Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
Still using the liberal group SourceWatch to debunk your detractors? Shame on you. I've already discredited them.
|
No - you provided a link to a right-wing blog. That is not what you would call "discrediting" something. It is about as convincing as quoting Andrew Bolt's opinion on Benny Peiser - which you have also done.
Your point may be valid if I were quoting opinion from Sourcewatch - but as I told you back in
post #230 (when I used Sourcewatch as a reference to a
direct quote from your mate Benny Peiser) - I was not quoting the opinion of the authors of that site - I cited it as reference for a direct quote from the National Academy of the Sciences. My apologies for not providing the quote from it's original source - but most people can tell the difference between opinion and a direct quote.
Just for your benefit - here is the original source:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/on...rdID=s04201998
Do you have a right wing blog to discredit that? What does Andrew Bolt have to say about it? Benny Peiser?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatriotNews
If it is so important to you that these opinions on AGW come exclusively from "scientifically peer reviewed" whatever you call it magazines/journals, why do you not provide us with a list of acceptable magazines/journals first, so that we can meet you standards of what is valid science?
|
"scientifically peer reviewed" whatever you call it magazines/journals,
!?!?!?!
This is truly unbelievable! You have absolutely no idea, do you!
Let Wikipedia help you:
In academic publishing, a scientific journal is a periodical publication intended to further the progress of science, usually by reporting new research. Most journals are highly specialized, although some of the oldest journals such as Nature publish articles and scientific papers across a wide range of scientific fields. Scientific journals contain articles that have been peer reviewed, in an attempt to ensure that articles meet the journal's standards of quality, and scientific validity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal
So take note:
www.activistcash.com - is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
An opinion column by Andrew Bolt is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
The SCIENCE & ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY PROJECT website is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal
and neither are most of the other things you like to link to.
Of course, sourcewatch.com and wikipedia are also not peer-reviewed scientific journals - but they are often convenient places to find references to papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals - just check the references in the footnotes.
That fact that you want to try to discuss a scientific matter when you don't even have the faintest idea how scientific publishing works is quite hilarious.