"Dave Cornwell" wrote in message
...
Whilst discussing the lovely weather at the golf course this morning
somebody said they heard on the radio that it was going to be a bitterly
cold winter with lots of snow. They said they heard it on the radio but
didn't know the source. Doesn't appear to be Corbyn generated as far as I
can see. Told them there was no way anyone could predict that to which
they muttered something about the Gulf Stream ;-(
Perhaps someone is relating to the prevalence of Scandinavian Highs. One
swallow doesn't make a winter.

Dave

What a coinicidence - the following extract of an article in today's Times
by Mark Henderson concerning HIV reminded me so much of the weather scares
that appear in the Express from time to time:

"Peer review, by which new research papers are independently refereed before
they are accepted by journals, is often thought to be the main bulwark
against scientific error. Yet while this is important, what matters more is
publication itself.
By placing the methods and results of their studies in the public domain,
scientists expose their work to the criticism of the entire research
community. Others can examine their data, and repeat their experiments.

Scientists positively invite such scrutiny, so that mistakes or
misinterpretations will eventually come to light: they do not want to be
wrong. Contrast this with the approach taken by Dr Rath, and many others
whose bold claims are poorly backed by evidence. Their response to criticism
is often not to correct mistakes and rethink bad ideas, but to get
litigious. Far from encouraging others to evaluate their work, they seek to
silence those who do not agree with them.

Dr Rath is not the only exponent of this strategy. Goldacre recounts
numerous occasions on which analyses of dubious medical claims have been met
with legal threats from other nutritionists and alternative medical
therapists.

This is the very opposite of what science should be about. Scientists who
follow the proper methods face intense criticism all the time, yet they
hardly ever respond by issuing writs. They listen, they look again, and
where necessary, they revise their conclusions. The laboratory is no place
for libel lawyers, and there is good reason to be sceptical of those who
invite them in."

Roger