Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="IEEEWreck" data-source="post: 140349" data-attributes="member: 617"><p>Two reactions:</p><p></p><p>1. As a student, Curry took a dive off the deep end and lost any credibility on the conflict of interest issue with me when she accuses the NSF of biased funding of poorly designed experiments. That's so far beyond the pale, so disconnected from reality, and so slanderous of hard working, eminent scientists and engineers (including, among others, one of three men most responsible for GT's ECE department becoming a world class research institution) that despite my respect for Curry's work, I'm frankly now unlikely to believe anything she says outside of a peer reviewed publication. The issue that Curry dodges is that while conflicts of interest don't particularly mean anything to soundly executed science, it is quite possible to create poorly designed experiments that seem legitimate and provide political fodder for people supremely uninterested in the scientific conclusion.</p><p></p><p>I still don't think that describes Curry, but I don't like that she pretends that this doesn't exist. Those 'studies' showing that leaded gasoline is fine, and that the particular form of lead is harmless were knowingly designed to achieve bad results by deliberately adding sources of error in order to overwhelm the explanatory variables. I guess it's possible to be a good scientist in the lab, and a political operative in the press at the same time. If all your work is funded by Shell and your work is valid, well, you get more vigorous peer review but it does no harm to your work or your point. If your work is all funded by Shell and you're lying by means of statistics, well, then a little scrutiny seems in the public interest. </p><p></p><p>2. Yay for economic decline and American sclerosis, I guess? The correction for greenhouse gas emission isn't some anti-technology fern gully pipe dream, it's more advanced, higher technology industry. I almost don't care if global warming is anthropogenic or not- do you have any idea how much growth shifting to nuclear power on a large scale would engender? How cheap power could be, how many data centers and manufacturers we could attract if we decided to invest a bit?</p><p></p><p>Advocating for wallowing in poverty and rejecting technology for political reasons is the province of that place in Athens, friends.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="IEEEWreck, post: 140349, member: 617"] Two reactions: 1. As a student, Curry took a dive off the deep end and lost any credibility on the conflict of interest issue with me when she accuses the NSF of biased funding of poorly designed experiments. That's so far beyond the pale, so disconnected from reality, and so slanderous of hard working, eminent scientists and engineers (including, among others, one of three men most responsible for GT's ECE department becoming a world class research institution) that despite my respect for Curry's work, I'm frankly now unlikely to believe anything she says outside of a peer reviewed publication. The issue that Curry dodges is that while conflicts of interest don't particularly mean anything to soundly executed science, it is quite possible to create poorly designed experiments that seem legitimate and provide political fodder for people supremely uninterested in the scientific conclusion. I still don't think that describes Curry, but I don't like that she pretends that this doesn't exist. Those 'studies' showing that leaded gasoline is fine, and that the particular form of lead is harmless were knowingly designed to achieve bad results by deliberately adding sources of error in order to overwhelm the explanatory variables. I guess it's possible to be a good scientist in the lab, and a political operative in the press at the same time. If all your work is funded by Shell and your work is valid, well, you get more vigorous peer review but it does no harm to your work or your point. If your work is all funded by Shell and you're lying by means of statistics, well, then a little scrutiny seems in the public interest. 2. Yay for economic decline and American sclerosis, I guess? The correction for greenhouse gas emission isn't some anti-technology fern gully pipe dream, it's more advanced, higher technology industry. I almost don't care if global warming is anthropogenic or not- do you have any idea how much growth shifting to nuclear power on a large scale would engender? How cheap power could be, how many data centers and manufacturers we could attract if we decided to invest a bit? Advocating for wallowing in poverty and rejecting technology for political reasons is the province of that place in Athens, friends. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
General Topics
The Swarm Lounge
Are you now, or have you ever been, a denier of AGW?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top