http://www.owen.org/blog/4047

What do we want?

Evidence-based change.

When do we want it?

After peer review.

--
James Newton
1-970-462-7764=20

-----Original Message-----
From: piclist-bounces@mit.edu [mailto:piclist-bounces@mit.edu] On Behalf Of
Joe Koberg
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 12:23
To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
Cc: Sean Breheny
Subject: Re: [OT]:: Global Change / Climate Warming / Disruption disruption
/ Lorentz Butterfly et al

Is house testimony subject to a process more effective than peer review=20
for discovering error?


On 11/19/2010 2:17 PM, Sean Breheny wrote:
> 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<joe@osoft.us>  wrote:
>> There were 11 other panelists at the hearing.  Perhaps we should
>> consider all of their testimony.
>>
--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.