Fishel wrote. “If there is bias and corruption in the peer review process, everyone needs to know about it so this flawed process can be halted and corrected.”
Climate Depot Note: It's hard to tell between hoax studies and alleged real studies! See: Flashback: Polar bear penises not breaking due to PCBs – new paper full of ‘coulds’ and ‘maybes’
There appears to be a problem with the peer review process. Are you ready to lead the charge Greg? Do you have “...the guts to do this”?
“So prove me wrong bloggers and essayists. Submit your work the way real scientists do, and see where it takes you,” he wrote. “Uncover that bias and corruption you’re so convinced is present. If you end up being correct, society will owe you a huge debt of gratitude. If you’re wrong, stop muddying the scientific waters with ideological trash.”
As you wish Greg: see above links on the ‘penis’ causes climate change nonsense.
For scientific articles that cast doubt on man-made climate change from the human emissions of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels see: CO2 Science or NoTricksZone
And if I send you hundreds of peer reviewed references skeptical of AGW would you change your mind again, Greg?
Trust peer review now, Greg?
Here is another example of the flawed peer review process: http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/the-perth-dog-thats-probably-smarter-than-you/news-story/a4de0d201ce420e0302c69532a399419
Ready to lead the charge, Greg?
Further Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment