SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics of Energy
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: RetiredNow who wrote (14388)11/30/2009 1:07:30 PM
From: Brumar891 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
The leaked emails show the way science isn't supposed to work. Peer review was subverted and we have emails from a clique of scientists doing the perverting.

Furthermore, the idea that peer review proves that a paper is TRUTH is invalid as well ... even when peer review is working the way it should it only shows that peers in the field thought the paper worth publishing. It never was a gold seal of approval - yes, this paper is TRUTH and no criticism is warranted.

The burden of proof should exist on those making a claim - in this case the claim that CO2 from fossil fuels will cause environmental catastrophe. Thats true in any field, not just science.

There is no requirement that critics prove an alternative theory. However, there are credible, numbers backed alternative theories. One is that solar cycles are the predominant cause of climate changes.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News