XPost: sci.physics.relativity

patdolan wrote:

What follows also applies to relativity. I have yet to get even a response from Science Magazine, Nature and the Nobel Committee regarding the BBP. I was dumbfounded until I read the article below.
_____________________

...And now, a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published,” by Patrick T.

Brown:

The paper I just published — “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California” — focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than

climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by

what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives — even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

An Ideological Blockade
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse on this important topic.

Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so,

they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him to write this article.

A True Service
He concludes:

Climate scientists shouldn’t have to exile themselves from academia to publish the most useful versions of their research. We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience to

climate.

The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out. The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the scientific and

medical sectors will continue to bleed out. Once exsanguinated, it will never recover.

Cross-posted at National Review.

If a scientist decides he wants to 'get into cancer research'...
because he sees that is where the big grants are at..
he should 'get into cancer research'
take the money and run.

There are a lot of scientists 'getting into cancer research' (including Pulitzer Prize scientists)
sorely because
that is where the money is at.

All they have to do is pretend to find a cure.

(take a picture of yourself looking through a microscope)


Then, take the money and run. Go to Vegas! Blow it all!!


Hire a full time grant writer.


--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

patdolan wrote:

What follows also applies to relativity. I have yet to get even a response from Science Magazine, Nature and the Nobel Committee regarding the BBP. I was dumbfounded until I read the article below.
_____________________

...And now, a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published,” by Patrick

T. Brown:

The paper I just published — “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California” — focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than

climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by

what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives — even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

An Ideological Blockade
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse on this important topic.

Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing so,

they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him to write this article.

A True Service
He concludes:

Climate scientists shouldn’t have to exile themselves from academia to publish the most useful versions of their research. We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience

to climate.

The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out. The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the scientific and

medical sectors will continue to bleed out. Once exsanguinated, it will never recover.

Cross-posted at National Review.

If a scientist decides he wants to 'get into cancer research'...
because he sees that is where the big grants are at..
he should 'get into cancer research'
take the money and run.

There are a lot of scientists 'getting into cancer research' (including Pulitzer Prize scientists)
sorely because
that is where the money is at.

All they have to do is pretend to find a cure.

(take a picture of yourself looking through a microscope)

Then, take the money and run. Go to Vegas! Blow it all!!

Hire a full time grant writer.

In other words, if you sell Cement in the New York construction market,
you are not allowed to bid for any project over 2 million dollars.
You need to be a member of the top mafia to bid over 2 million.

Same rules go for the scientifc mafia.








--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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

XPost: sci.physics.relativity

The Starmaker wrote:

The Starmaker wrote:

patdolan wrote:

What follows also applies to relativity. I have yet to get even a response from Science Magazine, Nature and the Nobel Committee regarding the BBP. I was dumbfounded until I read the article below.
_____________________

...And now, a climate scientist has written that he pulled his punches in a climate-change article in order to be published by the prestigious journal Nature. From, “I Left Out the Full Truth to Get My Climate Change Paper Published,” by

Patrick T. Brown:

The paper I just published — “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California” — focuses exclusively on how climate change has affected extreme wildfire behavior. I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other

than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell.

This matters because it is critically important for scientists to be published in high-profile journals; in many ways, they are the gatekeepers for career success in academia. And the editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by

what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives — even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.

An Ideological Blockade
In other words, if Brown provided a thorough and nuanced study, it would never have passed the ideological blockade he knew controls the scientific discourse on this important topic.

Brown explains why we see such an anti-science paradigm:

In theory, scientific research should prize curiosity, dispassionate objectivity, and a commitment to uncovering the truth. Surely those are the qualities that editors of scientific journals should value.

In reality, though, the biases of the editors (and the reviewers they call upon to evaluate submissions) exert a major influence on the collective output of entire fields. They select what gets published from a large pool of entries, and in doing

so, they also shape how research is conducted more broadly. Savvy researchers tailor their studies to maximize the likelihood that their work is accepted. I know this because I am one of them.

Brown left academia so he could engage in better science. And, that allowed him to write this article.

A True Service
He concludes:

Climate scientists shouldn’t have to exile themselves from academia to publish the most useful versions of their research. We need a culture change across academia and elite media that allows for a much broader conversation on societal resilience

to climate.

The media, for instance, should stop accepting these papers at face value and do some digging on what’s been left out. The editors of the prominent journals need to expand beyond a narrow focus that pushes the reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions. And the researchers themselves need to start standing up to editors, or find other places to publish.

What really should matter isn’t citations for the journals, clicks for the media, or career status for the academics — but research that actually helps society.
Brown has done a true service in illustrating how science has been distorted by nonscientific agendas at the highest level of “expert” discourse — aided and abetted by the media. Until and unless that changes, public trust in the scientific

and medical sectors will continue to bleed out. Once exsanguinated, it will never recover.

Cross-posted at National Review.

If a scientist decides he wants to 'get into cancer research'...
because he sees that is where the big grants are at..
he should 'get into cancer research'
take the money and run.

There are a lot of scientists 'getting into cancer research' (including Pulitzer Prize scientists)
sorely because
that is where the money is at.

All they have to do is pretend to find a cure.

(take a picture of yourself looking through a microscope)

Then, take the money and run. Go to Vegas! Blow it all!!

Hire a full time grant writer.

In other words, if you sell Cement in the New York construction market,
you are not allowed to bid for any project over 2 million dollars.
You need to be a member of the top mafia to bid over 2 million.

Same rules go for the scientifc mafia.

Did I write Pulitzer Prize/ I meant Nobel Prize.

Check out what they give Nobel Prizes for nowadays...
you'll discover is for things that are not know to exist!
(just incase somebody does discover ii, they'll claim it's too late.)

Getting a Nobel Prize means...you automatically have access to any
million dollar grant. It means you're now a member of the scientific
mafia.

No matter your field of endevor, 'discovering fire', you can get a
cancer grant.

All you have to do is flash your 'get any fuckin grant you want' card,
and you got it!

You don't have to do any 'actual' work...just submit a picture of
yourself looking trough a microscope.

You can get 'kickback' money by just giving somebody else to use your
picture and card.


"Look! We got a Nobel Prize working here."

(just you looking through a microscope) (nothing in the microscope...you looking for a cure for cancer)


When you become a top guy in the mafia you get to bid on over ten
million (and no other bidders).






--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge the unchallengeable.

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