>On 1/2/08, Randy Isaac
><<mailto:randyisaac@comcast.net>randyisaac@comcast.net> wrote:
>Independent of the topic, the controversies that should be taught in
>a science class are those that are ongoing in the scientific
>literature. In active research fields where one or more theories are
>still competing for acceptance by those working in that field, then
>the controversy should be taught. When "evidences" in any field
>have not been vetted through the peer-review process and published
>in the technical literature, then it can be mentioned as such in
>order to help put those controveries in perspective. But in that
>case, it should not be "taught" as science. ~ Randy
>I agree. The question is -- are there anti-GW theories still in
>contention? ~ Burgy
>At 09:10 AM 1/6/2008, Randy Isaac wrote: The answer to that
>question depends on whether any "anti-GW theories" have been
>published in any relevant technical peer-reviewed journal and what
>the technical response has been. Fred Singer's work is published in
>his own books, not the technical literature. A list of 400 names
>doesn't comprise a technical publication. Nor does an article posted
>on a website like
><http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp>http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/education/reports/hansen/hansencritique.jsp.
>I don't know of any significant publications of that nature in the
>last five years but I'd be interested to hear of any. So far no one
>on this list has provided any such references. Often the explanation
>offered for such absence is bias and conspiracy among mainstream
>scientists and funding agencies, which is usually a sign that the
>technical arguments are too weak. Evidence for such bias seldom goes
>further than the absence of anti-GW publications, leaving us with a
>neat circular argument. ~ Randy
@ Speaking of "neat circular arguments". Since it is quite
well-known that the gate-keepers of the leftist cocoon effectively
block politically INcorrect theories from such journals, why would
any informed person expect to find them there?
For one quintessential example, see
here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949319/posts
To repeat: It is an indisputable fact that politically INcorrect
science (ie: doesn't follow the a priori template) will not be
allowed by the gate-keepers to be published in any of the "relevant
technical peer-reviewed journals" (ie: "prestigious" PC journals that
are willing to only publish scientific "research" that has been
manufactured to conform to the conclusions wanted by politicians -and
"greedy corporations"- from which they obtain funding.)
"Political correctness is about denial, usually in the weasel
circumlocutory jargon which distorts and evades and seldom stands up
to honest analysis. ..."
UK source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949221/posts
Those who refuse to conform to "the holy template", have no other
recourse than to try and get their research and learned opinions
published through other channels.
"...Science professors are only hired if they can swing enough
Federal grant money to pay for their labs, hire a gaggle of graduate
assistants, and let the universities skim up to forty percent
off the top for overhead. And besides, it's nice to get fat
salaries. So the professional scientist union, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science, has ads headed AAA$. They
aren't shy about it. The trouble is that money means politics, and
politics means shading the truth. As a result, we get politicized
science, which corrupts real science. Any kind of Politically
Incorrect science therefore becomes very hard to publish. So the
cult of PC has invaded the pristine halls of science. ..." Continued here:
Science Magazine: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944589/posts
"They" are the high priests of global warming, who have indeed had a
chilling effect, so to speak, on free scientific inquiry. Nigel
Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are
trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees.
Einstein could not have got funding under the current system."
..."Scientists who dissent from the alarmism....have seen their funds
disappear, their work derided and themselves labeled as industry
stooges."
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945306/posts?page=92#92>92
"...NASA has carried out an interesting manouever that has the effect
of evading the federal Data Quality Act, OMB Guidelines and NASA's
own stated policies.
NASA says that it "employs the world's largest concentration of
climate scientists". It has plenty of opportunity to use product from
those scientists that has been produced in accordance with NASA
quality procedures and subject to the Data Quality Act. Instead of
doing so, NASA's webpage on global warming relies on non-peer
reviewed material, including material produced by one of its own
employees as a "private citizen" at a "personal" website where his
contributions have not been subject to mandatory NASA quality control
procedures. ..."
Peer Review Policy and NASA Policies: http://tinyurl.com/2twwm8
~ Janice ...... (''The analogy I use is like my car's not running
very well, so I'm going to ignore the engine which is the sun and I'm
going to ignore the transmission which is the water vapour and I'm
going to look at one nut on the right rear wheel which is the human
produced CO2. The science is that bad.'' - Dr Roy Spencer, former
NASA senior
climatologist
<http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1945306/posts?page=94#94>94 )
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Jan 15 13:22:31 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jan 15 2008 - 13:22:31 EST