Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
There's just evidence in that article of gov'ts acting on faulty science. If anything, its a vast international right wing conspiracy. Business is going to get you and me to pay a carbon tax at the pump and every time we turn on a light. Goldman Sachs will be the house that skims a bit of every carbon trade and we'll all get GPS for our cars so we can put a meter on that too.
I gave you plent of evidence of *science* in this link right here:
http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt
And if you had been paying attention Billy, you'd understand why there isn't very much peer reviewed primary literature in this area of science:
|
It's pretty clear you don't even know what science is. When I say science, I mean primary peer-reviewed literature. The scientific world, no matter what it's discipline, publishes most data via this means, not CNN or the Times.
I know exactly why there isn't any of it in the peer-review system. I know how the peer-review system works, because I've been on both sides of the equation. There haven't been any legitimate primary denial papers published in a peer-reviewed journal in over a decade because the science doesn't withstand review. Papers are usually not rejected out of hand, no matter what you may think. One bad review is not enough to stop publication. Manuscripts go out to multiple, anonymous reviewers. The author(s) can usually ask to either include or exclude potential reviewers for consideration, especially if they feel there is a conflict of interest, and after review, they can always edit the manuscript or add experiments/studies/analysis/data. Even if the manuscript is rejected, it can always be resubmitted to the same or other journals pending changes.
I can't even find a Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences. There's a Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, an American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Science, and an American Eurasian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. And none of these are high-impact journals. Even the oft discussed Climate Research only managed an IF of 1 in 2002 (just before the e-mail in question). An impact factor that low suggests it is already borderline as a legitmate journal, even in the earth sciences. Kind of makes the point, no? Anyhow, your e-mail names a fictional journal. That kind of casts a little doubt on the legitimacy of the e-mail doesn't it?
As far as the rest of the e-mails you've posted, they've been heavily edited, and could be interpreted multiple ways in an academic context. As they stand, they're not terribly meaningful. I can't see the rest of the e-mails, because they are so highly edited, I can't see the manuscript in question, I can't see the study it critiques, and I can't see the reviews in question. And at risk of repeating myself, this is still just one group in a field of thousands, even if something is wrong.