Originally Posted by g hall:
explain why they are not serious

Blogs cannot be considered as serious academic sources.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
Blogs cannot be considered as serious academic sources.

What if they carry links to academic sources ? or what if the blogger is a scientist ? or what if it is a layman who is able to investigate and interpret published academic studies ? or what if he is a failed politician ?

Who do you believe ?
[Rep]

g hall wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
Quote:
Originally Posted by gc
Blogs cannot be considered as serious academic sources.
What if they carry links to academic sources ? or what if the blogger is a scientist ? or what if it is a layman who is able to investigate and interpret published academic studies ? or what if he is a failed politician ?

Who do you believe ?

You have relied on ‘The Register’ heavily recently. Is that listed in respected academic journals ?
&
Who is Steven Goddard ( the author of the articles in the Register link). What are his ‘qualifications’ for commenting on the ‘ice’ story ? Has he published his ‘arguments’ in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal?

I repeat & endorse what gc wrote:-

Originally Posted by :
These are not serious sources, Jamie.

[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
What if they carry links to academic sources ?

On this subject I would always go straight to the academic source. I have very little interest in the interpretations of pathological contrarians.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
g You have relied on ‘The Register’ heavily recently. Is that listed in respected academic journals ?
&
Who is Steven Goddard ( the author of the articles in the Register link). What are his ‘qualifications’ for commenting on the ‘ice’ story ? Has he published his ‘arguments’ in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal?

Here is a link about (or maybe not about) him.
The Steve Conspiracy? International Journal of Inactivism
[Rep]

Originally Posted by gc:
On this subject I would always go straight to the academic source. I have very little interest in the interpretations of pathological contrarians.

So if they disagree with your views you pay no attention fair enough I suppose your choice to be blinkered
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Clippo:
You have relied on ‘The Register’ heavily recently. Is that listed in respected academic journals ?

Who is Steven Goddard ( the author of the articles in the Register link). What are his ‘qualifications’ for commenting on the ‘ice’ story ? Has he published his ‘arguments’ in a ‘peer-reviewed’ journal?

I repeat & endorse what gc wrote:-

Attack the author and ignore the facts exhibiting your usual stupidity again
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
Attack the author and ignore the facts exhibiting your usual stupidity again

Such personal abuse should be stamped upon by the mods.
[Rep]

In the relevent post, I made:-

1. a factual statement and
2. asked a few questions and
3. agreed with gc's comments

Obviously the implications in these questions are too difficult for g hall to countenance so he goes back to his usual tactic of bluff, bluster & insult.

(& thanks to Besoeker for the link earlier - I surprised I missed that becasue I go to that site occasionally)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
So if they disagree with your views you pay no attention fair enough I suppose your choice to be blinkered

Whether they agree or disagree with me is only of personal interest. Actually, I enjoy engaging with those who disagree...

But we are talking about a scientific issue here, and I prefer to form my opinions around hard scientific evidence, and certainly not the beliefs of somebody whose "evidence" I have personally proven to be flawed.
[Rep]