peer reviewed

Do you find the sound of the breeze whistling through your head relaxing or a distraction?

Do you find that writing clueless posts gives you direction in life? The hoax that the literature is being manipulated is being spread by those who want to manipulate it.
 
interweblaff.jpg
 
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.
 
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.

Who says the data isn't reproducible. Sounds like a meme started in one corner that now is supposed to cover all thye data. No one is paid to produce a result. That's also a meme created by the Climategate hoaxers to cover their gross misinterpretation of stolen, private emails.
 
I just read the link that Old Rocks posted, and it's crap, because the article assumes that academics would never engage in the sort of behavior that others engage in, and I think that that premise is demonstrably false.
 
I just read the link that Old Rocks posted, and it's crap, because the article assumes that academics would never engage in the sort of behavior that others engage in, and I think that that premise is demonstrably false.

Good thing you read it because apparently Old Rocks didn't
 
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.

Here are a few places that you can find the proxy data, free, and available to all.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Global Warming in a Nutshell Part 3 of 4 - Proxy Measurements of Climate Data

Paleoclimate; Ice Core and Lake Sediment Records

This is massive amounts of data, data available to all. Now if you wish to use it to make a logical arguement concerning the present warming using this data, you are welcome to do that. But to state the data does not exist is to ignore reality. To state that all the data from thousands of scientists from all over the world is corrupted is to engage in conspiracy theories worth of the 9-11 kooks.
 
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.

Here are a few places that you can find the proxy data, free, and available to all.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Global Warming in a Nutshell Part 3 of 4 - Proxy Measurements of Climate Data

Paleoclimate; Ice Core and Lake Sediment Records

This is massive amounts of data, data available to all. Now if you wish to use it to make a logical arguement concerning the present warming using this data, you are welcome to do that. But to state the data does not exist is to ignore reality. To state that all the data from thousands of scientists from all over the world is corrupted is to engage in conspiracy theories worth of the 9-11 kooks.

We want legit data douchebag, not your BS already shown to be fraudulent...
 
grapes.gif


Maybe it's be, but I swear that this chart from one of the sites Old Rocks posted shows temperatures plummeting between 1950-2000.

I keep losing my contact lenses, it's the weirdest thing, one minute it's in my eye, the next - gone. That happened again today, so maybe that's whats causing me to see the plunge in temperature.

Can I get peer review?
 
grapes.gif


Maybe it's be, but I swear that this chart from one of the sites Old Rocks posted shows temperatures plummeting between 1950-2000.

I keep losing my contact lenses, it's the weirdest thing, one minute it's in my eye, the next - gone. That happened again today, so maybe that's whats causing me to see the plunge in temperature.

Can I get peer review?

I have reviewed your findings and side with you on this hypothesis...
 
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.

Who says the data isn't reproducible. Sounds like a meme started in one corner that now is supposed to cover all thye data. No one is paid to produce a result. That's also a meme created by the Climategate hoaxers to cover their gross misinterpretation of stolen, private emails.




Because even the purveyors can't reproduce the raw data konrad. All they have is "value added" data. Completely unusable for any level of research whatsoever. And I just LOVE your continued attack on the CLIMATEGATE hoaxers that is hylarious!
 
Last edited:
The subject is the peer review process for real science.

And most of you confirmed that it is science that turns you totally off.

I keep making the same points. If the data is not reproducible, there is nothing for peers to review. If both sides of the review process are paid to produce the same result, there is not honest review.

the way global warming science works is not independent honest review, but mutual masturbation.

Here are a few places that you can find the proxy data, free, and available to all.

NOAA Paleoclimatology Global Warming - The Story

Global Warming in a Nutshell Part 3 of 4 - Proxy Measurements of Climate Data

Paleoclimate; Ice Core and Lake Sediment Records

This is massive amounts of data, data available to all. Now if you wish to use it to make a logical arguement concerning the present warming using this data, you are welcome to do that. But to state the data does not exist is to ignore reality. To state that all the data from thousands of scientists from all over the world is corrupted is to engage in conspiracy theories worth of the 9-11 kooks.




How about some raw data there old fraud....you know...the stuff that hasn't been screwed with. All of this value added crap is completely useless.
 
I just read the link that Old Rocks posted, and it's crap, because the article assumes that academics would never engage in the sort of behavior that others engage in, and I think that that premise is demonstrably false.



Not only demonstrably false but proven false, though Amy Bishop is still waiting for her day in court. But when she is convicted then we'll have academic fraud, conspiracy and murder all in just one scientist. She's a HUGE Obama supporter too...bet most here didn't know that.
 
I just read the link that Old Rocks posted, and it's crap, because the article assumes that academics would never engage in the sort of behavior that others engage in, and I think that that premise is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it. Without that your post is a waste of time. Even those that don't believe we're warming as rapidly as some say would admit, if the historical concentrations of CO2 were doubled, we WOULD have warming.
 
I just read the link that Old Rocks posted, and it's crap, because the article assumes that academics would never engage in the sort of behavior that others engage in, and I think that that premise is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it. Without that your post is a waste of time. Even those that don't believe we're warming as rapidly as some say would admit, if the historical concentrations of CO2 were doubled, we WOULD have warming.

No dumbass YOU prove it... Seriously, when was the last time you posted anything of substance here? You post one or two lines which are usually retarded nonsense showing you Don't follow the topics or threads or don't understand them or what they represent. You are the forum waste of space....
 

Forum List

Back
Top