{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Mad Max:
9/29/2013 6:45:57 AM
6
We need a second opinion and private review. You don't just believe one sources data without others replicating it. That's not being scientific. And it says it's peer reviewed, but only but members of the IPCC. We need privatized research.
English
-
[quote]privatized research[/quote] AKA bias and BS.
-
Privatised research? Surely you are joking?
-
Edited by Mad Max: 9/29/2013 6:52:47 AMNope. Unless you consider research proving homosexuality to be physically wrong by the Nigerian government as valid as any other governmental research. I'm sorry you're bad at science and politics.
-
Edited by Vicex: 9/29/2013 7:06:33 AMYou do know that Public Research is not solely research done by the government, but research that is provided with some government funding, yes? Hell- if you want to go there, why not talk about issues with private research- pharmaceuticals is a great topic to start with- also oversight lacking. Bad at science and politics? Ha! Cute So ignoring your pathetic attempt to counter-argue with shameless insults- I never suggested peer review to be irrelevant (something the proposed Nigerian claim would be laughed at by professionals) only the ability for a privately funded group to remain unbiased.
-
You've made good points. However private research doesn't necessarily need government funding.
-
Edited by Vicex: 9/29/2013 7:10:51 AMI'm simply arguing that privatised funded researchers typically have a financial stake in the findings and therefore an inherent biased. I wouldn't suggest to ignore findings by the private sector at all- but rather to be aware of potential biased so to financial stakes.. Something the public sector typically lacks. That said, the more peer-review the better.
