Hi Mark,   
      
   On Fri 2011-Dec-30 20:54, Mark Hofmann (1:261/1304) wrote to Richard Webb:   
      
   RW> A lot of it you sure can.  But often governments are the   
   RW> only ones with the big bucks to put up too.   
      
   MH> True, but they should be using outside companies to perform the   
   MH> research.  Take the "GREEN" money out of the picture and it wouldn't   
   MH> be discussed.    
      
   Maybe  but then, I've seen the opposite being the case too.   
   The independent for profit folks want to keep a study going   
   because that's more dough rolling in.  One of those damned   
   if ya do damned if ya don't type of things.  Either way, the key to me is peer   
   review.  if peers in the field say you're   
   doing the research properly then that's a good sign you are. If you can't get   
   peers in the field to endorse the work done then get another company or   
   organization to do it.   
      
   That "peer review" is why, even if the client and I have   
   listened to the product on all sorts of speakers in all   
   sorts of environments I still strongly suggest that it go to mastering before   
   they send it off to the replicators.  That   
   mastering engineer in the mastering lab is that final step   
   of "peer review" that maybe can ameliorate problems created   
   by deficiencies in my monitoring environment, or if he can't do minor fixes   
   send it back to me and say "do over."    Good reserach passes muster when   
   subjected to peer review.   
   Improperly done research doesn't.   
      
   RW> Yep, sure would be.  I note same on the net.  We get a lot   
   RW> more cruisers wanting to check in with us and file position   
   RW> reports that don't normally when there's a tropical cyclone   
   RW> happening.  ONe guy I know who works an offshore oil   
   RW> services barge is pretty diligent about filing his positions with us, and   
   RW> likes to check in with me on the net, because   
   RW> I'll cover the north Atlantic between our east coast and   
   RW> Greenland, etc. a lot more thoroughly than some guys will.   
      
   MH> If I was getting paid for how many people accessed my website (and   
   MH> unscupulous), I would want to generate all types of violent weather   
   MH> to generate more activity/money.   
      
   YEah, but you and I don't have that choice, and soon enough   
   if you presented bogus information just to generate revenue   
   you'd be caught out.  "boy who cried wolf" etc.   
      
   But then, this gets back to the debate on climate change,   
   I'm not sure which side I trust least.  I'm not sure I trust the petroleum   
   industry all that much, nor the Federal   
   government.  Hence what reading I've done on the subject I'm careful to look   
   at what the  authors' peers say about it.   
      
   Again, one of your favorite presidents said it best.   
      
   "Trust but verify."   
      
   Regards,   
              Richard   
   ---   
    * Origin:  (1:116/901)