Tweet
The "we can't get published because of discrimination" is bull****. First, if that were the case, they ought to have "working papers", that are THE QUALITY of published papers, which they could show off on their sites (instead of little snippets of commentary). In addition, I know the science publishing racket. And even if a clique is blocking you at Nature/Science, you can get into a good specialty journal (there are plenty). If you have a US opponent, you can publish in Europe, etc.
-
-
"The few journals which do post sceptical arguments aren't credible and.." etc.Originally posted by TCO
The "we can't get published because of discrimination" is bull****. First, if that were the case, they ought to have "working papers", that are THE QUALITY of published papers, which they could show off on their sites (instead of little snippets of commentary). In addition, I know the science publishing racket. And even if a clique is blocking you at Nature/Science, you can get into a good specialty journal (there are plenty). If you have a US opponent, you can publish in Europe, etc.
www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
You can get published in decent journals. No need to go for the nutter journals. Heck, lots of the skeptic arguments don't even follow basic rules of formating and logic.Comment
-
Is this your sober-posting site TCO?www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
Sheeet. Have you seen me post here????Comment
-
Don't you remember Maggie Thatcher getting bent over the fence and fvcked like a sheep?Comment
-
Stew: If the skeptics can't get published because of discrimination, where are the well-written working papers that they could self-circulate? That are of the quality to be published, but are bneing discruminated against.Comment
-
Speaking of Thatcher, she was one of the first world leaders to be concerned about GW. There gores the "Leftist lies" meme...Comment
-
She had ulterior motives too - destruction of the coal mining industry. Funny how useful the climate can be as a political tool.Originally posted by Odin
Speaking of Thatcher, she was one of the first world leaders to be concerned about GW. There gores the "Leftist lies" meme...
www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
Do you expect that a paper of such quality will emerge?Originally posted by TCO
Stew: If the skeptics can't get published because of discrimination, where are the well-written working papers that they could self-circulate? That are of the quality to be published, but are bneing discruminated against....people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - SnottyComment
-
Originally posted by Caligastia
Do you expect that a paper of such quality will emerge?
Some already have at least around the fringes. Wegmans paper was a shot acorss the bow and actually a waterline shot as well.
I suspect anything coming from Climateaudit though will likely be long time coming and far too late as the discusssion will have moved on by the time publishing happens."Just puttin on the foil" - Jeff Hanson
“In a democracy, I realize you don’t need to talk to the top leader to know how the country feels. When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that’s the dictator, because he speaks for all the people.” - Jimmy CarterComment
-
I find a tendancy for the skeptics to overstate their cases. I think there is a role they can play. But it will be on the periphery and may in the end, just end up building a more scientific foundation for the "other" side. It is telling that they do not want this. Do not care about advancing science and truth per se. Rather, in promoting their "side".Comment
-
It's because the majority of GW sceptics are sophists in the worst sense of the term, not legit scientists.Originally posted by TCO
It is telling that they do not want this. Do not care about advancing science and truth per se. Rather, in promoting their "side".Comment
-
Is "sophist" something that UnRealclimate thought up..
www.my-piano.blogspotComment
-
sophist my hobby horse, stu.Comment
Comment