Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (19854)	1/28/2008 9:30:58 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 36917

It's funny that neofib is holding up "peer review" as a new infallible standard, something along the lines of "consensus" or "original sin". If it ain't peer reviewed it just ain't nothing. Peer reviewed publication is the primary method scientists use. I've noted that both AGW doubters and Creationists instead favor rhetorical venues such as op-ed articles or live debates, with the unwashed masses picking the "winner". Since you've disparaged peer review above, I can only assume you like the latter approach instead. No surprise there. In live debates it is almost humorous: The Creationist or AGW basher spews a dozen "commonsense" misconceptions/minute while the poor scientist needs to take 10 minutes to correct each piece of nonsense, especially since the science does not appear "commonsense" which is about all the audience is capable of. Think or yourself as a typical audience member. That will give you a good idea of why scientists are not very eager to debate either Creationists or AGW bashers. The audience is too dumb. PS: I read somewhere recently that a "peer reviewed" Creation Science journal was just launched. The AGW bashers should take a cue, and create their own peer reviewed journal, so they can get published.