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.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
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.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
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'.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
Please identify where I claimed anything ever had "god-like infallibility." I just claimed there's nothing better.
Last edited by Schneibster on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
DeltaV wrote:But w.r.t. climate change, it is infallible?
So you claim I said. You can't produce a quote though.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
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.
Last edited by Schneibster on Sun Oct 27, 2013 7:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
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.
We need a directorate of science, and we need it to be voted on only by scientists. You don't get to vote on reality. Get over it. Elected officials that deny the findings of the Science Directorate are subject to immediate impeachment for incompetence.
