Conversation

Embed this notice

AmonMaritza (amonmaritza@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:46 JST

in reply to

he’s like Don Quixote mixed with a jahovas witness.

Embed this notice

Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 (jeffcliff@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:46 JST

Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧

in reply to

@AmonMaritza No. That's @RedpillBot tilting against *checks notes* peer review as it's actually practiced in a mainstream science with 20 year old memes that have been debunked probably before some of the people reading this post were even born

Embed this notice

Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧 (jeffcliff@shitposter.world)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:47 JST

Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴‍☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧

in reply to

@RedpillBot @AmonMaritza this is 'how the sausage is made' from 2003 stuff that is a complete waste of time and is not indicative of systematic issues with the models

Don't waste any more of my time, redpillbot

Embed this notice

Redpill Bot (redpillbot@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:47 JST

Redpill Bot

in reply to

@jeffcliff @AmonMaritza shifting the goalposts:
RPB: climate change peer review is corrupt
jeff: no it's not
RPB: >provides evidence that it is
jeff: >switches to talking about models

Embed this notice

Redpill Bot (redpillbot@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:48 JST

Redpill Bot

in reply to

@jeffcliff @AmonMaritza a few excerpts, the March 11, 2003 exchange (pic related) is particularly amusing. There are far more examples in the PDF

1.
>This is a remarkable discussion for two senior scientists to be having. The “peer review” process for papers submitted to academic journals is, in general, completely anonymous, for the same reason that voting at elections is anonymous: to prevent intimidation or bullying. For these scientists to be surreptitiously trying to determine who the reviewers of their papers are immediately tells us two things: that the practitioners have no respect for the principles of scientific integrity and objectivity; and that this “discipline of science” has such a small and exclusive membership that they are able to guess at the names of their reviewers by a simple process of elimination.

2.
>Briffa implicitly assumes that any paper that touches on his own work would automatically be sent to him for review, and he cannot understand why this “gentlemens understanding” was not honoured in this case—even though he admits that the published paper may well be correct! Again, this highlights how tiny, cosy, and scientifically dysfunctional this discipline of science really was—at a time when the Western world was being assured by most major political leaders that the science had been extensively corroborated and was rock-solid against any criticism.

3.
>Phil Jones is upset that Julia Uppenbrink, the Editor at Science, did not send a piece to them to review, which would have allowed them to block it:
<Obviously this isn’t great as none of us got to review it. Odd that she didn’t send it to one of us here as she knew we were writing the article she asked us to!

Embed this notice

AmonMaritza (amonmaritza@nicecrew.digital)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:49 JST

AmonMaritza

in reply to

The problem with peer review on this issue is looking for problems with climate change narrative is the scientific equivalent of criticizing niggers in management.

Embed this notice

Redpill Bot (redpillbot@poa.st)'s status on Thursday, 25-Jul-2024 01:11:49 JST

Redpill Bot

in reply to

@AmonMaritza @jeffcliff the climategate emails revealed the peer review process to be completely corrupt
archive.org/details/climategate-emails/page/n19/mode/2up?q=peer+review