Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 6)

[Ivan stewart]

Looks like oil will be best !! Well Boris is pushing harder for electric cars so there’s going to plenty for power generation!!

[dickymint]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Wiki peer review process?

Are you saying Wiki doesn't have a peer review process? Maybe you don't know what Wiki is, but that is basically the whole point of it. Anyone can comment, edit and suggest revisions. It's a social document.

Besides, you didn't answer this (again) so you're in no position to criticise sources:

durbster said:

What sources do you think are reliable? You are quick to scoff at other's sources but very reluctant to tell us your own.

[My emphasis].

It used to be the case that any Wiki reference/quote posted was totally laughed out of town by the faithful - now they are our "peers"

[mko9]

Meh. At least Wiki cites their sources, which is more than can be said for many, including mainstream media.

[turbobloke]

mko9 said:

Meh. At least Wiki cites their sources, which is more than can be said for many, including mainstream media.

Sure, ISWYM for routine stuff, but it works in strange ways, like Gaia God.

Take one of the 5000+ articles which endured "edits" from agw fanatic Connolley who was/is a wiki Administrator. The actual sequence was posted (by me) recently in a link but this gives the gist of it more than satisfactorily.

Wiki article said: Peiser (climate realist) has shown the claim from Oreskes (pro-agw historian) is false
Comment deleted
Comment reinstated.
Comment redeleted.
Article remanufactured aka edited: Peiser has acknowledged that Oreskes was correct
(so, the primary source has to be Peiser)
When contacted, Peiser confirmed that this claim was/is a fabrication.

As Oreskes was forced to publish a correction in the journal where the erroneous litsearch term - and result - was originally published,we can deduce that Peiser had a point and wouldn't be likely to retract. There's a lot more, 5000+ instances more.

This particular example risks another pro-agw staunch defence attrition loop, but if people don't bite, it won't happen...

[Diderot]

mko9 said:

Meh. At least Wiki cites their sources, which is more than can be said for many, including mainstream media.

In academia, Wiki is rarely admissible as a legitimate source, unless of course you are trying to demonstrate the inherent and obvious issues with Wikipedia as a legitimate source.

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Wiki peer review process?

Are you saying Wiki doesn't have a peer review process? Maybe you don't know what Wiki is, but that is basically the whole point of it. Anyone can comment, edit and suggest revisions. It's a social document.

Besides, you didn't answer this (again) so you're in no position to criticise sources:

durbster said:

What sources do you think are reliable? You are quick to scoff at other's sources but very reluctant to tell us your own.

[My emphasis].

Some points:

1. Clearly you don't understand how the Wiki editor works.
2. As far as I've seen, nobody here has ever used Wikipedia itself as a source of truth, so undermining Wiki is pointless
3. Your opinions on this are irrelevant while you refuse to say what you do consider is a reliable source (and fyi - it's very obvious that the reason you won't answer that is because there are no reliable sources that support your position)

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Wiki peer review process?

Are you saying Wiki doesn't have a peer review process? Maybe you don't know what Wiki is, but that is basically the whole point of it. Anyone can comment, edit and suggest revisions. It's a social document.

Besides, you didn't answer this (again) so you're in no position to criticise sources:

durbster said:

What sources do you think are reliable? You are quick to scoff at other's sources but very reluctant to tell us your own.

[My emphasis].

Some points:

1. Clearly you don't understand how the Wiki editor works.
2. As far as I've seen, nobody here has ever used Wikipedia itself as a source of truth, so undermining Wiki is pointless
3. Your opinions on this are irrelevant while you refuse to say what you do consider is a reliable source (and fyi - it's very obvious that the reason you won't answer that is because there are no reliable sources that support your position)

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable. Why feel the need to post anything at all from Wikipedia when it is simply not a reliable source?

As someone who is on the editorial board of an academic journal published in the US, I think I might be in a position to understand how peer review works and it certainly doesn’t bear any resemblance to Wikipedia.

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

[dickymint]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

Wiki peer review process?

Are you saying Wiki doesn't have a peer review process? Maybe you don't know what Wiki is, but that is basically the whole point of it. Anyone can comment, edit and suggest revisions. It's a social document.

Besides, you didn't answer this (again) so you're in no position to criticise sources:

durbster said:

What sources do you think are reliable? You are quick to scoff at other's sources but very reluctant to tell us your own.

[My emphasis].

Some points:

1. Clearly you don't understand how the Wiki editor works.
2. As far as I've seen, nobody here has ever used Wikipedia itself as a source of truth, so undermining Wiki is pointless
3. Your opinions on this are irrelevant while you refuse to say what you do consider is a reliable source (and fyi - it's very obvious that the reason you won't answer that is because there are no reliable sources that support your position)

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable. Why feel the need to post anything at all from Wikipedia when it is simply not a reliable source?

As someone who is on the editorial board of an academic journal published in the US, I think I might be in a position to understand how peer review works and it certainly doesn’t bear any resemblance to Wikipedia.

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

Yep the usual MO avoid the question by diversion and answering with another question - then further questions to drill down further to something quite irrelevant and claiming a victory based on a spelling mistake or some other trivia works everytime...............not! Quite pathetic. Next comes the cavalry and the pile on

Edit: needs another

[durbster]

Diderot said:

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable.

Ok, so don't call it "peer" review. As I said, I meant that it's open and reviewable by anyone.

Diderot said:

Why feel the need to post anything at all from Wikipedia when it is simply not a reliable source?

Of course it can be if the article is well written. Nevertheless professor strawman, as already stated nobody is claiming Wikipedia is a reliable source.

Diderot said:

As someone who is on the editorial board of an academic journal published in the US, I think I might be in a position to understand how peer review works and it certainly doesn’t bear any resemblance to Wikipedia.

Here's a tip: vague boasting on the internet has no meaning. What's your role, providing the rofl emojis?

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think that I meant Wiki's public review process was equivalent to proper expert peer-review but you're grasping so nvm.

Diderot said:

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

Well obviously that's not an answer. What primary source material supports your position? Because your position appears to be wholly at odds with all the primary source material I've seen.

[durbster]

dickymint said:

Yep the usual MO avoid the question by diversion

What question was I avoiding?

dickymint said:

Quite pathetic. Next comes the cavalry and the pile on

If you don't like pile-ons, how would you describe what you're doing here?

dickymint said:

Edit: needs another

You know, it's obvious you're not laughing and are just angry about all this. You're probably upset that you've been misled but remember, it's not me that's misled you.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable.

Ok, so don't call it "peer" review. As I said, I meant that it's open and reviewable by anyone.

Diderot said:

Why feel the need to post anything at all from Wikipedia when it is simply not a reliable source?

Of course it can be if the article is well written. Nevertheless professor strawman, as already stated nobody is claiming Wikipedia is a reliable source.

Diderot said:

As someone who is on the editorial board of an academic journal published in the US, I think I might be in a position to understand how peer review works and it certainly doesn’t bear any resemblance to Wikipedia.

Here's a tip: vague boasting on the internet has no meaning. What's your role, providing the rofl emojis?

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think that I meant Wiki's public review process was equivalent to proper expert peer-review but you're grasping so nvm.

Diderot said:

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

Well obviously that's not an answer. What primary source material supports your position? Because your position appears to be wholly at odds with all the primary source material I've seen.

and.......

durbster said:

dickymint said:

Yep the usual MO avoid the question by diversion

What question was I avoiding?

dickymint said:

Quite pathetic. Next comes the cavalry and the pile on

If you don't like pile-ons, how would you describe what you're doing here?

dickymint said:

Edit: needs another

You know, it's obvious you're not laughing and are just angry about all this. You're probably upset that you've been misled but remember, it's not me that's misled you.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. More diversions than the M5 on a bank holiday plus the usual extra questions for deflection. At least you've tried to back track as regards the your "Peers" on Wicki

[Diderot]

durbster said:

Diderot said:

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable.

Ok, so don't call it "peer" review. As I said, I meant that it's open and reviewable by anyone.

and if you cannot still see the inherent problem with that then there’s little hope trying to explain it to you.

durster said:

Diderot said:

Why feel the need to post anything at all from Wikipedia when it is simply not a reliable source?

Of course it can be if the article is well written. Nevertheless professor strawman, as already stated nobody is claiming Wikipedia is a reliable source.[

We’ll if you’re now, finally admitting, it’s not a reliable source, then why feel the need to cite it or worse, defend it? It’s not especially difficult to see the logic in that is it? And lay off on the childish name calling it does you no favours.

durbster said:

Diderot said:

As someone who is on the editorial board of an academic journal published in the US, I think I might be in a position to understand how peer review works and it certainly doesn’t bear any resemblance to Wikipedia.

Here's a tip: vague boasting on the internet has no meaning. What's your role, providing the rofl emojis?

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think that I meant Wiki's public review process was equivalent to proper expert peer-review but you're grasping so nvm.

No you were shown to be sufficiently stupid. You did mean what you posted. It’s only since it’s been highlighted that you feel the need to wriggle your way out of it. Keep wriggling or digging.

durbster said:

Diderot said:

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

Well obviously that's not an answer. What primary source material supports your position? Because your position appears to be wholly at odds with all the primary source material I've seen.

Of course it’s an answer - it’s the only viable answer for an academic to proffer. The key point in your poorly formed and entirely predictable so-called ‘coupe de grâce’ is to be found in your final, incisive, salvo: ‘…the primary source material I’ve seen’. I’m sure you haven’t seen that much material given you’re normally to be found wading through the ‘intellectual’ morass that is Wikipedia. Once again you have demonstrated that you do not understand how academic research is funded and conducted, and how the peer review process works.

[hairykrishna]

The reason nobody cites Wikipedia in academia is the same reason nobody cites Encyclopedia Britannia. It's not a primary source and it also only normally provides very introductory material. Not that it's not reliable. Turbobloke mostly hates it because it often provides an easy to read, layman's explanation of why he's talking nonsense.

Diderot a journal editor? Presumably not in a science discipline

[durbster]

dickymint said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. More diversions than the M5 on a bank holiday plus the usual extra questions for deflection. At least you've tried to back track as regards the your "Peers" on Wicki

I honestly have no idea what you are on about, or what any of this is referring to.

[dickymint]

durbster said:

dickymint said:

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. More diversions than the M5 on a bank holiday plus the usual extra questions for deflection. At least you've tried to back track as regards the your "Peers" on Wicki

I honestly have no idea what you are on about, or what any of this is referring to.

Jolly good - others do

[Diderot]

hairykrishna said:

The reason nobody cites Wikipedia in academia is the same reason nobody cites Encyclopedia Britannia. It's not a primary source and it also only normally provides very introductory material. Not that it's not reliable. Turbobloke mostly hates it because it often provides an easy to read, layman's explanation of why he's talking nonsense.

Diderot a journal editor? Presumably not in a science discipline

Hairy, honestly, I know you are a-trying, but come now at least EBriticanica and indeed the original Collins Cyclopedia (and the Encyclopédie) were at least penned by subject experts. No one, save durbster, could claim the same about Wikipedia, surely?

[durbster]

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

You’re simply trying to divert the attention away from your absurd claims about Wiki’s ‘peer’ review process etc. I cannot believe you’re still defending that position as it is as ludicrous as it is untenable.

Ok, so don't call it "peer" review. As I said, I meant that it's open and reviewable by anyone.

and if you cannot still see the inherent problem with that then there’s little hope trying to explain it to you.

Who says I can't see the inherent problem with that? You seem very confused here, hard to work out if it's just part of the act.

Diderot said:

And lay off on the childish name calling it does you no favours.

Ooh thanks. I do appreciate when you guys post things that can be thrown back at you.

The petard hoisting is usually within a couple of pages. Let's see...

Diderot said:

durbster said:

I didn't think anyone would be stupid enough to think that I meant Wiki's public review process was equivalent to proper expert peer-review but you're grasping so nvm.

No you were shown to be sufficiently stupid. You did mean what you posted. It’s only since it’s been highlighted that you feel the need to wriggle your way out of it. Keep wriggling or digging.

You are trying to push the notion that I thought that editing Wikipedia is the same as a scientific peer review. That is hilarious.

Diderot said:

durbster said:

Diderot said:

To answer your other question: primary source material, and then peer reviewed secondary academic sources.

Well obviously that's not an answer. What primary source material supports your position? Because your position appears to be wholly at odds with all the primary source material I've seen.

Of course it’s an answer - it’s the only viable answer for an academic to proffer.

Sorry mate, the condescending academic posturing means nothing to me. If you want to impress me, have you considered presenting a coherent argument (that isn't a personal attack on somebody), that you can substantiate with evidence from reliable sources?

Diderot said:

The key point in your poorly formed and entirely predictable so-called ‘coupe de grâce’ is to be found in your final, incisive, salvo: ‘…the primary source material I’ve seen’.

Well, I've seen a lot but am always happy to learn more which is why I'm asking you to provide some examples of the literature you claim exists that supports your position. Because based on what I've seen so far, what you believe is based on stale propaganda from predictable sources.

Diderot said:

I’m sure you haven’t seen that much material given you’re normally to be found wading through the ‘intellectual’ morass that is Wikipedia. Once again you have demonstrated that you do not understand how academic research is funded and conducted, and how the peer review process works.

We’ll if you’re now, finally admitting, it’s not a reliable source, then why feel the need to cite it or worse, defend it? It’s not especially difficult to see the logic in that is it? And lay off on the childish name calling it does you no favours.

You must be exhausted. So many swings, so many misses.

My view on Wikipedia has been entirely consistent and your attempted mischaracterisation fails on the simple fact that anyone can simply go back and see what sources I have provided here.

The only progression here is that it seems you didn't actually know how Wikipedia worked until today.

I'm always happy to provide my sources which are invariably primary sources. You provide nothing.

Others can decide what to make of that.

[kerplunk]

Diderot said:

hairykrishna said:

The reason nobody cites Wikipedia in academia is the same reason nobody cites Encyclopedia Britannia. It's not a primary source and it also only normally provides very introductory material. Not that it's not reliable. Turbobloke mostly hates it because it often provides an easy to read, layman's explanation of why he's talking nonsense.

Diderot a journal editor? Presumably not in a science discipline

Hairy, honestly, I know you are a-trying, but come now at least EBriticanica and indeed the original Collins Cyclopedia (and the Encyclopédie) were at least penned by subject experts. No one, save durbster, could claim the same about Wikipedia, surely?

There are many subject experts editing wikipedia but they're granted no special priveleges because they are experts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Expert_edi...

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 17th October 20:39

[durbster]

hairykrishna said:

The reason nobody cites Wikipedia in academia is the same reason nobody cites Encyclopedia Britannia. It's not a primary source and it also only normally provides very introductory material. Not that it's not reliable. Turbobloke mostly hates it because it often provides an easy to read, layman's explanation of why he's talking nonsense.

Exactly. And the stupid thing about all this is that because climate change has such a rich wealth of online resources, Wikipedia is rarely needed. All this point-scoring is actually pointless.

[Diderot]

Keep it coming Dursbter, KP and Hairy - keep trying to justify Wikipedia as a viable source. You are all most entertaining.