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: Brumar89 who wrote (46297)1/20/2014 4:36:31 PM
From: Thomas A Watson1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Read Replies (1) of 86356
 
To me the real point is the openly in first communications. The issue of questioning the IPCC consensus continued position of CO2 driven global warming being questioned was the cancellation justification.

If pal review raised peer review policy issues, then you would delay and find independent review.

Immediately sanctioning the authors without really reviewing the science in the message is wrong.

In this case I see all of Watts arguments as being head up his ass process grammar and syntax bull shit.

I am interested in the science in the message. I do not care about who said or how many others agree or not.

The honest scientific method is every person reading, thinking and understanding or not. Sadly so many get lost in the political process morass.

Peer review has become fast food science for the lazy mind.
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