tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330650666541115497.post5031808432502588591..comments2023-11-03T23:33:41.347+11:00Comments on ABC News Watch: Ove Hoegh-Guldberg: the secrets of my successMarc Hendrickxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13764038599250494228noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330650666541115497.post-68081655495817190792011-06-21T18:31:06.452+10:002011-06-21T18:31:06.452+10:00Well stated Stu.Well stated Stu.Marc Hendrickxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13764038599250494228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2330650666541115497.post-18426130524007347782011-06-21T16:49:09.420+10:002011-06-21T16:49:09.420+10:00What is interesting in reviewing this "conver...What is interesting in reviewing this "conversation" is the defaulting - almost to desperation - to the "peer-review" as being an unchallengeable monolith of scientific integrity.<br /><br />The process has shown time and again to be deeply flawed, easily manipulated, inherently outcomes biased and highly politicised. <br /><br />Not to mention being riddled with rentseeking opportunism.<br /><br />Unfortunately this appears to be Hoegh-Guldberg's only defence in the quite legitimate questioning of his (and others) research and methodologies.<br /><br />Sadly those who challenge this irrational orthodoxy are dismissed outright from the conversation, branded "skeptics" and "denialists" and incapable of "legitimate" scientific reasoning and understanding in the absence of being subjected to the "rigour" of "peer-review".<br /><br />Mann's hockey-stick theory was peer reviewed and found to be a fraud. Vast swathes of all the IPCC's peer-reviewed reports and conclusions were found to be exaggerated or grossly in error.<br /><br />Conversely, only one of Albert Einstein’s more than 300 scientific papers was subject to peer review. That was on gravitational waves and was rejected.<br /><br />Maybe Mr Hoegh-Guldberg could point out the number of peer-reviewed articles eminent "Father of Science" Sir Isaac Newton had published? Galileo?<br /><br />Friedrich Miescher, whose groundbreaking research into nucleic acid chemistry and paved the way for the DNA discoveries of Watson and Crick, was not ratified or “legitimised” by any peer review process.<br /><br />Nor was Charles Darwin.<br /><br />In the November 2004 edition of Physics Today (http://marineemlab.ucsd.edu/~ethics/PhysicsToday.pdf) 39% of junior members of the American Physic Society responding to an ethics survey said they had cited one or more of the following ethical violations:<br /><br />- data falsification<br />- not including appropriate authors<br />- plagiarism <br />- less than truthful reports<br />- not citing prior work<br />- delaying referee reports <br />- including inappropriate authors<br />- other<br /><br />It stands to reason that a cabal of scientists whose very livelihood rests on governments, corporations and NGO's committing vast research monies to 'solving the problem' have a vested in perpetuating the myth of dangerous and human-induced climate change.<br /><br />So why is Hoegh-Guldberg so ideologically opposed to subjecting his and others research in this area to independent peer-review? <br /><br />Stress testing his hypotheses and deductive methods should be open and freely available to all interested parties. There is nothing commercially in confidence...so what's the problem?<br /><br />That Mr Hoegh-Guldberg believes his fellow scientists to be benevolent beyond reproach in their climate theory endeavours is disingenuous, hypocritical and just plain wrong.Stuhttp://abcnewswatch.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com