The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 26, 2011, 06:34:41 AM
-
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Wed Jan-26-11 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is hardly news; it's a 15 year-old story warmed over
Edited on Wed Jan-26-11 10:36 AM by Euromutt
By way of reference, see "Public Health Pot Shots" in the April 1997 issue of Reason http://reason.com/archives/1997/04/01/public-health-pot...
You don't have to agree with everything the article says to still conclude that the research the NCICP opted to fund was heavily skewed toward a predetermined conclusion that Guns Are Bad.
I choked on this in particular:
Consider a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there." This claim cannot be verified because Kellerman will not release the data. Relying on independent sources to fill gaps in the published data, SUNY-Buffalo's Lawrence Southwick has speculated that Kellermann's full data set would actually vindicate defensive gun ownership. Such issues cannot be resolved without Kellermann's cooperation, but the CDC has refused to require its researchers to part with their data as a condition for taxpayer funding.
(emphases mine)
As a taxpayer, I already have a problem with publicly funded research only being available in journals that charge $30 to read a single article (even though the journal doesn't pay the authors or reviewers a dime). Funding behavior like Kellermann's is simply unacceptable, both from a government spending standpoint, and at least as importantly, from a standpoint of scientific honesty. There is no valid scientific reason to refuse to share the data on which your findings are supposedly based; it's denying others the means to verify that you aren't just making shit up.
And speaking of duplicitous sons of bitches, Mark Rosenberg's claim that "we’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions" is a load of hooey. As far as Rosenberg was concerned, "the basic questions" were answered 24 years ago. What he and others have been stopped from doing is using taxpayer funds to gin up the junk science to support his predetermined conclusion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x367355
-
Hmmmmmmmm, if you're an intruder and come into my house, there's 100% chance you're gonna wish you hadn't as compared to if I invite you in!
Hey, this science stuff is easy! Wonder if I can get a research grant?
-
Hmmmmmmmm, if you're an intruder and come into my house, there's 100% chance you're gonna wish you hadn't as compared to if I invite you in!
Hey, this science stuff is easy! Wonder if I can get a research grant?
:lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf: :lmao: :rotf:
H5! (I do have to clean my monitor, though . . . )
-
Hmmmmmmmm, if you're an intruder and come into my house, there's 100% chance you're gonna wish you hadn't as compared to if I invite you in!
Hey, this science stuff is easy! Wonder if I can get a research grant?
Don't you find it interesting that he, very correctly, rejects the study because the researcher refuses to release his data. He also, very correctly, calls on the rest of the DUmp to do so as well.
Yet, where is this attitude vis-a-vis climate change and the refusal of those researchers to publish their data?
-
Don't you find it interesting that he, very correctly, rejects the study because the researcher refuses to release his data. He also, very correctly, calls on the rest of the DUmp to do so as well.
Yet, where is this attitude vis-a-vis climate change and the refusal of those researchers to publish their data?
Yeah, I know, but it was so obvious I took the opportunity to make a funny! Their climate change bull shit is so dead the only one's not smart enough to stick a fork in it are DUmmies and politicians!
If the seas rescinded 2 feet and the temp dropped 10 degrees, the DUmmies would still be sayin', "see, we told you so"!
-
(I do have to clean my monitor, though . . . )
Of what?
-
Of what?
At that time, it was orange juice that I had spat on it.
-
(emphases mine)
As a taxpayer, I already have a problem with publicly funded research only being available in journals that charge $30 to read a single article (even though the journal doesn't pay the authors or reviewers a dime). Funding behavior like Kellermann's is simply unacceptable, both from a government spending standpoint, and at least as importantly, from a standpoint of scientific honesty. There is no valid scientific reason to refuse to share the data on which your findings are supposedly based; it's denying others the means to verify that you aren't just making shit up.
And speaking of duplicitous sons of bitches, Mark Rosenberg's claim that "we’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions" is a load of hooey. As far as Rosenberg was concerned, "the basic questions" were answered 24 years ago. What he and others have been stopped from doing is using taxpayer funds to gin up the junk science to support his predetermined conclusion.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x367355
This is interesting, do you remember that fraud who cooked his data on gun ownership in colonial times a few years ago? His name eludes me at the moment, but he was thoroughly discredited when it eventuated he had never visited some of the libraries or record repositories where he had supposedly done his research.
Even aside from the fraud aspect though, a primary basis he used for determining levels of gun ownership came down to allegedly looking at period wills and estate documents, which relied on the obviously baseless assumptions that everyone making a will necessarily listed their guns specifically in their wills (Ignoring that they might have been given to an heir before death or simply not specifically mentioned, both of which are far more common today than any mention of them), and also that the people who did make wills had the same pattern of property ownership as those who did not.
-
Euromutt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Wed Jan-26-11 10:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. This is hardly news; it's a 15 year-old story warmed over
Edited on Wed Jan-26-11 10:36 AM by Euromutt
You don't have to agree with everything the article says to still conclude that the research the NCICP opted to fund was heavily skewed toward a predetermined conclusion that Guns Are Bad.
I choked on this in particular:
Quote
Consider a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine study that, according to press reports, "showed that keeping a gun in the home nearly triples the likelihood that someone in the household will be slain there."
You're absolutely right DUmbass. Someone like an intruder. :-)