The house hearings are sometimes just a grandstanding for the rep's.=20 Sometimes the panelist are picked to have views favoring a view point.=20 And then the questions are (how shall I put it) slanted. And then 2=20 weeks later the rep. votes directly opposite what view they expressed=20 publicly. On 11/19/2010 3:22 PM, Joe Koberg wrote: > Is house testimony subject to a process more effective than peer review > for discovering error? > > > On 11/19/2010 2:17 PM, Sean Breheny wrote: > =20 >> Hi Joe, >> >> You make a good point about considering the others there who seem to >> be in the majority. I don't know how long you have been on the list >> but Russell has really done his homework on this subject and I am >> fairly sure that he has read the IPCC reports at least, if not >> material from some of these other individuals. >> >> Also, I have done (and continue to do) peer reviews for IEEE >> publications, due to having published there in grad school. Based on >> what I've seen, I don't put all that much stock in the ability of peer >> review to catch errors other than ones which are pretty sloppy. >> >> Sean >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 2:55 PM, Joe Koberg wrote: >> =20 >>> There were 11 other panelists at the hearing. Perhaps we should >>> consider all of their testimony. >>> >>> =20 --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .