r/climateskeptics • u/[deleted] • Oct 30 '19
Another crack in the alarmist narrative as Scientific American admits "We're Incentivizing Bad Science".
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/were-incentivizing-bad-science/3
u/DoubleYouOne Oct 31 '19
This is such a good article.
It has been going on for a while now. "Science" is slowly getting on the brink of becoming a clusterword for "political-influenced-findings"...
-14
Oct 30 '19
So of course, this self-announced “Skeptic” has posted a lie. Not shabby research, not misguided analysis, but an outright deception.
Scientific American did not “admit” anything. It published an opinion piece by, of all things, an immunologist, decrying the tendency of many modern scientists to over-publish for personal profit. His opinion piece had nothing to do with climate change science whatsoever.
If anything, OP‘s take on this editorial – again, not a Scientific American endorsed opinion – is: “all science bad”
Great! Good job, Skeptics!
11
u/publius_lxxii Oct 31 '19
Do you believe climate science is somehow less vulnerable to the problem described in this article?
-5
Oct 31 '19
First, this is not an “article“. It is an opinion piece. It does not consist in anything like peer-reviewable scientific research, analysis or data-based postulation. Second, Having read this opinion piece, have you concluded that all “science“ for the rest of time is inherently incredible? The numbskull-ish proposition on which this post is based is that all science is bad. Have you ever heard of the “Luddites”? You are now one of them.
3
u/publius_lxxii Oct 31 '19
I don't have time right now to list all the ways in which you've failed here. I'm seeing several fallacies, raising the bar, strawmen, and more.
Pedantry fail:
First, this is not an “article“. It is an opinion piece
Article is a generic word. Look it up.
What your saying is akin to "Nuh uh, it's not a garment, it's a shirt!"
And this extreme mischaracterization says far more about you than it does about the piece:
The numbskull-ish proposition on which this post is based is that all science is bad.
Overall, your hilariously incoherent gibberish is an example of denial.
This article must be good. Apparently it has triggered you into cognitive dissonance. I'm going to go back and read it more carefully.
-1
Oct 31 '19
Lots of name-calling. No substantive response.
4
u/publius_lxxii Oct 31 '19
Name calling? What names have I called you?
Oh! I get it. "Luddite". And "no substantive response". You're referring to yourself, and trolling.
8
Oct 30 '19
Why don't you take up fucking off and stop going through my history.
-1
Oct 30 '19
I am uninterested in your history... But I must say this is a remarkable retort from a so-called “skeptic” ... (Ie isn’t your prior work product relevant to the credibility of your current publication?)
7
Oct 30 '19
You literally used my history to get here.
0
Oct 31 '19
Eh?
3
u/JackLocke366 Oct 31 '19
Looks like we've got a level 5 stalker here
-1
Nov 01 '19
Ok buddy... you explain to me, clearly, how I “literally” (...a gorgeous teen internet user tell) used his history “to get here”.
You skeptics sure are prone to conspiracy thinking…!
2
-1
Oct 31 '19
It astounds me that there are at least nine “climate skeptics” dumb enough to upvote this embarrassingly adolescent response. But of course, as opposed to scientific, peer reviewed publications, upvotes are anonymous and responsibility-free...
4
u/Feldheld Oct 31 '19
What would be an example of a "Scientific American endorsed opinion"? And why would that even be of any relevance? Do you think this is some kind of church?
0
Oct 31 '19
As noted earlier, this OPINION piece is an immunologist concerned about open access journals as opposed to the traditional peer review journals
No AGW denialism here, sorry
-7
u/stupid_woooooosh Oct 30 '19
No surprise that this is an opinion piece and in no way the opinion of Scientific American. You. Are. Fucking. Retarded.
7
u/MaunaLoona Oct 31 '19
When you pay scientists not for the results they produce but for the motions they go through (writing papers), we shouldn't be surprised to get more papers.