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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (270)	9/1/2011 9:12:16 AM
From: Brumar89	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

If peer review has been corrupted into pal review, we shouldn't uncritically accept it. Charles Monnett's study widely cited study in support of the idea polar bears are endangered was 'peer reviewed' by two scientists. One was his wife. The other was a scientist he awarded a large grant to. That kind of self-dealing is unacceptable. We also know the Climategate leaked emails showed climate scientists conspiring to corrupt the review process to stifle skeptical studies. Furthermore, peer review, even when not corrupted, only means that a study is worthy of publication ... it's not a seal that guarantees the study's conclusions are valid or meaningful.

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (270)	9/1/2011 9:40:05 AM
From: longnshort	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

"Do you accept the conclusions of peer reviewed science or not" not when it's done by your wife or buddies where money is involved. this post is the truth since my wife peer reviewed it and she has a science degree

To: Bread Upon The Water who wrote (270)	9/1/2011 9:40:05 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

"Do you accept the conclusions of peer reviewed science or not" not when it's done by your wife or buddies where money is involved. this post is the truth since my wife peer reviewed it and she has a science degree