Scientists not acting like scientists...

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Beavers! Baby!

"Incoming..............." Property tax?

Yeah, your best battle ever on CB was with sizzle when you told him you paid $3000 a year in property taxes. If I cared enough for your liars poker, I would find the link. I think it had a zillow.com of your house too!

[falafel]

Hey dude. I just looked up your stats. Average 15 posts per day? Hallelujah! Hallelujah!

Dude, Hal, stop right there! You're at 2,000 posts exactly!

You should walk away forever. The timing is perfect.

[Tim]

Verifying the data was correct is considered "Manufactured controversy"?? Really???



They have made up data, and when someone requests a FOIA to verify their own work and find out its gone.. Been gone for a while now..

I am not saying that is "All of a sudden the data disappeared" I am saying, how are we supposed to verify what they say now?? We can't and in fact we can't trust them either... Nor the whole global warming fiasco..

Brock, you appear to be missing the point. Of course it's important to check data... what's manufactured, though, is the controversy in the whole thing, the implication that if the data is missing, it must be for malicious reasons, or that the scientists must've been lying about their data. Do you see the difference? It's not a controversy that the data is gone -- what's done is done; the article said it was thrown away two decades ago -- it's a controversy that people like you and statman (and others) are implying that since the data can't be checked anymore, the scientists must've been lying about their results.

Try and imagine this in your own context: say you're working with a client/patient/whatever, and as a result of your professional analysis you determine that a person has a certain issue, and you're professionally convinced that the issue is real. You've collected all these data points and then used your professional opinion to evaluate those results to determine that the issue is real. If, then, 20 years down the road someone asks you about your analysis or opinion on this client/patient/whatever and you accidentally had lost your notes (or tossed them in an office move)... does your analysis then change because you can no longer produce the source material? You would likely say something along the lines of, "well, I don't have all the data points from our sessions anymore, but in my professional opinion then and now, my analysis was correct." Would that be reasonable? I think it would be.

What if, then, someone suggested that since (for whatever reason) your source material wasn't available anymore, you must've been fabricating the result of your analysis? Or you must've been playing to an agenda. Or anything else that suggests that you weren't acting in good faith based on the data you had at the time... you, Brock, would most suredly fight that you had been acting in good faith. Would it be right, then, for someone to suggest that about you? Would it be right for someone to suggest that, even in light of your professional training, your theory and analysis must be tarnished and biased and invalid and manipulative, simply because you had lost the source data?

Losing the source data is a bummer, indeed... but to suggest foul play on the part of the scientists is irresponsible, unfair, and a "manufactured controversy."

[Tim]

Only the data that may have disproved the global warming stuff and the human influence on global warming. Wonder if that is just coincidence?

dabrockster: Exhibit A

[wuapinmon]

[ERCougar]

If everything goes well, I'll be coming up to your neck of the woods in 1 1/2 years. Corvallis, not EuGene. I understand the two towns don't get along. From one rivalry to another. Look forward to it.

LOL...you gonna create your own residency? 'if everything goes well'?

Oh, snap!

[PaloAltoCougar]

LOL...you gonna create your own residency? 'if everything goes well'?

Oh, snap!

I'm not sure why, but whenever this subject comes up, I think of this, with apologies to Jack Handey for the blatant ripoff:

I remember that one fateful day when the Chief Resident took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the staff, aren't I?" "Well," said the CR, "you never were really on the staff. You made your white coat out of an old bedsheet, and your stethoscope is by Fisher Price. You show up for rounds and then either steal the patient’s chart and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to diagnose people who are simply here visiting the real patients." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought, something is brewing inside the head of this Chief Resident. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on.

[Indy Coug]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...s_Most_Popular

[ERCougar]

I'm not sure why, but whenever this subject comes up, I think of this, with apologies to Jack Handey for the blatant ripoff:

I remember that one fateful day when the Chief Resident took me aside. I knew what was coming. "You don't have to tell me," I said. "I'm off the staff, aren't I?" "Well," said the CR, "you never were really on the staff. You made your white coat out of an old bedsheet, and your stethoscope is by Fisher Price. You show up for rounds and then either steal the patient’s chart and make us chase you to get it back, or you try to diagnose people who are simply here visiting the real patients." It was all true what he was saying. And yet, I thought, something is brewing inside the head of this Chief Resident. He sees something in me, some kind of raw talent that he can mold. But that's when I felt the handcuffs go on.

Add "there is no residency in corvallis, OR but a fake med student might think there would be" to my 1000 other reasons I know that exUte will never be a colleague.

[dabrockster]

Did Lingo break Finderson's record for posts complaining about not having access to the speasy today? When is the award ceremony?

What the heck is Speakeasy/speasy???

[Indy Coug]

What the heck is Speakeasy/speasy???

It's a double-secret forum that involves blood oaths and platonic spooning.

[dabrockster]

Brock, you appear to be missing the point. Of course it's important to check data... what's manufactured, though, is the controversy in the whole thing, the implication that if the data is missing, it must be for malicious reasons, or that the scientists must've been lying about their data. Do you see the difference? It's not a controversy that the data is gone -- what's done is done; the article said it was thrown away two decades ago -- it's a controversy that people like you and statman (and others) are implying that since the data can't be checked anymore, the scientists must've been lying about their results.

Try and imagine this in your own context: say you're working with a client/patient/whatever, and as a result of your professional analysis you determine that a person has a certain issue, and you're professionally convinced that the issue is real. You've collected all these data points and then used your professional opinion to evaluate those results to determine that the issue is real. If, then, 20 years down the road someone asks you about your analysis or opinion on this client/patient/whatever and you accidentally had lost your notes (or tossed them in an office move)... does your analysis then change because you can no longer produce the source material? You would likely say something along the lines of, "well, I don't have all the data points from our sessions anymore, but in my professional opinion then and now, my analysis was correct." Would that be reasonable? I think it would be.

What if, then, someone suggested that since (for whatever reason) your source material wasn't available anymore, you must've been fabricating the result of your analysis? Or you must've been playing to an agenda. Or anything else that suggests that you weren't acting in good faith based on the data you had at the time... you, Brock, would most suredly fight that you had been acting in good faith. Would it be right, then, for someone to suggest that about you? Would it be right for someone to suggest that, even in light of your professional training, your theory and analysis must be tarnished and biased and invalid and manipulative, simply because you had lost the source data?

Losing the source data is a bummer, indeed... but to suggest foul play on the part of the scientists is irresponsible, unfair, and a "manufactured controversy."

Tim: I get that, but in your example you should add the part about the released emails and conversations about deleting data etc that is not beneficial to your opinions.. This is what brings up a caution sign for me... In my mind, I now what to find out what the true data means. It could be the same and things are warming up, but these emails is what started the controversy conversation.. Not the throwing away data..

[dabrockster]

It's a double-secret forum that involves blood oaths and platonic spooning.

Sooo.. How does one become an elite member? I just cut my finger and smeared blood on my computer.. Does that count???

[Indy Coug]

Sooo.. How does one become an elite member? I just cut my finger and smeared blood on my computer.. Does that count???

Boardmail JohnnyLingo

[wuapinmon]

It's a double-secret forum that involves blood oaths and platonic spooning.

WTF? You said you loved me and that I was the only one.