Hoaxters claim penis causes climate change passed peer review to prove a point

[polarbear]

I already know how the warmers will dog pile this OP which shows how even the most ridiculous claims about climate change passes peer review and gets published as long as the paper includes enough left wing jargon and buzzwords.
There is no point arguing over the URL I picked so that readers can read the entire hoax, because Google comes up with 377 000 hits & URLs referring to this hoax.
I stumbled on it this morning while I was reading the European news papers.
So then, eeny meeny miny moe lets pick this one, because it bugs the people on my ignore list the most:
Hilarious Peer Reviewed Climate Hoax: “The conceptual penis as a social construct”
Climate change is driven by nothing more than it is by certain damaging themes in hypermasculinity that can be best understood via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis. Our planet is rapidly approaching the much-warned-about 2°C climate change threshold, and due to patriarchal power dynamics that maintain present capitalist structures, especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear.”

 

[IanC]

Yah, I saw this a few days ago on WUWT or something. The really funny part is that there is a computer program out there that bloviates your talking points into jargon that is sure to please peer review.

It is insane how far the scientific method has fallen, and how so many of these hoaxes can get through.

 

[anotherlife]

Finally! My dick is getting recognition. Does this give a whole new meaning of fucking up the everything, the worldwide?

 

[mamooth]

Check it out. A couple of our most fanatical pseudoscience cultists are pushing a fraud again. What a surprise.

What the fraud-pushing authors of that "hoax" failed to mention was that, first, they submitted the article to a reputable journal, and it was rejected. Dang. What to do? After all, they were getting paid to create anti-science propaganda. "Our paper was rejected" isn't going to get them a paycheck.

The solution? They submitted it again to a predatory pay-to-publish journal. Hand them $1350, and that journal will publish anything. So they did, and then conveniently forgot to mention they used a pay-to-publish journal.

Ian and PolarBear both fell hard for the scam. It told them what they wanted to hear, so they turned off their brains and BELIEVED, same as they always do.

Ian, PolarBear, do you have any regrets at all about pushing this fraud, or do you only regret getting caught?

 

[anotherlife]

Check it out. A couple of our most fanatical pseudoscience cultists are pushing a fraud again. What a surprise.

What the fraud-pushing authors of that "hoax" failed to mention was that, first, they submitted the article to a reputable journal, and it was rejected. Dang. What to do? After all, they were getting paid to create anti-science propaganda. "Our paper was rejected" isn't going to get them a paycheck.

The solution? They submitted it again to a predatory pay-to-publish journal. Hand them $1350, and that journal will publish anything. So they did, and then conveniently forgot to mention they used a pay-to-publish journal.

Ian and PolarBear both fell hard for the scam. It told them what they wanted to hear, so they turned off their brains and BELIEVED, same as they always do.

Ian, PolarBear, do you have any regrets at all about pushing this fraud, or do you only regret getting caught?

Do you mean taking away people's beliefs? If they stop believing in their dicks then what will be of them? A bunch of gay pussies?

 

[Old Rocks]

Cogent Social Sciences? You and WUWT consider that to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? Come on, Polar, you know better than that.

Show me some real articles from real scientific journals, not shit from pay for publication shit journals. But you won't, because what you find in the real journals states that AGW is real, and already having negative affects on us.

 

[Muhammed]

Cogent Social Sciences? You and WUWT consider that to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? Come on, Polar, you know better than that.

Show me some real articles from real scientific journals, not shit from pay for publication shit journals. But you won't, because what you find in the real journals states that AGW is real, and already having negative affects on us.

Sounds like you've been fooled by the climategate fraudsters. Sucker!

 

[IanC]

Cogent Social Sciences? You and WUWT consider that to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? Come on, Polar, you know better than that.

Show me some real articles from real scientific journals, not shit from pay for publication shit journals. But you won't, because what you find in the real journals states that AGW is real, and already having negative affects on us.

WUWT and others posted up this story of yet another hoax being published in a peer reviewed Journal to point out the absurdity, and give everyone a good laugh.

Old Rocks doesn't grok the irony that all the Berkeley Earth BEST papers were also released in a pay-to-publish Journal. As usual his double standards are in full view.

 

[polarbear]

Cogent Social Sciences? You and WUWT consider that to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? Come on, Polar, you know better than that.

Show me some real articles from real scientific journals, not shit from pay for publication shit journals. But you won't, because what you find in the real journals states that AGW is real, and already having negative affects on us.

WUWT and others posted up this story of yet another hoax being published in a peer reviewed Journal to point out the absurdity, and give everyone a good laugh.

Old Rocks doesn't grok the irony that all the Berkeley Earth BEST papers were also released in a pay-to-publish Journal. As usual his double standards are in full view.

Fact is that when a speech by Christiana Figueres invoking the goddess Ixchel is approved by the IPCC conference it would not have mattered to them if she wove the words of the hoaxters into her "tapestry" as she put it:

Climate change is driven via the dominant rapacious approach to climate ecology identifiable with the conceptual penis. especially with regard to the fossil fuel industry, the connection between hypermasculine dominance of scientific, political, and economic discourses and the irreparable damage to our ecosystem is made clear.”

It fits right in at that part of her speech:
“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skillful interlacing of many threads. I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel making us aware that there is a correlation between the conceptual penis and the hypermasculine dominance of the fossil fuel industry.

And shortly after that Al Gore would have volunteered for a sex change to set an example which is today pretty well thee guiding principle for campus group think.
Very likely it was this liberal dominated campus group think which inspired this hoax to begin with

 

[mamooth]

WUWT and others posted up this story of yet another hoax being published in a peer reviewed Journal to point out the absurdity, and give everyone a good laugh.

No, they pushed a fraud by pretending a pay-to-publish journal was "peer-reviewed". And you know that, but you're choosing to lie about it.

Based on your history here, anything you post should always initially be assumed to be fraudulent, as it nearly always is. You only parrot propaganda from denier fraud blogs, and you make it a point of pride to refuse to look at any actual science.

Now, as your propensity for fraud has been exposed again, you'll need to deflect with your usual poo-flinging antics. Please proceed.

 

[IanC]

I'm always disappointed when I see a new comment posted but it turns out to be from someone on my ignore list.

Because I am trying to ignore the chores I should do I decided to read mamooth's response. Hahahaha.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

The hoaxsters describe in detail what happened. When the original Journal turned them down, they also recommended a different journal, and helped them resubmit, calling the hoax paper good but not suitable for their publication.

The new pay-to-publish Journal reviewed, made suggestions to improve it, which were carried out, and then accepted it.

How this process can make me, WUWT, or any of the thousands of others who laughed at it, look bad is beyond my comprehension.

It is a sad but funny joke that absolute bullshit can get published. Pointing out the weaknesses in journals is good for science and society. Blaming the whistle blowers is not.

 

[Old Rocks]

Cogent Social Sciences? You and WUWT consider that to be a peer reviewed scientific journal? Come on, Polar, you know better than that.

Show me some real articles from real scientific journals, not shit from pay for publication shit journals. But you won't, because what you find in the real journals states that AGW is real, and already having negative affects on us.

WUWT and others posted up this story of yet another hoax being published in a peer reviewed Journal to point out the absurdity, and give everyone a good laugh.

Old Rocks doesn't grok the irony that all the Berkeley Earth BEST papers were also released in a pay-to-publish Journal. As usual his double standards are in full view.

The BEST study presented nothing new, merely confirmed the previous studies. And I really don't care if it had never been published in any journal, the work there is open for all to see on the internet.

 

[PredFan]

How ironic that the warmers here are claiming fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

I'm always disappointed when I see a new comment posted but it turns out to be from someone on my ignore list.

Because I am trying to ignore the chores I should do I decided to read mamooth's response. Hahahaha.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

The hoaxsters describe in detail what happened. When the original Journal turned them down, they also recommended a different journal, and helped them resubmit, calling the hoax paper good but not suitable for their publication.

The new pay-to-publish Journal reviewed, made suggestions to improve it, which were carried out, and then accepted it.

How this process can make me, WUWT, or any of the thousands of others who laughed at it, look bad is beyond my comprehension.

It is a sad but funny joke that absolute bullshit can get published. Pointing out the weaknesses in journals is good for science and society. Blaming the whistle blowers is not.

Ian, that is about the weakest defense of stupid disdain for scientific journals I have ever read. If you were actually to read such, you would understand that.

 

[IanC]

I'm always disappointed when I see a new comment posted but it turns out to be from someone on my ignore list.

Because I am trying to ignore the chores I should do I decided to read mamooth's response. Hahahaha.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

The hoaxsters describe in detail what happened. When the original Journal turned them down, they also recommended a different journal, and helped them resubmit, calling the hoax paper good but not suitable for their publication.

The new pay-to-publish Journal reviewed, made suggestions to improve it, which were carried out, and then accepted it.

How this process can make me, WUWT, or any of the thousands of others who laughed at it, look bad is beyond my comprehension.

It is a sad but funny joke that absolute bullshit can get published. Pointing out the weaknesses in journals is good for science and society. Blaming the whistle blowers is not.

Ian, that is about the weakest defense of stupid disdain for scientific journals I have ever read. If you were actually to read such, you would understand that.

?????

You lost me. What are you trying to say?

That I don't read peer reviewed papers? That I don't read them for comprehension?

I have often made you look silly by pointing out that your endless links to papers often don't say what you imply they do.

Nothing that is sloppy, incorrect or outright fraud is above criticism, even if YOU would like it to be true.

 

[Old Rocks]

What you are obviously trying to avoid saying. That article was published in a pay-to-publish magazine. Hardly a peer reviewed scientific journal. Therefore, that is not a peer reviewed article, but rather a satire they paid to have published. And you wish to use it to denigrate the real scientists who do publish research in respected journals.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Republicans are a bunch of fucking morons.

I swear to god you're a disease.

 

[IanC]

What you are obviously trying to avoid saying. That article was published in a pay-to-publish magazine. Hardly a peer reviewed scientific journal. Therefore, that is not a peer reviewed article, but rather a satire they paid to have published. And you wish to use it to denigrate the real scientists who do publish research in respected journals.

Whoaaaa now buckaroo. I am laughing at yet another failure in peer reviewed literature. There has been an avalanche of negative stories about it in the last few years. Not because anybody is picking on the journals but because of weaknesses and flaws that are present.

I have chronicled here many mistakes and uneven applications of the rules by the prestigious journals that you have put on a pedestal.

But you have made it abundantly clear that you see the peer reviewed Journal system as a gateway to promote your beliefs and to thwart opposing views.

 

[Old Rocks]

So, you say that a pay for publish magazine is equivalent to peer reviewed journals? And you are going to stick with that? Shame on you. Yes, in any human endevour mistakes are made. But, compared to the outright drivel in the deniers articles, damned few in the peer reviewed journals.

 

[miketx]

I'm always disappointed when I see a new comment posted but it turns out to be from someone on my ignore list.

Because I am trying to ignore the chores I should do I decided to read mamooth's response. Hahahaha.

The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies

The hoaxsters describe in detail what happened. When the original Journal turned them down, they also recommended a different journal, and helped them resubmit, calling the hoax paper good but not suitable for their publication.

The new pay-to-publish Journal reviewed, made suggestions to improve it, which were carried out, and then accepted it.

How this process can make me, WUWT, or any of the thousands of others who laughed at it, look bad is beyond my comprehension.

It is a sad but funny joke that absolute bullshit can get published. Pointing out the weaknesses in journals is good for science and society. Blaming the whistle blowers is not.

Ian, that is about the weakest defense of stupid disdain for scientific journals I have ever read. If you were actually to read such, you would understand that.

I saw this cumming.