On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 12:24:12 -0500, the infamous Pete Snell
scrawled the following:
Larry Jaques wrote:
You don't see the need for peer review of scientific articles in a
science mag? Oh, OK. I do. It (theoretically) keeps 'em honest. Not
that that counts nowadays. sigh
I guess our opinions differ on what kind of publication SciAm is, or
what a scientific article is. Scientific American (or at least my
experience of it) is a newsy folksy publication that presents articles
based on science already conducted or being examined. Does anyone
actually present new or original research directly to them? That's when
peer review generally happens.
They started out as a real science mag.
First they say that they can't attribute the entire .74C rise to
natural factors, then they suddenly say that the whole .74C rise is
anthropomorphic. Doesn't that strike you as less than honest, Pete?
It's damned subtle unless you're looking for it. That's why I'm really
curious to see to whence all the emails lead. Off with their heads,
Arrrrr! Then start over with just the facts next time, please.
Well I can't say it's less than honest, but you're right it doesn't
completely follow logic either. If it can't be attributed to 'natural'
causes, and the evidence implies some Human contribution, I guess that
leaves supernatural causes as the other cause. Maybe this is God's
modern day flood!;-)
Yeah, that fits in with science...how?
Nah, not an empire, just steady work on whatever they want. It's what
we all want, but do we lie, cheat and steal for it as they seem to be,
while under the guise of being upright, honest scientists? It's
sickening and angering to me. Science is no longer on its pedestal
for a whole lot of people after this crap (AGWK and CRU), and that's
truly sad. It leads to the politicians going after the rest of
science to use it for their own dark means, don't you think?
Well Scientists are people, with egos and neuroses just like the rest
of us. I don't doubt that there are rivalries and conflicts of
personality (actually I know it). But the actions of a few scientist
don't define all of science. In fact the system is set up to prevent
that. As far as I know (and I haven't checked in depth) the scientist
who's work was being supposedly 'suppressed' was actually published. It
was probably peer reviewed to! And I agree about the dark side of
politics and big business. I think whoever it is that hacked into CRU's
computer system is as worthy of scorn as any group.
Yabbut, scientists, doctors, lawyers, cops, and ministers are all
supposed to be above that. Hmm, I guess science just bit the dust
like all the rest.
I've read so much biased **** on this subject that when my finely
honed **** detector goes of clearly just 1 time now, I know it's going
to be more of the same with the rest of the article. Why waste time?
I read that same old pattern and just turn it off. What we all really
want is the unvarnished _truth_: good, bad or ugly.
I agree mostly. But the baby and the bathwater analogy seems
appropriate here. It is helpful to have an idea about where people are
getting their information to make decisions. I trust Science a LOT more
than I trust politicians and lobbyists, or celebrities and popular writers!
P.S: Um, don't Canadians have their own sources of news/scientists?
Yes. Yes we do.
So, quick: Quote one!
You mean like McIntyre and McKitrick ? :-) Well they aren't actually
scientists..... Not that there's anything wrong with that. And of course
we have Dr. Weaver.
MM vs. the Doc? Opposites, if we've ever seen any, wot?
(Andrew Weaver, Canada's Spinner Warmist in Chief, right?)
And of course we have David Suzuki, The CBC, etc
More True Believers(kumbaya), eh? I guess you -do- have a few.
You'd probably like this article, I did:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/12/08/f-vp-handler.html
Yeah, I did. Mike provides some interesting topics.
P.S: Have you read Huber's _Hard Green_ yet? Just do it! If everyone
had, we'd be more rational about things, solving the solvable, and
leaving the Parts-Per-Ten-Billioners in the dust where they belong.
More biased ****! ;-) I'm sure it's interesting, but I already have a
line up of books to read on subjects I find more interesting (like
metalworking) So this will be my last reply. Nice talking to you.
It's a quick read and I wish it were a mandatory read in schools. He's
the closest to neutral of all the writers I've seen yet, and if
nothing else, he makes one think about things from both sides.
--
Don't forget the 7 P's:
Proper Prior Planning Prevents ****-Poor Performance