Ahh the words peer 'reviewed science'. Thats the whole point of the arguement.
We, the ordinary Joes,the public, say all this "global warming is our fault" stuff is b*ll*cks and the science community say, (very stiff upper lipped voice) 'It's the facts, all the scientists have evidence for it. Evidence to the contrary isn't peer reviewed, so there'.
The simple truth is, due to the problem of grants being hard to come by for the scientific community and goverments eager to obtain more money from the public, it is a bandwagon that could benefit both parties.
Now they use computer modelling software to predict things and throw in a few values and fiddled with the figures until they got an answer they liked, ie the one to provide the golden egg from the proverbial goose.
All those scientists wanting more money say 'aye', the steps to the bandwagon are this way. All those left behind we'll have to call them names like "Maverick, Nutter, layperson".
Those peers my friend, are ON the bandwagon.
Those scientists you may call "Maverick" are those men and woman who have integrity and honour but unfortunatly very little power.  |