Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 71

Thread: Somewhat O/T - Scientific integrity and validity of research

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned dad View Post
    Here's hoping that the 0.1% you disagree with relates to

    "using global warming to instigate a global government "
    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.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned dad View Post
    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".

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Quote Originally Posted by Pooka1 View Post
    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.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,258
    Quote Originally Posted by concerned dad View Post
    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.

    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?

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,258
    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.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    402
    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.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,258
    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 :-)

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,258

    Happy ThanksGiving

    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!!

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,058

    more data massaging

    BREAKING: NZ’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

    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+.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    Oh my Lord, this is just too funny! Must share with you...

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

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    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


  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090
    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/SB1000...p_mostpop_read

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090

    Study shows CFCs, cosmic rays major culprits for global warming

    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
    Last edited by Ballet Mom; 12-22-2009 at 11:33 PM.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,090

    Merry Christmas everyone!

    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/SB1000...094045380.html

    Merry Christmas everyone!

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,258

    Union of Concerned Scientists

    Finally (oh yeah), the answer to all our questions - right!

    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming..._scientific_in

    Happy New Year Everyone

Posting Permissions

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