On 13/03/18 07:50, RJH wrote:
On 13/03/2018 06:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 13/03/18 04:29, Fredxx wrote:
On 13/03/2018 02:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/03/18 19:56, Fredxx wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:54, GB wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:35, wrote:

snip
This is just one recent paper that is a peer reviewed publication
from a University, there are loads of others.
Â*Â* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28923745

Perhaps you should be equally open to the likelihood that god
doesn't exist; where beliefs of the existence that father
christmas, and the like, are akin to snake oil too?

Thes days when I hearÂ* 'peer reviewed publication' and I find in it
the words 'alternative eco-friendly' I just switch off. Whatever
happened to actual real investigative science?

Some mock the concept of a peer reviewed article, others believe they
represent greater credibility than claims made in pubs or even
newsgroups.


Once it did. These days it means a coterie of paid academics are
masturbating each other for money, if te word 'environment' or 'eco'
or 'climate change' apperas anywhere in it.


Surely a better estimate than the Express/Mail etc so many on this NG
rely on?


Or the Guardian/BBC/New Scientist..

And to suggest that all peer reviewed research containing those words is
motivated by money is just nonsense.


Only about 90%..

I have it from Don's mouths that whatever research you do, if you can
throw in a climate change or envoronment angle you get funding.
Otherwise, you don't.



--
Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have
guns, why should we let them have ideas?

Josef Stalin