|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 9:01:44 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? It makes no difference who or what he was/is. He pointed out glaring corruption of the scientific process. Do you condone this corruption? Or does your distaste of him for being "off message" so sully your judgement?
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 7, 2010 9:19:21 GMT 1
Supposing it isn't, perhaps Anna et al got together and decided the best thing to do would be to set a site, unconnected to the Beeb, at least overtly, on the basis of 'lets get rid of the argumentative bunch' Could well have some credence there, the story's a 'runner'.
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 10:04:10 GMT 1
rsmith7
Again you seem to misunderstand the nature of rational debate. Of course it matters. If someone is unqualified, has a possible agenda or has been known to be wrong before it becomes a matter of credibility. I don't condone corruption, do you have evidence of any? So far and as ever you have made an assertion and failed to evidence it with any credible support.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 7, 2010 10:15:50 GMT 1
If George-window licker-Monboit pointed out a fact, an empirical fact, I'd believe him.
So you are questioning the FACT that the report was altered after it was signed off by the scientists involved and contra evidence deleted?
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 7, 2010 11:27:43 GMT 1
If George-window licker-Monboit pointed out a fact, an empirical fact, I'd believe him. So you are questioning the FACT that the report was altered after it was signed off by the scientists involved and contra evidence deleted? I'm questioning the fact that you have as ever provided no evidence for your assertion. Who is George-window licker-Monboit?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 11:33:05 GMT 1
Peer review is nothing to do with "validation" Validation can only be claimed when independent scientists can replicate the claimed findings or observations. It sems very few bother to this these days and particularly in climatology-related matters. Getting something into print is the be-all and end-all. And no one audits it. No-one, that is, until someone like Stve McIntyre comes along and dismantles it and shows it for the piece of trash it is. The climatology debate could do with a whole army of Steve McIntyres to debunk the worthless "research findings" that have somehow manage to find themselves "peer reviewed", or rather "pal reviewed". We all know how that works since the Climategate revelations. See how your favourite source the Guardian covers peer review: Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer reviewwww.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
|
|
|
Post by havelock on Sept 7, 2010 15:26:33 GMT 1
It seems that more and more draft papers are being posted on the internet for open review as well as peer review prior to being published.
I think this is an excellent way forward and hope it becomes the norm.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 7, 2010 23:25:25 GMT 1
it is one thing to make claims about the IPCC in a politically motivated newspaper [/size] ? increase my education, are all other newspapers 'not politically motivated'?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 7, 2010 23:53:54 GMT 1
I guess some are more politically motivated than others, stu!
The Guardian will be OK. It's almost a charitable institution, isn't it? Fanzine of the PC Brigade.
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 8, 2010 0:21:06 GMT 1
liberalconspiracy.org/2010/05/30/right-wingers-target-the-telegraph-over-laws-scoop/www.thecommentfactory.com/the-left-wing-media-fallacy-2180/------- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Daily_Telegraph... "Amidst the unraveling of the takeover Sir David Barclay suggested that The Daily Telegraph might in the future no longer be the "house newspaper" of the Conservatives. In an interview with The Guardian he said, "Where the government are right we shall support them."" Just for interest.. "During the Second World War, The Daily Telegraph covertly helped in the recruitment of code-breakers for Bletchley Park. The ability to solve The Telegraph's crossword in under 12 minutes was considered a recruitment test. The newspaper was asked to organise a crossword competition, after which each of the successful participants was contacted and asked if they would be prepared to undertake "a particular type of work as a contribution to the war effort". The competition itself was won by F H W Hawes of Dagenham who finished the crossword in less than eight minutes." ------ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Guardian"Guardian features editor Ian Katz stated in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper".[1] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix of "right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites, etc" and that the newspaper was "clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive""
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 22:39:39 GMT 1
rsmith7 Again you seem to misunderstand the nature of rational debate. Of course it matters. If someone is unqualified, has a possible agenda or has been known to be wrong before it becomes a matter of credibility. I don't condone corruption, do you have evidence of any? So far and as ever you have made an assertion and failed to evidence it with any credible support. Yes, see the corruption thread. Thanks for the link that led me to this disgraceful sham.
|
|
|
Post by oldpythonboy on Sept 10, 2010 23:52:41 GMT 1
Marchesarosa wrote "Peer review is nothing to do with "validation" "
Why did nobody challenge that assertion? Well, because it's basically true. I have been involved in peer reviewed software for all my working life. Peer reviewing in the scientific world seems to be equivalent to the INITIAL peer reviewing in the software engineering world.
Even if your work gets through reviews of the financial stage, the feasibility stage, the requirements stage, the design stage, the safety case stage, the data modelling stage, the test stategy stage, the test plan stage, the test script stage, the unit code testing stage, the module testing stage, the software integration stage, the hardware compatibility and conformance stage, the implementation stage, and all the stuff around it about operation and maintenance and god knows how many other stages of the Software Development Life Cycle (I'm sure I've missed some out) you are still at the mercy of the system testing. Up to now this is the VERIFICATION stage: Have we got the system right?
The system testing is normally carried out by professional testers who know the system and its scope but are not part of the developer's team. They usually have huge operational test scripts ready to use (because while you were developing your software they were developing their test scripts) and they also run loads of regression tests to make sure your changes do not impinge of other related areas of the system. This is the VALIDATION stage: Have we got the right system?
And then you have got Acceptance Testing which is another matter!
How does the Scientific Peer Review stack up against that? (cross my arms and look like Nora Batty)
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 10, 2010 23:55:46 GMT 1
I'd be on my third bottle by now if I'd been involved in that. Respect! old boy
|
|
|
Post by oldpythonboy on Sept 11, 2010 0:43:59 GMT 1
Hey, Mr Smith, you're a Senior Member. Do you get an All-a-Board Bus Pass?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 16, 2010 15:36:39 GMT 1
I'm so impressed - senior member and been "smited" 21 times! Aw shucks
|
|