re: #386 Naso Tang

Um, I did just explain why they feel that way. What are you talking about?

If the energy market shifts away from using oil, they feel they are unprepared for it and will lose from that. They are attempting to stop that from happening.

What isn’t clear about what I’m saying?

re: #388 zuckerlilly

1. Charles, since you are mocking everyone for posting on “dead threats” I’m ignoring them.

No you’re not.

2. Charles, do we speak about the peer reviewed paper of ‘Gerlich & Tscheuschner” which was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275-364?

Yes, Charles has addressed that. It’s a crap paper that makes strange assumptions and was torn apart after its publication. Peer review could be described as a ‘laugh test’. It’s a basic qualification. That’s all. You can have crappy peer reviewed papers published. But any paper that can’t even pass peer review is almost certainly garbage.

3. If this is so, then please explain to me when is “peer reviewed” the Holy Grail or sacrosanct and when not and please tell me who makes the decision.

Good night everyone.

Unfortunately, it’s more nuanced than that. Peer review means peers capable of reviewing the paper have reviewed it and criticized it. That’s all. There’s a secondary aspect, in terms of the ranking and prestige of journals; getting published in Nature is hard, getting published in the international Journal of Modern Physics is rather a lot easier.

There are also peer-reviewed journals that accept letters— like letters to the editor, but written by National Academy members or what have you— and those letters are not peer-reviewed, though they appear in peer-reviewed publications.

So sorry, it’s not as easy as “sacrosanct”.