 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
AngelAlice Great Old One Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Total posts: 723 Location: marshy middle ground Gender: Female |
 Posted: 22-06-2012 16:15 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Well, this is just depressing:
http://www.science20.com/science_20/ipcc_gives_science_makes_grey_literature_official-91262
| Quote: |
IPCC Gives Up On Science, Makes Grey Literature Official
Grey' literature, which led to the "Glaciergate" scandal of 2010 when it was revealed that the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are losing ice (gone by 2035!) was stated as fact even though it was not based on evidence, will no longer be a problem for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Because they have declared that grey literature will no longer be grey - any information they choose to use will be considered peer reviewed just by being posted on the Internet by the IPCC.
Most rational people would simply not use grey literature after the errors of the 2007 report, to avoid controversy and therefore keep climate studies as politically agnostic as possible. It isn't like global warming deniers are ever getting through peer review, so grey literature would seem to be unnecessary, unless you feel like the ridiculous claim that African farmers are going to suffer 50% yield drops by 2020 absolutely must be included in a science report (that one was also shown to have been made up).
Instead, they have embraced grey literature.. Makes no sense, right? Maybe it does. If I want to have fewer people living in poverty, for example, I simply redefine poverty and - presto - people are no longer poor. I could have a terrific career in politics if I simply got people to believe I cured poverty by redefining it. Redefining grey literature takes poor science and attempts to call it rich.
It gets worse, if you care about science or the environment and would like to have constructive dialogues based on data. The IPCC have also decided to impose gender and geographical quotas on IPCC membership. So they no longer care about having the best scientists, they care about social engineering the representation of the committee. If you, like me, have a triangle in mind when thinking about culture and politics, they have shifted the IPCC away from the Excellence node and toward Fairness. Fairness is necessary, we wouldn't want people blocked out unfairly, but dictating gender and geographical representation means IPCC science is no longer a meritocracy, it is a good works program. And therefore inherently unfair to the best scientists, who can't be on the IPCC if they have the wrong genitals.
The new rules also mean it will be required that Africa will have five members on the IPCC and North America will have only four. I don't want to come off as elitist because I was lucky enough to have been born in North America but does anyone really think Africa has 25% more top-flight climate scientists than the USA and Canada...combined? The USA alone produces 32% of the world's science.
But that's not really what matters, say the IPCC. They believe America seems to have an advantage small countries do not; evil science media corporations, though they are overwhelmingly liberal, are still unfairly blocking out developing nation scientists from getting published, activists at the IPCC contend. With 25,000 open access journals and thousands of print ones, these researchers apparently cannot get printed and cited.
In further revising history and casting doubt on IPCC credibility, Richard Klein from the Stockholm Environment Institute in Sweden told New Scientist journalist Fred Pearce this gender and geographical quota was always the case, and they simply formalized it. "Membership has always been based on expertise, geographical balance and gender."
What?
Basically, if the IPCC wanted to provide ammunition for climate change skeptics, they just handed over an entire arsenal. They are now saying the IPCC never had the best scientists in the field, they picked them based on how diverse it made the IPCC look. Why didn't the InterAcademy Council (IAC) mention that in their analysis of all the things the IPCC was doing wrong?
Obviously this could have advantages for people other than obscure female scientists in Brazil. I can write a blog post saying something important and it could be included in an IPCC report in 2013. Unfortunately, since 2001 the prestige of being cited by the IPCC has dropped a lot. |
Seriously - is this institutional suicide or what? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 22-06-2012 17:55 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Do you? |
Yes I do,
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
| Quote: | | Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last. |
| Quote: | | http://www.sourcewatch.org/ |
The Truth about SourceWatch
| Quote: | | SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources. |
Like I said, I love this game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| AngelAlice Great Old One Joined: 07 Apr 2006 Total posts: 723 Location: marshy middle ground Gender: Female |
| Posted: 22-06-2012 18:03 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Wow, you guys really are two Ps in a pod.
You can do this insane laconic link-war thing forever.
No segue, but here's Alex Jones being cool, calm and collected about Rio (no, of course he isn't, but it's still worth listening to):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAS3Tmz7IYI |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 22-06-2012 19:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Do you? |
Yes I do,
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
| Quote: | | Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last. |
| Quote: | | http://www.sourcewatch.org/ |
The Truth about SourceWatch
| Quote: | | SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy. Just like the untrustworthy Wikipedia the content can be written and edited by ordinary web users. Users who all conveniently share an extreme left-wing bias. SourceWatch is frequently cited by those seeking to smear individuals and organizations who do not share their extreme left-wing bias since they cannot find any legitimate criticisms from respected news sources. |
Like I said, I love this game. |
It's when you quote yourself, that's the best. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 22-06-2012 22:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | Do you? |
Yes I do,
The Anti Wikipedia Resource
| Quote: | | Wikipedia can be edited by anyone with an Internet connection, regardless of age, education or experience. The average person is completely unaware that what they may be reading on a Wikipedia page could be completely false or intentionally misleading. And the only way to verify the information posted to Wikipedia is to independently research the subject from a reputable source. Wikipedia is thus broken by design and "truth" is simply determined by who edits last. |
Like I said, I love this game. |
Wikipedia- about as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/index.html
Encyclopedia Britannica didn't exactly like that, and Nature gave them a detailed rebuttal.
You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 01:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | It's when you quote yourself, that's the best. |
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 01:27 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | It's when you quote yourself, that's the best. |
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced. |
And where would you place yourself on the 'Cult of the Amateur' scale?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 02:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | And where would you place yourself on the Cult of the Amateur scale? |
I am a professional computer analyst and perform research (among other things) for a living. I never cite Wikipedia, as I do not use sources that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 02:13 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| kamalktk wrote: | | You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak. |
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 02:22 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: |
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| kamalktk wrote: | | You shouldn't quote yourself either. Bad form. Makes your argument look weak. |
The facts don't change just because I compile them. Everything is fully cited and sourced. |
And please read Nature's rebuttal of that http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link.
Wikipedia is fully cited and sourced. This means it seems you like sources that only you can edit, as everything you write about Wikipedia is applicable to your site as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 02:35 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| kamalktk wrote: | | And please read Nature's rebuttal of that where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link. |
Are you serious? Did you read it? What do you think I was responding to? Again,
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.
Their "response" simply confirmed the complaints from Britannica,
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kamalktk Great Old One Joined: 05 Feb 2011 Total posts: 705 Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 02:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | kamalktk wrote: | | And please read Nature's rebuttal of that where the went point by point over Britannica's complaint. Since this rebuttal was actually on Nature's page that I linked to, you evidently did not provide the respect of visiting my link. |
Are you serious? Did you read it? What do you think I was responding to? Again,
Please read the response where Nature admits to not reviewing information from the core Encyclopedia Britannica, only sent summaries to reviewers and combined different web paged articles it sent to reviewers. This is disingenous as the average person assumed the core Encyclopedia was being compared not summaries from web pages or exerts from their student encyclopedia which would not be as comprehensive as the core one.
Their "response" simply confirmed the complaints from Britannica,
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. |
Clearly, you once again did not read it, as Nature made things clear in it's initial article and it was only misinterpreted by Britannica (not surprising since it made Britannica look bad).
Perhaps you will read
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1011-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
"The self-described "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has fared similarly well in most other studies comparing its accuracy to conventional encyclopedias, including studies by The Guardian, PC Pro, Library Journal, the Canadian Library Association, and several peer-reviewed academic studies."
or
http://arstechnica.com/uncategorized/2006/11/8296/
"Thomas Chesney, a Lecturer in Information Systems at the Nottingham University Business School, published the results of his own Wikipedia study in the most recent edition of the online journal First Monday, and he came up with a surprising conclusion: experts rate the articles more highly than do non-experts."
or
http://www.livescience.com/9938-study-wikipedia-pretty-accurate-hard-read.html
"Researchers found that cancer information on Wikipedia was similar in accuracy and depth to the information on a professionally peer-reviewed, patient-oriented cancer web site, the National Cancer Institute's Physician Data Query (PDQ). But the latter was written in plainer English. "
As I said, you seem to prefer sources which only you can edit, instead of a source repeatedly shown to be highly accurate, but which you do not control.
However, since you seem to be impressed by Britannica, You should note they also state that humans are changing the climate. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/235402/global-warming
Perhaps you should decry them as well? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 03:38 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| kamalktk wrote: | | Clearly, you once again did not read it, as Nature made things clear in it's initial article and it was only misinterpreted by Britannica (not surprising since it made Britannica look bad). |
Oh really? You really think I did not read it? Tell me how they misinterpreted this,
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| Quote: | | Britannica: "Nature’s comments on the article “ethanol” were based on text not from the Encyclopedia Britannica but from Britannica Student Encyclopedia, a more basic work for younger readers. |
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf
| Quote: | | Nature: Britannica claims that in one case we sent a reviewer material that did not come from any Britannica publication. When the company made this point to us in private we asked for details, but it provided none. Now Britannica has identified the review in question as being on ethanol. We have checked the original e-mail that we sent to the reviewer who looked at the Britannica article on ethanol and it is clear to us that all the reviewer’s comments refer to specific paragraphs from Britannica. |
This does not address Britannica's complaint and is intentionally deceptive.
http://corporate.britannica.com/britannica_nature_response.pdf
| Quote: | | Britannica, Articles on Dolly the Sheep and Steven Wolfram reviewed by Nature were taken not from the Encyclopedia Britannica but from previous editions of the Britannica Book of the Year, which are archived on our site and clearly dated and identified. Yearbook authors are often given greater latitude to express personal views than writers of encyclopedia articles. In the Wolfram article, the Nature reviewer disagreed with Britannica’s author on the phrasing of two sentences in which point of view figured significantly, and on the basis of those disagreements Nature’s editors counted the two points as “inaccuracies” in Britannica. In addition to the fact that reviewing yearbook articles in a study of encyclopedias is inappropriate, these particular judgments were simply unfounded. The reviewer was entitled to his or her opinion about how a point might best be presented, but that opinion did not make our author’s presentation “inaccurate." |
http://www.nature.com/nature/britannica/eb_advert_response_final.pdf
| Quote: | | Nature: Another part of Britannica’s criticism concerns the fact that we provided material from other Britannica publications, such as the Britannica Book of the Year. This was deliberate: the aim of our story, as we made clear, was to compare the online material available from Britannica and Wikipedia. When users search Britannica online, they get results from several Britannica publications. They have no reason to think that any one is less reliable than the others. In the case of the year book, Britannica itself asks readers to reference the articles as coming from “Encyclopaedia Britannica Online” – exactly the source we set out to compare |
This is admitting they did not reference the core encyclopedia, does not address Britannica's complaint and is intentionally deceptive.
Lets do this line by line since you are unwilling to admit what is irrefutably obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Poptech Irrefutable
Yeti |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 03:45 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| kamalktk wrote: | | As I said, you seem to prefer sources which only you can edit, instead of a source repeatedly shown to be highly accurate, but which you do not control. |
Wikipedia has never been shown to be highly accurate which is an impossibility on something that can be edited at will by anyone with an Internet connection. Everytime I research a Wikipedia article I find something wrong with it.
Is the information on a Wikipedia page determined based on who edits it last? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| stuneville Administrator
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 Total posts: 10230 Location: FTMB HQ Age: 46 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 23-06-2012 08:53 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Poptech wrote: | | I love how so many people are computer illiterate and believe Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. |
Well, I love how many people don't understand Norwegian and can't believe it's not butter, but that doesn't instantly win arguments for me, either.
As with many things, Wikipedia's greatest strength is also its greatest weakness - the articles can be written,edited and cited by geniuses and lunatics alike. As a result you get a mixture of well-written, scrupulous, diligent, cutting edge and balanced information combined with spectacularly loopy ramblings. This happens on many sites. What's fun is when the spectacularly loopy ramblings seem to want to bond with the sane and balanced stuff like a trouserless drunk gatecrashing a convent Easter Vigil - now, in absolute fairness, on Wikipedia hardcore scientific stuff tends to get the outre gibberings excised pretty quickly: what's often left is pure data, itself inert and (often fleetingly) static, waiting for interpretation to put spin on it. It's the interpretations various that invariably cause the conflicts.
The point you seem to miss is that whilst Wikipedia is not gospel, neither is 99.99% of the stuff on the net - and that you can't dismiss another's argument as they cite a web source and then expect everyone else to take what you say as definitive as you cite a different web source - and often your own, at that. That's rather akin to stating "X is true! Don't take my word for it", exiting the room, putting on a hat with "my friend" written on it, re-entering the room and proclaiming that what your friend just said about X was true.
Finding neutrals on the net can be hard, but for all the flack Wikipedia often does a good job of policing itself,and as such isn't the hotbed of falsehood many make it out to be. Wariness and a pinch of salt at times, yes: but anyone who subscribes to this board knows that already about many things we hear.
Play on  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
