Comment: Wow.

(See in situ)

In post: .
In reply to comment: Response V to Eric Hoffer (see in situ)

Wow.

UH HUH. And trusting the peer-review process in today's politically charged world of science...is like trusting a serial rapist, to protect and look out for, your wife.

You fail to recognize the point, that being that Harrit ISN'T a peer reviewed paper, and that his PEERS say his paper is absolute garbage. Heck, his own BOSS over at Copenhagen refused the position as editor. Here's the editor at the time the article was published, "They have printed the article without my authorization else, so when you wrote to me, I did not mean that the article was published. I can not accept, and I have written to Bentham, that I withdraw myself from all activities with them." Yes, she resigned the thing was so badly done.

Case in point: The anthropogenic global warming hoax. The reality: It is used as another means by the global elite, to control the masses. The farce: Many "peer reviewed" scientists and journals have lied and mis and disinformed on the subject.

So your point is... that scientists have lied to prove a political point or been wrong before? Is this news that I missed? Ooooohhhh, you must be describing Harrit's paper.

Last question: Where did I EVER say that being a scientist doesn't make one infallible.,

Erm, you've been holding up Harrit's botched work as if Moses took notes while God spoke. That's where I got that from.

Certainly, a great example would be all of the great scientists that we imported from Nazi Germany after the war under Operation Paperclip.

They helped participate in one of the most diabolical efforts of genocide in human history. Yet their extraordinary intellect was harnessed by the USA.

Yeap. We're definitely not exploiting science, even if the methods were evil. I fail to see how this correlates. Are you calling Harrit a Nazi or something? I mean, the paper was terribly done, but I don't think he sacrificed any virgins over it or anything.

Eric Hoffer