Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Actually you didn't. I applaud the effort, though. What you did was paste the text of a REVIEW article into a post, and assure us that it came from what you deemed to be a reputable source. 3 points:
1. Pardon me for not taking your word on it--show me the source and I'll decide for myself if it's worth believing. That's called critical reading, a valuable life-skill.
2. Review articles are subject to completely different peer-review processes, something that varies from journal to journal, but sometimes they are approved, sight-unseen, by a single editor. Translation: you don't know what peer-reviewed means. I'd explain it, but I did that before, and apparently you don't want to know anyway.
3. One article does not equal a groundswell. I can find you one article that says that string theory is hokum. I can find you another that says that every other theory is flawed. It's called science--and it thrives on debate. The fact is, in scientific terms, there is widespread consensus on this issue. One review article from one journal changes nothing. That's like saying that because in one week Shean Donovan scored more goals than Jarome Iginla, that there's now a "debate" about who's the better hockey player.
|
I gave you the title of an article and where you could find it. Pardon me for not pirating and presenting you with the entire article. However, Cowperson was able to find this link (
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g87327815xg2u1h2/) pretty simply by following directions.
Do tell me why my "peer reviewed" articles are not up to the same standard as yours...if you did explain this already pardon my ignorance because I missed that. I simply searched an academic search engine for "peer reviewed" articles on the topic I was looking for. I was under the impression that by limiting by search to only peer reviewed articles that is what I would get. Apparantly just like the scientists disputing our influence on global warming peer reviewed articles on that matter are also not "real" peer reviewed articles...
I never claimed that 1 article was enough to make an informed decision. I simply said that while you (and Mr. Gore and his 928 articles) were unable to find an article disagreeing with his consensus I was. In fact I believe my whole point a few weeks ago and I'll restress it now was not to take 1 movie (Mr. Gores) as truth like so many did.
Personally I have a hard time believing any "scientists" right now on the issue because it seems like every ideal has a group of their own scientists supporting them.