Al Those Great Scientists Here

Since 2001, over 90,000 cyclist's have joined Cycling Forums to discuss topics from general cycling to equipment, training, racing and travel or vacation destinations (especially in europe during the tour de france). We also feature an great deals in our online store, 100's of articles, classifieds and product reviews.

bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> "Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of empirical certainty.
> It's a Homeric epithet.

ST will want to know if its Homeric by nature or nurture.

In article <482413c3$0$30086$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
Donald Munro <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote:

> bjw@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> > "Reality-based" in this context isn't an assertion of empirical certainty.
> > It's a Homeric epithet.
>
> ST will want to know if its Homeric by nature or nurture.

Answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
tanx,
Howard

Whatever happened to
Leon Trotsky?
He got an icepick
That made his ears burn.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article
<7e13efd1-e72a-4380-aec3-8b134b10924a@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 6:35 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <2ef51ac6-1cf4-4d7f-8b2e-f24dff3da...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > Read the link.
> >
> > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> I am not surprised.

I _am_ surprised.
Where do you disagree with what I said?

--
Michael Press

In article
<46051b7e-c173-443c-b7a6-b66fedf88bfc@u12g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 8, 6:36 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <52b60b1b-bff8-459f-a992-875ba1b1f...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Paul G." <carb...@egine.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On May 8, 12:58 pm, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 8, 12:01 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality-based_community
> >
> > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > > Read the link.
> >
> > > Ah, but reading the link would be `reality based'.
> >
> > I read it. Now what?

>
> I think a rational person would come to the opposite conclusion from
> yours. This is the ultimate in hubris: "We're an empire now, and when
> we act, we create our own reality." No one owns reality. There is no
> hubris involved in studying reality, or acknowledging it. Quite the
> opposite- denying reality because it doesn't give the answer you want
> is hubris. And futility.

Then you agree with me.

> Maybe you're coming from a religious angle. Doesn't matter whether you
> think the laws of physics were laid down by God or not. They are still
> immutable.

Gravity is a fact.
What are the immutable laws of physics?
At this point gravity, quantum physics,
electrodynamics, and nuclear forces
are not reconciled.

> You can believe it's because God decrees it, or not.
> Doesn't affect the outcome. The greenhouse effect is reality no matter
> what your faith or lack thereof.

So that is the problem.
I had a feeling that what I said was decoded according
to a code of which I was unaware.
Is it the case that reality based communities have
a firm stand on the greenhouse effect?

> You just plunged in my estimation. I've mentally penciled in
> "crackpot"

But we agree in part.

--
Michael Press

On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > > Read the link.
>
> > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> > I am not surprised.
>
> I _am_ surprised.
> Where do you disagree with what I said?

Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
surprise me.

Robert Chung wrote:
> On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>> Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
>>>>>> commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>>>>> Read the link.
>>>> I read it, and stand by what I said.
>>> I am not surprised.
>> I _am_ surprised.
>> Where do you disagree with what I said?
>
> Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> surprise me.

My compliments to your author.

Bob Schwartz

In article
<be89f6b0-43b5-4993-b3f4-5cc2484e2d67@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
Robert Chung <rechung@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > > > Read the link.
> >
> > > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
> >
> > > I am not surprised.
> >
> > I _am_ surprised.
> > Where do you disagree with what I said?
>
> Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> surprise me.

No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.

--
Michael Press

On May 9, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
> that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
> But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
> and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.

Surely this could not be the first time you have made an inaccurate
inference?

On Thu, 8 May 2008 22:50:13 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com>
wrote:

> Every seaport in the world is going
>to be under water. Many trillions of dollars of infrastructure,
>refineries, etc would have to be rebuilt.

One of the advantages of that is the new facilities are made from the
latest technology.

>What is going to happen is
>mass starvation, millions of refugees, and wars over resources. No
>one is going to be planting wheat and corn on "virgin tundra" soon
>enough to feed the existing population. There will be a massive die-
>off.

What nonsense. These changes take place gradually over decades at the
fastest. Humans will adjust if they have to. Evem if they don't
perhaps it's time to thin the herd and improve the gene pool.

On Thu, 8 May 2008 23:00:28 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com>
wrote:

>Heh heh... where to start... maybe you haven't noticed but many of
>the nuclear power plants are on the coasts.

A few are but most in the US are inland. And you can simply build new
ones to meet demand.

I'm not impressed by the chicken little's of the world.

On May 9, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <be89f6b0-43b5-4993-b3f4-5cc2484e2...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
>  Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > > > > Read the link.
>
> > > > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> > > > I am not surprised.
>
> > > I _am_ surprised.
> > > Where do you disagree with what I said?
>
> > Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> > surprise me.
>
> No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
> that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
> But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
> and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.

"We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip
out." -- Churchill

On May 9, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <be89f6b0-43b5-4993-b3f4-5cc2484e2...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
>
> > > > > > Read the link.
>
> > > > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
>
> > > > I am not surprised.
>
> > > I _am_ surprised.
> > > Where do you disagree with what I said?
>
> > Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> > surprise me.
>
> No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
> that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
> But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
> and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.

What inanity. There is no hubris involved in acknowledging reality.
Maybe you're suggesting that reality isn't reality. But, then, you are
not giving clues to what you think, and I only infer that you
disapprove of what we say.
-Paul

On Fri, 9 May 2008 22:51:33 -0700 (PDT), "Paul G." <carbide@egine.com>
wrote:

>> No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
>> that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
>> But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
>> and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.
>
>What inanity. There is no hubris involved in acknowledging reality.
>Maybe you're suggesting that reality isn't reality. But, then, you are
>not giving clues to what you think, and I only infer that you
>disapprove of what we say.
>-Paul

And the princess and the prince
Discuss what's real and what is not
It doesn't matter inside the Gates of Eden

Bob Dylan

"William Asher" <gcnp58@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A976A88BD82AFkldeltaC@130.133.1.4...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org> wrote in message
>> news:d1a87038-4d69-4314-bef5-48169780e97e@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com.
>> ..
>>>
>>> Most people agree there was
>>> a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
>>> means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.
>>
>> Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies
>> attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people
>> like you that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the
>> time.
>>
>> But it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
>> about something you know nothing about.
>>
>>
>
> Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate
> physicists in terms of their h-indeces:
>
> The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known,
> well-
> funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and
> compared
> that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would
> there
> be any significant difference? (Sidebar: the h-index is one measure
> of a
> scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact
> their
> publications have in terms of citations. There is a wikipedia entry
> on the
> h-index, googling h-index will turn it up. It is also discussed on
> the ISI
> website.) So, I took the staff of WorldClimateReport.com (Michaels,
> Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared
> their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann,
> Ammann,
> Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig,
> deGaridel-Thoron
> (maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)). One issue
> with
> this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.
> This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so
> I
> also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since
> Ph.D.
> (the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims
> for
> physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal
> scientific
> productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat
> lower
> for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)). Here are the
> results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):
>
> WorldClimateReport (Skeptics)
> Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since
> PhD)
> P.J.Michaels.............11........1979..............0.38
> R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
> P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992..............0.56
> R.E.Davies...............13........1979..............0.65
>
> Average...................13.........................0.56
>
>
> RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
> Name..............h-index.........PhD
> Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
> Schmidt............18.............1996..............1.5
> Mann...............29.............1998..............2.9
> Ammann.............17.............2002..............2.8
> Archer.............24.............1990..............1.3
> Benestad...........8..............1997..............0.73
> Bradley............31.............1974..............0.91
> Connolley..........14.............1996..............1.2
> deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
> Rahmstorf..........22.............1990..............1.2
> Steig..............24.............1995..............1.85
>
> Average............18...............................1.53
>
>
> So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific
> productivity.
> Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of
> three
> greater than the skeptics. This is why the skeptics are simply
> getting
> savaged scientifically. They just aren't good scientists, they're
> just
> media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.
>

Hmm, to generalize that logic; would it be appropriate to always side
with the so-called heavy hitters? Not to dispute the fact that the
majority of heavy hitters side with realclimate but ..............well,
explain your sampling technique again.

Phil H

On May 10, 2:24 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:

> would it be appropriate to always side
> with the so-called heavy hitters?

"The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong but
that's the way to bet" -- Benjamin Franklin

"Robert Chung" <rechung@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f1715ee5-1466-4078-bfc4-4dbdab55f097@z16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On May 10, 2:24 pm, "Phil Holman" <piholmanc@yourservice> wrote:
>
>> would it be appropriate to always side
>> with the so-called heavy hitters?
>
> "The race is not always to the swift nor the battle to the strong but
> that's the way to bet" -- Benjamin Franklin

Except we are not flipping a coin here. The outcome should be
conclusively determined within the field of experts.

Phil H

In article
<d7ddf1ee-1266-471e-83d2-9c1979cc12a9@n1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
"Paul G." <carbide@egine.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 1:59 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > In article
> > <be89f6b0-43b5-4993-b3f4-5cc2484e2...@b5g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
> > Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On May 9, 11:31 am, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > > Individuals or groups calling themselves `reality based'
> > > > > > > > commit hubris. The laws of irony are against them.
> >
> > > > > > > Read the link.
> >
> > > > > > I read it, and stand by what I said.
> >
> > > > > I am not surprised.
> >
> > > > I _am_ surprised.
> > > > Where do you disagree with what I said?
> >
> > > Hmmm. You're saying you're surprised that I'm not surprised? That does
> > > surprise me.
> >
> > No. I am surprised that you seem to disapprove of what I say:
> > that self-labeling with the tag `reality based' is hubris.
> > But, then, you are not giving clues to what you think,
> > and I only infer that you disapprove of what I say.
>
> What inanity. There is no hubris involved in acknowledging reality.
> Maybe you're suggesting that reality isn't reality. But, then, you are
> not giving clues to what you think, and I only infer that you
> disapprove of what we say.

I said exactly what I think.

--
Michael Press

On May 11, 10:40 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> If I were a skeptic and believed wholeheartedly everything these guys are
> saying, I would ask myself two things:  1).  Why is it that mostly
> marginal scientists are skeptics?

Only in the fantasy land of academics could there be such weird views/
ratings on "productivity" and "how R&D gets funded." You know, you
and those who believe as you do could possibly be right without all
that rubbish.

ac·a·dem·ic (?k´?-d?m??k) adjective
...
8. Having no practical purpose or use.

On May 11, 5:18 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:40 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If I were a skeptic and believed wholeheartedly everything these guys are
> > saying, I would ask myself two things:  1).  Why is it that mostly
> > marginal scientists are skeptics?
>
> Only in the fantasy land of academics could there be such weird views/
> ratings on "productivity" and "how R&D gets funded."  You know, you
> and those who believe as you do could possibly be right without all
> that rubbish.
>
> ac·a·dem·ic (?k´?-d?m??k) adjective
> ...
> 8.      Having no practical purpose or use.

and...

4. Scholarly to the point of being unaware of the outside world. See
synonyms at pedantic.

Excerpted from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Third Edition Copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

On May 11, 5:18 pm, SLAVE of THE STATE <gwh...@ti.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 10:40 am, William Asher <gcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If I were a skeptic and believed wholeheartedly everything these guys are
> > saying, I would ask myself two things: 1). Why is it that mostly
> > marginal scientists are skeptics?
>
> Only in the fantasy land of academics could there be such weird views/
> ratings on "productivity" and "how R&D gets funded." You know, you
> and those who believe as you do could possibly be right without all
> that rubbish.
>
> ac·a·dem·ic (?k´?-d?m??k) adjective
> ...
> 8. Having no practical purpose or use.

You mean like Darwin, Einstein, Terman, Schockley, Watson and Crick,
etc etc ?
No practical use?! BWAHAHAHAHA!
-Paul