Today on the radio was a professor who authored an article blaming the human male penis for global warming. Many of his peer's agreed it was a wonderful paper worthy of being read by all college students. I can find peer reviewed papers by evolutionists which are debunked by the facts and peer reviewed papers by creationist which other creationists refute.

For a few years I have not been impressed when someone here tells me this or that is peer reviewed or wants me to present peer reviewed evidence for my belief. What a joke!

What a bunch of BS. Everyone knows it's the female penis that's to blame.

It was a test of the journal.

Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn were alien charlatans planted here via the Roswell wormhole.

Duh!! Tell us something we don't know.

It'd be much easier to tell you something Ringman doesn't know.

You just need to get your tinfoil hat wired up right, and get with the program!

I refuse to stick anything in my ass, even if that's the price of admission.

LOL, "tinfoil hat" must mean something else, where you're from.

Says the "new" guy.

I'm not gonna tell him DeFlave's address.

I was referring to the cabling from the xewmememtar capacitor.

Another sock puppet.

Takes two to tango and reproduce... I'm told women - some of them - like sex too. With men...

So if we perhaps falsely adopt the assumption that humans are contributing to climate change, he's still wrong. And even if he is right, there ain't nothing much we can do about it...

And this is my limit tonight for wasted time spent texting for entertainment - more than usual, I mean....

At one time in academe, "peer review" meant something important in terms of strength and credibility of a "paper". Since the 1950s there has been a steady decline of academic rigor in many disciplines and the once-important process of "review" often is a mutual back-scratching process to build silly publication lists. Way too many papers and way too little substance - now about as useless as pennies - unless you are in the club. Consequently, most of the clubs are useless except for mutual promotion. A mirror image of much of our society.

Think of him as more personal/family research material for your twisted hopper.

Which the journal's editors failed, utterly, and hilariously.

The androcentric scientific and meta-scientific evidence that the penis is the male reproductive organ is considered overwhelming and largely uncontroversial....

Techno babble

You still warming up this morning?

Fücking Hilarious!

My wife was heavily involved with the 'peer review' process for years, here at UF. Her professor has thousands of articles and hundreds of patents out there. The secret for a successful peer review is to find a journal or group that thinks like you do.

All too often, peer review is a nutcase reviewing a nutcase.

That is my thought as well Rock Chuck.

This pattern and decline could be clearly witnessed in following the "social sciences". Then came the worse case, the global warming hysteria/science, which can factually be demonstrated to have been a bastardization of the peer review process for fraudulent purposes.