Thanks for posting your reply to Randy's rant.  Randy is not the only one to
have raised eyebrows after seeing the reaction to Dr. Bromenshenk's publication.
I thin we all are a little surprised and unhappy about his results, but we do
expect the quality of the critiques of his work to be objective and of as high
quality as the work itself.

> To try to shut it down is akin to big oil trying to muzzle climate change scientists.

That unfortunate comment questions the credibility to the comments preceding it
and suggests (reveals?) a political agenda.

Many of us, including those of us who are concerned about human impacts on
the environment, are appalled at the methods employed by the Climate Change
establishment (they used to be Global Warming Establishment-- until the climate
failed to co-operate) ridiculing more serious questions from sober and rigorous
analysts?  We are always concerned when superficial arguments are raised then
championed as "proof".

At any rate, as you point out and we all know, the careful and honest examination
of novel claims is very important and central to science.

However, reading your comments, were you implying that all new work should be
able to be analyzed with the technology available to all and that no one should get
outside of the pack and too far from "current technology"?

One of the striking things about Dr.Bromenshenk's work was that by virtue of his
long-standing relationship with DARPA, he has access to technology and information
that is apparently not available to the general the scientific community.  Is that a
problem?

I have no idea if he is right or wrong in his conclusions, and if he is co-operating
sufficiently with those wishing to critique his results, but from what I have heard,
a number of fairly egregious errors have made in rushing critiques to press.

As I understand it, the original publication took years and met considerable
resistance from entrenched interests (the Oil Companies of Bee Science?).

Why is it that the critiques are so quickly published and appear to be less rigorous
than the study in question?

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm