Harvard Asks 31 FakeNews Papers be Retracted from Journals

[_Chap]

Since you are posting anonymously making claims to any expertise is a common way for people to try and purchase credibility. Many don't fall for that, but are willing to listen to any expertise you think you have on a subject and can then judge if you really do.

If that's all I were doing you might have a point. I've posted a ton of material on this subject that nobody wants to engage ...

Merely posting material does not prove expertise.

You have to show that you understand it sufficiently to engage with it critically, so as to appreciate its strengths and its limitations: otherwise you simply show that you know how to copy paste links from your favourite 'scientists against climate change' website.

People have repeatedly discussed and criticised the material you post: in pretty well every case the response from you has been, more or less, 'Well, so how about THIS, then <posts something else>'.

[_Water Dog]

Then why do you seem to be arguing so strenuously against promoting the use of renewables?

Because I'm honest. Context, for the same reason that I privately opposed wars in the middle east, but then joined the military anyway. Working with .gov on civilian side I have bid for and profited from a number of projects that privately I think are a waste of taxpayer dollars and oppose. I don't think that's inconsistent.

If all this is true, it seems to me that should make you all the more in favor of renewables because of the entrepreneurial opportunities and challenges and job creation opportunities presented. it is my understanding that our electrical power and distribution infrastructure is ageing and not up to date with the latest and best and most efficient technologies, and probably needs to be refurbished and/or replaced soon anyway. Why not use this as an opportunity to begin working on a smarter, more efficient and more cutting edge electrical grid infrastructure? Why would any creative and competent engineer not jump for glee at the chance to help bring this all about?

Well, I am leveraging all the opportunities you speak of. But there's a huge difference between all that and the separate policy questions we're discussing. I'm happy to work on interesting engineering problems. That doesn't change the objective reality that renewables in their current state cannot support the economy. If I were hired as a consultant, say by Congress, to advise certain policymaking decisions I would have to be honest with them about that reality. Same as if I were hired by a private entity. They come to me with a certain load profile requirement and ask me to design them a power source capable of meeting that demand. I would tell them what their options are. Here are all the different options and associated costs. Renewables can't sustain our economy in their present form. Those are the facts. If the goal is to reduce CO2, the only way to do that is.... drum roll... nuclear. Facts, yo. Facts. I don't know why this is such a contentious point. Do you have some person aversion to nuclear power? What, why?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Be more specific, what academic journals?

Go watch the podcast yourself.

Er, no thanks. I don't have the time to waste. If you can't actually refer us to things we can check from the original publication, citing a podcast is worth no more than saying 'I heard this guy in a bar saying ...'.

When was the last time you read anything in a serious journal dealing with hard science?[Edited to fix quotes]

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ex_Toy_Use

To date, very little research literature exists concerning receptive penetrative anal eroticism in straight men. Of particular interest are its impacts upon other factors relevant to masculinities, sex roles, and the study of sexualities. Several co-constituted features of masculinity are likely to be relevant to straight-male anal sexuality, including masturbatory play with penetrative sex toys. Specifically, this study seeks to explore, “Do men who report greater comfort with receptive penetrative anal eroticism also report less transphobia, less obedience to masculine gender norms, greater partner sensitivity, and greater awareness about rape?” This study uses semi-structured interviews with thirteen men to explore this question, analyzed with a naturalist and constructivist grounded theory approach in the context of sexualities research and introduces transhysteria as a parallel concept to Anderson’s homohysteria. This analysis recognizes potential socially remedial value for encouraging male anal eroticism with sex toys.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I think where a lot of, ahm, progressives like to place their fervent belief are in 'academic studies'. As opposed to talking to a religionist, where they eventually just fall back to their faith, the progressive likes to or can point to a study and say, "See? A study has been conducted.", and therefore their belief is justified.

These gentlemen simply point out that many studies, the methodology, the premise, it's all crap.

Imho, many progressives are just as faithful as religionists, they just believe in a different kind of nonsense and typically use the cover of social justice to be bullies.

- Doc

[_Chap]

<irrelevant weirdness>

[_Chap]

I think where a lot of, ahm, progressives like to place their fervent belief are in 'academic studies'. As opposed to talking to a religionist, where they eventually just fall back to their faith, the progressive likes to or can point to a study and say, "See? A study has been conducted.", and therefore their belief is justified.

Anyone who talked like that would simply be an idiot with no experience of doing science in a normal scientific institution, and lacking all training in the critical evaluation of scientific claims (the kind of thing you get drummed into your head in any decent university that trains graduate students).

[_Themis]

Since you are posting anonymously making claims to any expertise is a common way for people to try and purchase credibility. Many don't fall for that, but are willing to listen to any expertise you think you have on a subject and can then judge if you really do.

If that's all I were doing you might have a point. I've posted a ton of material on this subject that nobody wants to engage, instead they'll respond with stupid links. It's sensible to explain why I'm not going to waste time on that material.

You haven't posted any material here. You just made assertions of your expertise. You have posted some material on the climate science threads, but they just exposed your lack of expertise and unwillingness to understand the issue. People with real expertise tend to provide links to back up their own personal explanations or provide material people can go to to see if their explanations fit the evidence. Those pretending to have expertise usually learn through embarrassment not to make explanations of their own because they always expose ignorance, but they usually never learn to read their links for understanding.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

<irrelevant weirdness>

It's literally talked about in the Joe Rogan video, which you asked for. Don't be an asshole, Chap.

- Doc

[_Themis]

These gentlemen simply point out that many studies, the methodology, the premise, it's all crap.

Not really. It's the scientists who are the ones who bring up problems in academia and then these gentleman try to use it to attack the sciences as unreliable. They usually only mean certain sciences who conclusions they don't like, and then they create threads like this one with a straw-man argument suggesting people here think scientists never lie or view journals as some holy writings. If he had left out that one sentence he would have been ok.

[_Water Dog]

You haven't posted any material here. You just made assertions of your expertise. You have posted some material on the climate science threads, but they just exposed your lack of expertise and unwillingness to understand the issue. People with real expertise tend to provide links to back up their own personal explanations or provide material people can go to to see if their explanations fit the evidence. Those pretending to have expertise usually learn through embarrassment not to make explanations of their own because they always expose ignorance, but they usually never learn to read their links for understanding.

Keep telling yourself that...