Quote:
|
Originally Posted by John Galt
Did you at least read the Whistleblower memo that was posted twice? It doesn't have both reports, but it is much more comprehensive (as no newspaper is going to do more than they have until this becomes a "big" story).
|
It was better and I am interested to see how the prior study that was removed would have impacted the results of this study. My first inclination is that there's nothing wrong with removing citations to different studies when leading an independent study of similar variables. But, if certain things were not studied because they were simply relying on the results of other studies, then that would be a different case (although maybe not the best way to lead an independent study). Still, I am not saying this guy did nothing wrong. I am saying that based on what I have seen, I have yet to see a specific example of his actions impacting the real results of the study. It's one of the reasons I would really like to see what the actual changes were.
Quote:
|
And your ways of describing these studies is suspect. Climate studies are ALWAYS squishy because they come from uncertainty and predict the future. The point is that scientists should be the ones to determine which way the data is leaning (and the originals didn't really have a leaning) rather than oil industry hack political appointees. Let the lifer scientists do their job and get out of the way.
|
That's a fair view. But scientists often have as many political motives as oil hacks, so it could very well be the case that these scientists wanted to bring in other studies to help support conclusion they desired, when perhaps the evidence for this study didn't lead to that conclusion. But, I will certainly admit that I do not that this is the case given what I have seen so far.