Proof that climate "scientists" have been colluding to dupe the public
Tommy Grand
Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between
some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13
years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.
The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from
servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a
world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and
anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they
provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists
colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that
climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of
mankind.
The veracity of the emails has not been confirmed and the scientists
involved have declined to comment on the story, which broke on a blog
called The Air Vent.
The files, which in total amount to 160MbB of data, were first
uploaded on to a Russian server, before being widely mirrored across
the internet. The emails were accompanied by the anonymous statement:
"We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too
important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection
of correspondence, code and documents. Hopefully it will give some
insight into the science and the people behind it."
A spokesperson for the University of East Anglia said: "We are aware
that information from a server used for research information in one
area of the university has been made available on public websites.
Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm
that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained
and published without our permission and we took immediate action to
remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a
thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this
inquiry."
In one email, dated November 1999, one scientist wrote: "I've just
completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the
real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981
onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."
This sentence, in particular, has been leapt upon by sceptics as
evidence of manipulating data, but the credibility of the email has
not been verified. The scientists who allegedly sent it declined to
comment on the email.
"It does look incriminating on the surface, but there are lots of
single sentences that taken out of context can appear incriminating,"
said Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London
School of Economics. "You can't tell what they are talking about.
Scientists say 'trick' not just to mean deception. They mean it as a
clever way of doing something - a short cut can be a trick."
In another alleged email, one of the scientists apparently refers to
the death of a prominent climate change sceptic by saying "in an odd
way this is cheering news".
Ward said that if the emails are correct, they "might highlight
behaviour that those individuals might not like to have made public."
But he added, "Let's separate out [the climate scientists] reacting
badly to the personal attacks [from sceptics] to the idea that their
work has been carried out in an inappropriate way."
The revelations did not alter the huge body of evidence from a variety
of scientific fields that supports the conclusion that modern climate
change is caused largely by human activity, Ward said. The emails
refer largely to work on so-called paleoclimate data - reconstructing
past climate scenarios using data such as ice cores and tree rings.
"Climate change is based on several lines of evidence, not just
paleoclimate data," he said. "At the heart of this is basic physics."
Ward pointed out that the individuals named in the alleged emails had
numerous publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. "It would
be very surprising if after all this time, suddenly they were found
out doing something as wrong as that."
Professor Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's
Earth System Science Centre and a regular contributor to the popular
climate science blog Real Climate, features in many of the email
exchanges. He said: "I'm not going to comment on the content of
illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft
and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on
public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm
hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down
and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."
When the Guardian asked Prof Phil Jones at UEA, who features in the
correspondence, to verify whether the emails were genuine, he refused
to comment.
The alleged emails illustrate the persistent pressure some
climatologists have been under from sceptics in recent years. There
have been repeated calls, including Freedom of Information requests,
for the Climate Research Unit to make public a confidential dataset of
land and sea temperature recordings that is "value added" by the unit
before being used by the Met Office. The emails show the frustration
some climatologists have had at having to operate under such intense,
often politically motivated, scrutiny.
Prof Bob Watson, the chief scientific advisor at the Department for
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, "Evidence for climate
change is irrefutable. The world's leading scientists overwhelmingly
agree what we're experiencing is not down to natural variation."
"With this overwhelming scientific body of evidence failing to take
action to tackle climate change would be the wrong thing to do – the
impacts here in Britain and across the world will worsen and the
economic consequences will be catastrophic."
A spokesman for Greenpeace said: "If you looked through any
organisation's emails from the last 10 years you'd find something that
would raise a few eyebrows. Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the
Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the
world's leading atmospheric scientists are not the agents of a
clandestine global movement against the truth. This stuff might drive
some web traffic, but so does David Icke."
doug
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
I read this and was going to post it but then figured it wouldn't do
any good. The belivers will never change their mind and this
inconvenient truth will be explained away by them.
edspyhill01
What do you think is causing the ocean levels to rise and coastal
communities to be slowly swamped.
Richard Yates
>> On Nov 21, 8:10 am, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
>>
>> I read this and was going to post it but then figured it wouldn't do
>> any good. The belivers will never change their mind and this
>> inconvenient truth will be explained away by them.
Unfortunately for your spin on this, there is, so far, no clear "truth" in
that material - only snippets of unknown provenance, ambiguous meaning, and
absent context. As usual, these are the perfect criteria for truth in your
universe.
It is entirely possible that horrendous, scandalous facts will emerge, but
they have not yet. Let us know when you have some real evidence.
Tommy Grand
Lol Richard, Nixon went down over less evidence and I'm sure you were
cheering.
Richard Yates
You betcha. But impeachment is a political process with poorly defined
standards of evidence. Climate change is a scientific matter with clearer
standards of evidence.
Your failure to distinguish the two accounts for your beliefs about
scientific matters.
Tommy Grand
> You betcha. But impeachment is a political process with poorly defined
> standards of evidence.
Hum, kinda like "peer review".
doug
Just what I thought would happen, don't let the truth get in the way
with your political agenda eddie boy.
Did you know that at one time the entire earth was covered under miles
of Ice, it was called snowball earth, and you know that happened
without any people around to cause it, also at one time the earth was
much hotter than it is now, also no people around to cause that. Now
why was that eddie boy, maybe a natural cycle of hot and cold
periods. 20000 years ago the entire northern part of the US was
covered in a mile of ice, did the cooking fires of the cave men cause
that. I would guess that had there been people around like agore then
humanity would have been blamed when they started to melt.
Like many crack pots agore has gotten rich spreading his doom and
gloom predictions. Lots of money to be made off the global warming
theory.
edspyhill01
Don't get defensive right out of the chute. I asked a simple question
without any implied bias, doogie. I think the majority of anti-global
warming have not read a compound sentence since taking a driver's
test. Quick, without googling the question, what sea was a dry valley
until the last ice age melt off? Oh crap, you HAD to google it.
edspyhill01
Everybody is making money from Global Warming. Like the right isn't
making money off of Global Warming. How many republican/conservative
business people would turn down income from Global Warming? I'd say
zero. How much fund raising has the right done on Global Warming?
Maybe a buck, tree fiddy?
Brad Anders
What's your understanding of the peer review process of publishing to
a typical scientific journal? Can you give specifics as to which
standards in the process are poorly defined?
thanks,
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
Brad, Clinger knows more about this than I do, but first of all, the
journal won't even talk to you unless you know the right people. Just
ask any of the thousands of people with counterexamples to Fermat's
last theorem. Secondly, they don't check your work as closely if you
have "safe" conclusions.
Richard Yates
> Did you know that at one time the entire earth was covered under miles
> of Ice, it was called snowball earth, and you know that happened
> without any people around to cause it, also at one time the earth was
> much hotter than it is now, also no people around to cause that.
Yes, that's true. You believe that. And you do not believe that people are
contributing to global warming.
You believe one but not the other. Both are the result of the same kind of
scientific investigations by the same scientists.
What is the qualitative difference between the scientific evidence for
those facts and the scientific evidence for mankind-influenced global
warming?
Richard Yates
Wow! You better Google that one again.
Tommy Grand
> Just
> > ask any of the thousands of people with counterexamples to Fermat's
> > last theorem.
>
> Wow! You better Google that one again.
One of many: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.logic/browse_thread/thread/881602e155beb3ea/bf88684299f110b1?lnk=raot
Try to find a single reference to that on math sci net.
dsi1
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails
It's proof, internet style, baby! Did you even bother to read this
article? I'm disappointed in you. BTW, the last paragraph pretty much
sums up your "proof."
Tommy Grand
> Tommy Grand wrote:
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
>
> It's proof, internet style, baby! Did you even bother to read this
> article? I'm disappointed in you. BTW, the last paragraph pretty much
> sums up your "proof."
Oh you mean the part where the Greenpeace spokesman says not to worry,
global warming really does exist? Yea I got there, shocking stuff.
Tashi
Tommy these guys see only in black and white. I say where there is
smoke there is fire.
Tashi
To prove Tommy's point Brad, just ask Clinger what his "H" number is.
edspyhill01
No, the SECOND half of the last paragraph.
"Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US
National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric
scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against
the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David
Icke.""
Are you one of the guys at Fox News who keeps using the wrong crowd
clips?
dsi1
No, you didn't get there - he didn't say anything about global warming -
you big goofball! You're so messed up that you no longer are able to see
things as they are.
Tommy Grand
> "Contrary to what the sceptics claim, the Royal Society, the US
> National Academy of Sciences, Nasa and the world's leading atmospheric
> scientists are not the agents of a clandestine global movement against
> the truth. This stuff might drive some web traffic, but so does David
> Icke.""
So if I question Greenpeace's imprimatur, I'm a right wing kook? Ed
you douche I voted for Obama...
Richard Yates
This is fabulous. it seems that there is this whole cult of people claiming
to generate counterexamples to FLT based on procedures for constructing the
numbers without actually specifying them. They apparently work with only
the fronts and backs of the numbers. Perhaps the most hilarious is this
one:
http://bitshifters.com/scott/leftins/fermat.html
The number "s" that he constructs is unspecified but is larger than
58470473184453160041581408885453706924422217051543!
The last line of the "proof" is this: "No matter how many digits you want
of this integer, let's call it s, you can see that the cube of its
right-most digits will always give you 7. So 1^3 + s^3 = 2^3."
So, with apparently a straight face, he says that this immense number cubed
and added to 1 cubed is equal to 2 cubed. He takes this result as a
counterexample to FLT rather than inferring that there is something
seriously wrong with his proof.
Actually, if the last line of his proof is true, then all of number theory,
even all of mathematics, is disproven. I guess he is just too modest to say
that his proof is that powerful.
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hope you don't get called for jury duty any time soon.
Brad Anders
Thin White Duke
crutch for neopagan emptiness.
Tashi
Me too!
dsi1
> On Nov 21, 3:37 pm, Tommy Grand <howardj...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 21, 3:25 pm, dsi1 <d...@humuhumunukunukuapuapa.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Tommy Grand wrote:
>>>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-ha...
>>> It's proof, internet style, baby! Did you even bother to read this
>>> article? I'm disappointed in you. BTW, the last paragraph pretty much
>>> sums up your "proof."
>> Oh you mean the part where the Greenpeace spokesman says not to worry,
>> global warming really does exist? Yea I got there, shocking stuff.
>
> No, the SECOND half of the last paragraph.
Well, the first part says that some unnamed Greenpeace guy said that
it's likely that you're gonna get some weird shit in any organization's
emails given enough time, the second part said that he didn't think that
scientists have been colluding to dupe the public. His third point was
that it's just standard internet shit.
Brad Anders
Tommy, I've published in a number of major engineering and scientific
journals and refereed on papers for mostly internal (corporate)
journals. Most papers go through an initial screening process to make
sure they meet minimum standards and publication requirements, and
that they're in the correct topic and subject domain for the journal.
Review is generally an anonymous process for both the authors and the
reviewers. Papers may go back and forth a number of times as part of
the process, and plenty of papers are rejected out-of-hand for a
variety of reasons - the work has been done before, the author didn't
make their case, data is missing, etc.
Plenty of highly controversial papers have made it through this
process. If papers on a particular topic NEVER make it through, there
are a number of possible explanations. One is that all of the
screeners and all of the reviewers are in cahoots to prevent papers on
that topic from being published. This seems highly unlikely as there
are generally many journals in any one domain, and just like any
publication, they want readers and are actually looking for the most
"out there" work. Of course, they also have a reputation to uphold, so
they have to be careful to make sure any "fringe" topic has good solid
data and methods to back it up. Another explanation might be that the
topic is completely "outside" of any reputable journal being
published. A quick look at the tens of thousands of scientific and
engineering journals being published also makes that explanation
unlikely, and there are some extremely general open scientific
journals and proceedings that will take nearly everything.
Then, perhaps, there is another explanation. When the supporting
facts, data, and conclusions on a topic are consistantly shown to be
lacking in quantity, quality, rigor, or other required criteria, there
isn't anything that makes the grade. Another factor may be that people
simply don't submit them for publication because they know in advance
that they aren't good enough to make it; In those cases, you end up
publishing in places that don't have such high standards, such as the
Internet, and open-ended topical magazines.
Brad Anders
edspyhill01
Reread the paragraph.
Richard Jernigan
> On Nov 21, 3:11 pm, "Richard Yates" <rich...@yatesguitar.com> wrote:
>
> > Just
> > > ask any of the thousands of people with counterexamples to Fermat's
> > > last theorem.
>
> > Wow! You better Google that one again.
>
>
> Try to find a single reference to that on math sci net.
One reason for not finding this in any serious math site or journal is
that any alert fifth grader, aware of the Pythagorean proof that the
square root of two is irrational, could point out that the cube root
of .009 is likewise irrational.
Specifically, there are no two integers p and q such that p/q cubed
equals .009. The "counterexample" assumes that the decimal
representation of the cube root of .009 terminates. It can't, since
the cube root is irrational.
So Tommy, I conclude you are either a hell of a lot dumber than I
thought, or more likely, just trolling.
RNJ
Tashi
That's makes your posts "standard internet shit" too, huh Dave.
Tommy Grand
Rich, exactly one of us read the "proof". Now tell me whose the dumb
one here.
Richard Jernigan
So you admit you were just trolling?
RNJ
Tommy Grand
> So you admit you were just trolling?
Richard you've put me into a bind, sort of a check mate. Either I
admit trolling or I admit to being stupid. Instead of continuing
this, why don't we meet on common ground. Tell me how you liked the
Hilliard Ensemble/saxophone CD. I think this is a good time of year
to listen to it.
dsi1
That's for you guys to decide, not me. I certainly know shit when I see
it. I heard you went to see that 2012 movie. What are you, like 12 years
old? :-)
As far as Mr. Grand goes, he can't even understand a single short
paragraph. It it true he runs a bank? I'm sad - real sad, not Tommy
Grand fake sad.
:-( See?
Thin White Duke
Richard Jernigan
Well, you've accused me of being the stupid one, so you seem already
to have chosen the "trolling" branch of the dilemma.
I liked the sample of the CD well enough to buy it, but I haven't
listened to the whole thing yet. I doubt that I will listen to it any
time soon. Today I am disassembling my stereo rig. The packers come
Tuesday (your day Monday), and I won't have the stuff back together
before February when I begin to get unpacked in Austin. Maybe I'll
take the CD with me to listen to on my computer and headphones during
our upcoming trip to India.
RNJ
Thin White Duke
Environmentalism):
Augustine
> The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and
> Environmentalism):
>
Hey, great suggestion, Thin White Duke. I just bought it. Thanks!
Richard Jernigan
Hey! Trolling and sock puppetry in the same thread! More evidence that
for a significant number of Americans adolescence lasts at least until
age 40.
RNJ
Tommy Grand
> Hey! Trolling and sock puppetry in the same thread! More evidence that
> for a significant number of Americans adolescence lasts at least until
> age 40.
Richard, regale us with another one of your adventure stories. You
know, the ones which demonstrate how wise you are.
Tashi
I like the story Richard related about the guys in Mexico lusting
after his young beautiful wife.
Tommy Grand
> I like the story Richard related about the guys in Mexico lusting
> after his young beautiful wife.
I bet his wife likes that story too!
Pedro Abreu
That's right!
Brad Anders
counter-example:
Short excerpt:
------
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania
State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of
academics that question the link between human activities and global
warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which
represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,"
Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we
have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic
journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they
disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this
journal," Mann writes.
"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more
to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,"
Jones replies.
Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute
who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics
repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed
papers.
"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal
editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this
group, we won't send you any papers.' "
------
Looks ugly to me. Why would I continue to support peer review as the
best process we have for judging work to be scientifically valid?
Proper peer review is exactly what these two want to get rid of. Why?
Because that process is enabling papers that go against their views to
be published. Their strategy is to either subvert the process, or to
pressure the journal editor (who has the final say) to not publish
papers that had made it through the journal's peer review process.
Giving the editor veto power is a weakness in this system, one that
comes mainly from the desire to have a single person to bear the
responsibility when an article that gets published comes under fire.
This veto power should be eliminated or reduced, but given external
pressures, it's unlikely to change.
Another quote:
-----
Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-
mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in
before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort
of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in
public," he said.
Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive
Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is
human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very
big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS
research," he added.
-----
What's ironic here is that I have little doubt that similar emails or
correspondence has happened among AIDS researchers, and nearly every
other hot area of research. One of my friends ran a team that did a
major experiment at CERN which resulted in a very significant
publication. They were in competition with another experiment that was
racing to produce the same result. He told me there was plenty of
behind-the-scenes action that went on prior to publication, not
dissimilar to the case reported on here. People are people, any
process that pits scientists against each other will be probed for
weaknesses and exploited where they are found.
But that's the power of peer review: it's a defined process. One that
continues to evolve, and when compared to NO PROCESS, it's still a
hell of a lot better. It takes the people who are best qualified to
judge new information, gives them anonymity so they can act
autonomously, and offers a feedback path so that authors and reviewers
can resolve issues and conflicts. The alternative system, the "court
of public opinion" lacks any kind of formal review and critique of the
data and conclusions by those bound to standards by which to judge
them.
Brad Anders
Augustine
> the global consensus view on climate science.
Does hard science depend on consensus?
Richard Yates
[snip]
Any relation the the David Dukes?
Richard Yates
No, it depends on evidence. But with most people's inability to have
convenient access to all the evidence, and the time and training necessary
to properly evaluate it, we (folks like you and me) must rely, in part, on
the opinions of others who do have the evidence, time and training. When
there is disagreement among experts (and there is always some), then the
consensus of opinion of experts is sometimes our only reasonable basis for
forming our own opinions. When the conensus is near unanimity, across
countries, institutions and disciplines, then it should take extraordinary
circumstances not to rely on the consensus. Unfortunately, for too many
people, "extraordinary circumstances" means only that they can imagine a
conspiracy that produced the consensus or that they think the truth of the
consensus would cost them money or comfort.
William D Clinger
> Does hard science depend on consensus?
No, but consensus is a natural outcome when honest
and knowledgeable people are motivated to study
replicable facts over an extended period of time.
That's why consensus emerges in hard sciences much
more often than in rmcg.
Will
Tashi
If you are referring to the events of 911, the answer is yes.
Augustine
Good point on the crucial need for the consensus of opinion of experts
in science. Until I learned of the consensus of opinion of experts
regarding gravity, for example, my opinions about its effects on my
life were pretty hazy. I remember well how, before I learned of the
consensus of opinion of experts, I thought I could just jump over
houses, wave my arms and fly, and so forth. But then I learned of the
consensus of opinion of experts, and everything started to make sense.
Wonderful!
Benoit Meulle-Stef
Have you ever consider having you head examine?
You are a true nut case! Sure ALL the scientist of the world have an
agenda: Global warming hoax and evolution hoax... Get a life and get
real. Maybe you should consider reading a REAL book from time to time
and not just the white power republican journal...
Benoit
Slogoin
>
> Good point on the crucial need for the consensus of opinion of experts in science.
I bet you also have fun knowing the sun, moon and stars go around
the earth, right?
Tashi
That of course, depends on your perspective.
Slogoin
>
> That's why consensus emerges in hard sciences much
> more often than in rmcg.
No, no, no... you got it all wrong. RMCG is nothing but consensus
when it comes to agreeing that there is NEVER any consensus on any
topic.
dsi1
Ironic statement. CG and RMCG ain't anything if not about consensus.
Most of the on-topic posts have to deal with how one is supposed to
play, sit, practice, groom, make faces, etc., in the proper manner.
>
> Will
Slogoin
>
> > I bet you also have fun knowing the sun, moon and stars go around the earth, right?
>
> That of course, depends on your perspective.
Yeah, and when you look at it that way gravity just sucks.
Tashi
Translation; Scientists in order to keep their jobs, must not rock the
boat.
I think Mr. Clinger hasn't a clue how science really works, I know
many scientists out here in NM, it's a racket to say the least. The
bogus info. they put out in order to get funding is staggering!
Slogoin
> I think Mr. Clinger hasn't a clue how science really works
LOL! That's a keeper.
Richard Yates
> of experts. Until I learned of the consensus of opinion of experts
> regarding gravity, for example, my opinions about its effects on my
Sarcasm aside, in that example (unlike the long term data on climate change
and the physics of greenhouse gasses), you, yourself, personally, have
access to the raw data as it affects your life and so there is no reason
for your opinion to be hazy.
However, I doubt that you would have empirically devired the inverse square
law describing gravity.
The failure to discriminate short-term from long-term trends is one of the
fatal flaws that you would do well to attend to better.
Richard Jernigan
I've thought of a couple of adventure stories. They illustrate
youthful rashness more than wisdom. But there's no time to write them
up. The movers come tomorrow and I've got to get squared away for
them.
Tashi, the story wasn't about "guys lusting after my young beautiful
wife in Mexico". It was about one guy saying in Spanglish, "¿Hay lugar
en el basement para un storage?". I didn't say he was lusting after my
wife, just that he seemed attracted to her. And it was on the American
side of the border, not in Mexico. I don't know how you always manage
to get everything screwed up.
But just to keep you guys amused, here's a photo of her and the kids
on a later trip to Mexico City aboard the Águila Azteca.
This photo _is_ in Mexico, on the station platform in Nuevo Laredo.
And just to annoy you, here's one of me and the kids taken at the same
time:
Remind me in late January when I'm back in Austin and I'll regale you
with the tale of Willie M. and me on a motorcycle trip to Mexico City,
the guy with the '37 Zundapp, and a high speed encounter with a herd
of cattle. Also the thrilling saga of Tom F. and me, the Mexican
robbers at the train station saloon, jail in San Luis Potosi, how we
escaped with our lives, and how we cleverly made it all the way back
to the USA after the cops had stolen everything: money, wristwatches,
train tickets--everything except our clothes.
I know these sound like hare brained escapades, but as I once said to
my father--with somewhat adverse results-- "It seemed like a good idea
at the time."
RNJ
Richard Jernigan
A few instances, just to whet our appetites?
RNJ
Steven Bornfeld
Haven't read this whole thread, in fact I've been scarce lately. I
assume you know the "Thin White Duke" is generally a reference to David
Bowie--which is (I think) strange enough, coming from J.E.
Steve
John Sorell
ad90-6bc...@o23g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
>> On Nov 21, 10:27 pm, Tashi <dewachen1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I like the story Richard related about the guys in Mexico lusting
>> > after his young beautiful wife.
>>
>> I bet his wife likes that story too!
>
> I've thought of a couple of adventure stories. They illustrate
> youthful rashness more than wisdom. But there's no time to write them
> up. The movers come tomorrow and I've got to get squared away for
> them.
>
> Tashi, the story wasn't about "guys lusting after my young beautiful
> wife in Mexico". It was about one guy saying in Spanglish, "�Hay lugar
> en el basement para un storage?". I didn't say he was lusting after my
> wife, just that he seemed attracted to her. And it was on the American
> side of the border, not in Mexico. I don't know how you always manage
> to get everything screwed up.
>
> But just to keep you guys amused, here's a photo of her and the kids
> on a later trip to Mexico City aboard the �guila Azteca.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygyl5ze
>
> This photo _is_ in Mexico, on the station platform in Nuevo Laredo.
> And just to annoy you, here's one of me and the kids taken at the same
> time:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/y99lqaw
>
> Remind me in late January when I'm back in Austin and I'll regale you
> with the tale of Willie M. and me on a motorcycle trip to Mexico City,
> the guy with the '37 Zundapp, and a high speed encounter with a herd
> of cattle. Also the thrilling saga of Tom F. and me, the Mexican
> robbers at the train station saloon, jail in San Luis Potosi, how we
> escaped with our lives, and how we cleverly made it all the way back
> to the USA after the cops had stolen everything: money, wristwatches,
> train tickets--everything except our clothes.
>
> I know these sound like hare brained escapades, but as I once said to
> my father--with somewhat adverse results-- "It seemed like a good idea
> at the time."
>
> RNJ
Richard,
I remember a post of yours a long while back in which you mentioned
having a wardrobe made for you when you went off to college. I'm
wondering if you had your wardrobe made at Frank Brothers or Hutchins
Brothers...
John
Richard Jernigan
>
> Richard,
>
> I remember a post of yours a long while back in which you mentioned
> having a wardrobe made for you when you went off to college. I'm
> wondering if you had your wardrobe made at Frank Brothers or Hutchins
> Brothers...
>
> John
When I was a little boy my brother and I had our clothes made by Louis
Lauterstein's tailoring business in San Antonio. They did a lot of
military uniforms.
This was in 1942. I was highly conscious of my father and seven uncles
in the military in WW II, so for quite a while i insisted on a
military cut for my clothes. My brother followed the more usual model
for the sons of military officers in those days, the Duke of Windsor.
Here is a less formal family picture:
It's Dad's stunt plane, a Spartan C-3-225. The photo was taken by my
Dad's cousin John Horn with his 4x5 Graflex when we stopped off in
Kerrville on the way back from the county fair at Fredericksburg. Dad
and Carl Crawford, a flight instructor who worked for him, had done an
aerobatic show at the fair. An element of adventurousness seemed to
run in the family.
Lots of boys in those days wore aviator's helmets like my brother and
me in the photo. We liked to stick our heads out from behind the
windshield to catch a few oil drops thrown by the big radial engine.
Mom would reprove us, but we liked the other kids to know we were real
aviators.
When I went off to college in Texas, we lived in Washington, D.C. In
Baltimore T. I. Schwartz and Sons had a men's clothing factory in a
big old loft. It must have covered a city block. You could go to get
measured for tailored clothes. I think they cut them offline from the
factory production, but they may have been assembled and sewn by the
regular line workers. At any rate it was at least 10-15% cheaper than
a New York or London tailor.
RNJ
Richard Jernigan
While I was in high school in DC my suits, sport jackets, ietc. were
made by a variety of tailors, until Dad tried Schwartz for a uniform
and liked them.
My mother was a more than competent seamstress. She made several
tailored suits for herself, because she liked to exercise the craft.
Besides, she was Scottish. She made shirts for me and my brother from
fabrics we picked out.
When Eisenhower came in to the Presidency, Mamie helped pick out his
wardrobe. She had seen him only in uniform for decades. One innovation
was the pink dress shirt and gray flannel suit. Of course, the few
pink men's shirts in existence flew off the shelves instantly. My
mother made me one. I was the most fashionable kid in school until the
clothing industry finally got cranked up.
Occasionally I still wear a pink pinpoint Oxford button down. It was
to the considerable discomfiture of my ex son-in-law, who apparently
saw it as an indication of gay tendencies. He had the good sense to
keep quiet about it.
RNJ
Is this sufficient punishment, Tommy?
John Sorell
9ed3-d99...@j9g2000vbp.googlegroups.com:
Yes, I remember Lauterstein's. Frank Brothers was my families choice.
John
Tashi
Larry, are playing hippie head games with us?
Tashi
wrote:
Jackson is a damaged man, David Bowie, to head Bangerism, to Pope
Benedict, Thomas Aquinas, and of course Saint Augustine. All I know
is I don't want to be around when Jackson decides he can't take it
anymore.
Jonathan
You know Oprah's going off the air, don't you?
It's going to be a very scary, confusing time for mankind.
Tashi
You mean, Womenkind?
Tashi
No consensus here.....
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, has said
that the Himalayan glaciers are receding "faster than in any other
part of the world" and are likely to disappear by 2035 if current
rates of depletion continue. The panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri,
dismissed the Indian report as "schoolboy science" that has yet to be
authenticated by peer review, news services reported.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102010.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
William D Clinger
process that leads to eventual consensus.
Tashi/MT wrote:
> No consensus here.....
>
> The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a U.N. body, has said
> that the Himalayan glaciers are receding "faster than in any other
> part of the world" and are likely to disappear by 2035 if current
> rates of depletion continue. The panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri,
> dismissed the Indian report as "schoolboy science" that has yet to be
> authenticated by peer review, news services reported.
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102010.html?nav=hcmoduletmv
Lest Tashi's out-of-context quotation confuse others
as well as the perpetually confused luthier, it should
be noted that Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC,
is dismissing an internal "Discussion Paper" released
by India's environmental minister, Jairam Ramesh.
It should also be noted that Jairam Ramesh is not a
scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical
engineer, but his career focus has been on economics,
business, and technology policy.
The report was written by V K Raina, who is retired
from his former position as Deputy Director of the
Geological Survey of India. As a mere "Discussion
Paper", the report was not subject to peer review.
It has been reprinted by a denialist organization
known as the Science and Public Policy Institute [1].
Note, however, that page 41 of the report explicitly
admits the reality of global warming. The dispute
concerns the specific mechanism most responsible
for the retreat of Himalayan glaciers:
Studies have revealed that the major factor for the
negative regimen of the glaciers in the Himalayas
is the relatively less snow precipitation during the
winter than enhanced glacier melting in summer.
Both of the hypotheses mentioned in that paragraph
are consistent with anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
The fact that denialist ministers and organizations are
mentioning this paper as a counter to the scientific
consensus on AGW is evidence of their desperation.
Will
[1] http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/himalayan_review_of_glacial_studies.html
Tommy Grand
> It should also be noted that Jairam Ramesh is not a
> scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in mechanical
> engineer, but his career focus has been on economics,
> business, and technology policy.
Will, what makes one a scientist? Does it require certain
credentials, professional affiliations, approaches to finding things
out about the world? All of the above? None of the above? Be more
specific about why Jairam is disqualified.
Tashi
Note also, that the point was about a consensus, which there is not.
Unless Clinger is asserting there is one.
Brad Anders
> Scientific disputes are common. They are part of the
> process that leads to eventual consensus.
Reputable peer-reviewed journals also take responsiblity when they're
duped, and also own up to their errors in judgement. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Peer_review_anomalies
The Watson and Crick case was amusing.
Most telling is the list of papers of famous discoveries that were
initially rejected. It's not a perfect process, obviously, but it's a
process where truth eventually emerges. That's why I advocate the
submission of papers on the "OT" areas we've been talking about here
to the appropriate scientific journals. They may be initially
rejected, but if there is truth in them, a determined author will
eventually succeed.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
> On Nov 23, 9:21 am, William D Clinger <cesur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Scientific disputes are common. They are part of the
> > process that leads to eventual consensus.
>
> Reputable peer-reviewed journals also take responsiblity when they're
> duped, and also own up to their errors in judgement. See:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_(journal)#Peer_review_anomalies
>
> The Watson and Crick case was amusing.
Speaking of which, have you read this book:
Brad Anders
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v425/n6959/full/425645a.html
This site, referenced in the article, is also very interesting:
He also outlines a new process to open up scientific publishing to be
more tolerant, yet still maintain quality. Click the "Rejected but
available" link on his page.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
Crick's controversial message, "You, your joys and your sorrows, your
memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free
will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of
nerve cells and their associated molecules"
This is Science for you. No thank you, I prefer a life with meaning.
Tommy Grand
> Click the "Rejected but available" link on his page.
I shudder to think of the other categories. Rejected and banned? In
these modern times, there's no good reason why everything shouldn't be
available, all the time.
Brad Anders
The book looks interesting. I would agree with Crick's message, and it
doesn't bother me in the least, nor does it have any impact to me on
whether or not my life has meaning.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
Really? Understand, the goal here is to maintain a level of quality.
What about papers with no data to support the conclusions? Papers that
have data, but the data cited doesn't support the conclusions? Papers
with falsified data? Papers where the data is stolen from others
without attribution? Papers where experiements are described that are
clearly not controlled for significant variables and external
influences? Papers where outlier data is simply ignored? The list goes
on and on. Not every person who reads such papers is going to pick up
on these flaws that a skilled peer reviewer would uncover.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
They have a page with all the rejected papers and the reason they
rejected them. I mean if there's a good reason it shouldn't be hard
to spell it out.
Also a comment box for the author to rebut.
Brad Anders
>
> - Show quoted text -
The author already has a chance to rebut, as part of the peer-review
process. When a paper gets rejected, they get the specific reasons for
the rejection from the reviewers commentaries. They then get ample
opportunity to rebut, rework their paper if necessary, and resubmit.
Understand, most authors don't want this back-and-forth process to be
public, as some of the errors and mistakes may be damaging to a
person's professional reputation. Also, it an author wants to make a
rejected paper available and rebut the reviewer's comments in a public
setting, they can use the Internet to do so. It's not the
responsibility of the journal to take this action, and plenty of
authors have followed this exact route, with varying degrees of
success.
Brad Anders
Tashi
That's because you are a nihilist, meaning, you don't care enough
about it to invest anytime studying it, therefore it doesn't matter,
and what doesn't matter for you trickles down to others.
Tashi
> Understand, most authors don't want this back-and-forth process to be
> public, as some of the errors and mistakes may be damaging to a
> person's professional reputation.
Oh dear! Brad you hit the nail right on the head! Suddenly the
"economic" realities, and job security, take precedence, yes, yes, I
believe you are correct!
William D Clinger
> Will, what makes one a scientist? Does it require certain
> credentials, professional affiliations, approaches to finding things
> out about the world? All of the above? None of the above? Be more
> specific about why Jairam is disqualified.
Taking a scientific approach to finding things out about
the world is what makes one a scientist. One can take a
scientific approach and still be a poor scientist, because
good science also requires knowledge of relevant mathematics,
scientific facts, and theories.
A person's credentials, professional affiliations, and
professional history provide insight into their knowledge
as well as their historical approaches to discovery.
Had Jairam Ramesh taken a scientific approach, he would
not have said "There is no conclusive scientific evidence
to link global warming with what is happening in the
Himalayan glaciers" while citing an internal report that
contradicts that claim and provides evidence against it.
Ramesh doesn't even claim to be a scientist. As stated
at his personal web site, his interests concern Indian
economics and politics [1]. Ramesh's statements about
the Himalayan glaciers have less to do with science
than with his government's attempts to formulate its
negotiating positions [2].
Will
[1] http://www.jairamramesh.in/home.html
[2] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Kyoto-Protocol-Jairam-Ramesh-reverts-to-old-position/articleshow/5143155.cms
Brad Anders
I have no objection to opening up this process, and in fact, have been
involved with some work in this area internally at work. I think the
recommendations of the author I cited in this area are worthy of
consideration.
And more interestingly, I'd love to see public reviewer's commentaries
on those as-to-be-yet-submitted papers on the topics we've been
discussing. My guess is that it would extremely illuminating. Bring it
on, I say.
Brad Anders
Tommy Grand
Will I used to think science would save us all, but lately I ask: what
has it done for me lately? Scientists, it seems, are obsessed with
manusha. This is because they are mostly careerists, and not on a
selfless quest for truth. You can't trust them farther, than you can
throw them. In fact when I was younger I wrote a poem about this
topic.
The priests kept on saying that Galileo
was dangerous and foolish.
But, as time has shown,
the fool was much wiser!
A certain scientist, Galileo's contemporary,
was no more stupid than Galileo.
He knew that the earth revolved,
but he had a family.
And as he got into a carriage with his wife
after accomplishing his betrayal,
he reckoned he was advancing his career,
but in fact he'd wrecked it.
For his discovery about our planet
Galileo faced the risk alone,
and he was a great man.
Now that is what I understand by a careerist.
So then, three cheers for a career
when it's a career like that of
Shakespeare or Pasteur,
Newton or Tolstoy,
or Tolstoy … Lev?
Lev!
Why did they have mud slung at them?
Talent is talent, whatever name you give it.
They're forgotten, those who hurled curses,
but we remember the ones who were cursed,
All those who strove towards the stratosphere,
the doctors who died of cholera,
they were following careers!
I'll take their careers as an example!
I believe in their sacred belief,
and their belief gives me courage.
I'll follow my career in such a way
that I'm not following it!
Brad Anders
If calling me a nihilist gives meaning to your life, I'm happy to
oblige. Of course, that would negate my being a nihilist. What a
quandry.
Brad Anders
William D Clinger
> Most telling is the list of papers of famous discoveries
> that were initially rejected.
As you know, most scientists have had personal experience
with less famous discoveries that were initially rejected.
My first publication was accepted by the most prestigious
journal in its area after it had been rejected by a less
prestigious journal. That was just happenstance, but the
more prestigious conferences and journals seem to be more
willing to consider submissions that take issue with
conventional wisdom.
> It's not a perfect process, obviously, but it's a process
> where truth eventually emerges. That's why I advocate the
> submission of papers on the "OT" areas we've been talking
> about here to the appropriate scientific journals. They
> may be initially rejected, but if there is truth in them,
> a determined author will eventually succeed.
Tashi has the necessary determination.
Will
Tashi
Yes, just as soon as the Government releases the data on UFO's, and
serial numbers on a certain 4 airplanes.
Tashi
Tommy excellent! Way better than Larry's stuff, and far more
meaningful!
Tashi
You assume much Brad. Calling you anything, has about as much meaning
in my life, as does a Tiger, when looking at a blade of grass.
Brad Anders
> Yes, just as soon as the Government releases the data on UFO's, and
> serial numbers on a certain 4 airplanes.
DING! Pavlov's Big Conspiracy Dog is salivating.
Brad Anders
Brad Anders
> You assume much Brad. Calling you anything, has about as much meaning
> in my life, as does a Tiger, when looking at a blade of grass
And yet you feel compelled to do it, anyway. Feel the love.
Brad Anders
Augustine
Verily Brad, the time has come for you to look at my page here:
http://www.amazon.com/Are-You-Educated-or-Processed/lm/R1FN409ANXUA0U
Augustine
> Had Jairam Ramesh taken a scientific approach, he would
> not have said "There is no conclusive scientific evidence
> to link global warming with what is happening in the
> Himalayan glaciers" while citing an internal report that
> contradicts that claim and provides evidence against it.
Ramesh's retort: "Sir, you've overlooked the key word there:
'conclusive.'"
Tashi
Brilliant Brad, demand the evidence from the very source in question,
then label someone a conspiracy theorist, when it's impossible to
produce. I'm starting to understand the logic.