1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.AUDIO.OPINION

  • Some Scientists are little different than trans affirming doctors

    From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 08:31:34 2023
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of gov't money funding "research".

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Sep 9 10:44:23 2023
    On 9/9/23 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew
    the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way
    science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,"
    read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The
    Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of gov't
    money funding "research".

    You started a new thread to avoid the previous one?

    https://heatmap.news/climate/patrick-brown-nature-climate-scientist

    "So I’m left asking: What’s the problem here? Brown had a knotty
    research problem, and he chose to divvy it up into smaller parts and
    focus on the easiest part first. He triaged, in other words. When peer reviewers — whom he now claims accepted his paper due only to their “confirmation bias” — pushed back on his decision, he argued against
    them and said that he would look at other variables later. He kept that promise; he is studying those variables now. When his paper was
    published, he publicized its findings fairly and accurately. The media
    covered them with nuance. Where’s the scandal, again? What are we
    supposed to be mad about here?

    Brown seems to have talked himself into the view that he did something
    wrong, but it’s not clear to me that he actually did."

    Is Brown giving up his research career to live off the right wing
    speaking circuit?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 08:54:54 2023
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I knew
    the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the way
    science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper published,"
    read the headline to an article signed by Brown in the news site The
    Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of gov't
    money funding "research".
    You started a new thread to avoid the previous one?

    Nope...just pointing out that bias has become ingrained in our whole "science" system when it comes to AGW.
    It isn't about what he did....it's how he has come to believe he has to do it.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Sep 9 11:04:05 2023
    On 9/9/23 10:54 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I
    knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the
    way science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper
    published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in
    the news site The Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of
    gov't money funding "research".
    You started a new thread to avoid the previous one?

    Nope...just pointing out that bias has become ingrained in our whole "science" system when it comes to AGW. It isn't about what he
    did....it's how he has come to believe he has to do it.

    The problem is he came to believe this despite the journal asking him to include other factors, which he chose not to do.

    It's not Nature's fault he's projecting his own a priori assumptions on
    them.

    Also, is The Free Press a "news" site? Looks more like a Bari Weiss
    Glenn Greenwald wannabe site.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From ScottW@21:1/5 to All on Sat Sep 9 09:11:14 2023
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:54 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I
    knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the
    way science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper
    published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in
    the news site The Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of
    gov't money funding "research".
    You started a new thread to avoid the previous one?

    Nope...just pointing out that bias has become ingrained in our whole "science" system when it comes to AGW. It isn't about what he
    did....it's how he has come to believe he has to do it.
    The problem is he came to believe this despite the journal asking him to include other factors, which he chose not to do.

    They published it....as is...end of story.
    And it's not the first time Nature has been involved but they are just another needle in
    a haystack of all needles.

    ScottW

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From mINE109@21:1/5 to ScottW on Sat Sep 9 12:14:35 2023
    On 9/9/23 11:11 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 9:04:09 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:54 AM, ScottW wrote:
    On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:44:26 AM UTC-7, mINE109 wrote:
    On 9/9/23 10:31 AM, ScottW wrote:
    "I just got published in Nature because I stuck to a narrative I
    knew the editors would like," the article read. "That's not the
    way science should work."

    "I left out the full truth to get my climate change paper
    published," read the headline to an article signed by Brown in
    the news site The Free Press on September 5.

    We're all their stooges to be manipulated.

    I blame a lot of this blatant corruption on the dominance of
    gov't money funding "research".
    You started a new thread to avoid the previous one?

    Nope...just pointing out that bias has become ingrained in our whole
    "science" system when it comes to AGW. It isn't about what he
    did....it's how he has come to believe he has to do it.
    The problem is he came to believe this despite the journal asking him to
    include other factors, which he chose not to do.

    They published it....as is...end of story.

    No, it isn't, as it's Brown who's trying to continue it. There's nothing invalid about the article as far as it went.

    If he wants to claim he self-censored, he has to explain why he didn't
    revise his study as the reviewer suggested to include additional
    factors. And there's no evidence a longer study would have been rejected.

    And it's not the first time Nature has been involved but they are just another needle in
    a haystack of all needles.

    Yes, Nature is often involved in stories involving Nature stories.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)