Academic peer groups have always judged their own. And over the years it has been pretty effective too because of extreme rivalry and jealousy among them.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Leafe" <[email protected]> To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 12:43 PM Subject: Re: [OT] Climate-change scientists cleared of misconduct On Aug 24, 2011, at 11:00 AM, Ricardo Aráoz wrote: >> His peers from the university he works at adjudged him not guilty in 3 of >> 4 >> areas. Yup, I've been put at ease. > > In science you are always judged by your peers. That's what makes it a conspiracy! ;-) For the record, I didn't post this to sway the deniers; I'm convinced that they will cling to anything, real or imaginary, rather than open their minds. They start with their opinion, and then pick and choose those things that support that opinion, and twist or ignore those that don't. My only purpose in posting that is for the people who actually are able to weigh different bits of information and form an opinion. Since the review was about academic propriety, of course the people to judge that would be the people who set and enforce those standards. -- Ed Leafe [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/3B7F48178BC44898AC22D3BBDF291BCF@dual ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
