On Saturday, 22 August 2020 15:32:06 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 21 August 2020 15:32:08 UTC+1, #Paul wrote:
tabbypurr wrote:

not much detail there, but I have noticed that the great majority
of Peer reviewed science in leading scientific journals is bunk.

This journal:

https://iopscience.iop.org/journal/1367-2630

is entirely open access. Pick any paper you like, and tell
us the reasons why it is "bunk". Better yet, write them up
properly and submit a Comment to the journal itself.

listed: [...]

None of those are areas of any expertise for me. None of them strike
me as relevant to the problems with the green agenda.

You said "the great majority of Peer reviewed science in leading
scientific journals", a statement that you did not constrain to
apply only within your expertise, or to within a "green agenda".
So, I could repeat:

Pick any paper you like, and tell us the reasons why it is
"bunk". Better yet, write them up properly and submit a
Comment to the journal itself.

However, like a number of people here, you talk big about "peer
reviewed science", but utterly fail to actually engage with any of
it on any meaningful level. The failure is so persistent, and so
pronounced, that I presume you imagine that others somehow do not
notice, and will be taken in by your assertions.


#Paul

Lol. If you get the first clue what's going on let us know. Until there is no point engaging with you.

For anyone with a functioning brain cell:
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicin...l.pmed.0020124


NT