|
Post by StuartG on Sept 6, 2010 15:33:57 GMT 1
'Peer review is the best system ' that's a "mantra". Generally, it is true, when honestly applied. Reference [recent] has been given [DT article] about how it has been discredited in the 'Climate' debate. Here it is again www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7981979/A-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-IPCC.html . I propose that any one who purports to support the concept of AGW should agree that this is 'bad form' and the persons should first rectify this situation before further attempts to convince an already disbelieving public. StuartG cries of 'Heresy' not acceptable, however deafening.
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 6, 2010 19:05:51 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 19:30:10 GMT 1
Kiteman, Please try to contribute to the thread and stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 6, 2010 20:04:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kiteman on Sept 6, 2010 20:11:19 GMT 1
rsmith,
Pointing out that an entire other board is available for this discussion is just as much on-topic as some of the insults and nonsense already being posted.
Mary,
I'd rather not post on a forum where members get away with the kind of vitriol and blatant insults you post are not dealt with appropriately.
Can I ask why you have started posting here, instead of on your own board?
Can you not attract an audience of your own?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 20:17:48 GMT 1
To get back on topic: "The first major row over the IPCC came when it was revealed that the most widely publicised and alarmist claim in its second report, in 1995, was inserted after the text had been signed off by the other scientists involved – while 15 passages which countered alarm over climate change had been excised. This famously provoked Professor Fred Seitz, former president of the US National Academy of Sciences, to say that in 60 years as a scientist he had never seen a "more disturbing corruption" of scientific procedure."
Any thoughts on this factual account?
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 6, 2010 21:20:44 GMT 1
That's a good start Abacus! Begin by stating obviously what I'm getting at except in reverse. How original! Please try to stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 6, 2010 21:22:23 GMT 1
I see my Karma is minus1??? How does that happen? I know it's wrong anyway cos I helped a young swallow find it's way out of my shed today. Please try to stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Sept 6, 2010 21:24:37 GMT 1
lazarus, C'mon, don't be frightened - I don't bite Please try to stay on topic.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 6, 2010 22:27:42 GMT 1
Any thoughts on the topic, bluebiro?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 1:09:32 GMT 1
stuartg No it isn't a mantra, it is how modern science is validated and without any better system, rejecting peer review is just anti-science. In all cases peer review is going to be less biased that an article from a right wing tabloid especially when the reporter, Booker, is such a scientific literate to believe that asbestos isn't particularly harmful. richardwilsonauthor.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/bookers-38-bogus-claims-about-white-asbestos/If this doesn't concern you about his credibility in matters of science reporting it really should. But citing IPCC reports as examples of poor peer review is very dubious in any case. While it could be argued that their reports are peer reviewed, the IPCC is a political organisation in that their remit from the UN is to summarise the scientific research for governments and their policy makers. But it is the scientific research that is really properly peer reviewed and there is no evidence that all the many thousands of papers haven't been correctly reviewed or wont be changed in light of valid qualified criticism.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 1:29:06 GMT 1
Any thoughts on this factual account? Yes, where exactly is this ' factual account' from? And is this the same Frederick Seitz, the non climatologist, who said "there is no good scientific evidence that passive inhalation is truly dangerous under normal circumstances", which was against all the published research and a statement from the American Medical Association? The same Frederick Seitz who just happened to be a consultant for a tobacco company at the time?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Sept 7, 2010 7:54:45 GMT 1
You state something that is not true and then use that untruth to bash Booker on the head with In fact he knows (and has written extensively upon) the dangers of blue and brown asbestos. His contention (that is supposrted by many eminent scientists) is that white asbestos is not as dangerous as the other two and hence should be treated differently. The British H&S Exec, in their wisdom, refuse to treat white differently and hence unscrupulous firms can charge a fortune for removing structures that contain white asbestos, as though it is the toxic blue. There is apparently a scam going on in with asbestos that is directly sanctioned by the government, just as the ridiculous wind generators (paid for by the taxpayer)are a scam to make governments appear as if they are doing something, just as the absurd projected battery-driven car (under devlopment at Nissan Northumberland financed by the taxpayer) is a scam (120 mile range, 8-10 hour recharge period, battery life 5 years), just as the Tata takeover of Corus was a scam - close it down as a 'polluter' and get British taxpayer money for doing so, open a new 'clean' plant in India funded with British taxpayer money because it is clean, get carbon credit subsidies because it is 'clean'. Meanwhile all the access to dirt-cheap labour and British competition eliminated , funded by the British taxpayer Scam, it's national suicide!
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 7, 2010 8:31:32 GMT 1
Lazarus Re: The Great Global Warming Swindle « Reply #70 Today at 0:09 » Your quote is incomplete and therefore incorrect. Try to keep the context. You were using it as a mantra, which seems to be common to many, so You're not alone. That's the point though, the pack mentality "four legs good, two legs bad" please note my general acceptance of that with the caveat of honesty. It's the honesty bit that seems to be missing. Here's the full context. ''Peer review is the best system ' that's a "mantra". Generally, it is true, when honestly applied.' Cheers, StuartG [Animal Hero First Class]
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 8:51:27 GMT 1
naymissus Are you or Booker an expert on white asbestos? So when you say it is untrue do you know or are you just willing to believe Bookers rhetoric against all safety advice? Are you willing to treat it differently or allow workers to be exposed to it? Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the asbestos industry stressed the dangers of blue asbestos. Their reasoning was that blue asbestos fibres tend to be smaller. This means it is easier for blue fibres to penetrate deep into the lungs. The exact relationship, however, between size of fibre and the process of triggering a cancer is not known. Modern production methods now grind white asbestos more finely. Also, ageing and wear and tear release smaller fibres.
If blue and brown asbestos are more of a risk to health, it does not mean that white is safe. Britain is unusual in making a distinction between different types of asbestos. Most countries treat all types as equally deadly.
A 1985 Health and Safety Commission report by Doll and Peto said, "The four types of asbestos that have been used in industry to any material extent, the common chrysotile with its curly fibres and the three amphiboles (crocidolite, amosite and anthophyllite) with their straight ones, all produce pulmonary fibrosis, cancer of the lung, and mesotheliomas of the pleura and peritoneum in animal experiments."
In other words in animal experiments both white and the less common types of asbestos produce the deadly diseases seen in man. They go on to conclude the animal evidence is overwhelming that, "all types produce the specified diseases with relative ease." In making this conclusion criticise an earlier report of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos (1979).
Regarding the human evidence, they note the idea that white asbestos does not cause so much cancer. But they say, "the evidence for this is not as clear as one would like."
Their review of the studies of asbestos workers in various industrial settings contains the following information:
blue asbestos (crocidolite) might cause more mesothelioma than the other types of asbestos blue asbestos causes as much lung cancer as mesothelioma brown asbestos (amosite) causes mesotheliomas of the lung lining (pleura) and the stomach lining (peritoneum) brown and white asbestos cause many more lung cancers than they cause mesotheliomas.
Nancy Tait whose work has involved many examinations of lung tissue says, "I have never believed the claims of industry that all disease was caused by crocidolite. Usually, we find a mixture. In some cases we find just chrysotile. It is rubbish to say that chrysotile cannot cause mesothelioma. Even published studies are now agreeing that in the pleura they find more chrysotile, mainly short fibres, than other types of asbestos." www.lhc.org.uk/members/pubs/books/asbestos/asb10.htmIt is banned or restricted in more than 50 countries, so isn't likely to be a scam by the British HSE. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-10623725If there is any scam it is more likely from the industry; A block of interviews with reputed experts serves to dismantle the supposed safety of white asbestos (chrysotile) — which use was most widespread — as compared with the harmful nature of blue asbestos (crocidolite). This was one of the claims reiterated during the seventies by the asbestos industry. The testimonies of David Gee — who qualified asbestos as “the biggest killer that we know of in the occupational health field” —, Barry Castleman, Paul Formby — a researcher at the Mount Sinai Hospital of New York — and of a Canadian journalist point to the concealing of data on occupational morbidity by the owners of Canadian mines, where a good part of the white asbestos was mined. revistamedicinacine.usal.es/dmdocuments/amianto_ing.pdf
|
|