Cherry-picking, lying and repeating lies, exaggerating, distorting, deleting, repeating the same questions over and over again (while picking the same users as BA), they all appear to be judged as perfectly acceptable tactics by those very vocal deniers.
Some psychological studies suggest cheaters get a kick out of cheating. They call it 'Cheater's High'.
Why do you (and Gringo) struggle so hard to be "right"? I mean really, how can you equate complaining over the peer process with dishonsty?
Do you need people who disagree with you to be labeled dishonest Maybe we should do some psychological studies on you guys.
Hey you know what? There are many problems with the peer review process in many disciplines of science. And we got a special glimpse into climate science with the Climategate emails. But I'm sure if you talk to Gringo or Skeptical Science and put everything into "proper context", any worries about it can easily be melted away.
According to my Science Magazine 40% of all research papers are fraudulent or lazy science or both. One scientist has had his papers rejected 163 times. This is in all sciences so I assume global warmists fit into this category.
If the science was sound you wouldn't need to resort to calling others names. Do you really think a peer reviewed paper of astrophysicists working on the SETI project are actually going to accept a paper that claims there is no life on other planets? Climatologists already have a bias that global warming is real or they wouldn't be climatologists. So you think someone with a bias is going to be critical of someone with the same bias?
"... do you think they believe this because of their own basic dishonesty? "
No, we believe it because we see described in journals like Nature.
http://www.nature.com/news/publishing-th...
Would anyone care to comment on Pat Michael's claim that: "For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors’ names on the manuscripts sent out for review."?
Peer review has been reported to have gone wrong many times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/scienc...
and even the Scientist Magazine questions it.
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0SO8x1Fr...
I do not have personal experience but we see so many complaints nowadays that something must be wrong.
When you see 60 papers pulled because of self peer review, yes it makes you wonder.
No.
of course it is.
We hear deniers complain about peer review in science, claiming that it's a rigged system where one friends approve each other's work. Since it is doubtful that any of them have actually been through peer review, do you think they believe this because of their own basic dishonesty?
As a fictional example if two deniers, Gelatin M.D. and Chaparral, ask questions and give each other undeserved "best" answers, isn't that the same kind of dishonesty they're accusing the scientists of? Aren't they just projecting?
