|
thompsonx -> RE: Who is ready for some global warming? (1/22/2017 9:48:16 AM)
|
ORIGINAL: Kirata
ORIGINAL: thompsonx
My point, which you seem to both agree and disagree with, is that the source of a paper is one aspect to guide us as to it's validity, Another source might include previous attempts at subtrafuge.
I haven't said anything about the source of a paper, whether it be a university or whatever else. The subject I was addressing was the source of its funding. But we can pass that quibble by, because neither has anything to do with its validity as a scientific study.
That is an opinion refuted by fact as pointed out the above reference to the tobacco companies and the "science" they presented. You are arguing a what if as opposed to what is.
To suggest that the source of a paper and the source of funding are somehow differernt is to strech the meaning of words to to the point of meaninglessness.
Granted, where either the source of a paper or the source of its funding has acquired a bad history there would be cause to review it with a fine-toothed comb. But if its methodology and analyses are found to be beyond cavil, then it's a solid study no matter who ran it or funded it; and if a study is flawed, then it's flawed no matter who ran it or funded it.
The facts remain that the methodology was flawed as a criteria of the study.
Peer review failures can happen in climate research too.
Yet you nor anyone else has produced any.
But the fact remains that they weren't bad studies because the tobacco industry funded them, they were bad studies because they employed flawed methodologies and analyses.
Which your cite points out were at the behist of the the tobacco companies who funded the study.
So once again it apears to me that you are both agreeing and disagreeing with me at the same time.
|
|
|
|
