According to your respected scientists you have it wrong: "This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the "peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to thattake over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board What do others think?"
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor." "It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. Ive had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !" . On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Larry C. Lyons <[email protected]>wrote: > > you have no idea how the peer review system works. try here for a start > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review > > The critical part is with NIH, NIMH AAS, or other granting agencies, both > public and private, it depends on blind peer review. In other words you > have no idea who is applying for the grant as all identifying information > is removed from the materials. I've served on a few peer review panels, one > for a conference, for a journal and for a NIMH grant panel. They all worked > the same. The best I could discern as to identity was on the journal > article, and that was because the person kept citing himself. > > Basically Sam if you don't know how a system works don't try to fake it. > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > If you want to work in the industry you need grants and peers. > > > > . > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I roundly reject that. If you want to be a scientist, you have to do > good > > > research. Form logical hypotheses, construct valid tests, form reasoned > > > conclusions that follow from the results. > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Science is very politicized now. > > > > If you want to earn a living you need to be a Democrat or pretend to > > be > > > > one. > > > > > > > > , > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 8:27 AM, GMoney <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Until all our scientists are robots instead of humans, there will > > > always > > > > be > > > > > a political element to science. But if you are looking for your > LEAST > > > > > political arena, science is about the best you'll get. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 8:24 PM, Larry C. Lyons < > > [email protected] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Very true. Unfortunately its no longer the case. in the 70's the > > > > majority > > > > > > of scientists (56 > > > > > > 56%) employed in the US were Republican. In the Pew Trust Survey > > of a > > > > > > couple of years ago, less than 6% now label themselves as > > Republican. > > > > > Given > > > > > > the hostility of the party to science in general and to several > > > > > fundamental > > > > > > precepts of science in general, specifically evolution, I don't > > think > > > > > that > > > > > > will change any time soon, much to the Republican Party's > > detriment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Scott Stewart < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree with the sentiment that science shouldn't be > politicized. > > > It > > > > > > > shouldn't be partisan at all (bi or otherwise) it needs to be > > above > > > > the > > > > > > > stupidity that is partisan politics. > > > > > > > On Aug 31, 2013 1:57 PM, "Larry C. Lyons" < > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/scientists_hate_the_gop_for_a_reason/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > presented without a comment. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:366851 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
