LessFact/Nobody will not involve himself in any discussion unless he can see a way of winning by using bafflegab, it's his only weapon.Your exact words were,“Science can be applied to ANYTHING real, INCLUDING the mental and LOGICAL processes by which peer review weeds out crap.” You can argue until the cows come home whether that means science can be applied to logic. It does.
That science can be applied to peer-review does not make peer-review a scientific process, it’s still a social process. Peer-review is not science. Sorry. And peer-review is as good as the reviewers. When reviewers do this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/fe... (hide data, sack editors) I’m entitled to question the practice. The climate-gate e-mails are more reliable information sources than Peer (Aka Phil Jones) reviewed journals. If you think journals cannot bought & paid for or are bed with mass media, you are being naive. The “Inconvenient Truth” was not propaganda, hell no. It was fact through & through of course. Silly me.
Now, about the climate: If the CO2 hypothesis is true, warming should be in the upper atmosphere instead of the surface. It’s not. The warming should be in sync with rising CO2. It ain’t. Ouch!
Here in Canada we use actual English and the correct spelling in English is four.. and fourty, etc. I gather than English in Spain is getting contaminated with American mispelling?