Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 201 to 207 of 207
  1. #201
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    New Port Richey, Florida - USA
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,069
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!



    And all of this is irrelevant anyway. The important question is not who said it, why they said it, what organization they belong to or if that organization shares beliefs with another organization, etc... but whether there is or is not measured data which contradicts the computer models.

    When an accurate real world measurement contradicts a calculation, the calculation is wrong.



  2. #202
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary View Post
    And all of this is irrelevant anyway. The important question is not who said it, why they said it, what organization they belong to or if that organization shares beliefs with another organization, etc... but whether there is or is not measured data which contradicts the computer models.

    When an accurate real world measurement contradicts a calculation, the calculation is wrong.
    As long as the measurement methodology is correct and bias is accounted for....you are absolutely correct.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    189
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    The Title of the article clearly states the intention of the author, it is biased and is intended to be. That does not however negate the fact that NASA which provide's a lot of atmospheric data to the scientific community, has provided Data not modeling, which suggests that the tank is neither 800L nor 500L but something much less.
    "In God we trust all others bring data"

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    And data can be interpreted in many ways depending on the desires of the interpreter. Therefore I look at this particular interpretation as highly suspect and would even go so far as to say it is pure rubbish.

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    New Port Richey, Florida - USA
    Age
    72
    Posts
    5,069
    Rep Power
    28

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeHolm View Post
    And data can be interpreted in many ways depending on the desires of the interpreter. Therefore I look at this particular interpretation as highly suspect and would even go so far as to say it is pure rubbish.
    So you acknowledge that scientists interpret data to fit their political agendas?

  6. #206
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    189
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeHolm View Post
    And data can be interpreted in many ways depending on the desires of the interpreter. Therefore I look at this particular interpretation as highly suspect and would even go so far as to say it is pure rubbish.
    Again you make my point for me. Curious though, what makes this so suspect to you?

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,492
    Rep Power
    17

    Re: The Trouble with the Industry !!

    It is quite simple. As I may have said somewhere before, my better half is a medical researcher and she teaching something called "outcome measurement", at a large university, to post doctorate smarty pants types. These are the cream of the crop doctors and surgeons. Anyway, point is, she works hard to keep bias out of research data and she is well known as an extremely ethical researcher to the point where big pharma is wary of her.

    It is well known in the Med research field that scientists who take money from industry have more attention paid to their research to strip it of bias. Researchers tied to hospitals and universities who get grant money from government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health in the US or the Canadian Institute for Health Research in Canada don't have nearly as much financial reason to put a bias into the research (and it is not usually political bias as much as something that will make them rich). This is not to say there is no bias but each grant goes through a lot of peer review and review by the journals long before it would be published. There have been some notable docs who made claims that were found out to have been absolute BS for their own gain and no one in the industry will talk to them anymore. I can think of two at the moment.

    No one escapes this unless they write an article in a "friendly" publication of for an agency that has the same political bias and don't care what respectable researchers think. They are often out for soundbites.

    Sorry for the rambling remarks but this kind of thing is often a topic at the dinner table. Anyone who writes an article calling people "alarmists" is stating a bias and that is not hard to see.

    So, my point is that anyone who is blatantly political will be dis-credited pretty quickly in the eyes of their community as having high quality research.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •