Bt pesticide resistance
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them. Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating a dead horse. Let's have some -serious- criticism. Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" That's a pretty serious accusation. ---------- WHAT DO YOU BASE IT ON ???? ---------- |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them. Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating a dead horse. yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful Jim Webster |
Bt pesticide resistance
In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 14:23:53 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were withdrawn? A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ. The other organisation withdrew the application. Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn? No idea. You'll have to eyeball your regulator's documentation, I would think. That's right, where do they keep the records of withdrawn applications and what has caused the withdrawal? |
Bt pesticide resistance
In sci.agriculture Mooshie peas wrote:
On 28 Aug 2003 13:51:31 GMT, Brian Sandle posted: In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote: ======================================= Evidence in Rebuttal - Life Sciences Network 20 February 2001, 9:24 am Press Release: New Zealand Life Sciences Network Conclusion: In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information to the Royal Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not scientifically supportable. As they want others to be exact so they must be taken at their word. But they leave plenty of room for misunderstanding: Read the rest of it. I did. In conclusion, it is our opinion that Dr Ingham has presented inaccurate, careless and exaggerated information That could either mean that all the info is classifed that way, or rather that there has been some innacuracy, some lack of care. and futhermore the interesting admission by Life Sciences Network - exaggeration by Ingham's submission. So they are admitting some truth to it just exaggerated. Grasping at straws? There is a tiny bit of truth in everything, that's life. to the Royal Commission; incorrectly interpreting published scientific information and generating speculative doomsday scenarios that are not scientifically supportable. And the tone of that is that it is unlikely to kill off all the plant life on the planet, therefore go ahead with it. Nope. If some of it's wrong, then it must all be looked at sceptically. And that's what happens. Which is how to look at GM. But more than scepticism, rather fear. |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Jim Webster" wrote in message ... "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them. Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating a dead horse. yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful Jim, Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in the paper. Showing his work of course. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Brian Sandle" wrote in message ... In sci.med.nutrition Mooshie peas wrote: 21. It appears, however, that the research referenced by Dr Ingham has never been in front of the relevant authorities in the United States. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) database and the ISB database (Information Systems for Biotechnology) have no mention of any field trial application or granted approval relating to any Klebsiella planticola research. No specific citations of docket numbers or other proof of assertion have been offered by Dr Ingham. 22. Moreover, correspondence from Dr Janet Anderson (EPA, Environment Protection Agency), and Dr Sally McCammon, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) (emails attached) indicates no record of an approval for field trials of K. planticola as submitted by Dr Ingham (Witness Brief, Exec Summ, para 2). Do you have the database of withdrawn applications and why they were withdrawn? A while back I referred to a submission by Jack Heineman against approval of another organisation's application for GM work in NZ. The other organisation withdrew the application. Was Dr Ingham's work, connected with the EPA, the cause of a dangerous or dubious application being withdrawn? Ingram's work was a fabrication. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:02:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: Also at the time she testified before the Royal Commission claiming affiliation with OSU she was not employed by them. Come, we have dealt with that to nauseau, you're beating a dead horse. Let's have some -serious- criticism. Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" That's a pretty serious accusation. I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without listing them or specifying them number. In an experiment concocted after two articles that she claimed were published were not found in the literature an experiment concocted in the laboratory in different soils than the soils she reported in the phantom reports and then usd the very questionable practice of discarding data with out showing it walks like a duck and quack like a duck. Coupled with the fact the none of the departments that she claimed affiliation with at OSU said that they had been in contact with her in several years when she was let go. The only contact she had at OSU was a individual professor who allowed her to use his microscope for some work and did not publish with her. At one time I though you to be open to facts but I see like the rest of your ilk the central dogma is the only TRUTH that has any weight no matter if tomorrow all the organic promoter confessed to the fraudulent methods used to extort higher prices from the peopel of the EU and UK you would find some way to say it was for the greater good to hood wink people into accepting second and third calass food imported for who knows where and possibly organic and possibly made organic by the laying on of hands by some third world medicine man that can banish all unwanted products from the crop with the wave of his hand and charge you 3 prices for food worth half what good clean disease free GM food is with. How much more will it cost to use conventional methods to reconstruct the eastern block countries with second rate farming methods while the rest of the world operates as much lower costs running up you CAP and taxes even more. You will need that strong euro that is starting to slide. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful what a maroon Jim, Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in the paper. Showing his work of course. Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this cannot be called in question, only that it must be there a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted. So, lest you forget, you've made a serious allegation in relation to this paper, namely that: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" -------- WHAT DO YOU BASE THAT ON ???? ---------- |
Bt pesticide resistance
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:50:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . .. Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" That's a pretty serious accusation. I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without listing them or specifying them number. snip hurricane of handwaving Gordon, you said that "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded". This is a serious allegation against the authors of the paper. What basis do you have for making it? |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful what a maroon Jim, Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in the paper. Showing his work of course. Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this cannot be called in question, only that it must be there a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted. sort of backs up what I said doesn't it Jim Webster |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:50:07 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . .. Lest you forget, you made this claim about her paper: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" That's a pretty serious accusation. I am sure not alone in my claims about Ms.Ingham. I am only quoting the paper that says outliers were discarded without listing them or specifying them number. snip hurricane of handwaving Gordon, you said that "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded". This is a serious allegation against the authors of the paper. What basis do you have for making it? Every paper that I have been associated with or read in my field that discarded outliers either plotted the data and marked the discards or provided a place you could get the data and judge for yourself the relevance of discarded data. Since the data on this paper was plotted in the paper the marked discarded data must have been very inconvenient indeed. The bins the data were broken into had no marked grouping it was all one almost uniform spread of data that they found a confidence level of 99% form 90 trials in. The statisticians I gave the paper to laughed. One of them was an engineer and not aware of the food fight going on at the time. I did not tell them anything about the factors surrounding the paper I just questioned the high confide level from less than 100 trials. Every one mentioned the discarded data as well. Discarding outliers is not bad practice. Discarding them with out documentation is. If they don't tell what they discarded they could have thrown out anything. The green lobby standing behind this kind of science is the reason that serious scientist don't take you seriously. Concocted papers, misrepresented affiliations, faked studies do a great deal more harm to your cause than the temporary headlines they make. In the US it has put the Forestry back in the management of local managers, scientist in charge of EPA and the Kyoto Treaty flushed down the toilet over here. In the USGS and USDA we have well over 100 years sound movement scientific research. The Royal Academy of Science of London is the only thing that approaches it for longevity and they don't fund research near to the degree that the US does. It is much more difficult to sway US politicians and the public with sensational press. For one thing some of our positions have been in pubic service longer than some of the EU government have been in existence. We also have a many more checks and balances preventing public opinion from hastily changing things with out time to gather more data on the subject and prevent the tyranny of the few by the many. unfortunately we are loosing that faster and a faster. If you want to be taken seriously use good science. Not emotional appeals and faked studies. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:34:46 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: "Jim Webster" wrote in message ... yes Gordon, I'm afraid you are flogging a dead horse. The woman could be tried and convicted by every court in Denmark and Torsten will still never admit that she might have been less than 100% truthful what a maroon Jim, Torsten has the paper and I suppose as a chemist he can do statistics. He could try to duplicate the statistical conclusions of the paper form data in the paper. Showing his work of course. Gordon, that is a misunderstanding of what a paper is, of what you can expect to be able to do on the basis of the information given in it. A scientific paper is generally not supposed to put the reader in a position in relation to the raw data, such as to make it possible for him to duplicate the statistical analysis of it. One could say, a paper is meant to be read on the trust that the authors and peer reviewers of the paper have done a proper, sound job. This is not to say that the trust in this cannot be called in question, only that it must be there a priori and until it may be proved unwarranted. So, lest you forget, you've made a serious allegation in relation to this paper, namely that: "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded" All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics. Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates per treatment and sampling date. However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data points are missing. :-) Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there. |
Bt pesticide resistance
"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message ... On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics. Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates per treatment and sampling date. However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data points are missing. :-) Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there. There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded. If they are all there it is even worse as they don't show which data the paper is based on. Gordon |
Bt pesticide resistance
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 02:01:27 GMT, "Gordon Couger"
wrote: "Torsten Brinch" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:42:10 GMT, "Gordon Couger" wrote: All the data points used in the study except the discarded ones are in the paper. That should be enough to duplicate the statistics. Um. The plotted points you see in the graphics, and the numbers in tables are not raw values, they are means (n=3), three replicates per treatment and sampling date. However, apparently it is your hypothesis while looking at these data points, that they are not all there, that some data points have been discarded. But hey, that should be easily verifiable. Check, and you should find for some sampling dates in plots and tables, that data points are missing. :-) Unfortunately for your hypothesis, they are all there. There is no hypothesis the paper clearly states outliers are discarded. I am talking about your hypothesis that "data that didn't agree with the findings was discarded". God help you, if you have nothing else to base this on, than what is clearly stated in the paper, that outliers in raw data were removed from datasets before variance homogenity of data was evaluated in residual plots. Whatever you may think of removal of outliers at this particular stage in the statistical analysis, it obviously does not and cannot constitute the authors discarding of data that doesn't agree with the findings. There are no findings at this stage, just a mass of raw values, unfitted to any model, untested for any significant differences between them. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter