lying trolls always say that any logical ethical and well written argument is humorous.
this is what the rat finds funny.
rat troll, my postings also follows Jo's way.
Science, after all, is not done by “Peer Review”, it’s done by evidence and reason.
Double standards? Not here… People will accuse me of double standards, but quote me carefully (and in context) and you will find I have never attacked a paper purely because it was pal-reviewed, but always because I had problems with the reasoning and arguments first. When good scientists pal review good science, we can get better science. When poor scientists pal review poor science, we get a cheating loophole, though good editors ought to know that, and rebuttals can clean up mistakes. Pal review merely explains why some truly junky papers get put into supposedly eminent journals. My real problem is with scientists who make out that Peer Review is gospel while practicing bad pal-review. There is active deception in that contrast.
Nils Axel Morner, Roger Tattersall, Ian Wilson, have not said their papers are true because they are published, they all say “judge me by my work”. rat your posts like all the trolls never argue or reason, only insult the poster or some public figure or both.
you have no science, only the falsified IPCC models. trolls live in a stupidity vortex. The temperatures there must be frigid because the minds there are slooooowwwww. |
