Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TideGlider who wrote (110376)	8/13/2011 7:30:36 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224757

How climate peer review works: .......... They only mystery is how this unbelievably trivial piece of work was published. Well, now we have a better idea. The reviewers for the article were Lisa Rotterman and Andrew Derocher. Incredibly, it turns out Ms. Rotterman is his wife – yes, some people are more peers than others – and Derocher was awarded a large research contract by Monnett just before he reviewed the article. Wow. [ I can tell you corporate America has far higher control standards than that. People are fired for stuff a lot milder than this. ] By the way, I think I will be both right and wrong. I was pretty sure any government investigation would be about misuse of funds, and that does seem to be the main thrust here, though I was wrong in that it does seem to touch on academic fraud as well, in particular the idea of giving out grant money as a quid pro quo for a positive review (a practice that skeptics have long sustpected in the climate community). By the way, both Monnett and his partner Gleason now are claiming that everyone blew their study out of proportion and it wasn’t really about global warming. If this is true, they were sure silent about this when they were basking in all kinds of attention and press and grant money. Either of them could have stepped forward and stopped the momentum that built from this article and they did not. By the way, for those who still want to believe that the EPA is drive by science, Gleason concedes that the study had a major impact on the controversial listing of the bear as an endangered species because of global warming. “As a side note, talking about my former supervisor, he actually sent me an e-mail at one point saying, ‘You’re the reason polar bears got listed,’” Gleason said. One sighting in history of four floating dead polar bears and suddenly our whole fossil fuel economy has to be shut down. coyoteblog.com ..... Black: “…for those who still want to believe that the EPA is drive by science…” I think you meant to write “driven by science,” but calling it “drive-by science” pretty much sums up the way politicians and govt. agencies twist and torture anything that even looks like real science to suit their ends. ......