Interesting discussion on "Peer Review"
- Thread starter trunole1
- Start date
Peer review is not the end all of scientific factual conclusions. Also, I found it interesting how historically it began.
No. But, it’s important. If you could publish anything, there would be effectively be no filter.
Allowing scientific counterpoints in such reviews. Just because something is reviewed doesn't make it factual.
Not scientific fact?Peter Clack is a journalist...not a scientist.
Just FYI.
And Al Gore was just a politician not a scientist.Peter Clack is a journalist...not a scientist.
Just FYI.
Greta Thunberg is just a sad young woman used by her parents and climate extremists.
Just FYI.
A scientific fact like the one that says we Floridians live on a thin shelf that used to be underwater and may be underwater again in a few thousand years?
Yeah, like that.
Yes so let's listen to the climate change experts.
Evidence - NASA Science
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
science.nasa.gov
Manmade CO2 is responsible? Peer reviewed Scientific Fact?Yes so let's listen to the climate change experts.
Evidence - NASA Science
Takeaways The rate of change since the mid-20th century is unprecedented over millennia. Earth’s climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight cycles of ice ages and warmer periods, with the end of the last ice age about 11,700 years ago marking...
Yet another fake IPCC hockey stick - Climate Discussion Nexus
We were reminded recently of a discussion on Twitter/X nearly a year ago involving hockey stick slayer Steve McIntyre and several anonymous math geeks who had figured out the latest IPCC trick for making hockey sticks out of nothing. A new blog post at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc., by a young...
climatediscussionnexus.com
Norm Sauer: Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ a documented hoax
Editor’s note: The Union accepts one submission per author, per 30-day period, although our policy does afford opportunity for rebuttal on a case-by-case basis in the form of a letter
So, is what he posted above not true or is the fact that he's just a journalist makes it less factual?Peter Clack is a journalist...not a scientist.
Just FYI.
From National Geographic. (I think they have scientists)
Earth’s atmosphere is composed of about 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen, 0.9 percent argon, and 0.1 percent other gases. Trace amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, and neon are some of the other gases that make up the remaining 0.1 percent.
Atmosphere
Earth’s atmosphere is so much more than the air we breathe. A trip from the surface of Earth to outer space would result in passing through five different layers, each with very different characteristics.
education.nationalgeographic.org
So, the journalist above posted factual information. Or did I miss something?
Do you have references? And if so, how is the .0016% manmade CO2 impacting the climate and how much time do we have? Ask your scientist buddies and get back to us please.
Yea, it's funny....I've actually been apart of a few peer-reviewed papers and grants. I'll put money that none of you have...I've noticed a pattern, you guys attack science, for what real reason I don't know. I'm all for being skeptical, that's part of the very foundation of science...but you're skeptical for the wrong reasons... otherwise shut up about it or publish a rebuttal paper. Because to the people that actually have a background in science, you're arguments are simple, incomplete, and one sided.
Well it’s a lock - your a$$ wasn’t an English major.
No, and this is a message board, so excuse me if grammar is secondary to content...did you understand what I said? If yes, then moot
Just hope your request for those really swell grants for scientific research were correct….
Lol....you think I was lead author or even cited, as a first year grad student. Just say you no nothing about this topic and leave it at that
Like you said it's a message board, so opinions are allowed here. How do you know the reasons for me being skeptical? Some call it skeptical I call it objectivity. Science isn't perfect because people are involved in it. People allow their emotions to drive decisions and stops them from thinking critically. But since you did a peer review as a grad student you know this already.
Also, nobody is really impressed (almost) that you were part of a peer review. Do you own a car too? Anyway, congratulations for going to grad school.
No - I don’t, but isn’t that kinda the point…or should I “no” differently?
Reed, we go back a long way on FSU message boards, and I say this with all sincerity - I hope you have a better day today.
Be well.
Be well.
Last edited by a moderator:
Since I got healthy I have pretty good days every day...yea, I'll admit I've gotten really cynical as I've gotten older because I see things happening to this country that is starting to kind of scare and confound me. A country that allowed a poor white trash cripple from Kentucky to do amazing things, things I would I would have never dreamed possible growing up. I want those same opportunities for future generations and right now I wouldn't bet on it
Last edited:
How much money?
I don't disagree with you, by the way.
The point to peer review is to identify errors in the execution of the science, that the paper is presented in an even handed way (not over interpreting findings, and such) and that the article is of relevance to the viewing audience of the journal. It is not to verify that the conclusions of the article are true.
Science is a mix of the objective and the subjective. It's how it works.
I think this is an interesting read. https://www.thriftbooks.com/w/the-structure-of-scientific-revolutions-by-thomas-s-kuhn/247752/item/11056585/?mkwid=|dc&pcrid=77172150940746&pkw=&pmt=be&slid=&product=11056585&plc=&pgrid=1234751854564121&ptaid=pla-4580771613628162&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Shopping+-+High+Vol+Scarce+-+Under+$10&utm_term=&utm_content=|dc|pcrid|77172150940746|pkw||pmt|be|product|11056585|slid||pgrid|1234751854564121|ptaid|pla-4580771613628162|&msclkid=cf45b66c2edb1ba17f02d0f03a785e51#idiq=11056585&edition=6902766
It was required when I was in graduate school.
I will note it can be quite difficult to publish results that are counter to the prevailing narrative of how things work. The skepticism is higher. Some of the most impactful papers in many disciplines had to be shopped around to many journals. You'll also have papers rejected because someone has an agenda. It's just the way it is. And, there are some things that are more heavily politically intransigent than others. I wouldn't trust anything coming out now consistent with intersectionality hypotheses, for example.
Last edited:
I find that if I immerse myself in political issues, I get very cynical and negative at times. I tend to step back from it to recenter. I think it is a choice, at least for some people, to be positive or not. I try to work within the systems I am involved in to make them better. Whenever resources are finite, or stability is shaken for whatever reason, it is quite easy to lose balance. If you are a leader in a system, it is absolutely critical to maintain a positive demeanor. I think that’s how to make opportunities for people to do well.
Last edited:
I am not against peer review. Of course it is essential for any scientific study.
Peer review is not the end all of scientific factual conclusions.
Peer reviews must not be questioned?
That doesn't sound scientific from my view.
Too many treat science like it is a religion and of course it is not decided by a vote.
Peer review is not the end all of scientific factual conclusions.
Peer reviews must not be questioned?
That doesn't sound scientific from my view.
Too many treat science like it is a religion and of course it is not decided by a vote.
Too many in the public treat science like it's a religion if it supports their current viewpoint/political needs. Too many reject science if it does not support their view or if it's not certain.
E.g., the common religious argument that there is not a scientific explanation for existence, therefore god exists.
The problem isn't really about science. It's about logic.
Logical Fallacies - List of Logical Fallacies with Examples
A comprehensive list of logical fallacies, with definitions, explanations, and examples that are easy-to-understand.
www.logicalfallacies.org
Last edited:
Similar threads
