I spent about a year working on the RJ Reynolds litigation, doing data massage. They had plenty of studies too. I dunno if they were peer-reviewed, but... point is, funding is one of several things you can look at when trying to determining credibility. Author's other papers. Peer review.
You asked about access to Current Biology -- I don't but if you wanted to move the discussion forward the link Sam posted goes to a free PDF. If you could determine whether the article directly addresses the Rees article, first of all, and if so what it says -- if not (if you can) see if you can get the gist of what he thinks is wrong with the methodology. Then we need to see if Rees made that error. If we can, and if we care enough to hassle about this. I am pretty sure we will wind up discovering that it's a journal article on another topic. That is usually the way these things go. But I suppose you never know..... On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Eric Roberts < ow...@threeravensconsulting.com> wrote: > > I think it does in some cases. If I see an environmental impact study that > says if we drill here everything is just rosy and I see that the study was > funded by the company that wants to do the drilling, I would look at that > study suspiciously. It might be legit and the company is on the up and > up...but experience tells me otherwise. He needs to shopw where he is > getting this info that the study was funded by Mr. Firth...in a concrete > manner....not just from some right wing blogger that I have never even > heard > of before. Even if it was from a right winger that I don't necessarily > trust, but have at least heard of...that would give his claim at least a > little credibility...but I am sure a study has to list it's funding source. > Does anyone have access to that Biology journal by any chance? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Maureen [mailto:mamamaur...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 10:45 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Fox News? Really can this be called a News channel? > > > I don't know. Since you are the only one saying the scientists who have > been > paid by big oil are irrelevant, why don't you explain it. > > Seems to me that you made "A" point that funding affects the validity of > research, and under that criteria your statement below would be accurate. > > However, that is certainly not my view. > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So why is every scientist that ever earned a dime from big oil > irrelevant? > > BTW, that wasn't THE point, it was A point. > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 10:59 PM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> If a study can be disregarded because of the funding source, then > >> every clinical trial that has been funded by a pharmaceutical company > >> will have to be tossed. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:347066 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
