• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

the naive notion that peer review leads to sound studies.

The organization has received donations from the Charles Koch Foundation, one of the country’s most prominent anti-climate funders. It receives a sizable portion of its annual budget from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which climate change activists have identified as a major backer of attacks on climate science.

Welcome to J.S. Mill's marketplace of ideas. Those folks have as much right to be heard as anyone else.
 
The organization has received donations from the Charles Koch Foundation, one of the country’s most prominent anti-climate funders. It receives a sizable portion of its annual budget from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which climate change activists have identified as a major backer of attacks on climate science.

My God.

Wiki has their largest grant at $440,000. That sure is a small budget if not being on the top 10 list, it might have been as large as $250,000...

Which blogger you read whas saing this horse puckey.. that you repeat without verification...

Confirmation bias anyone?
 
  • “What happens when concerns about the reproducibility crisis in science get picked up by political activists?” Michael Schulson wonders in Undark as a new report on reproducibility is released.

Nosek expressed similar concerns in his email to Undark about the NAS report. “Restricting policymakers to use only evidence that meets the highest transparency and reproducibility standards would prevent policymakers from using the best available evidence in many different situations,” he wrote.

Is it me or is that just 100% wrong?
 
The organization has received donations from the Charles Koch Foundation, one of the country’s most prominent anti-climate funders. It receives a sizable portion of its annual budget from the Sarah Scaife Foundation, which climate change activists have identified as a major backer of attacks on climate science.

Yes, any organisation which wants science to be rigorous and good will be an attacker of climate science.
 
My God.

Wiki has their largest grant at $440,000. That sure is a small budget if not being on the top 10 list, it might have been as large as $250,000...

Which blogger you read whas saing this horse puckey.. that you repeat without verification...

Confirmation bias anyone?

Uh.....I got it from his own reference.


Wow.....that's gotta hurt. LOL
 
Uh.....I got it from his own reference.


Wow.....that's gotta hurt. LOL

Maybe your confirmation bias reads insignificance as significant. Too bad you really suck at these sciences, and use so many logical fallacies.
 
Maybe your confirmation bias reads insignificance as significant. Too bad you really suck at these sciences, and use so many logical fallacies.

HIs reference. Even he admits it. That has got to sting. Lol
 

Quote of the Week: Statistics and peer review

Watts Up With That?

[FONT=&quot]WUWT reader J B Williamson writes:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I came across this obituary today which reminds us that its not just the climate universe that has problems.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Douglas Altman, statistician – obituary
Douglas Altman, who has died aged 69, waged a long-running campaign to improve the use of statistics in medical research.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]A professor of statistics in medicine at the University of Oxford, in 1998 Altman described the problem as follows:[/FONT]
“The majority of statistical analyses are performed by people with an inadequate understanding of statistical methods. They are then peer reviewed by people who are generally no more knowledgeable. Sadly, much research may benefit researchers rather more than patients, especially when it is carried out primarily as a ridiculous career necessity.”
[FONT=&quot]Requires sign in to read the rest.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/06/11/douglas-altmanstatistician-obituary/[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

 

Quote of the Week: Statistics and peer review

Watts Up With That?

[FONT="]WUWT reader J B Williamson writes:[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]I came across this obituary today which reminds us that its not just the climate universe that has problems.[/FONT]

[FONT="]Douglas Altman, statistician – obituary
Douglas Altman, who has died aged 69, waged a long-running campaign to improve the use of statistics in medical research.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]A professor of statistics in medicine at the University of Oxford, in 1998 Altman described the problem as follows:[/FONT]

“The majority of statistical analyses are performed by people with an inadequate understanding of statistical methods. They are then peer reviewed by people who are generally no more knowledgeable. Sadly, much research may benefit researchers rather more than patients, especially when it is carried out primarily as a ridiculous career necessity.”
[FONT="]Requires sign in to read the rest.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#404040][FONT="]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituaries/2018/06/11/douglas-altmanstatistician-obituary/[/FONT]



[FONT="]
[/FONT]


It does sound like he's talking about those in the climate sciences. They seem to be so lacking in understanding.
 
Back
Top Bottom