James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal
proving that the journals are not genuinely peer
reviewed?
Edward K. Ream wrote:
No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that
the threat of global warming is
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:08 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal
proving that the journals are not genuinely peer
reviewed?
Edward K. Ream wrote:
No. I want an article appearing
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Edward K. Ream wrote:
Your language gives you away. There is nothing
fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past
climate data.
It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed
past climate data
On Oct 10, 7:39 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
I do not intend to waste any more time on this discussion. Continue it
without citing a peer-reviewed article and you will be banned immediately.
Here is a recent article:
Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling
Science
On Oct 10, 8:32 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
If you have some technical reason for believe this very recent article
is false or misleading in some way, then you have the right to raise
objections to the editors of Science. But unless you are technically
qualified to raise
James A. Donald
This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but
in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded,
we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science.
Kent Tenney wrote:
Do you think oil and coal companies have political power?
Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo
science appears all the time in Science and Nature
Edward K. Ream wrote:
If you want me to
Edward K. Ream wrote:
I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed
articles.
You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal
proving that the journals are not genuinely peer
reviewed?
You are, however, happy to rely on assertions by peer
reviewed journals that they are in fact
On Oct 8, 4:28 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch
Science is full of schools
which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting
contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather
accelerate than impede a
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM, derwisch
johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote:
Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of
hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science
must compensate for our human failings.
I don't think there's a
On Oct 9, 9:14 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal
proving that the journals are not genuinely peer
reviewed?
No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that
the threat of global warming is
Edward K. Ream wrote:
Your language gives you away. There is nothing
fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past
climate data.
It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed
past climate data when ones results depend entirely
on a group of ten trees, and to refrain for nine
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Genuine science is replicable. And replicable
does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine,
it means they explain what they did in such a
fashion that anyone else could do it also.
If they refuse to explain, they are not
On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the
conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact:
One of the
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Genuine science is replicable. And replicable
does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine,
it means they explain what they did in such a
fashion that
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch
johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote:
On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the most disheartening things about such debates is that many
people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no
Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of
hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science
must compensate for our human failings.
A great audio series which involves this theme is How To Think About Science,
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Matt Wilkie map...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of
hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science
must compensate for our human failings.
A great audio series which
Edward K. Ream wrote:
There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to
mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global
warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering
them.
This works in those fields where there is a lot of private
Edward K. Ream wrote:
My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs
of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own
views.
Your view is that Global Warming Science is science
Well then, you should go and look at the evidence that disconfirms that
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Edward K. Ream wrote:
There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to
mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global
warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by
On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Here is the tale of his correspondence with the journal Science
I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed articles. Your guy
is free to make as many wild accusations as he likes, as he is
responsible to no one.
Submit a
On Oct 6, 3:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Jesse Aldridge wrote:
The connection to global warming is that there are
situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because
people don't understand the situation, but because
circumstances compel them to take harmful
ne1uno wrote:
so what's your spin on the anti junk science view of
glaciers receding?
As Climate skeptic sarcastically observed: Somehow,
man’s burning of fossil fuels in the late 20th century
has caused glaciers to begin melting … starting in the
18th century.
glacier change is evidence
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
As the communists intended to annihilate the
bourgeoisie, and the Nazis intended to exterminate the
Jews, the greenies intend to destroy industrial
civilization and reduce the earth's population to
sustainable levels.
The current glacier melt is not about snowfall, it's about feedback
loops. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY about the
failure of past experience to deal with exponential changes.
Characterizing those who want to mitigate climate change as interested
primarily in population
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Jesse Aldridge wrote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam.
Not a supportable proposition. Try reading a year's worth of Science
Magazine (as I do) or Nature. You will not find anything at all to
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:19 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Kent Tenney wrote:
The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of
100's of climate scientists from many countries over
several decades over an economist who says what people
want to hear.
Genuine
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the
conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact:
One of the most disheartening things about such debates is that many
people fail
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
For example, we are on the brink of learning in detail, exactly how life
arose. The work of Gerald F. Joyce is particularly exciting:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf
BTW, one of my hobbies is reading interesting judicial cases. I was
surprised at first by how easy they are to read.
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.comwrote:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf
BTW, one of my hobbies is reading
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
What we see in all these works is the dishonesty, pure and simple, of the
opponents of evolution. In particular, the judge in the Kitzmiller case
accused some of the witnesses for the defense (intelligent design) of
On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
In contrast, the deniers have obvious personal agendas that underlies their
doubt. In the case of evolution, the religious (rightly!) feel threatened
by the mountain of evidence that we were created by a simple process acting
over
On Oct 7, 9:37 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for evidence.
My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs
of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own
views. See, for
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 7, 9:37 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for
evidence.
My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs
of
Edward K. Ream wrote:
Ops. Got the wrong pdf. Here is the full text of the decision.
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf
Thanks. Skimming the first 50 pp. was a really good read!
The backflips described in getting ID promoted in classes
such as saying a
On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote:
I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical
problem. Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of
production (in the short term). That means countries that don't cut
emissions will have an
On Oct 6, 4:18 pm, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote:
At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can
tell you I would not have invested :-)
I would have invested. I would have felt it was the morally
imperative thing to do. And I would have gotten
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam.
Or not. Here is a quote from the 25 September 2009 issue of Science
Magazine.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5948/index.dtl#twis
Steven Chu is the U.S. Secretary
On Oct 7, 2:48 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam.
Here is another view:
http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf
From the abstract:
QQQ
The
On Oct 7, 3:06 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam.
Here is another view:
http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf
Here is the entire abstract:
QQQ
The severity of damaging human-induced climate change
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be
exposed, see
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/...
one of many such discoveries of junk science.'
Your language gives you
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be
exposed, see
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/..
On Oct 7, 8:56 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
This whole affair has the ring of a bad joke. So in the spirit of the
jokester, here are two links:
Glen Beck tries to kill parody web
site:http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/beck_tries_to_kill_parody_...
and the
On Oct 7, 9:04 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
And another. We're on his case like white on rice:
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9gccy/did_glenn_beck_murder...
And another. Glenn Beck the scientist
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909020033
EKR
Yes. I love this problem. I refused to believe the explanation the
first time I heard it. I ended up writing a script to prove it's
validity to myself:
import random
def monty_hall():
doors = ['car', 'goat', 'goat']
random.shuffle(doors)
# Assume we guess the first door
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote:
For me the key insight of the Monty Hall problem is that humans, due
to having limited working memory, collapse a sequence of events down
to just the current state. Our brains are wired to disregard the
initial
I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical
problem. Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of
production (in the short term). That means countries that don't cut
emissions will have an economic advantage over countries that do cut
emissions. In Game Theory,
To be fair, this is what they teach about statistic problems in high
school. You should not think of what happened before, and only
consider the situation *right now*.
Ah, yes, that's a good point.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you
On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote:
Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrnFGP4zks
It had quite an effect on me the first time I watched it.
At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can
tell you I would not have invested
On Oct 5, 4:55 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
And in contrast, the worst article ever published in Scientific
American:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil
Just ran across this site:http://www.badscience.net/
If I were a conspiracy buff, I would
Jesse Aldridge wrote:
The connection to global warming is that there are
situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because
people don't understand the situation, but because
circumstances compel them to take harmful (though
logically sound) actions. For example, China and
India
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote:
Jesse Aldridge wrote:
The connection to global warming is that there are
situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because
people don't understand the situation, but because
circumstances compel them to
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at this:
http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967
This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The
conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of
winning from 1/3 to 2/3,
On Oct 5, 4:34 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The
conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of
winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2.
And in contrast, the worst article ever published in
I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get
it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem.
On Oct 5, 11:49 am, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote:
I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it.
(Unless the game has a rule where
I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it.
If you don't switch, the only way you can *win* is if the car is
behind your door. If you switch, the only way you can *lose* is if
the car is behind your door. There is a 1/3 probability that the car
is behind any particular door, so
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, derwisch
johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote:
I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get
it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem.
Hah! I was writing an explanation of why I think this is a prank, and
On Oct 5, 4:34 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
Take a look at this:http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967
This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The
conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of
winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2.
By
On Oct 5, 4:55 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote:
This article has no basis in either science, mathematics or
economics. At root, it is enumerate and unscientific.
I should have said, innumerate.
Edward
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
61 matches
Mail list logo
