Today's Forum Topics
Set as homepage
|
View
New Forum Topics Today's Forum Topics Set as homepage |
 |
|
|||||||
| |
||||
Welcome to CyclingForums.com You are currently viewing our website as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions. You will have to register before you can post to this thread. By joining our free online community you will have access to post new topics, communicate privately with other cyclingforums.com members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos and access other special features like product reviews and classifieds. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
10-05.-2008, 06:44 AM
|
#106 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
10-05.-2008, 06:59 AM
|
#107 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
10-05.-2008, 07:23 AM
|
#108 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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? |
|
|
|
10-05.-2008, 09:41 AM
|
#109 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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. |
|
|
|
10-05.-2008, 09:48 AM
|
#110 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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. |
|
|
|
10-05.-2008, 10:43 AM
|
#111 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
10-05.-2008, 03:51 PM
|
#112 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 03:13 AM
|
#113 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 07:24 AM
|
#114 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
"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 |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 08:38 AM
|
#115 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 10:54 AM
|
#116 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
"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 |
|
|
|
11-05.-2008, 05:09 PM
|
#117 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 10:18 AM
|
#118 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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. |
|
|
|
12-05.-2008, 10:20 AM
|
#119 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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. |
|
|
|
13-05.-2008, 04:40 AM
|
#120 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: Al Those Great Scientists Here
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 |
|
|
Linear Mode
