Gonzaga Debate Institute 2011 Mercury Conspiracy Theory



Download 1.23 Mb.
Page55/70
Date20.04.2018
Size1.23 Mb.
1   ...   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   ...   70

AT: Global Warming


Global Warming is scientifically impossible-government conspiracy

The Brussels Journal, 2/12/2007

[The Brussels Journal, “Global Warming is a Myth”, 2/12/2007, http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1899, accessed 6/25/11, HK]

Global warming is a myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it’s an undignified slapstick that people don’t wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the “but’s” are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues. [...] Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. [...] Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. [...] Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don’t plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change. [...] It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it’s obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism. [...] [W]e know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It’s clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa. It’s also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago


SETI not on right setting


Life does not exist in the same density as humans – that’s why SETI hasn’t found any results

Lord Ashtar, 2004 (August 19, 2004, “Our Fleets Are In Position, Ready Yourselves” Brother Veritus, http://www.luisprada.com/Protected/ashtar_command_mission.htm, accessed 6/27/11, SL)

That Earth scientists have not found physical life in the remaining worlds of our Solar system is due to Earth being the only planet where life unfolds in such dense levels. Other worlds do have life, but in finer and subtler bodies, which impedes the perception and visibility at the level of the apparatuses and technological systems with which you count on. Also, dimensions of a higher level to the ones of this planet cannot be contacted with the eyes of the flesh. Life there passes unnoticed to you and, when you try to know this with your scientific apparatuses, it is as if you want to photograph smoke. (The worlds you see in the Third Dimension are like the "shells" left by worlds already opened to levels of superior life.)




***Authors Debate***

Peer Review Good


Peer Review key to science

Scott, visiting fellow at Separations Process Research Unit ‘07

(Allister Scott, January 29 2007 Science Direct “Peer Review and the relevance of science” http://bscw-app1.ethz.ch/pub/bscw.cgi/d448195/Scott2007_peer_review_Futures.pdf 6/25/11 BLG)



Peer review is not only a routine component of the scientific role, but it is also fundamental to the institution of science, defended as symbol and guarantor of the autonomy of science. Thus peer review is built so deeply into the brickwork of science that many refuse to examine and improve it, fearing that any significant change would weaken the entire edifice. In some minds, to question peer review is to question science itselfSince this thought from Chubin and Hackett—and possibly for the reasons they identify—we do not seem to have made much progress in studying the practice of peer review. My investigations of the procurement of ‘relevant’ science have led me inexorably to the topic of peer review, and to some critical perspectives on how peer review, as usually practised, influences the priorities and decision-making processes of researchers and research organisations. The question of how science can be made more relevant to the needs of society is increasingly central in science-policy debate. Yet many of these discussions approach the question from the outside, as it were, preferring to leave the workings of science itself untouched; the focus is on the role of ‘technology transfer’, ‘intermediaries’ and ‘dissemination’. In this article, I want to explore the inner workings of science by investigating its central decision-making tool: peer review. Peer review plays a significant role in many of the key moments in science, as it is the main form of decision-making around: who receives money to do what science; who gets to publish in the scientific literature; and which individual scientists are selected and promoted within research institutions. Peer review is also the core tool used in various methods aimed at evaluating scientific institutions themselves:
Peer Review achieves validity.

Cicchetti, Yale University Child Study Center ‘98

(Domenic V. Cicchetti 1998, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 428-431 Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology “Good Science and Good Peer Reviewing: Are They Related?” 6/25/11 BLG)



Validity, in the specific context of the peer re- view process, has both internal, as well as exter- nal components. As we shall see further, an edi- tor has some control over the internal compo- nent, but little or none over the external compo- nent. Each of these will be discussed in turn. Finally, it needs to be stressed that these two concepts apply equally well to the peer review of any scientific document (manuscript review, grant proposal review, review of papers submit- ted for presentation at scientific societies). As noted in Cicchetti (1991a, 1991b), there is wide consensus among scientists that the peer review of any given scientific document, in or- der to be internally valid, must receive what might best be referred to as ‘‘adequate cover- age’’, in terms of the level of expertise of the independent reviewers. This often translates, in the usual context of two independent reviews of a given scientific document, into adequate con- tent and methodologic / biostatistical coverage for any given manuscript, grant, or other scien- tific document. As noted recently by Kraemer (1991), this is an important activity for an editor to undertake, for the following reason. To the extent that editors are knowledgeable in their field, it is entirely possible to select reviewers who will agree highly with each other, but nei- ther of whom has a broad understanding of the content area being evaluated.
80% of most papers are rejected by peers.

Moffat, Urologist, ‘03

(Leslie E.F, June 2003 UroOncology Vol. 3 (2), pp. 81–83 “On Publication in Peer Reviewed Journals” EBSCOhost BLG)



Most serious journals are rejecting about 80% of papers that are submitted. Rejection letters vary from curt to kind. The reason for an article being rejected out of hand may be entirely appropriate. We have at this Journal on two occasions had basic papers submitted to UroOncology, where the authors had a paper on the oncological aspects of neurology! This would have been perfectly reasonable if the original cancers had been of the genito-urinary tract, but this was not the case and clearly, the papers had been sent, by an inattentive secretary or researcher, to the wrong place. The author has used his experience of the submissions in the last year, to document his impressions regarding the rejection of papers. It would appear self evident that a writer should write about what he or she knows about. Generally this is true and is extremely good advice. Occasionally people write on subjects they know little or nothing about and this becomes apparent when the text is read.




Download 1.23 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   ...   70




The database is protected by copyright ©ininet.org 2020
send message

    Main page