Originally Posted by craigd
Originally Posted by BrentD, Prof
Tell me more about the proliferation of garbage in peer reviewed publications. What, in your opinion, is this garbage and which publications? I posted one above - neither you nor anyone else wanted to comment on that. Fine, but if you are claiming it is garbage - prove it....

...If you attack science as false, and you have, it should be very easy to disprove it....
You're in the thick of these publications, you must be familiar with the peer review in question. Does the content of your character matter, regarding the credibility of a publication?

Why question a publication, you have patent nonanswers, why attack your version of science, you have obvious nonanswers. Here's a thought, you are the problem. If you are right, answer the questions that you make fun of and talk down to, or don't. Thank you for showing what to expect of the next generation of "ecologists", equity, diversity and inclusivity, core tenets per the website, huh Brent.


craig, thanks again for the humor. Pretty good stuff. You should quit your day job and do stand-up or the digital equivalent. Does character matter? Depends I suppose. If you have a known reputation for lying and making stuff up, as you do, then I suppose it might. But many publications have gone to blind peer review. Yet another level of striving for perfect objectivity. Unlike Fox News, for instance. Did you hear about their latest scandal with regards to Marine Sargent Nicole Gee? Sadly, that is not so funny as your crap.

Meanwhile, the answers are in the literature, and it strongly disagrees with your line of BS. But carry on. I'm sure you will find another amusing alley to wander down without telling us exactly how you know that the science on lead poisoning in wildlife is "garbage". Lets see it. We keep asking for the data.

_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)
=>/

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]