re: ,

quote:

---

Two words for you - peer reviewed.

---

Science!!!

quote:

---

Two words for you - peer reviewed.

---

LOL

Academic treatises on "Feminist Gravity" are peer reviewed, too. "Peer review" is a REALLY low bar anymore and no longer the silver bullet of authority you are trying to appeal to.

quote:

---

Climate change skeptics suffer major blow

---

Is the Arctic ice-free? Because until it is, an "ice-free arctic" is a prediction hanging around your neck everytime you bring this stupidity up.

Meh. This data could be messed up too if the original was so far off.

We already know the earth is warming and humans contribute somewhat to it.

A board that bitches about silencing people are going to anchor a thread because it threatens a narrative? How fricking double standard and one sided can y'all get around here? This is an embarrassment to normal people.

quote:

---

FAQ: Why was my thread anchored (or deleted)?

---

quote:

---

1. The subject of the thread is too short and not descriptive enough.

---

Doesn't apply here, thread title is not short and it describes just fine the OP's perspective of the linked material. I knew exactly the sort of link I was opening before clicking it

quote:

---

2. The subject of the thread is cut off.

---

Obviously not it

quote:

---

3. THE SUBJECT OR POST IS IN ALL CAPS.

---

NOPE

quote:

---

4. There is already a thread on the info that you are posting.

---

Searched a couple pages and saw no redundancy

quote:

---

5. The topic has been beaten to death

---

I sure as shite hope this isn't it. Despite climate change zealots insistence to the contrary, science is never settled. We update our positions every single day as new information becomes available to us. If this thread was anchored bc climate change discussions have been 'beaten to death', then we know that chicken has at least one dumb-arse admin who does not understand even the most basic foundations of scientific pursuit.

quote:

---

6. A thread has gone off topic

---

Again, not the case here.




So yea, this is a bullshite anchor. I hate CC zealots like some of those linked in this thread as much as the next red blooded American. But trying to outright silence them is not going work. We are perfectly capable of refuting them on their own lack of merits. But when admins do dumb shite like anchoring this thread, you take away our opportunity to do that. Shame on whatever admin is too much of a puss to let a position they disagree with be seen by the board. We need an 'RA Admin Team' option, because this is frankly bullshite

quote:

---

peer reviewed.

---

So . . . . I take you completely missed the whole email scandal where they:

-denied peer review to any skeptics
-threatened journals with a boycott if they published skeptic articles
-admitted to taking over journal boards, so that they could determine which articles to review, and which to deny

Seems like a swell thing to be peer reviewed in the field of climate science, huh?

quote:

---

Climate change skeptics suffer major blow

Is the Arctic ice-free?

---