BULLDOG
Diamond Member
- Jun 3, 2014
- 96,697
- 32,595
- 2,250
And nothing you or he have posted disproves the opinion of the vast majority of credible scientists in the field.
Perhaps I missed it, but where was "the vast majority of credible scientists in the field" proven, rather than simply asserted?
Peer review. What other proof would you accept? Is there a single, or multiple authorities whose word you would accept, other than fox, as far as the validity of the state of climate science?
So the handful of people that a journal sends an article to for review proves "vast majority of credible scientists"? I'm afraid that math just doesn't work.
At this point, I would just like any reference to "vast majority" that actually deals with the vast majority, and we can work from there. And hollering demonizing buzz words at me doesn't work, so you might as well save your keystrokes for saying something substantial . . . if you can.
So you think peer review only includes a small group selected by any particular journal? Obviously you don't understand what peer review is. Typical ignorant response from a typical climate science denier.
Well, as an administrative assistant for the University of Arizona, working for multiple PhD professors, I have both submitted papers for peer review prior to publication and received them. So somehow, I do think I understand the process of peer review better than you. But by all means, if you think you can offer some proof that peer review is something other than a small group of people - relatively speaking - reading and reviewing articles for publication - proof other than "You obviously don't know. You're ignorant" - feel free to provide it.
Let me show you how proof is done, since you seem to erroneously think it consists of issuing insults in a faux-superior tone:
peer review
noun
: a process by which a scholarly work (such as a paper or a research proposal) is checked by a group of experts in the same field to make sure it meets the necessary standards before it is published or accepted
Peer review - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
I'm sure there is some sort of review before publication. Upon publication is when the widespread review is started. If the wider population of experts who read the paper think it is crap, then it certainly won't be accepted as fact no mater what the few people who saw it before publication thought. Surely you don't think the evaluation of any paper ends upon publication do you?