Can you believe there is going ot be a conference in NYC on GLOBAL COOLING??!!!

[The Night Owl]

No actually, it didn't send of any warnings.  If you read the first page of the study you will see why being posted in a medical journal would be relavent.  It makes a strong case about how Global Warming would be a good thing for the health of mankind.

I'm not suprised by your attack against it's veracity (and the AAPS) though, since it's a very large advocate of privatized healthcare, and has been a key player in keeping a national healthcare plan out of this country.

Some of the arguments Arthur Robinson makes in his study on climate change might be vaguely relevant to the medical community, but that doesn't mean that the JPandS review of Robinson's study constitutes a peer review. For instance, the idea that we should consider the JPandS review of Arthur Robinson's position on climate modelling to be authoritative is patently absurd.

[djones520]

No actually, it didn't send of any warnings.  If you read the first page of the study you will see why being posted in a medical journal would be relavent.  It makes a strong case about how Global Warming would be a good thing for the health of mankind.

I'm not suprised by your attack against it's veracity (and the AAPS) though, since it's a very large advocate of privatized healthcare, and has been a key player in keeping a national healthcare plan out of this country.

Some of the arguments Arthur Robinson makes in his study on climate change might be vaguely relevant to the medical community, but that doesn't mean that the JPandS review of Robinson's study constitutes a peer review.

*sighs*  Did you even read this part of his response?  It was only about 90% of it.

Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included

[The Night Owl]

Moreover, it is a review article - not an original research article.
Therefore - as is ordinary practice - all facts in the article are referenced to the peer reviewed research literature - in the 132 references included

The OISM website refers to Arthur Robinson's study on global warming as a peer reviewed research paper, not a review article...

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Whatever Robinson's work is, it should not be considered authoritative until it undergoes the peer review process. For all we know, Robinson misrepresented the science he reviewed in his study.

[djones520]

Well, this is where we hit that wall.  I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.

[TheSarge]

Well, this is where we hit that wall.  I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.

Welcome to debate TNO style.

He's going to do what he normally does and avoid any meaningful discussion in favor of splitting hairs over the difference between "article" and "paper".

It's his standard MO

[The Night Owl]

Well, this is where we hit that wall.  I'm done trying to reason with someone who refuses to listen to reason.

Welcome to debate TNO style.

He's going to do what he normally does and avoid any meaningful discussion in favor of splitting hairs over the difference between "article" and "paper".

It's his standard MO

I'm not drawing a distinction between an article and a paper. I'm simply pointing out that what the OISM is dishonestly passing off as a "peer reviewed research paper" is not a peer reviewed research paper.

[TheSarge]

I'm not drawing a distinction between an article and a paper. I'm simply pointing out that what the OISM is dishonestly passing off as a "peer reviewed research paper" is not a peer reviewed research paper.

You are splitting hairs to avoid trying to take about the OP.  It's your typical style of "debate".

Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?

[The Night Owl]

Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?

Regarding the Cascade Policy Institute conference... I just think that the OISM's presence at the Cascade Policy Institute conference tells us something about the merit of the conference, and none of it is good. Then again, perhaps people are attending the conference with the hope that Geri Halliwell PhD will be there.

Have I worn out the Geri Halliwell PhD joke yet?

[Attero Dominatus]

Again...do you have ANYTHING worthwhile to add to the subject or are you going to insist on trying to take this thread down a completely different road?

Regarding the Cascade Policy Institute conference... I just think that the OISM's presence at the Cascade Policy Institute conference tells us something about the merit of the conference, and none of it is good. Then again, perhaps people are attending the conference with the hope that Geri Halliwell PhD will be there.

Have I worn out the Geri Halliwell PhD joke yet?

Translation from libspeak:

Anything that disputes AGL is wrong! al gore is teh demigod!!!!!11OneOne