You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #104: Thanks, JonQ! [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Rabrrrrrr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-10-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #102
104. Thanks, JonQ!
Your posts were some of the most hilarious stuff I've read in the last few days.

But, I better let you get back to reading those whole 2 papers you read each day! (though I will point out that the first time you mentioned how much you read, you said you read 2 JOURNALS each day, not two papers).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
  -A Poll on Scientific Transparency Nederland  Dec-09-09 06:40 PM   #0 
  - should not have to release code and data  bridgit   Dec-09-09 06:46 PM   #1 
  - who enforces scientists "having" to do anything...?  mike_c   Dec-09-09 06:48 PM   #2 
  - I think when it comes  JonQ   Dec-09-09 06:51 PM   #5 
  - There has never been a time when data, protocols and results were not entirely open and available  timeforpeace   Dec-09-09 07:01 PM   #12 
  - The double standard is concerning  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:06 PM   #18 
  - what do you mean, "until now...?"  mike_c   Dec-09-09 08:43 PM   #44 
     - I've yet to read of anyone on here  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:02 PM   #50 
  - but how would you propose that be done...?  mike_c   Dec-09-09 08:25 PM   #34 
     - I think a good start  JonQ   Dec-09-09 08:36 PM   #36 
  - Someone's going to break into your lab, and if they find ANYTHING...  Junkdrawer   Dec-09-09 07:13 PM   #24 
  - I suppose that demonstrates how little the general public knows...  mike_c   Dec-09-09 08:19 PM   #33 
  - I honestly don't think most people even know what they are asking for anymore  CreekDog   Dec-10-09 10:50 AM   #122 
  - Nothing good can come from hiding data  JonQ   Dec-09-09 06:48 PM   #3 
  - The only thing scientists should release is what they submit to peer-review.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 06:50 PM   #4 
  - End of thread.  Forkboy   Dec-09-09 06:52 PM   #6 
  - Wouldn't repeating the experiment exactly  JonQ   Dec-09-09 06:54 PM   #8 
  - Ever read a scientific paper?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 06:56 PM   #10 
     - Yes, they do  JonQ   Dec-09-09 06:58 PM   #11 
     - Oh, nevermind.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 07:02 PM   #13 
     - Sorry, but no  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:05 PM   #16 
     - Once you publish the paper...  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 07:11 PM   #21 
        - Who get's to decide what's relevant  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:23 PM   #27 
           - The peers.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:17 PM   #65 
              - Here's where you screwed up:  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:18 PM   #66 
                 - It doesn't.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:24 PM   #70 
                    - Again, you screwed up  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:26 PM   #72 
                       - If one wants to renew a grant and get more money, sure.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:28 PM   #75 
                          - So findings do affect funding  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:30 PM   #77 
                             - No, output affects funding.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:33 PM   #79 
                                - Incorrect  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:42 PM   #81 
                                   - All labs show global warming to be manmade.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:53 PM   #84 
                                      - Incorrect  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:56 PM   #85 
                                      - Scientific American's a biased source, eh?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:58 PM   #86 
                                      - An editorial within it is  JonQ   Dec-09-09 10:01 PM   #87 
                                      - I never argued they were scientific papers.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-10-09 02:42 PM   #156 
                                      - So you believe an editorial  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:45 PM   #163 
                                      - I remain curious though  JonQ   Dec-09-09 10:08 PM   #88 
                                      - The science is not settled  Nederland   Dec-10-09 08:29 AM   #96 
                                         - That's the same thing George W. Bush says about evolution.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-10-09 02:43 PM   #157 
                                         - I'm not wrong  Nederland   Dec-10-09 03:39 PM   #159 
     - Clarify Please  Nederland   Dec-09-09 08:38 PM   #37 
     - It's still reproducable  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 07:46 PM   #29 
        - That would neccessitate  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:53 PM   #30 
           - Oh, bullcrap.  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 08:38 PM   #38 
              - No, I suspect you are lying  JonQ   Dec-09-09 08:42 PM   #43 
              - Nope, just you that's lying.  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 09:01 PM   #48 
                 - What's the point of reproducing one paper  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:04 PM   #52 
                    - The purpose would be to satisfy concerns about the data.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:09 PM   #57 
                       - If that's the case  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:10 PM   #59 
                          - Oh, I already gave you several good reasons.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:14 PM   #61 
                             - Give me 10 years  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:17 PM   #64 
                                - Alright, go for it.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:18 PM   #67 
                                   - Ah but of course  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:21 PM   #69 
                                      - If the research is legimate, science would be happy to accept it.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:26 PM   #73 
                                         - Ahem  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:30 PM   #76 
                                            - JonQ, all real scientists back my line of argument.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:31 PM   #78 
                                            - Sigh  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:45 PM   #82 
                                            - So, was the NSF in on the conspiracy when Bush was in office?  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:30 AM   #109 
                                            - How is bush  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:44 AM   #114 
                                            - You're avoiding the question  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:48 AM   #120 
                                            - Big push was never from US based enterprises  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:51 AM   #124 
                                            - You offer no proof, only conjecture  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:55 AM   #131 
                                            - Not really conjecture  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:13 AM   #143 
              - It can cost billions of dollars  Nederland   Dec-10-09 08:09 AM   #95 
                 - Yes, that's right.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-10-09 02:45 PM   #158 
                    - LHC scientists disagree with you  Nederland   Dec-10-09 03:50 PM   #160 
                       - Not really.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-10-09 04:36 PM   #161 
     - And since you are such a prolific reading of scientific journals  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:02 PM   #14 
        - Two per day?  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 07:10 PM   #20 
           - Sorry, but yes, I do  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:21 PM   #25 
              - Hmmm, no you don't.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 08:39 PM   #39 
                 - You misunderstood  JonQ   Dec-09-09 08:47 PM   #45 
                 - And do you really think  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:00 PM   #47 
                    - Oh, it's entirely possible. I read three or four today.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:01 PM   #49 
                    - Well sure, if that's what you need to believe  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:05 PM   #53 
                       - JonQ, you're a global warming denier.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:06 PM   #54 
                          - In a few years  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:09 PM   #58 
                             - Now you're sounding like doomsday cultists.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 09:12 PM   #60 
                                - ?  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:15 PM   #63 
                    - A whole TWO papers per day?  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 09:02 PM   #51 
                       - Some people seem to think it is impossible  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:07 PM   #55 
                          - No. I don't think it's impossible.  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 09:25 PM   #71 
                             - Like I said  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:27 PM   #74 
                                - Oh, please.  GoCubsGo   Dec-09-09 09:38 PM   #80 
                                   - So saying it's  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:47 PM   #83 
                                      - Hahahahaha!!!  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 09:16 AM   #99 
                                         - Sigh  JonQ   Dec-10-09 09:43 AM   #102 
                                            - Thanks, JonQ!  Rabrrrrrr   Dec-10-09 10:09 AM   #104 
                                            - Believe me  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:22 AM   #107 
                                               - Wow, you're full of right-wing talking points, aren't you?  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:33 AM   #110 
                                               - RW talking point?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:45 AM   #117 
                                               - Let's see  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:50 AM   #123 
                                               - You really don't understand the debate  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:53 AM   #126 
                                               - LOLOLOLOLOL  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:57 AM   #132 
                                               - And there it is  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:59 AM   #135 
                                            - That is EXACTLY what you are doing, loserboy.  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 10:15 AM   #105 
                                               - No need to get testy  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:19 AM   #106 
                                                  - LOL!!!  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 10:40 AM   #112 
                                                  - You could always do your own study  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:47 AM   #119 
                                                  - A blog?  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 10:54 AM   #128 
                                                  - The data is there  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:02 AM   #139 
                                                  - Climate Change Fraud, they got charts too  bridgit   Dec-10-09 10:54 AM   #129 
                                                  - Yup.  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 11:18 AM   #145 
                                                  - Funny you didn't provide a source for that image  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:45 AM   #116 
                                                  - It's based on  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:49 AM   #121 
                                                  - What the hell are you talking about?  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:52 AM   #125 
                                                  - So are you in favor of transparency or not?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:53 AM   #127 
                                                  - Answer my question.  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:57 AM   #133 
                                                  - Not really  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:01 AM   #137 
  - Not all data is peer reviewable  Johonny   Dec-09-09 08:36 PM   #35 
     - If it can't be peer reviewed then it isn't science  JonQ   Dec-09-09 08:39 PM   #40 
     - clearly then  Johonny   Dec-10-09 09:00 AM   #97 
     - Are you really trying to equate the two?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 09:11 AM   #98 
     - ...and you've never heard of ITAR, then.  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:35 AM   #111 
        - Reread the poll question being asked  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:55 AM   #130 
           - You are the expert at diverting the conversation  PVnRT   Dec-10-09 10:58 AM   #134 
              - Still no rereading of the question being asked?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:59 AM   #136 
     - That's true, the applied nature of the data isn't always 'peer understood' either...  bridgit   Dec-09-09 10:33 PM   #92 
  - Depends on Who pays for it!  Traveling_Home   Dec-09-09 06:52 PM   #7 
  - Release all and let  bbinacan   Dec-09-09 06:54 PM   #9 
  - Arrest records and the juicy bits of any affairs would also be helpful...n/t  Junkdrawer   Dec-09-09 07:03 PM   #15 
  - If they get public funding, their methodology and data should be public knowledge. n/t  cherokeeprogressive   Dec-09-09 07:05 PM   #17 
  - I find it amazing that some people are actually arguing against transparency  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:10 PM   #19 
     - I find it humorous that global warming deniers are pretending to be scientifically literate.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 07:12 PM   #22 
     - Sorry, but right now it's the proponents  JonQ   Dec-09-09 07:23 PM   #26 
        - I'm reminded of Ben Stein's movie about Creationism.  HiFructosePronSyrup   Dec-09-09 08:42 PM   #42 
           - Haven't seen it  JonQ   Dec-09-09 08:48 PM   #46 
     - Agree. Strange. n/t  cherokeeprogressive   Dec-09-09 07:12 PM   #23 
        - At least the poll results above have changed dramatically as time goes on.  timeforpeace   Dec-09-09 09:14 PM   #62 
  - real science requires others to attempt to repeat the experiment to either...  yawnmaster   Dec-09-09 07:34 PM   #28 
  - Scientific papers should be subject to peer review.  baldguy   Dec-09-09 07:58 PM   #31 
  - In 1974 Richard Feynman spoke about scientific integrity...  bik0   Dec-09-09 08:05 PM   #32 
  - Release Everything..  RoadRage   Dec-09-09 08:42 PM   #41 
  - I'd like some transparency on how many of the leading Global Warming "skeptics" are funded by  Warren DeMontague   Dec-09-09 09:09 PM   #56 
  - How about all scientists  JonQ   Dec-09-09 09:19 PM   #68 
     - Oh, yes, it's all a big conspiwacy.  Warren DeMontague   Dec-10-09 03:20 AM   #93 
     - If you read all those papers you claim to read...  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 09:27 AM   #100 
        - " Nobody is hiding anything"  JonQ   Dec-10-09 09:44 AM   #103 
           - Like I said...  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 10:28 AM   #108 
              - How do you "spot fraud"  JonQ   Dec-10-09 10:43 AM   #113 
                 - Nice try.  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 11:02 AM   #138 
                    - My gosh  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:07 AM   #140 
                       - I see that reading comprehension is not one of your better skills  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 11:10 AM   #141 
                          - To you  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:11 AM   #142 
                             - You sure like to project your ignorance on other people, don't you?  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 11:17 AM   #144 
                                - I'm not the one defending  JonQ   Dec-10-09 11:30 AM   #146 
                                   - There you go again  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 11:39 AM   #147 
                                   - So no answer eh?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 12:19 PM   #149 
                                      - Thanks again for proving my point.  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 12:20 PM   #150 
                                         - Obfuscation:  JonQ   Dec-10-09 12:22 PM   #152 
                                            - Funny, but I never took a stance either way  GoCubsGo   Dec-10-09 12:24 PM   #153 
                                               - So what is your stance on this then?  JonQ   Dec-10-09 01:00 PM   #154 
                                   - If no one else understands, and you're the only one that does: then what is going on?  bridgit   Dec-10-09 11:40 AM   #148 
                                      - I'm not the only one  JonQ   Dec-10-09 12:21 PM   #151 
                                         - "Scientific Transparency", as mentioned above I have a problem with how quickly...  bridgit   Dec-10-09 02:41 PM   #155 
  - I was gonna say "Yeah, sure, why not?"  Iggo   Dec-09-09 10:09 PM   #89 
  - I think it would be great if you tell us what you think first. n/t  Cleita   Dec-09-09 10:10 PM   #90 
  - Release all code and data (nt)  Nederland   Dec-10-09 08:01 AM   #94 
  - This is already required for NIH funded projects with >500k/yr direct costs.  moc   Dec-09-09 10:15 PM   #91 
  - As soon as we get corporate transparency, sure.  Overseas   Dec-10-09 09:27 AM   #101 
  - Sadly trying to get funding from the government and private sector creates too much pressure  liberal_at_heart   Dec-10-09 10:45 AM   #115 
  - you forgot to say "from the 1980's"  CreekDog   Dec-10-09 10:47 AM   #118 
  - non specialists can do nothing good with the data  n2doc   Dec-10-09 05:01 PM   #162 
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC