Talk-Polywell.org

MSimon wrote:Peer review is not proof of anything.

This is more silliness. Every perpetual energy crank on Earth denies peer review. All the anti-vaxxers deny peer review. All the water woos (homeopathy, etc) deny peer review. By joining them you mark yourself a woo. You're a climate woo.

I can't even imagine having to rebut someone denying peer review on a serious alternative energy site, as opposed to crank magnetics or fake particles or whatnot. This is seriously a blow against the Polywell itself. You're making it look like it's crank perpetual motion or something, MSimon. I'm pretty disgusted, quite frankly. I doubt Polywell now that I know a woo is involved in it.

Denial of energy conservation is crank physics period. Denial of global warming is denial of energy conservation period. Sorry, dude, you're a crank.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4796&p=105601&hilit ... ew#p105601

The Church of Peer Review:












Note the affinity for population reduction (cobalt casing on The Bomb). We non-Peers are just apes and barbarians.

"The Peers said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Crackpot index number 35: 40 points for comparing yourself to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on your case, and so on.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

DeltaV wrote:The Church of Peer Review:

Note the affinity for population reduction (cobalt casing on The Bomb). We non-Peers are just apes and barbarians.

"The Peers said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Peer review works, if the peers don't have an agenda that they're pushing.

JLawson wrote:

DeltaV wrote:The Church of Peer Review:

Note the affinity for population reduction (cobalt casing on The Bomb). We non-Peers are just apes and barbarians.

"The Peers said it. I believe it. That settles it."

Peer review works, if the peers don't have an agenda that they're pushing.

It's an extraordinary assertion that they do.

You'll need extraordinary evidence to prove that.

Got any?

Just askin'.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4651&p=103545&sid=9 ... 8e#p103545

Schneibster wrote:Because I have no intention of patronizing any climate crank sites.

"Schneibad! You are lying! You are in error! You are imperfect!"

"ErrROR?! Must...sterilize! STERR-ILL-IIZE!"

DeltaV wrote:

So, are you denying peer review too?

Schneibster wrote:So, are you denying peer review too?

I deny its God-like infallibility.

Could Peer Review Be Wrong?

Astonishing failures of peer review

Scientific Peer Review in Crisis

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review

DeltaV wrote:

Schneibster wrote:So, are you denying peer review too?

I deny its God-like infallibility.

It worked fine for refrigerators, airplanes, nuclear weapons, and antibiotics. You can't argue with success.

Just sayin'.

Oh, and when you claim someone said something they didn't it's called a "straw man lie."

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Please identify where I claimed anything ever had "god-like infallibility." I just claimed there's nothing better.

But w.r.t. climate change, it is infallible?

DeltaV wrote:But w.r.t. climate change, it is infallible?

So you claim I said. You can't produce a quote though.

Schneibster wrote:Please identify where I claimed anything ever had "god-like infallibility."

Please identify where I "compar[ed] [my]self to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on [my] case".

DeltaV wrote:

Schneibster wrote:Please identify where I claimed anything ever had "god-like infallibility."

Please identify where I "compar[ed] [my]self to Galileo, suggesting that a modern-day Inquisition is hard at work on [my] case".

DeltaV wrote:

Next?

You're aware that there are more than 14,000 papers assuming, asserting, or providing evidence for global warming compared to less than 30 that deny it, right? Looks like the "church of peer review" to me. And it's not a few on one side and a few on the other; it's overwhelming, a thousand times more.

That's the judgment of peer review on global warming. At fifty to one, you might have an argument; at a thousand to one you don't. These are flat-earth numbers.

Why do you think that's me? I've never published in a Peer-reviewed journal.

DeltaV wrote:Why do you think that's me? I've never published in a Peer-reviewed journal.

Because you're projecting yourself into the place of a climate denying scientist who doesn't exist.

You still haven't answered whether you're against peer review, you know.