Any electronics geezers ? peer review

[EternalOptimist]

But you accept peer reviewed literature that you feel supports your case? Or do you only accept speculation and BS on the internet that hasn't been subjected to critical scrutiny at all?

The peer review process is not infallible. Science is not a popularity contest that can be judged by the number of papers supporting one 'side'
The climate science 'team' set out to abuse the process and they succeeded.

Thats it.

[pjclarke]

The climate science 'team' set out to abuse the process and they succeeded.

Interestingly, Mark Steyn, the US right wing journalist and author is being sued by Distinguished Professor Dr Michael Mann along these lines. Steyn accused Mann of 'torturing and molesting' data in the service of politicised science, and described Mann's pioneering paleoclimatic reconstruction as 'fraudulent'

Mann is suing for defamation. Given that his work has been investigated by his University, and several other panels, and every investigation into the issues raised by the email leak has concluded no significant malfeasance by the scientists involved, and Steyn's legal team seem to have bailed out on him, it's popcorn time for climate geeks.

A defamation lawsuit may kill National Review - Salon.com

[doodab]

Science is not a popularity contest that can be judged by the number of papers supporting one 'side

But that's true whether or not papers are peer reviewed, so it's hardly a valid criticism of the peer review process.

TBH I get the impression you don't read and have never read proper peer reviewed journals and don't actually know what you are talking about. Peer review is about ensuring the quality of individual papers. Like any other media you have to learn to judge what is good and what is bad, there are undoubtedly some journals with low standards but top end journals such as Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters etc have high standards and don't actually publish crap. Done properly peer review works very well.

Your argument is basically the same as saying all cars are tulip because the Austin Allegro was. It's nonsensical overgeneralisation.

[Ticktock]

Your argument is basically the same as saying all cars are tulip because the Austin Allegro was. It's nonsensical overgeneralisation.

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

[doodab]

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

It depends which of the many conflated fallacious arguments you're countering

[EternalOptimist]

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

dont talk nonsense.
The argument is that I like money, but I dont like counterfeit money and I dont like counterfeiters