Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 128:
Line 128: + + + + + + + + + + + +
just getting started on why I took out the other sentence
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)
The third is tricky, because you have to unravel the tangled political rhetoric. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 10:50, 4 January 2010 (EST)
==Issues of independent review==
Cut from intro:
:... leading the organization whose e-mails were released to provide clearer peer review evidence supporting their earlier claims
First off, [[peer review]] is not the same as [[independent review]]. Journal editors have a system of [[peer review]] that they use to help them decide whether or not to publish an article. However, that decision can be affected by the bias of the editor or publisher, such as choosing only to publish articles that support a given theory.
[[Independent review]], on the other hand, is not related to any specific journal or editor. It is the ongoing process whereby all the scientists in the world constantly look at each other's work. If they find errors, they say so right away - whether in private or in public. [[Science]] advances when scientists use elements of the [[scientific method]] such as ensuring that every [[hypothesis]] is [[falsifiable]] (see also [[reproducible results]]).
The entire problem with the last 10 or 20 years of "global warming" advocacy is that contrary views have been suppressed (see [[intelligent design]] and "[[Expelled]]"). An abuse of the [[peer review]] system has undermined [[independent review]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 11:00, 4 January 2010 (EST)