# So, that intention guy is kinda stupid, huh? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 17, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865 "2009-11-17T02:23:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/81 "2009-11-18T02:22:56Z")
> [@intention](#): > > As for Steve McIntyre, you don’t like the fact that he blew the stuffings out of a number of scientific claims. Nope. > **[RealClimate: Rutherford et al 2005 highlights](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/rutherford-et-al-2005-highlights/)** > > RealClimate: The claims of McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al (1998) temperature reconstruction have recently been discredited by the following peer-reviewed article to appear in the American Meteorological Society journal, "Journal of... > [@](#): > > Again you don’t want to discuss that, you just want to accuse him of “cherry picking”. Once again you’ll seize any pretext, you’ll do anything to avoid discussing the science. McIntyre did use innuendo and even direct accusations: > **[Climate “auditor” Steve McIntyre: Yamal like “crack cocaine”](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/04/climate-auditor-steve-mcintyre-yamal/)** > > By now, anyone who follows the climate blog wars knows that a new battle is underway over the standard temperature reconstruction popularly known as the “hockey stick”. Although it has … > [@](#): > > In fact, the Yamal Divergence thread contains no fewer than 30 references to cherry-picking, including this from McIntyre himself: > > ``` > "I’d be inclined to remove the data affected by CRU cherrypicking but will leave it in for now." > > ``` And double nope: You do not know what it means to “blew the stuffings out of a number of scientific claims” He still has to publish in peer review journals to blew the stuffing were it counts, otherwise he is just useful to yahoos like Inhofe. > [@intention](#): > > Not in any way. But nooooo, you don’t want to touch the idea that there are eminent scientists who disagree with you, you don’t want to discuss their quotes, you only want to talk about Inhofe. And this is a complete lie as in the past there was discussion about the “science” mentioned in those lists. As Inhofe helpfully remarks in his minority report (that is the so called 700 list) > **[U.S. Senate: Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected](https://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/general/one_item_and_teasers/waf.htm)** > > Request not Accepted - Security Risk Detected > [@](#): > > While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) “Consensus” has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes. As anyone that has followed current and previous discussions it is clearly a lie to say that what those (many times misquoted, and most of them not involved in climate research) researchers said was not discussed. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/82 "2009-11-18T09:31:56Z")
For those not impressed by GIGObuster’s lie that McIntyre “still has to publish in peer review journals to blew the stuffing were it counts”, see [http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf](http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf) As far as I know, no one has rebutted the ideas in the GRL article, so they stand until someone does. I’m tired of discussions of Inhofe and asinine accusations of “cherry picking”. I’ll let that cite above stand as an example of GIGObuster’s crap. Yes, some of the ideas on the Inhofe list have been discussed sometime somewhere in the SDMB. No, in the [current thread where this is an issue](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11790044&posted=1#post11790044), they have not been discussed until GIGObuster’s most recent post, which he probably posted just so he could say I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/83 "2009-11-18T09:47:30Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > … but just showed up to say that I’m calling them [my writings] the wrong thing… > > Well, how’d that happen? Are you somehow unfamiliar with academic language? An inadvertent confusion of terms? No formal training in the subjects? One is a “Communications Arising”. The other two, as far as I know, are “papers”, which is what I called them. What would you call them? And what possible difference does it make? Is this nitpicking the best you can do? Pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/84 "2009-11-18T09:52:58Z")
More on [McIntyre](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html) … someday you guys are going to learn that attacking me just allows me to spread my seditious ideas further and further, and get more and more people to read my citations. You provide ad hominem attacks … I provide citations. My profound thanks, it’s a great deal. ---
**Author:** ![intention](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e95f7d/32.png) [@intention](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/intention)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/85 "2009-11-18T09:59:27Z")
More on the latest attempt to shore up the [discredited hockeystick](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7779) … cue the ad hominem attacks in 3 … 2 … 1 … ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/86 "2009-11-18T10:59:28Z")
> [@intention](#): > > More on the latest attempt to shore up the [discredited hockeystick](http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7779) … cue the ad hominem attacks in 3 … 2 … 1 … I don’t think that latin term means what you think. It does not mean pointing out that a lone nut with no scientific qualifications does not have an opinion on climate change worth the breath it takes to utter it. Now - you got any serious cites? One maybe not from someone with a career in dirty fossil fuels to safeguard? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 11:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/87 "2009-11-18T11:34:12Z")
> [@intention](#): > > 1. There is no evidence of a sea level rise due to AGW. The rate of rise has not increased, in fact in recent years it has decreased. Which is it, “sea level rise” or “rate of rise”? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/88 "2009-11-18T13:55:26Z")
> [@intention](#): > > For those not impressed by GIGObuster’s lie that McIntyre “still has to publish in peer review journals to blew the stuffing were it counts”, see > > [http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf](http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.grl.2005.pdf) > > As far as I know, no one has rebutted the ideas in the GRL article, so they stand until someone does. :rolleyes: It was rebutted then: > **[RealClimate: False Claims by McIntyre and McKitrick regarding the Mann et al....](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)** > > RealClimate: A number of spurious criticisms regarding the Mann et al (1998) proxy-based temperature reconstruction have been made by two individuals McIntyre and McKitrick ( McIntyre works in the mining industry, while McKitrick is an economist).... > **[RealClimate: On Yet Another False Claim by McIntyre and McKitrick](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/)** > > RealClimate: McIntyre and McKitrick (MM), in one of their many false claims regarding the Mann et al (MBH98) temperature reconstruction, assert that the "Hockey Stick" shape of the reconstruction is an artifact of the "non-centered" Principal... And now: > **[RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-8/)** > > RealClimate: Is the Yamal tree-ring series really the basis of all climate science? Of course not. Discussion of the McIntyre, Yamal, Briffa and the highly predictable trajectory of climate-related blogstorms. Plus lots of non-Yamal based hockey... So it was rebutted, it was so spectacularly rebutted when the “hockey stick” researches came recently with more evidence that confirmed their previous research. McIntyre and the trash at Climate audit had to fall on innuendo and accusations of cherry picking that were debunked almost immediately. (hmm, how is it that when McIntyre backpedaled on the cherry picking accusations that then that does not lead to realize that Mann and others were and are correct?) I have to report is that I was not correct on McIntyre not publishing before, but the point on the previous discussion was that McIntyre needs to publish again to rebutt the new researched rebuttal. But one thing I have to thank the denier here is that by pointing to that publication it demonstrated that McIntyre \*\*failed \*\*to impress other climate researchers, he was dismissed then and even more recently. Heck, he even failed to impress the AGU that publishes the place that paper of McIntyre was published. > **[Geophysical Research Letters](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geophysical_Research_Letters)** > > Geophysical Research Letters is a biweekly peer-reviewed scientific journal of geoscience published by the American Geophysical Union that was established in 1974. The editor-in-chief is Kristopher Karnauskas. > The journal aims for rapid publication of concise research reports on one or more of the disciplines covered by the American Geophysical Union, such as atmospheric sciences, solid Earth, space science, oceanography, hydrology, land surface processes, and the cryosphere. The journal also pu... > **[American Geophysical Union](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Geophysical_Union)** > > The American Geophysical Union (AGU) is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization of Earth, atmospheric, ocean, hydrologic, space, and planetary scientists and enthusiasts that according to their website includes 130,000 people (not members). AGU's activities are focused on the organization and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international fields within the Earth and space sciences. The geophysical sciences involve four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sci... > [@](#): > > Position statement on climate change > > The AGU issued a position statement on climate change in December 2003 [1], and revised and reaffirmed the statement in 2007 [2]. The revised statement begins: > > ``` > The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system--including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons--are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. > > ``` > > The statement was drafted by Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel [3] and revised and reaffirmed by the AGU Council.[4] > [@intention](#): > > I’m tired of discussions of Inhofe and asinine accusations of “cherry picking”. I’ll let that cite above stand as an example of GIGObuster’s crap. Yes, some of the ideas on the Inhofe list have been discussed sometime somewhere in the SDMB. No, in the [current thread where this is an issue](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11790044&posted=1#post11790044), they have not been discussed until GIGObuster’s most recent post, which he probably posted just so he could say I was wrong. Yes, indeed discussed before, and it was a lie that I would only like to talk about Inhofe, but you keep wringing up his discredited list with discredited points. All you are doing is just demonstrating that you don’t know what debunked means, the idea that McIntyre is gaining support where it counts is a fairy tale. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/89 "2009-11-18T14:50:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Hmmm, I might be reading this wrong. Is X is none other than Intention? Yes. I edited his real name out of the quote, not that it’s more than 1 click away anyway. > [@](#): > > Discrediting sealevel rises due to AGW could hurt Tuvalu. Oh, eventually, maybe. But not until long after this resort he’s building has made enough money to pay him. No need to scare the customers in the meanwhile, though. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/90 "2009-11-18T15:38:05Z")
> [@intention](#): > > More on [McIntyre](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704335904574496850939846712.html) … someday you guys are going to learn that attacking me just allows me to spread my seditious ideas further and further, and get more and more people to read my citations. You provide ad hominem attacks … I provide citations. My profound thanks, it’s a great deal. Psst, The WSJ opinion pieces are not considered valid sources by many over here. On the contrary, I welcome cites that are wonderful examples of lack of logic and ignorance to tell others what to avoid. > [@](#): > > The retired Canadian businessman, whose self-described “auditing” a few years ago prompted a Congressional review of climate science, Here the author ignores that people like Inhofe fell for it. > [@](#): > > Thas once again thrown EnviroLand into a tailspin. later the opinion piece reports that climate scientists laugh at the mention of McIntire’s name. > [@](#): > > In September, he revealed that a famous graph using tree rings to show unprecedented 20th century warming relies on thin data. Since its publication in 2000, University of East Anglia professor Keith Briffa’s much-celebrated image has made star appearances everywhere from U.N. policy papers to activists’ posters. Like other so-called “hockey stick” temperature graphs, it’s an easy sell—one look and it seems Gadzooks! We’re burning ourselves up! > > “It was the belle of the ball,” Mr. McIntyre told me on a recent phone call from Ontario. “Its dance card was full.” > > At least until Mr. McIntyre reported that the modern portion of that graph, which shows temperatures appearing to skyrocket in the last 100 years, relies on just 12 tree cores in Russia’s Yamal region. When Mr. McIntyre presented a second graph, adding data from 34 tree cores from a nearby site, the temperature spike disappears. That right wing piece of crap opinion was published today, the bitch slap of McIntye by Keith Briffa and others was reported back in September and October. “Revenge of the Climate Layman”? more like “the return of the killer tomatoes” McIntyre is only good for a laugh in research and academic circles and good as a pied piper for the right wing media. > **[Briffa teaches, but will McIntyre ever learn?](https://deepclimate.org/2009/10/30/briffa-teaches-but-will-mcintyre-ever-learn/)** > > Recently we’ve discussed several aspects of the raging controversy around climate blogger Steve McIntyre and dendrochronologist Keith Briffa and the supposed destruction (once again) of the &… > [@](#): > > McIntyre’s use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth. McIntyre’s sensitivity analysis has little implication, either for the interpretation of the Yamal chronology or for other proxy studies that make use of it. > [@](#): > > Certainly as more data is added the “blade” portion of the Yamal regional chronology may change slightly, as for example seen in the early peek at Hantemirov’s forthcoming updated chronology using more than 200 live tree cores. But Briffa’s conclusion still stands; nothing in McIntyre’s analysis refutes “the current interpretation of relatively high tree growth and summer warmth in the 20th century in this region.” > > It’s a sad commentary that, as Briffa ruefully noted, he was compelled to answer McIntyre by releasing his analysis directly to the public, bypassing the normal channels of peer-reviewed science. > [@](#): > > Make no mistake: this is not about “doing science differently” in the internet age. There is precious little science in McIntyre’s analysis. But his barely veiled insinuations of scientific fraud have been exaggerated and trumpeted by a chorus of scientifically illiterate commentators spouting ideologically driven nonsense. Briffa’s list of such commentary, which includes The Telegraph and The Register in the U.K., barely scratches the surface. In Canada’s National Post alone, Ross McKitrick claimed that “Whatever is going on here, it is not science” and Lorne Gunter asserted that Briffa “kept reducing the number of trees from … his sample of scores of trees”. > > With the U.N. Copenhagen climate conference still two months off, we can expect ever-mounting volleys of such hysterical attacks. > > It’s time for scientists to ponder how to respond effectively. A good start would be a joint statement from the leading national science academies decrying both the gross distortions of climate science and the defamatory attacks on scientists emanating from the right-wing media. Enough is enough. More from real climate researchers here: > **[RealClimate: Hey Ya! (mal)](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/)** > > RealClimate: Is the Yamal tree-ring series really the basis of all climate science? Of course not. Discussion of the McIntyre, Yamal, Briffa and the highly predictable trajectory of climate-related blogstorms. Plus lots of non-Yamal based hockey... [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-14/#comment-138268](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/09/hey-ya-mal/comment-page-14/#comment-138268) ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/happy_fun_ball/32/17664_2.png) [@Happy\_Fun\_Ball](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Fun_Ball)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/91 "2009-11-18T16:13:36Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > It was rebutted then: > > \ **GIGObuster** , I like you, and I am saying this for friendship’s sake: don’t do it. He will just drive you crazy. One of three things is going to happen [ol] [li]He is going to completely ignore your post and it’s linked citations and continue to talk about the discredited hockey stick. [/li][li]He will thank you for your post and claim that the rebuttals you posted are not valid because of some completely random and unrelated statistical phenomenon (\* **intention** : _“GIGO, old chum, thanks but the “non-centered” Principal Components Analysis (PCA) convention cannot be used when delineating the relative statistical strength of the correlating samples unless the dynamic convolution kernel is normalized to an independent data source.”_). This will waste a day or two of your time to figure out what the fuck he is claiming and then do a proper rebuttal that shows that he is full of shit. This rebuttal he will then completely ignore or will pull the same shit again in response.[/li][li]Or, finally, he will claim that the linked rebuttals are just _ad hominem_ attacks and thus dismiss them entirely without ever examining their merits.[/li][/ol] He pulls this shit in every fucking thread he participates in. - Not a real quote, but there is a 33% chance it will be in the future! ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/92 "2009-11-18T16:22:25Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > **GIGObuster** , I like you, and I am saying this for friendship’s sake: don’t do it. He will just drive you crazy. What makes you think I’m not crazy already? ;)😛 As I said before, I’m not important. The joke is on him by wasting his time replying to me and not dealing with the rebuttals, the ones from before and today. What is fun now is finding evidence of the certifiable pathetic levels of support guys like him and McIntyre get in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/93 "2009-11-18T21:14:13Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > **GIGObuster** , I like you, and I am saying this for friendship’s sake: don’t do it. He will just drive you crazy. One of three things is going to happen > [ol] > [li]He is going to completely ignore your post and it’s linked citations and continue to talk about the discredited hockey stick. [/li][li]He will thank you for your post and claim that the rebuttals you posted are not valid because of some completely random and unrelated statistical phenomenon (\* **intention** : _“GIGO, old chum, thanks but the “non-centered” Principal Components Analysis (PCA) convention cannot be used when delineating the relative statistical strength of the correlating samples unless the dynamic convolution kernel is normalized to an independent data source.”_). This will waste a day or two of your time to figure out what the fuck he is claiming and then do a proper rebuttal that shows that he is full of shit. This rebuttal he will then completely ignore or will pull the same shit again in response.[/li][li]Or, finally, he will claim that the linked rebuttals are just _ad hominem_ attacks and thus dismiss them entirely without ever examining their merits.[/li][/ol] > He pulls this shit in every fucking thread he participates in. > > - Not a real quote, but there is a 33% chance it will be in the future! I dunno, I think **GIGObuster** is doing all climate scientists and editors of Nature a favor by keeping **intention** distracted. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/94 "2009-11-19T04:33:46Z")
It does make me happy that he wasted some considerable amount of time scrolling through all seven hundred names to find 40 that have actual credentials in some sort of climate science. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/95 "2009-11-19T04:58:24Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It does make me happy that he wasted some considerable amount of time scrolling through all seven hundred names to find 40 that have actual credentials in some sort of climate science. 😃 There is a method to my madness.. 😃 As an educator it is really interesting to find out \*\*how and why \*\*is it that organizations like the AGU and the Meteorological society dismiss the deniers. It is really ridiculous to assume that most top researchers ignore the deniers research, far from it, they do see it and continue to find many errors, what I think is that **the flaws we laymen notice are even more glaring for active scientists**. It is clear that deniers are now unable to convince most members of those scientific organizations and so deniers are falling back to the tactic of attempting to mislead people outside the research world and academia. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/96 "2009-11-20T11:21:51Z")
> [@](#): > > **intention** : I published a peer reviewed “Communications Arising” in Nature Magazine. It is available here. Since it is peer reviewed, did they find another amateur to review it? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2009, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865/97 "2009-11-20T19:46:05Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Since it is peer reviewed, did they find another amateur to review it? Heh. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-that-intention-guy-is-kinda-stupid-huh/517865.md?page=4)