Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

28. Re: Climate change BS Mar 29, 2013, 16:58 sauron
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 15:19:
sauron wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 13:34:
eRe4s3r wrote on Mar 29, 2013, 11:42:
Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it.

At the level of the Nature journals and similar, you can't just make stuff up. It will get found out in a heartbeat by your peers. They are not fools and the process is incredibly rigorous.

That's the whole point of peer review. It doesn't guarantee the truth but it makes things a whole lot more reliable. Especially in the high tier journals.

The question is, who are the peers... and who pays them for what research specifically, as you say, the high tier journals have the problem that only scientists in that field can disprove or prove a study. If all the peers that reviewed this study are climate scientists that are paid to research climate change..... would they announce if they find that climate change is not human made? Or would they propagate a "lie" by keeping or hiding certain data points (with agreements among themselves) to keep themselves employed?

My point is not that this is the case, my point is that I don't believe the journal system anymore because that could be the case. And in the same way I don't believe the "other side" either. Because they could be paid by the industry.

Essentially, they cherry picked data sources on the report 2010, that is a minor thing maybe, or maybe it is the main thing... in any case, if they do that on a MAJOR international report, what do they do behind the scenes among their peer reviews?

Are opposing viewpoints with data to prove their point listed in Nature? Or do they get rejected for false assumptions and bad logic, or reasons more nefarious?

All I am saying is, I don't trust climate scientists anymore, from both sides of the argument.

I'm a science researcher in neurobiology, and am funded by both the federal government and industry. From my experience, the feds want the truth either way and will pay for it. Industry is sometimes pushing an agenda - depends on how good they are. The smartest corporations just want reliable facts. Some of the others are less careful and more profit-oriented in the short term and don't realize this approach will hurt them in the longer term.
 
Avatar 8692
 
Kittens!
 
Subject
  
Optional
Message
 
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.
 




footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo