Boogie, I would be interested to know what journal is about to publish your paper?
filthy cruise ship thread (resurrected)
- Thread starter archman
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
God how much torture do we have to endure.
You guys need to get a life.
Fred
You guys need to get a life.
Fred
Boogie711
Guest
Bermuda, when it's ready for publication, I'd be more than happy to send you a link to the think tank which is publishing it. Until then, it would be inappropriate of me to comment further, since the ultimate publication decision is ultimately theirs.
And it's nice to see that with you tossing around the words like "propoganda" and "smokescreen" that you're giving everything an open mind.
And it's nice to see that with you tossing around the words like "propoganda" and "smokescreen" that you're giving everything an open mind.
Boogie, I don't know if I made it clear, but I was trying to state that there was smoke screens on both sides of the coin. SOME environmental activists do put their own spin on things just like the companies they are attacking. I am just as much against both types of propaganda. That was my point.
Funny how you seem to be in denial of your own bias, when you seem to make money from counteracting one group's propaganda with another's. If you are working on one company's image and being paid by that company, doesn't that put you in a rather biased position? It seems to me that you are a professional spin doctor.
Think tanks are also notoriously biased.
I am curious... this paper that your think tank is publishing, it is going to be published online? I really hope you are not another Bjorn Lomborg. His book was highly criticised by the scientific community and yet was supposedly debunking environmentalism. However, that was still published!
Funny how you seem to be in denial of your own bias, when you seem to make money from counteracting one group's propaganda with another's. If you are working on one company's image and being paid by that company, doesn't that put you in a rather biased position? It seems to me that you are a professional spin doctor.
Think tanks are also notoriously biased.
I am curious... this paper that your think tank is publishing, it is going to be published online? I really hope you are not another Bjorn Lomborg. His book was highly criticised by the scientific community and yet was supposedly debunking environmentalism. However, that was still published!
fgray1:
Nobody is forcing you to read this thread fgray. If you haven't got anything to add to the discussion, why bother making snide comments? Perhaps it's you that needs a life?
OP
Does anybody have any well... less objectionable data that they can post or at least link into? I've been holding off posting anything further to try to be more "fair" to both sides. Still haven't found anthing better than the CCPA report, but I'll keep looking. I may have to create my own... actually I AM creating my own for a little hobby class I'm taking in coastal zone management. So look for something from me by the end of April at the very least.
You guys could even help me out by PM'ing additional info links from both the tourism and activist groups. Please don't post them here, as it'll likely inflame the forum more than it already is. I really had no clue that this issue was so volatile... 'should get out of the lab more.
You guys could even help me out by PM'ing additional info links from both the tourism and activist groups. Please don't post them here, as it'll likely inflame the forum more than it already is. I really had no clue that this issue was so volatile... 'should get out of the lab more.
Boogie711
Guest
bermudaskink:
Have you taken the time to read Dr. Lomborgs book? I'm proud to say I have a copy sitting here on the shelf behind me, and have had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Lomborg personally.
Please highlight for me where Dr. Lomborgs work fails to meet scientific criteria.
Yes, I have read MOST of the book. Not from cover to cover I must admit. There is a lot there, so I had to be picky about which bits I read, as the book was on loan from the library.
Will send you the links about BL's book tmrw.
In early January 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty issued a decision that declared Lomborg's research "to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty," and to be "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." The committee, however, did not find grounds that Lomborg "misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence." Instead, the decision recommends that the book should be properly understood and interpreted as a "a provocative debate-generating paper."
Am off to bed now though
Shall I PM you or provide links here...??? I am so paranoid about being accused of spamming just by providing some links... eeek!
L.
Will send you the links about BL's book tmrw.
In early January 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty issued a decision that declared Lomborg's research "to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty," and to be "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice." The committee, however, did not find grounds that Lomborg "misled his readers deliberately or with gross negligence." Instead, the decision recommends that the book should be properly understood and interpreted as a "a provocative debate-generating paper."
Am off to bed now though
Shall I PM you or provide links here...??? I am so paranoid about being accused of spamming just by providing some links... eeek!
L.
Boogie711
Guest
I'm familiar with the story in question, but my point remains the same. Please highlight for me where scientific principals weren't followed. I imagine you can't do it. Why?
Correct me if I'm wrong - but, the committee you mentioned didn't release a single example of so called scientific dishonesty when they announced that decision. Not one. I find that somewhat suspicious, especially when they're denouncing a book which has over 5,000 footnotes.
The committee is a volunteer committee of the Danish Government, made up of scientific professionals. I would be simply curious to know how many of these professionals held opinions contrary to Dr. Lomborgs, ESPECIALLY since Dr. Lomborg is STILL, at this moment, still gainfully employed as the Director of Denmark's (Government run) national Environmental Assessment Institute.
In other words, to be blunt - so what? A bunch of people who don't like his work got together and denounced it. That's hardly new.
Correct me if I'm wrong - but, the committee you mentioned didn't release a single example of so called scientific dishonesty when they announced that decision. Not one. I find that somewhat suspicious, especially when they're denouncing a book which has over 5,000 footnotes.
The committee is a volunteer committee of the Danish Government, made up of scientific professionals. I would be simply curious to know how many of these professionals held opinions contrary to Dr. Lomborgs, ESPECIALLY since Dr. Lomborg is STILL, at this moment, still gainfully employed as the Director of Denmark's (Government run) national Environmental Assessment Institute.
In other words, to be blunt - so what? A bunch of people who don't like his work got together and denounced it. That's hardly new.
OP
I'm unfamiliar with this Lomborg dude (and neither of you are providing links, why don't you confine this to PM's or create a separate thread?), but am reasonably acquainted with scientific misconduct commitees, at least those run by professional scientists. It's very rare to even convene such things, and to publicly accuse a fellow scientist of such action is even rarer... almost unheard of. In Western science, such judgements are as "evidence airtight" as anything can get, based entirely on peer-reviewed identification of serious violations in the scientific method. Personal opinion or preconceived biases by judges have no place in these proceedings. They're like robots. To be tagged by your professional peers as scientifically dishonest is a grave offense indeed... worse even than doctors violating the Hippocratic oath. Basically you've lost all respect in your field and all your research is suspect till you die. It's common for such violators to quietly go into teaching, or (strangely) accept administrative and political positions.
As this judgement is coming from Danish scientists, I have no doubts at all regarding their professionalism in such matters. Western Europe is the most orthodox (i.e. "anal") in science, and the Danes are highly regarded even from other Europeans. They don't mess around.
As this judgement is coming from Danish scientists, I have no doubts at all regarding their professionalism in such matters. Western Europe is the most orthodox (i.e. "anal") in science, and the Danes are highly regarded even from other Europeans. They don't mess around.
