> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Dinowitz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 11:34 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: global warming skeptics coverge on Bali > > Peer review implies that not "all of the major respected scientific > organizations in the world say it isn't so"
"Peer Review" is a process and like any other it can be compartmentalized, misused, lied-about, etc. For example you can definitely create a community of "peers" that simply bolster the community views (Intelligent Design proponents have done this pretty well). There are astrology and homeopathic journals that claim peer review. That doesn't make the claims any more scientifically acceptable to the broader scientific community. Peer Review is an indication of good science practice, not a guarantee of good science. This is why journals work so hard to maintain high standards and quality: you're not just accepting "peer review" but rather trusted peer review from a known source of excellence. Any journal can _say_ "peer reviewed" but what that really means can vary wildly. (I'm not saying anything specific about these articles - I didn't look at any of them - I'm just throwing it out.) Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Download the latest ColdFusion 8 utilities including Report Builder, plug-ins for Eclipse and Dreamweaver updates. http;//www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs%5adobecf8%5Fbeta Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:248230 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
