B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Aug 21, 9:52 am, Joerg <inva...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
between Alabama and the Univeristy of Alabama at Huntsville until I
needed a club to beat krw over the head with.
Climate Files"
http://transitionculture.org/2010/07/29/book-review-the-climate-files-by-fred-pearce/
which - sadly - shows up the fact that Fred Peearce isn't
scientifically trained and doesn't appreciate the extent to which
scientists are trained to protect the integrity of the peer-reviewed
literature, and is consequently critical of the - entirely justified -
vigour of their response when it was contaminated by pseudo-scientific
crap. It still makes it perfectly clear that the scientists involved
weren't falsifying their results, or doing anything improper, though
they certainly didn't like being persecuted by frivolous and malicious
"freedom of information" demands from denialsts trawling for yet more
propaganda-fodder.
My copy of the book is back in Nijmegen, so I can't give you chapter
and verse.
dilatory in collecting them just because they might lead to - say - a
better alternative to dilation and curretage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
which does seem to be roughly equivalent to what Christy and Spencer
did - or rather failed to do when they should have done.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
It was purely in reponse to krw's post. I didn't make the connection
between Alabama and the Univeristy of Alabama at Huntsville until I
needed a club to beat krw over the head with.
I've read the e-mails, and Fred Pearce's book about the affair - "The
Climate Files"
http://transitionculture.org/2010/07/29/book-review-the-climate-files-by-fred-pearce/
which - sadly - shows up the fact that Fred Peearce isn't
scientifically trained and doesn't appreciate the extent to which
scientists are trained to protect the integrity of the peer-reviewed
literature, and is consequently critical of the - entirely justified -
vigour of their response when it was contaminated by pseudo-scientific
crap. It still makes it perfectly clear that the scientists involved
weren't falsifying their results, or doing anything improper, though
they certainly didn't like being persecuted by frivolous and malicious
"freedom of information" demands from denialsts trawling for yet more
propaganda-fodder.
My copy of the book is back in Nijmegen, so I can't give you chapter
and verse.
Absolutely. But you aren't allowed to lie about yours results or beBTW, it's not a university that matters, it's the employers that are
already in the area.
And the potential employees that they've got to work with.
... And they are Baptists - perhaps not
as sincerely Baptist as the inhabitants of Urk are Calvinist, but still
pretty inflexible - so you'd run the risk of being rejected as a
schismatic Lutheran.
Baptists and Lutherans get along quite well, and I love their choirs..
They can make the rafters shake.
Unfortunately, that kind of belief can gnaw at the foundations as well as
shaking the rafters.
My faith is my foundation and it is unshakeable. Nothing you can do
about that
It's not your foundations that I'm worried about, it's the foundations
of the science that you - indirectly - rely on to make your money. If
your sub-contradtors were to reject experimental evidence because they
thought that the results didn't fit with their - say, anti-abortion -
theology you could eventually find yourself in serious trouble with
the FDA.
For the record, I am against abortion and if someone wanted me to work
on some device that is used in that area I will refuse. It is my right
to do so.
dilatory in collecting them just because they might lead to - say - a
better alternative to dilation and curretage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
which does seem to be roughly equivalent to what Christy and Spencer
did - or rather failed to do when they should have done.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen