Difference between revisions of "Talk:Expert Error"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(climategate?) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST) | Or the resistance of [[climate change]] theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the [[hockey stick graph]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
:I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST) | :I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. [[User:TrondE|TrondE]] 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | ::I agree with TrondE that ClimateGate definitely belongs under deceit, not this page. But I'm definitely voting to include Ed's suggestions, I think they're great examples! [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 17:31, 24 December 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 22:31, December 24, 2009
Should we mention the rejection of Semmelweiss and his notion that an "invisible substance" carried on doctor's hands was causing childbed fever?
Or the resistance of climate change theorists to acknowledge the flaws in the hockey stick graph? --Ed Poor Talk 15:36, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- I think the whole climategate scandal has exposed all the climate 'experts', but the question is whether this was down to error or deceit. TrondE 17:19, 24 December 2009 (EST)
- I agree with TrondE that ClimateGate definitely belongs under deceit, not this page. But I'm definitely voting to include Ed's suggestions, I think they're great examples! JacobB 17:31, 24 December 2009 (EST)