board, even some claiming scientific credentials, that seem to equate faceless blogs with peer reviewed articles. While I can understand that being the case for some of the less than stellar IQs on this board, I can only surmise the reason for those that seem to have a modicum of intelligence.

You won't turn anyone to your way of thinking by treating them like shit under your shoes.

I think he knows that. It would explain the petulance.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

The vast majority of posters in this thread believe Old Rocks is full of shit

Upon further review of your review, I endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that Old Rocks does not exist.

I've peer reviewed these posts, and CrusaderFrank Johnson is right about daveman Johnson being right about CrusaderFrank Johnson being right.

Global Warming is real prairie gibberish

 

[Big Fitz]

i have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

the vast majority of posters in this thread believe old rocks is full of shit

upon further review of your review, i endorse it wholeheartedly. Furthermore, careful review of the available data in the shape of a lacrosse stick shows that old rocks does not exist.

i've peer reviewed these posts, and crusaderfrank johnson is right about daveman johnson being right about crusaderfrank johnson being right.

wriblish!!!!