PDA

View Full Version : Somewhat O/T - Scientific integrity and validity of research



concerned dad
11-23-2009, 09:40 AM
Some of our discussions on this forum have dealt with the issue of scientific integrity and the validity of scoliosis research. Sharon has often (<cough> perhaps some would say too often) noted the Greek paper where the author made a compelling case that Most Published Research is False.

Last week, someone released a large amount of internal emails, fortran code, and data from one of the top research institutions involved with climate science. Some have characterized this as “hacked” or “stolen” files. Others (myself included) would characterize the documents as “leaked” from a “whistleblower”. Time may clarify the issue of the source/provenance of the data but the institution involved admits that they appear to be authentic.

This is a topic I’ve been interested in for some time and I recognize that the people involved (correspondence in the emails) are at the forefront of the research. They are not a small group on the periphery; they are the MOST cited individuals and the MOST influential in the field.

Perhaps a lesson related to scoliosis research that we can take from this is to be constantly questioning (<cough> perhaps more so in our minds than on the forum) the validity of all research. The paper Sharon cites about most research being false (maybe someone can link to it) is well worth reading. (Although I should note that the paper doesn’t list malfeasance (as we may be seeing here) as one of the reasons research is often false)

Now, regarding the “leaked” information, there are over 60 MB of information and folks are pouring over the information now. Some of the revelations may be misinterpreted or taken out of context (such as the “Trick” issue) but others seem a quite a bit more damning.

Here is a link discussing/summarizing some of the initial revelations uncovered. (http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/11/20/climate-cuttings-33.html) The data and fortran code has been often requested by scientists wishing to investigate the claims arising from the research. They have been the subject of multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. Indeed, the name of the zipped file containing the data is called FOI2009.zip. In any event, the topic makes for interesting reading and it will be interesting to see how the scientific community (and media) deal with it.

Another way in which this topic may tie in with scoliosis is the potential mixing of policy and science. I know some have suggested that the BrAIST trial may be a ploy to come up with data eliminating bracing as an (insurance covered) option or eliminate school screening as a mandated thing. (A “conspiracy” theory I don’t subscribe to but in light of what is going on with Climate Science, well, you never know).

Anyway, I thought it better to discuss it here than on Dingo’s genetic thread. It gets so hard to follow stuff here sometimes.

mamamax
11-23-2009, 11:16 AM
Hi CD ~

I have been wondering what this is all about, thank you for the posting. I've read through the links and plan to go back and read in more detail after discussing this with my brother who understands such things far better than myself. I think I see, at first glance - that we have been lied to and that there are some shedding light on the subject? Lying with statistics for the sake of profit has been around for a long time. Where do we find the truth? I suspect as Ballet Mom states: Follow the Money. Relative to research everywhere, including scoliosis? Definitely food for thought. Pass the nitro?

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 12:06 PM
Last week, someone released a large amount of internal emails, fortran code, and data from one of the top research institutions involved with climate science. Some have characterized this as “hacked” or “stolen” files. Others (myself included) would characterize the documents as “leaked” from a “whistleblower”. Time may clarify the issue of the source/provenance of the data but the institution involved admits that they appear to be authentic.


Another possibility:


So this is my theory is and this is only my theory:

A few people inside CRU possessed the archive of documents being held in reserve in case the FOI appeal decision was made in favor of Steve McIntyre. They shared it with others by putting it in an FTP directory which was on the same CPU as the external webserver, or even worse, was an on a shared drive somewhere to which the webserver had permissions to access. In other words, if you knew where to look, it was publicly available. Then, along comes our “hackers” who happened to find it, download it, and the rest is history unfolding before our eyes. So much for the cries of sophisticated hacking and victimization noted above.

If I had to bet money, I would guess that David Palmer, Information Policy & Compliance Manager, University of East Anglia, has an even chance of being the guilty party, but it would only be a guess.

To repeat the basic premise of this theory.

There’s an old adage, never assume malice when stupidity or incopetence will explain it.

You can read more here....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/the-crutape-letters%c2%ae-an-alternate-explanation/#more-13003

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 12:35 PM
Now, regarding the “leaked” information, there are over 60 MB of information and folks are pouring over the information now. Some of the revelations may be misinterpreted or taken out of context (such as the “Trick” issue) but others seem a quite a bit more damning.


I'm not so sure they're being misinterpreted:


You can claim an email you wrote years ago isn’t accurate saying it was “taken out of context”, but a programmer making notes in the code does so that he/she can document what the code is actually doing at that stage, so that anyone who looks at it later can figure out why this function doesn’t plot past 1960. In this case, it is not allowing all of the temperature data to be plotted. Growing season data (summer months when the new tree rings are formed) past 1960 is thrown out because “these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures”, which implies some post processing routine.

Spin that, spin it to the moon if you want. I’ll believe programmer notes over the word of somebody who stands to gain from suggesting there’s nothing “untowards” about it.

Either the data tells the story of nature or it does not. Data that has been “artificially adjusted to look closer to the real temperatures” is false data, yielding a false result.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/22/cru-emails-may-be-open-to-interpretation-but-commented-code-by-the-programmer-tells-the-real-story/#more-13065


Another:



Back in December 2004 John Finn asked about “the divergence” in Myth vs. Fact Regarding the “Hockey Stick” -thread of RealClimate.org.

Whatever the reason for the divergence, it would seem to suggest that the practice of grafting the thermometer record onto a proxy temperature record – as I believe was done in the case of the ‘hockey stick’ – is dubious to say the least.

mike’s response speaks for itself.

No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstrution. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.

But there is an interesting twist here: grafting the thermometer onto a reconstruction is not actually the original “Mike’s Nature trick”! Mann did not fully graft the thermometer on a reconstruction, but he stopped the smoothed series in their end years. The trick is more sophisticated, and was uncovered by UC over here. (Note: Try not to click this link now, CA is overloaded. Can’t even get to it myself to mirror it. -A)

When smoothing these time series, the Team had a problem: actual reconstructions “diverge” from the instrumental series in the last part of 20th century. For instance, in the original hockey stick (ending 1980) the last 30-40 years of data points slightly downwards. In order to smooth those time series one needs to “pad” the series beyond the end time, and no matter what method one uses, this leads to a smoothed graph pointing downwards in the end whereas the smoothed instrumental series is pointing upwards — a divergence. So Mann’s solution was to use the instrumental record for padding, which changes the smoothed series to point upwards as clearly seen in UC’s figure (violet original, green without “Mike’s Nature trick”.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/20/mikes-nature-trick/

Look at second chart at link to see the difference in the two series. I believe the "instrumental record" they're talking about is simply the thermometer based records versus a few magic trees' rings in Russia.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 12:44 PM
Another way in which this topic may tie in with scoliosis is the potential mixing of policy and science. I know some have suggested that the BrAIST trial may be a ploy to come up with data eliminating bracing as an (insurance covered) option or eliminate school screening as a mandated thing. (A “conspiracy” theory I don’t subscribe to but in light of what is going on with Climate Science, well, you never know).


In regards to the Braist study, I recently found out that most insurance companies' utilization management functions are staffed and performed by nurses. These are the people who decided that a recommended treatment is appropriate or not.

I also notice that Lori Dolan, who is the study director for Braist, is part of the adjunct/secondary faculty of the School of Nursing at the University of Iowa.

This suggests to me that the insurance companies are starting the process of removing bracing as a paid benefit due to "equipoise". They are simply trying to create a study to back them up to give them some protection in court when they finally decide to start defunding bracing.

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 12:55 PM
They are simply trying to create a study to back them up to give them some protection in court when they finally decide to start defunding bracing.

"Creating" or conducting a study is one thing.

Only the results will determine whether they continue funding bracing or not, yes? The data will be what they will be and will be collected by orthopedic surgeons participating in the study.

Are you predicting the study results will not support bracing?

And I assume you aren't suggesting that Dolan et al. will be manufacturing data to fit a preconceived notion are you? Dolan et al. follow the data unlike the great run of lay untrained parents.

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 12:57 PM
In regards to the Braist study, I recently found out that most insurance companies' utilization management functions are staffed and performed by nurses. These are the people who decided that a recommended treatment is appropriate or not.


But they aren't making these essentially research decisions by themselves!!!!!!!!!!! Nursing isn't a research degree!!!!!!!!!

They are working from the standards GIVEN them and at present the standard for certain curves includes bracing.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 01:02 PM
Continued from Dingo's "Risk of Scoliosis Among 1st Degree Relatives" thread:



Originally posted by Pooka1:


No the money thing is a red herring and you never see this mentioned by folks who know how monies are awarded in the case of merit-based science.

Of course they wouldn't mention it...but don't be naive. Of course money is a primary driver for much of what goes on in the world. Perhaps the researchers don't individually get more money....even that is debatable...but they certainly get more prestige from their peers, their universities, their funders....they even get to KEEP THEIR JOBS! If they aren't funded, they can be denied tenure and moved out. Not a very good place to be in a research university without funding. And let's face it, I see lots of scientists who would be quite happy if they could just make all the policy in the world according to their biases.

Even the study you quote that questions research findings states:

A research finding is less likely to be true ......when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16060722

I actually think this author is applying this to all research not just medical but I don't have the actual paper to read, just the summary.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 01:07 PM
But they aren't making these essentially research decisions by themselves!!!!!!!!!!! Nursing isn't a research degree!!!!!!!!!

They are working from the standards GIVEN them and at present the standard for certain curves includes bracing.


Of course, that's why the research is being done at a University. You're wrong though, lots of the nursing degrees at universities are research oriented...I suspect that Iowa is one of them. And you'll notice, obviously, that Weinstein is the principal investigator of the study. It's pretty clear they're using medical and research-oriented nursing people to perform studies nowadays. Obviously, the people in the field will use the research results from a university. I suspect that the insurance companies have managed to find a willing participant at the Univ of Iowa to hopefully help them find a way to defund bracing. It is absolutely the way it would work here in the U.S. This is my opinion, of course. I've had too many years to learn to not be naive.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 01:23 PM
"Creating" or conducting a study is one thing.

Only the results will determine whether they continue funding bracing or not, yes? The data will be what they will be and will be collected by orthopedic surgeons participating in the study.

Are you predicting the study results will not support bracing?

And I assume you aren't suggesting that Dolan et al. will be manufacturing data to fit a preconceived notion are you? Dolan et al. follow the data unlike the great run of lay untrained parents.

Actually, the study could only apply to the braces used in the study, couldn't it? However, I suspect that it will be used as a proxy to not pay for any bracing or school screening, no matter what kind of brace is used.

I think even with their Braist study design, they will not have the numbers, nor the attributes identified to accurately decide who can benefit from bracing or not. And therefore, they will be doing a disservice to the many kids that do benefit from bracing, because quite obviously lots of kids do benefit from bracing, at least it's obvious to those without closed minds.

It would certainly be nice if they managed to figure out who does benefit from bracing and continue to brace those kids. Maybe that would mean barring overweight kids from bracing, or perhaps tall kids, or maybe kids without flexible spines. Would that be okay with you?

How do you know "Dolan et al. follow the data unlike the great run of lay untrained parents?" We do know that research people are pure as the driven snow.... By the way, you do get awfully testy whenever I bring up the Braist study....any particular reason?

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 01:52 PM
[...] at least it's obvious to those without closed minds.

Look I know you aren't doing this on purpose but this is one of MANY examples in your writing where you are using the EXACT "arguments" that creationists use. Now they are FLAT OUT counterfactual but your arguments are not. So I fail to see why you continually resort to this ignorant paranoia when you are not advocating clearly counterfactual material (for the most part).

I think there are better arguments for you to use. At least I assume so. The stuff you have been bringing up is just paranoid.


How do you know "Dolan et al. follow the data unlike the great run of lay untrained parents?" We do know that research people are pure as the driven snow.... By the way, you do get awfully testy whenever I bring up the Braist study....any particular reason?

I get testy when people who don't know how scientists operate claim they are being nefarious. It certainly isn't limited to the Braist study and in fact animates most of my comments to certain lay, untrained parents in this sandbox. There is nothing special about the Braist study in this regard. Why do you think it is different than all the other stuff that gets ignorantly pilloried?

The heart of science is not mathematical models. It is intellectual honesty. The great run of scientists are honest. Anyone who implies that is not the case for most scientists is simply being ignorant and paranoid.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Continued from Dingo's "Risk of Scoliosis Among 1st Degree Relatives" thread:

Originally posted by Pooka1:


See this topic almost can't be discussed because of the huge divide between scientist jargon and the general public.

That's what the priests used to say also before those pesky Protestants published the bible so everyone could read it.



No the money thing is never advanced by people who understand this topic as far as I know.

Don't be naive.


Consider the following:

1. That is the money he and his colleagues got in grants over ~19 YEARS I assume. That would not be unusual but it's pretty good. (ETA: The salaries of these researchers are fixed. It doesn't go up as the grant money goes up. I assume you knew that, yes?)

I suspect their salaries have indeed gone up and so have their perks of the job, including their rank and stature at their place of work.


2. Federal NSF monies are awarded on the basis of merit via peer review, not political expedience. Now the call for proposals guides the research but those never fund specific conclusions, only specific fields of study. The research falls out whichever way it falls out.

I think we're finding out the truth or untruth of that right now. Especially interesting is the way these scientists managed to quash any other opinions from peer review journals to silence the opposition.


3. You can bet you bottom dollar several of those millions that researcher was awarded were awarded during the 8-year Bush administration, the SAME Bush administration which was publicly accused of suppressing results consistent with AGW. How does that square with your claim that politics determines Federal research funding?

Well, seeing as this was a British research unit, hopefully the US wasn't involved with funding it at all. However, since the EU is quite set on global government, they certainly have been funding it. Gee, I wonder why, if it's true, that the Bush Administration wouldn't have wanted to pay for funding this political position "research". Perhaps, they had good reason to believe it wasn't science, but politics dressed up as pseudo-science.

Ballet Mom
11-23-2009, 02:11 PM
Look I know you aren't doing this on purpose but this is one of MANY examples in your writing where you are using the EXACT "arguments" that creationists use. Now they are FLAT OUT counterfactual but your arguments are not. So I fail to see why you continually resort to this ignorant paranoia when you are not advocating clearly counterfactual material (for the most part).

I think there are better arguments for you to use. At least I assume so. The stuff you have been bringing up is just paranoid.


Get out of here. My arguments are not creationist arguments, you really need to get rid of that ugly mindset. I can see with my own eyes that bracing can work. I guess that's the difference between engineers and "scientists"...engineers can work with what we observe...not ponder the statistical studies that may or may not accurately reflect what actually occurred.

concerned dad
11-23-2009, 02:19 PM
I dont know about global warming..... but it tends to get pretty hot here :D

Ballet Mom, I dont agree with you about the nusrses deciding what is covered. My insurance (Cigna) updates a position paper every year (written by a physician, I believe) discussing scoliosis; what's covered, whats not, why, the state of the science, etc. It is pretty interesting reading (http://www.cigna.com/customer_care/healthcare_professional/coverage_positions/medical/mm_0113_coveragepositioncriteria_idiopathic_scolio sis.pdf)

regarding the "braist conspiracy"; the only good case I saw for that was made by the poster on the other forum where she noted that they included curves of only 25 degrees and up. Braist changed their protocol (in response to this?)

Pooka1
11-23-2009, 02:58 PM
Ballet Mom, I don't agree with you about the nurses deciding what is covered.

I can't believe she meant that as written. If she did then we can all go home.

mamamax
11-24-2009, 10:08 AM
I dont know about global warming..... but it tends to get pretty hot here :D

Ballet Mom, I dont agree with you about the nusrses deciding what is covered. My insurance (Cigna) updates a position paper every year (written by a physician, I believe) discussing scoliosis; what's covered, whats not, why, the state of the science, etc. It is pretty interesting reading (http://www.cigna.com/customer_care/healthcare_professional/coverage_positions/medical/mm_0113_coveragepositioncriteria_idiopathic_scolio sis.pdf)

regarding the "braist conspiracy"; the only good case I saw for that was made by the poster on the other forum where she noted that they included curves of only 25 degrees and up. Braist changed their protocol (in response to this?)

Was reviewing that Cigna link last evening. I don't see an author and suspect it may have been composed by a committee of actuaries, or something. I did note at least one reference to a flawed bracing study and wonder who decides which references are to be used in compiling such insurance statements that ultimately effect health care.

The nursing thing - there are levels of training (BSN-PhD and MS-PhD) which: Engage in and lead collaborative research teams; and Influence health science agenda-setting and policy initiatives.

At the end of the day, once again - politics and money: rule

Nursing Reference:
http://www.nursing.arizona.edu/Doctoral.htm

concerned dad
11-24-2009, 01:53 PM
I noticed that as well.
The previous years version did have the doctors name and contact info.

Ballet Mom
11-24-2009, 02:43 PM
University of Iowa does have a PhD nursing program. And, in fact, Lori Dolan's title is Lori Dolan, RN, PhD.

http://www.nursing.uiowa.edu/academic_programs/graduate/phd/index.htm

And I'm pretty sure all the PhD nurses that are graduating from these programs aren't going to be changing bedpans. I believe they will be deliberately trying to take a major role in influencing medical care with their research studies, that is the whole point of these degrees. Since they fill many of the spots in these insurance companies, especially in the utilization management areas (which is the function that I meant made those decisions) the PhD nursing programs are certainly a route the insurance companies would take to study whether they want to fund bracing or not.

Ballet Mom
11-24-2009, 02:45 PM
Was reviewing that Cigna link last evening. I don't see an author and suspect it may have been composed by a committee of actuaries, or something. I did note at least one reference to a flawed bracing study and wonder who decides which references are to be used in compiling such insurance statements that ultimately effect health care.




I agree Mamamax, there's nothing in that article that looks like you had to have an MD to write it.

Pooka1
11-24-2009, 06:23 PM
I'm not sure why PhDs in nursing would be preferable or not preferable to MDs or PhDs in medicine (i.e., joint PhD-Md) to design certain studies or staff certain positions in insurance companies.

What I thought was being alluded to was yet another worldwide conspiracy of putting in nurses who are NOT qualified to make any treatment decision by themselves in order to skew the insurance payments towards some nefarious and predetermined endpoint.

I mean we were already dealing with the other "conspiracy" about how a handful of UK climatologists are running a worldwide conspiracy to dupe the world on AGW.

Just a few two many conspiracies it seems...

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 09:00 AM
... a handful of UK climatologists ...

This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

Pooka1
11-25-2009, 09:25 AM
This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

I am not convinced there was anything untoward but will look for how things fall out.

Blocking access to code until it is published is one thing. Blocking it after it is published is another. Even FOIA requests can't be successful for unpublished data that the author intends to publish. If it did then there would be no reason to do this type of research. Scientists have a right to their career and first chance to publish their own data, yes?

mamamax
11-25-2009, 09:48 AM
This is not some random handful of climatologists. These are the MOST influential scientists at the CENTER of the research. They were the gatekeepers in determining what could be published. They are the LEAD authors of various chapters of the IPCC report.

It is obvious to me that they allowed their scientific endeavors to be biased by personal beliefs.

The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

CD - my sentiments exactly.

Some have said and there has been much chatter (as early as 2007) about the fact that scientific efforts were led by a more powerful political climate (than by personal beliefs). I do remember this being a large controversy in the last US Administration. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jan/31/usnews.frontpagenews

I've no doubt that when the dust settles - the scientific community will recover.

mamamax
11-25-2009, 10:42 AM
The Guardian's reporting has been interesting.

Yesterday's article is getting: way-deep

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/nov/23/global-warming-leaked-email-climate-scientists

mamamax
11-25-2009, 11:21 AM
Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian. Who is Professor Ernst Kattweizel, Where is the University of Redcar and what is the Temple of the Knights Carbonic (of which Prof Kattweizel is supposed to be the 21st Grand Warden ;-)

I like to think my Internet search skills are at least good (compared to some expert level). So I went searching for the answers to the above questions.

I believe the email is a complete hoax (or written in deep code). And suspect some others may be also.

Sent a blank email to the Prof - to test the address, the result:



A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Unrouteable address

The eternal question: Where does the sham begin - and where does it end.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 11:22 AM
The sad thing is this: Their results may be correct. But their refusal to follow the scientific method (with regard to disclosing their methods and data in a manner that would allow someone to test and replicate their results) may set the science back years. (and give ALL scientists a black eye).

Why would you think that CD? hee hee hee

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEiLgbBGKVk&feature=player_embedded

mamamax
11-25-2009, 11:36 AM
That was/is hysterical Ballet Mom - I'm tuning up my 12-string Ovation right now!! Thanks.

One of my Birthday presents from Portland Oregon on the 21st:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSPL4jKsro

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 11:36 AM
I thought this was an interesting article...and sure enough the US was giving grants to these British guys from the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration! Wouldn't you know!

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml

And to confirm CD's comments about how important these researchers are to "global warming":


The leaked documents (see our previous coverage) come from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in eastern England. In global warming circles, the CRU wields outsize influence: it claims the world's largest temperature data set, and its work and mathematical models were incorporated into the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report. That report, in turn, is what the Environmental Protection Agency acknowledged it "relies on most heavily" when concluding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and should be regulated.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 11:38 AM
That was/is hysterical Ballet Mom - I'm tuning up my 12-string Ovation right now!! Thanks.

One of my Birthday presents from Portland Oregon on the 21st:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlSPL4jKsro

Mamamax,

When you've lost Portland, Oregon, you've really lost it! Poor, poor, Al Gore.....not.

Oh, and a late happy birthday to you! :)

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 11:42 AM
Scientists have a right to their career and first chance to publish their own data, yes?

If only that were the case, then I would agree with you 100%.

There is famous (infamous) email exchange (not from the recently leaked stuff) where one of those involved replied as follows to a request for data:


“We have 25 years invested in this. Why should I give you my data when your only objective is to find something wrong with it?”

Sharon, I would ask you rhetorically, What is wrong with this statement? I know you know the answer, but I’ll spell it out to anyone else following along. What is wrong with this statement is that THIS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS! Methods, Data, procedures must be released to allow for an evaluation of the validity of the results obtained. A true scientist would welcome someone trying to “find something wrong with” their work. These guys have rubber stamped each others work It is shameful.

It takes a lot of digging to understand both sides of the AGW argument. It should not. I originally assumed, like you do now, that the science was settled. However, I wanted to try to understand the opposite view. It was an eye opening experience. And, I’m not just talking about this recent release of data and emails.

My views on AGW have changed in much the same way my views on scoliosis bracing have changed. Sharon and I originally sparred here; my attempt to understand her views led me to a clearer picture that the science behind bracing is unresolved. This understanding evolved by looking at the data and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of it: Sharon and I can both point to bracing research papers with results pointing to different conclusions. The data is there to allow us to evaluate the information and form rational conclusions (even if that “conclusion” is that “we don’t know yet”).

Bracing may be efficacious and AGW may be real. The difference is; for bracing efficacy, there is no group blocking studies and research which present opposing views. If that sounds like a conspiracy, well, maybe it is.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 11:50 AM
I agree CD, sometimes a "conspiracy" really is a conspiracy.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 12:04 PM
Interesting article in yesterday's Guardian. Who is Professor Ernst Kattweizel, Where is the University of Redcar and what is the Temple of the Knights Carbonic (of which Prof Kattweizel is supposed to be the 21st Grand Warden ;-)

I like to think my Internet search skills are at least good (compared to some expert level). So I went searching for the answers to the above questions.

I believe the email is a complete hoax (or written in deep code). And suspect some others may be also.

Sent a blank email to the Prof - to test the address, the result:



A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its
recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address(es) failed:

ernst.kattweizel@redcar.ac.uk
Unrouteable address

The eternal question: Where does the sham begin - and where does it end.


I believe that Monbiot was simply being facetious on the many different conspiracy theories that abound about a planned communist world government. He made that up. It was actually very funny and I thought it was very amusing. However, his most important statement was the first paragraph:


It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow. The emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them.

Unfortunately, you don't need to have the kind of conspiracy that he made up, to actually have an elite group of people trying to control people's every movements on the planet and make themselves exceedingly wealthy in the process while impoverishing the West. And that is exactly what has been happening, and I applaud the Bush administration for having tried to battle this conspiracy in the little way they were able to. I'm sure I was not the only person out there to think that using global warming to instigate a global government was propaganda in its finest form.

The gates of hell shall not prevail...and all that.... :)

mamamax
11-25-2009, 12:06 PM
Mamamax,

When you've lost Portland, Oregon, you've really lost it! Poor, poor, Al Gore.....not.

Oh, and a late happy birthday to you! :)

That is the truth - Portland Oregon was the original Green Machine and continues to lead the pack!

Thanks for the BD wishes :-)

mamamax
11-25-2009, 12:09 PM
The difference is; for bracing efficacy, there is no group blocking studies and research which present opposing views. If that sounds like a conspiracy, well, maybe it is.

Well I'm not sure.

Cases in point:

A well respected research scientist, Martha Hawes, had her work rejected by a very prestigious journal (Spine). Why? Quite simply because those in charge of what gets published, did not agree with her. And yet her work proves the adult scioliosis subject can reduce curvature through non surgical methods. Her presentation was scientifically flawless yet her search for publication was most difficult.

In regards to bracing - when we see a seriously flawed bracing study (Wong-Weiss & Spinecor) that winds up being used in making insurance benefit decisions, it looks like there is no control over such things (flawed studies) and that quite possibly, there should be.

mamamax
11-25-2009, 12:52 PM
Unfortunately, you don't need to have the kind of conspiracy that he made up, to actually have an elite group of people trying to control people's every movements on the planet and make themselves exceedingly wealthy in the process while impoverishing the West. And that is exactly what has been happening, and I applaud the Bush administration for having tried to battle this conspiracy in the little way they were able to. I'm sure I was not the only person out there to think that using global warming to instigate a global government was propaganda in its finest form.


Agree with 99.9% of what you are saying here. Thing is ... In the article, there is no mention of the email being a hoax. As a result a lot of people are believing it - Michael Moore is all over it now too! Hey - how many others were fictitious?

Speaking of Administrations, specifically government funding in the US for Scoliosis research - I cannot believe it does not exist and think it is high time something is done about it! My Quiet Riot

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 01:25 PM
Agree with 99.9% of what you are saying here.

Here's hoping that the 0.1% you disagree with relates to

"using global warming to instigate a global government "
:eek:

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 01:37 PM
when we see a seriously flawed bracing study (Wong-Weiss & Spinecor) that winds up being used in making insurance benefit decisions, it looks like there is no control over such things (flawed studies) and that quite possibly, there should be.


Jsut so you know, my insurance is indeed Cigna, the company whose document I linked. They covered the Spinecor for my daughter.

I dont know about Hawes. But I do know there is a big push in the US towards evidence based medicine. Perhaps part of the reason Scoliois Journal was created was to give a voice to those scientists whose papers were deemed inadequate (in terms of scientific rigor). Reading the papers there (as opposed to Spine) leads me to believe I may be correct.

mamamax
11-25-2009, 01:38 PM
Here's hoping that the 0.1% you disagree with relates to

"using global warming to instigate a global government "
:eek:

hahaha ... nope (there could be evidence to support that theory) what I disagree with is way to political, and off topic to post!

Lets just say I may as well be an Oregonian - hint: something about birds in bushes :D

mamamax
11-25-2009, 01:47 PM
Jsut so you know, my insurance is indeed Cigna, the company whose document I linked. They covered the Spinecor for my daughter.

I dont know about Hawes. But I do know there is a big push in the US towards evidence based medicine. Perhaps part of the reason Scoliois Journal was created was to give a voice to those scientists whose papers were deemed inadequate (in terms of scientific rigor). Reading the papers there (as opposed to Spine) leads me to believe I may be correct.

Yes. Mine did as well, and I don't know if my company references the same study or not in their statements. My concern is future health benefits may be influenced by flawed studies. And I'm betting such is the case already - outside of bracing and in other areas, though I certainly have no proof of that at the moment.

I do applaud SOSORT and the Scoliosis Journal - a giant step forward! You will find Hawes there. As for scientific rigor ... Spine stated (in writing to Hawes) that there was absolutely nothing wrong with her presentation, in other words - it passed the rigor test - there was nothing inadequate about it. She was told/dismissed (by the then Spine editor) who decided (either on his own or through committee decision) that her curvature reduction must have been the result of a tumor that spontaneously disappeared :eek: And that is why she is not published in Spine, because of one large ludicrous - opinion with absolutely no scientific validity in her case.

I really do not believe that the Scoliosis Journal is a platform for inadequate studies. I do see some major differences among entities - One is headed by surgeons dedicated to surgery - and the other is headed by those dedicated to conservative methods.

As you know (maybe), I am most distressed that there is no US funding through NIH for scoliosis research that would put both surgical and non surgical methods under one umbrella/agency.

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 01:53 PM
I do applaud SOSORT and the Scoliosis Journal - a giant step forward! You will find Hawes there.



Yes, but consider what Lori DOlan said (I'm paraphrasing)
" I commend thier dedication to conservative scoliosis management"
" they have the chance to positively influence the science by doing some controlled studies"

The subtext is "they may be on to something but their papers are largely anecdotal. "

Pooka1
11-25-2009, 02:04 PM
I think all of science is a huge conspiracy to make people more knowledgeable, sometimes against their will. ;)

mamamax
11-25-2009, 02:11 PM
Yes, but consider what Lori DOlan said (I'm paraphrasing)
" I commend thier dedication to conservative scoliosis management"
" they have the chance to positively influence the science by doing some controlled studies"

The subtext is "they may be on to something but their papers are largely anecdotal. "

IF the "subtext" is a true reflection of Ms. Dolan's bottom line judgment ... I would disagree, and believe many others would as well.

mamamax
11-25-2009, 03:04 PM
I think all of science is a huge conspiracy to make people more knowledgeable, sometimes against their will. ;)

I like that - and likewise: Any huge (real or imagined) conspiracy is a lot of science designed to make people more knowledgeable against their better judgment :rolleyes:

concerned dad
11-25-2009, 03:32 PM
IF the "subtext" is a true reflection of Ms. Dolan's bottom line judgment ... I would disagree, and believe many others would as well.


It is wrong of me to paraphrase. I like to do it sometimes though - especially when someone wordsmith's a statment.

To be fair, this is what she said here (http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=6954).

I have read a lot of the literature coming out of Europe concerning physical therapy and bracing. I commend the dedication of these clinicians to conservative treatment and I look forward to reading results of large-scale controlled trials from their institutions. We need as many people as possible working on this question in order to build a solid body of evidence.

I have to say, I still think the subtext is there. Perhaps written more diplomatically than myself though.

A similarly worded comment was made by the fellow who wrote the Axial Biotech paper in SOSORT. In the comments section of the paper he says something very similar (again though, very diplomatically - maybe we have something to learn from these folks).

Mamamax, you might consider taking that link above to the scoliosis support discussion on braist and include it in your recent thread on braist.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 03:49 PM
I think all of science is a huge conspiracy to make people more knowledgeable, sometimes against their will. ;)

Surely you remember Richard Feynman, Nobel prize winning physicist great?


"Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceeding generation . . .As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."

Richard Feynman, Nobel-prize-winning physicist,
in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out
as quoted in American Scientist v. 87, p. 462 (1999).

/
/
/
These climate scientists, against their will, will surely make people more knowledgeable....

Really, I have nothing against scientists in general....just the ones who are pursuing agendas and not pursuing true knowledge.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 04:02 PM
Here's hoping that the 0.1% you disagree with relates to

"using global warming to instigate a global government "
:eek:

I'm not sure why you find that so surprising. The global elite is so sure of it's implementation at this point, at least before this blew up on them, they don't even bother to hide it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM

See 1:55 on the video.

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 04:09 PM
I have read a lot of the literature coming out of Europe concerning physical therapy and bracing. I commend the dedication of these clinicians to conservative treatment and I look forward to reading results of large-scale controlled trials from their institutions. We need as many people as possible working on this question in order to build a solid body of evidence.


This assumes that you're going to have to deny treatment to many patients in order to get these controlled trials for medicine. I think there is a big problem to this approach. I'm not sure statistics-based medicine is going to be such a big boon to people's health and well-being.

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics".

Ballet Mom
11-25-2009, 04:16 PM
I'm not sure why PhDs in nursing would be preferable or not preferable to MDs or PhDs in medicine (i.e., joint PhD-Md) to design certain studies or staff certain positions in insurance companies.

What I thought was being alluded to was yet another worldwide conspiracy of putting in nurses who are NOT qualified to make any treatment decision by themselves in order to skew the insurance payments towards some nefarious and predetermined endpoint.

I mean we were already dealing with the other "conspiracy" about how a handful of UK climatologists are running a worldwide conspiracy to dupe the world on AGW.

Just a few two many conspiracies it seems...


I would also prefer MDs who had actually been responsible for the treatment of patients deciding what is going to be paid for or not...I simply think that is changing...probably because most doctors went into medicine to actually treat patients, and most nurses going into these PhD programs didn't. They probably want to work in the big insurance companies or in the universities...and they probably cost the insurance companies less, so voila. No conspiracy needed, it's just the way business works.

Now, the climatologists really are involved in a conspiracy.

mamamax
11-25-2009, 04:28 PM
It is wrong of me to paraphrase. I like to do it sometimes though - especially when someone wordsmith's a statment.

To be fair, this is what she said here (http://www.scoliosis-support.org/showthread.php?t=6954).

I have read a lot of the literature coming out of Europe concerning physical therapy and bracing. I commend the dedication of these clinicians to conservative treatment and I look forward to reading results of large-scale controlled trials from their institutions. We need as many people as possible working on this question in order to build a solid body of evidence.

I have to say, I still think the subtext is there. Perhaps written more diplomatically than myself though.

A similarly worded comment was made by the fellow who wrote the Axial Biotech paper in SOSORT. In the comments section of the paper he says something very similar (again though, very diplomatically - maybe we have something to learn from these folks).

Mamamax, you might consider taking that link above to the scoliosis support discussion on braist and include it in your recent thread on braist.

Thank you for the Link CD - and the comments.

Wouldn't it be nice if she could talk to us in this forum?

mamamax
11-25-2009, 06:22 PM
I did post a question over at SSO and sent a PM inviting her to our Braist Thread. She does offer us some very interesting information. I'm hoping she can shed a little more light on government funding.

tonibunny
11-25-2009, 09:57 PM
I'm an SSO mod and I let her know a few months back that there were interested people here too, but unfortunately she hasn't been around for months. Hopefully she has her PMs set up so she'll be notified of your message by email Mamamax, and will get in touch.

mamamax
11-26-2009, 05:38 AM
Thank you Tonibunny - your efforts have helped us all. I hope Lori will stop by here although admittedly at this point her schedule may have heated up to the point that she will not be able to. Thanks again for your hard work which benefits all :-)

mamamax
11-26-2009, 06:49 AM
I live on the west coast of Florida - land of the tropics, right? Wrong - it is absolutely freezing here today (well, as far as I'm concerned). Temperature is 61 degrees as I write in the early morning. My relatives in other locations throughout the US are laughing at me of course - that I would find such a temperature cold enough to even comment on. Anyway ... makes for a nice Thanksgiving Day - wishing all a nice one!!

Dingo
11-26-2009, 11:21 PM
BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking (http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/breaking-nzs-niwa-accused-of-cru-style-temperature-faking.html)


The New Zealand Government's chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn't there.

The graphs on this and related story links are A+. :)

Ballet Mom
12-02-2009, 11:07 AM
Oh my Lord, this is just too funny! Must share with you...:)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8

Ballet Mom
12-02-2009, 11:09 AM
And this too! Looks like Bill Gates has been at work to try and help other scientists!

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/5027/hockeystick.jpg

:)

Ballet Mom
12-02-2009, 11:20 AM
On a more serious note, it looks like the Wall Street Journal is also recommending to "Follow the money." :)



Climategate: Follow the Money Climate change researchers must believe in the reality of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

By BRET STEPHENS


Last year, ExxonMobil donated $7 million to a grab-bag of public policy institutes, including the Aspen Institute, the Asia Society and Transparency International. It also gave a combined $125,000 to the Heritage Institute and the National Center for Policy Analysis, two conservative think tanks that have offered dissenting views on what until recently was called—without irony—the climate change "consensus."

To read some of the press accounts of these gifts—amounting to about 0.00027% of Exxon's 2008 profits of $45 billion—you might think you'd hit upon the scandal of the age. But thanks to what now goes by the name of climategate, it turns out the real scandal lies elsewhere.

Climategate, as readers of these pages know, concerns some of the world's leading climate scientists working in tandem to block freedom of information requests, blackball dissenting scientists, manipulate the peer-review process, and obscure, destroy or massage inconvenient temperature data—facts that were laid bare by last week's disclosure of thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, or CRU.

But the deeper question is why the scientists behaved this way to begin with, especially since the science behind man-made global warming is said to be firmly settled. To answer the question, it helps to turn the alarmists' follow-the-money methods right back at them.

Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums. And who better to ring it than people like Mr. Jones, one of its likeliest beneficiaries?

Thus, the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely.

Supply, as we know, creates its own demand. So for every additional billion in government-funded grants (or the tens of millions supplied by foundations like the Pew Charitable Trusts), universities, research institutes, advocacy groups and their various spin-offs and dependents have emerged from the woodwork to receive them.

Today these groups form a kind of ecosystem of their own. They include not just old standbys like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace, but also Ozone Action, Clean Air Cool Planet, Americans for Equitable Climate Change Solutions, the Alternative Energy Resources Association, the California Climate Action Registry and so on and on. All of them have been on the receiving end of climate change-related funding, so all of them must believe in the reality (and catastrophic imminence) of global warming just as a priest must believe in the existence of God.

None of these outfits is per se corrupt, in the sense that the monies they get are spent on something other than their intended purposes. But they depend on an inherently corrupting premise, namely that the hypothesis on which their livelihood depends has in fact been proved. Absent that proof, everything they represent—including the thousands of jobs they provide—vanishes. This is what's known as a vested interest, and vested interests are an enemy of sound science.

Which brings us back to the climategate scientists, the keepers of the keys to the global warming cathedral. In one of the more telling disclosures from last week, a computer programmer writes of the CRU's temperature database: "I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seems to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . We can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!"

This is not the sound of settled science, but of a cracking empirical foundation. And however many billion-dollar edifices may be built on it, sooner or later it is bound to crumble.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?m od=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

Ballet Mom
12-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Isn't this interesting. As soon as the gate-keeping by the so-called climate "scientists" is blown apart, look at the studies that pop up immediately after.....and by a real scientist, too. And yes, even peer reviewed. This certainly explains in a much neater, simpler way any warming that had been occurring. Get ready for cold weather.

Perhaps Al Gore and the United Nations should be turning back their Nobel prizes soon.



Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming


WATERLOO, Ont. (Monday, Dec. 21, 2009) - Cosmic rays and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), both already implicated in depleting the Earth's ozone layer, are also responsible for changes in the global climate, a University of Waterloo scientist reports in a new peer-reviewed paper.

In his paper, Qing-Bin Lu, a professor of physics and astronomy, shows how CFCs - compounds once widely used as refrigerants - and cosmic rays - energy particles originating in outer space - are mostly to blame for climate change, rather than carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. His paper, derived from observations of satellite, ground-based and balloon measurements as well as an innovative use of an established mechanism, was published online in the prestigious journal Physics Reports.

"My findings do not agree with the climate models that conventionally thought that greenhouse gases, mainly CO2, are the major culprits for the global warming seen in the late 20th century," Lu said. "Instead, the observed data show that CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays most likely caused both the Antarctic ozone hole and global warming. These findings are totally unexpected and striking, as I was focused on studying the mechanism for the formation of the ozone hole, rather than global warming."

His conclusions are based on observations that from 1950 up to now, the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres has been completely controlled by CFCs and cosmic rays, with no CO2 impact.

"Most remarkably, the total amount of CFCs, ozone-depleting molecules that are well-known greenhouse gases, has decreased around 2000," Lu said. "Correspondingly, the global surface temperature has also dropped. In striking contrast, the CO2 level has kept rising since 1850 and now is at its largest growth rate."

In his research, Lu discovers that while there was global warming from 1950 to 2000, there has been global cooling since 2002. The cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years, according to his new research observations.

As well, there is no solid evidence that the global warming from 1950 to 2000 was due to CO2. Instead, Lu notes, it was probably due to CFCs conspiring with cosmic rays. And from 1850 to 1950, the recorded CO2 level increased significantly because of the industrial revolution, while the global temperature kept nearly constant or only rose by about 0.1 C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.

The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.

http://insciences.org/article.php?article_id=8012

Ballet Mom
12-25-2009, 02:55 PM
A WSJ link that is as true today as it ever was. It seems very apropos to what is going on in this thread and in the world today.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704782304574541923094045380.html

Merry Christmas everyone! :)

mamamax
12-31-2009, 09:02 PM
Finally (oh yeah), the answer to all our questions - right!

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Some_emails_do_raise_valid_scient ific_in

Happy New Year Everyone :D

Pooka1
12-31-2009, 09:17 PM
It became clear a while ago that the reality of the situation is not what the AGW deniers were trying to portray. The big clue was that it tends to be the same crowd that denies the facts of evolution that are the same people denying AGW (plus a few others who are putatively rational like CD).

The discussions about it here and elsewhere among lay folks are comical. Ignorant people citing ignorant people leading the naked, etc. etc.

mamamax
01-01-2010, 11:25 AM
It is entertaining isn't it Sharon? And this coming from someone quite ignorant about it all! My favorite was the musical (up thread): Hide the Decline :D

Now my brother on the other hand, is an expert in everything (compared to me) and he says - it's all a cluster something. That in reality, our little blue planet goes through cycles - and we are experiencing nothing more than that, along with solar activity, which also goes through cycles.

Wonder what the well educated experts say about that??

Happy New Year Everyone!

Ballet Mom
01-01-2010, 11:28 AM
It became clear a while ago that the reality of the situation is not what the AGW deniers were trying to portray. The big clue was that it tends to be the same crowd that denies the facts of evolution that are the same people denying AGW (plus a few others who are putatively rational like CD).

The discussions about it here and elsewhere among lay folks are comical. Ignorant people citing ignorant people leading the naked, etc. etc.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective

— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

Ballet Mom
01-01-2010, 11:32 AM
It is entertaining isn't it Sharon? And this coming from someone quite ignorant about it all! My favorite was the musical (up thread): Hide the Decline :D

Now my brother on the other hand, is an expert in everything (compared to me) and he says - it's all a cluster something. That in reality, our little blue planet goes through cycles - and we are experiencing nothing more than that, along with solar activity, which also goes through cycles.

Wonder what the well educated experts say about that??

Happy New Year Everyone!

Happy New Year to you too Mamamax!! :)

My New Year's resolution is to move on from the trauma of the last two years since the diagnosis of my daughter's scoliosis. My daughter's crisis has subsided and now it's simply a management of her scoliosis over her lifetime. And it's time to move on from here.

I wish you the best of success with your management of your scoliosis Mamamax. Good luck to you!

Pooka1
01-01-2010, 11:34 AM
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective

— big·ot·ed·ly adverb

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

When the facts aren't on your side, start calling names.

People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. You continue to struggle with this.

Ballet Mom
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Finally (oh yeah), the answer to all our questions - right!

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#Some_emails_do_raise_valid_scient ific_in

Happy New Year Everyone :D


Oh, and in case anyone is interested who the Union of Concerned Scientists, here's a link.

http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/145-union-of-concerned-scientists

Ballet Mom
01-01-2010, 11:35 AM
Straight out of the creationist playbook. When the facts aren't on your side, start calling names.

People are entitled to their own opinions. They are not entitled to their own facts. You continue to struggle with this.

Do you ever leave this site? Or are you on someone's payroll?

Pooka1
01-01-2010, 11:37 AM
Do you ever leave this site? Or are you on someone's payroll?

Are you a creationist?

Ballet Mom
01-01-2010, 11:45 AM
Are you a creationist?

Actually, I'm a scientifically educated engineer with a master's degree.

I am a Christian convert who converted well after being an adult, due to a miracle I experienced, and which you would never believe, but I actually know happened, and I shall leave it at that.

Happy New Year everyone!

Pooka1
01-01-2010, 12:07 PM
Since you seem to be denying it, I apologize for thinking you are a creationist based on your writing. I guess I was wrong.

mamamax
01-01-2010, 12:09 PM
I've experienced a few miracles too! Would love to swap stories with you (or anyone else) Ballet Mom - they do exist.

On the lighter side (?) in our OT thread ...

I do hope most of you had a grand party to attend unlike myself who was in bed by 9pm recovering from a long week of overtime. I've decided to make my resolutions as I go along vs some prepared list on the eve, which I will ultimately misplace.

#1: A hot date next year vs what I did this year.

#2: I'm going to investigate osteopathic treatment for my scoliosis (in conjunction with my bracing). Why? Well, If I'm reading all my Martha writings correctly, she experienced her greatest reduction during a time when she was receiving osteopathic treatment. I find that compelling. Also came across an article that seem to support the idea relative to myself (who has a tilted pelvis): http://osteopathy4osteopaths.blogspot.com/2009/07/scoliosis-living-curve-osteopathic.html

Now - I truly believe that osteopathy is NOT something all Spinecor patients should investigate. There is good reason for that right here in this forum, from Colliard & Rivard (surgeon inventors of the brace). Seems not recommended for anyone who does not have some influence like a tilted pelvis. So maybe I should write the good doctors before making a decision.
Post #7: http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showthread.php?t=5858

The value of this forum shows up over and again when searching the Internet for information. Kudos to Joe O'Brien for his vision regarding just how valuable such a thing could be.

#3: Suggest to the staff at NSF that we add the smiles found over at OSS. As written communication often fails to accurately convey the "mood" of the writer ... additional smilies would be a grand addition towards that.

That's about it for now (outside of reviewing the Editorial Board at Scoliosis Journal) - What's everybody else up to?