- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Doesn't it strike you as awfully coincidental? (Science vs Religious Belief)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:16 pm to SpidermanTUba
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:16 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:What are you talking about?
You just don't do it
1
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
As is yours that peer review is relegated to a prepublication timeframe, and is conducted solely self-contained by members of the publication's staff.
Peer review is not conducted by a publication's staff. Except in the case of shill foundations, of course.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 1:17 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:17 pm to C
*facepalm*
You are right as well...its the dream of every CEO for scientific consensus to state that their product is a threat to the safety of humanity. They have no motive to produce findings to the contrary, in fact, I bet Exxon execs are out there right now trying to find the next scientist who will say their product will lead to human extinction. Its the ol reverse psychology routine! BRILLIANT!
Guess thats why they pay them the big bucks.
:rotflmao:
You are right as well...its the dream of every CEO for scientific consensus to state that their product is a threat to the safety of humanity. They have no motive to produce findings to the contrary, in fact, I bet Exxon execs are out there right now trying to find the next scientist who will say their product will lead to human extinction. Its the ol reverse psychology routine! BRILLIANT!
Guess thats why they pay them the big bucks.
:rotflmao:Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:18 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
What are you talking about?
Did you ask how it is these overgrown blogs don't subject their articles to peer review? THey don't. That's how. I don't get the question if that doesn't answer it.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:18 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:No. The actual emails.
You mean I can read blogs about them that direct my conclusions.
quote:I have. And I know that UEA-CRU staff including Phil Jones organized a boycott of several journals because they requried complete data submission for peer review.
I think you should read them and get back to us.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:19 pm to AUbused
quote:
who will say their product will lead to human extinction.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:19 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
. And I know that UEA-CRU staff including Phil Jones organized a boycott of several journals because they requried complete data submission for peer review.
You "know" that yet can't show us exactly how, or even explain why its important.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:21 pm to C
quote:
I informed him that pro-AGW funding is many times greater
Check the fortune 100 some time fricktard then come back and tell me that a bunch of jobless greenpeace hippies have more money and power than fricking energy execs. WTF.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:23 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:That is not what peer review is.
these overgrown blogs don't subject their articles to peer review? THey don't.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:23 pm to AUbused
quote:
Check the fortune 100 some time fricktard then come back and tell me that a bunch of jobless greenpeace hippies have more money and power than fricking energy execs. WTF.
The entire right wing ideology rests on two ideas:
1) The powerful are being constantly victimized by the weak
2) Bigotry, racism, and misogyny should be vigorously defended.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:23 pm to goatmilker
You gotta give me a LITTLE leeway for a bit of hyberbolic fun! 
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:24 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
That is not what peer review is.
What an astute observation. Not subjecting publications to peer review isn't peer review. How long did it take you to figure that out?
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:26 pm to Korkstand
It's not a misunderstanding but an over simplification for this message board. The premiss is that things go from organized to chaos, not the opposite unless acted upon by an outside force.
Why aren't other things simply created out of thin air? There is material everywhere and the energy to do so.
Why aren't other things simply created out of thin air? There is material everywhere and the energy to do so.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
2) Bigotry, racism, and misogyny should be vigorously defended
Hmmm
What party started the KKK?
Which party was the party of slavery?
What is the current unemployment rate for Blacks under the Obama administration?
What administration has scapegoated women when scandals appear? (Clinton, Lerner, Rice)
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:27 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Im not the one arguing that publishing in a peer review is validating.
You "know" that yet can't show us exactly how, or even explain why its important.
I'll take a blog that publishes all of the authors findings, data, and methods over a summary paper in a "peer reviewed" journal any day.
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 1:31 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:28 pm to BugAC
quote:
What party started the KKK?
Which party was the party of slavery?
Sorry I was talking about modern day politics. Which party do the majority of blacks and women vote for?
quote:
What is the current unemployment rate for Blacks under the Obama administration?
I thought unemployment was caused by people being lazy. Now you're saying the President sets it?
quote:
What administration has scapegoated women when scandals appear? (Clinton, Lerner, Rice)
This post was edited on 1/2/14 at 1:30 pm
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:29 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Im not the one arguing that publishing in a peer review is validating.
Peer review is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a scientific publication to be useful.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:33 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:Spidy, i know science isn't your thing.
What an astute observation. Not subjecting publications to peer review isn't peer review. How long did it take you to figure that out?
I know you try to quote 'stuff' to make up for that.
Sometimes you do OK with the method.
Other times you don't.
This is one of those 'other times'. Peer review is an ongoing process. Peer review, scientific insight and correction continues long after publication. The source or location of publication -- even if it is "some blog" -- does not limit peer review in the least.
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:36 pm to AUbused
quote:
Check the fortune 100
Seriously go to BP, Exxon, Shell, etc, webisite and see what they say about climate change. It may appear to have been written by
quote:
jobless greenpeace hippies
Posted on 1/2/14 at 1:39 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Peer review is not conducted by a publication's staff. Except in the case of shill foundations, of course.
Wasn't this the primary criticism of the climate change emails that were released? They were trying to control the review process and withhold raw data from being published for outside review?
Page 11 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News