Re: [OT] More Warming stuff
- From: "Tom S." <tmswork@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 01:24:20 -0700
"Mickey" <Mickey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
"Paul M. Cook" <pmcook@xxxxxxx> wrote:
"Tom S." <tmswork@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
"JJ" <jeremy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
Nice to see that everything on the internet is true and that according
"scientific" study the industrial revolution began in 1950. (see graph
You really should write history books.
Fyi from sourcewatch
The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself
small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic
nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging."
headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long
history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of
accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents
concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books
to survive nuclear war.
The OISM would be equally obscure itself, except for
the role it played in 1998 in circulating a deceptive "scientists'
petition" on global warming in collaboration with Frederick Seitz, a
retired former president of the National Academy of Sciences. The Home
Page's current navigation bar lists 8 individuals under the "Faculty"
heading. Two of those listed are deceased, and two are sons of OISM's
Arthur B. Robinson. Yet even though the OISM credentials 8 persons as
"Faculty", it has no classrooms, or student body.
That's been rebutted LONG ago... not to mention the Greenpeace scumbags
that tried to pollute the survey.
A properly done scientific survey would not be so easily "polluted."
just how little you know about what really goes into those things. A
"survey" like that is about as useless as an online petition because 1
person could post as many responses as they wished.
God, this is SO disingenuous! I *know for a fact* that, with your
background, you know better than this, Paul. The responses could
easily be controlled/validated through IP address.
No real scientific
survey would have that loose a control.
That's why they require written proof to be mailed in within a few days. Of
course, that gets in the way of his noxious drivel.
Also, Google the term "peer review" if you want more insight. Scientists
not vote en masse on every single abstract.
"Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from being an
important control, where the editors and the referees are competent and
responsible, to being a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not
surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than
a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that
outsiders imagine it to be.
Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to reject a submission
can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down;
likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always
counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or
insufficient grounds, the system is a crap shoot.
Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies,
methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of
plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific
world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no
event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or
its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake
after another. In some sciences these mistakes are largely weeded out in the
course of time; in others they persist for extended periods; and in some
sciences, such as economics, actual scientific retrogression may continue
for generations under the misguided (but self-serving) belief that it is
really progress.-- Robert Higgs, who has overseen quite a bit of
"peer-reviewed" (read: buddy system) studies.
He should save that for peons the College of Cardinals are bamboozling
- Prev by Date: Re: More Warming stuff
- Next by Date: Re: Tunneling
- Previous by thread: Re: [OT] More Warming stuff
- Next by thread: Re: [OT] More Warming stuff