Comments on: NASW Panel: My Handout and Links http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/ Amy Gahran's news and musings on how we communicate in the online age. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:55:41 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Rebecca Skloot http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/#comment-39402 Rebecca Skloot Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:36:48 +0000 #comment-39402 Amy -- Wonderful talk at NASW yesterday, and fabulous site. I created a blog several months ago -- I've been wanting to figure out the mysterious world of XML, and how to spread the word about my blog, but it can be overwhelming. There's so much confusing information out there, it was a tremendous relief to hear your talk -- it was filled with exactly the clear and practical information I needed. So I thank you -- after studying your RSS feed guide, I now have a feed on my site, and I'm directing everyone to your blog so they can learn this stuff too. Amy — Wonderful talk at NASW yesterday, and fabulous site. I created a blog several months ago — I’ve been wanting to
figure out the mysterious world of XML, and how to spread the word about my blog, but it can be overwhelming.
There’s so much confusing information out there, it was a tremendous relief to hear your talk — it was
filled with exactly the clear and practical information I needed. So I thank you — after studying your RSS feed guide, I now
have a feed on my site, and I’m directing everyone to your blog so they can learn this stuff too.

]]> By: Merry Bruns http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/#comment-39139 Merry Bruns Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:22:44 +0000 #comment-39139 Hi, Amy! How fun-I was doing research tonight, checking your site, and there's my panel.I'm looking forward to hearing ALL your comments and good savvy sense tomorrow, so thanks for joining us. You won't find anyone there but good ol' science writers, who believe me, are just as anxious to get the science right as to make it interesting for the reader. Many are pretty tech-shy,but I know you'll be able to show them the benefits of communicating-REALLY communicating-with those readers, in a way they can't when writing for their editors. See you tomorrow! Merry Bruns ScienceSites Communications www.sciencesitescom.com Hi, Amy!

How fun-I was doing research tonight, checking your site, and there’s my panel.I’m looking forward to hearing ALL your comments and good savvy sense tomorrow, so thanks for joining us.

You won’t find anyone there but good ol’ science writers, who believe me, are just as anxious to get the science right as to make it interesting for the reader.

Many are pretty tech-shy,but I know you’ll be able to show them the benefits of communicating-REALLY communicating-with those readers, in a way they can’t when writing for their editors.

See you tomorrow!

Merry Bruns
ScienceSites Communications
http://www.sciencesitescom.com

]]> By: Amy Gahran http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/#comment-38795 Amy Gahran Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:58:15 +0000 #comment-38795 For more context on the concept of scientific consensus apart from any particular politicized controversy, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus - Amy Gahran Editor, Contentious For more context on the concept of scientific consensus apart from any particular politicized controversy, see Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

]]> By: Amy Gahran http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/#comment-38794 Amy Gahran Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:50:42 +0000 #comment-38794 Mike, I appreciate your comments, but I just want to make it clear that I wasn't trying to say anything at all with regard to climate change, and I hope this discussion doesn't get sidetracked into that. - Amy Gahran Editor, Contentious Mike, I appreciate your comments, but I just want to make it clear that I wasn’t trying to say anything at all with regard to climate change, and I hope this discussion doesn’t get sidetracked into that.

- Amy Gahran
Editor, Contentious

]]> By: Mike http://www.contentious.com/2005/10/20/nasw-panel-my-handout-and-links/#comment-38793 Mike Fri, 21 Oct 2005 05:40:04 +0000 #comment-38793 I think science would benefit from blogging. In particular, the data derived from tax funded research should be made available on the net for independent verification. That is how open source software is tested and debugged. The fraudulent use of cooked data to support the falsehood of man-made global warming would have been found out much earlier than 2003. By the way, 'consensus' is a cooked-up term to support politicized science. Science by consensus is not science. You can't fool nature or the laws of science because a large group thinks the same way - they may be wrong due to mindset or ideology. Think about the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo > The consensus was that Galileo was wrong. The sun rotated around the earth and that was it. However, one man, Galileo, was right. The satellite data does not support man-made global warming. The attempt by the United Nations and their supporters to suppress data that indicated the earth was warmer in the 1400s has been found out (see comparison chart here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html > I hold a Physics degree and worked as a radiation scientist at one time. I am not a climate scientist but I thoroughly understand the scientific method and the need for independent verification and rigorous standards of proof. It should be a severe embarrassment to the scientific community that individuals who are not even climate scientists can see through the erroneous computer algorithms and shoddy methods used by the global warming proponents. I think science would benefit from blogging. In particular, the data derived from tax funded research should be made available on the net for independent verification. That is how open source software is tested and debugged. The fraudulent use of cooked data to support the falsehood of man-made global warming would have been found out much earlier than 2003. By the way, ‘consensus’ is a cooked-up term to support politicized science. Science by consensus is not science. You can’t fool nature or the laws of science because a large group thinks the same way - they may be wrong due to mindset or ideology. Think about the Roman Catholic Church and Galileo < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo >
The consensus was that Galileo was wrong. The sun rotated around the earth and that was it. However, one man, Galileo, was right. The satellite data does not support man-made global warming. The attempt by the United Nations and their supporters to suppress data that indicated the earth was warmer in the 1400s has been found out (see comparison chart here: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html > I hold a Physics degree and worked as a radiation scientist at one time. I am not a climate scientist but I thoroughly understand the scientific method and the need for independent verification and rigorous standards of proof. It should be a severe embarrassment to the scientific community that individuals who are not even climate scientists can see through the erroneous computer algorithms and shoddy methods used by the global warming proponents.

]]>