Some of them are of course. I mean they're Human so subject to various biases. These biases can also be fuelled by things like the need to secure academic positions, tenure and so on, which is where they intersect with the interests of an institution in its continued funding (usually from government). Government's interests are of course subject to various other biases that we need not go into!
All in all the best you can say is that science is a messy process, yet it's hardly ever presented as such by the media.
Not redundant. This is precisely where it leads. From pseudo-science to inclusion of people who disagree with any scientific consensus on anything, especially those paradigms with dominant political activists.
The reason I'm going "ape shit" is because this is one story in a continual stream of complete bollocks the press releases from which get recycled into the "media" on a regular basis, making scientists look truly stupid and helping to destroy public trust in science, the scientific method and scientists as a whole.
They sampled red-green ratios from various painters, compared it to historical pollution data and found a correlation.
Good God. Seriously? Really wonkey_monkey? You're willing to give these idiota the benefit of the doubt because... they found a correlation? I know what happens next: The correlation becomes a model, the model predicts utter doom for mankind, possibly, but first more money is needed to fund further research!
They should be fired for brining science into disrepute. I bet their "correlation" doesn't have any error bars because, well, they have no idea how accurate their measurement is.
I thought they got it wrong by around 150%. But hey, what's 50% between scientists when you're already 100% wrong? The whole argument is utterly moronic. They don't know jack-shit about anything much. They can measure temperature reasonably well, but even there the temptation to go back and "adjust" past temperatures to make them cooler and "adjust" current temperatures to make them warmer, thus exaggerating the trend, is too much for them. The fact that we allow them to get away with this is one of the reasons public trust in science and scientists is rapidly reducing. Pretty soon these "scientists" (doing science in its broadest possible sense) will be held in as high esteem as lawyers and estate agents.
and what we've observed is the warming that was predicted
Don't be silly. What's happened is scientists have absolutely no clucking clue what caused the warming, or indeed the cooling, or indeed the warming before that or the cooling before that, but nevertheless will hoover up huge grants for their research institutions by pretending they do.
I pointed out that the heat is apparently "missing" in the deep ocean, but that argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because the ocean heats the atmosphere more than the atmosphere heats the ocean, as we know from El Nino and La Nina. It must do. It's 1000 x the heat capacity. Again, thermodynamics. What is wrong with you?
Feminism, like many "isms" is about the politics of special interest groups. You should see the cat fights between feminists and transsexuals; the way many feminists deny the rights of transsexuals to get involved in feminist issues. It's quite an eye opener.
Are you suggesting El Niño and La Niña are influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere as influenced by man with a few parts per million of CO2? The ocean has one thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The hypothesis is insane in those terms alone. Re-read your thermodynamics textbook.
But that can't be so. According to Trenbreth and other morons the extra energy is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. If it's hiding there, how the hell is it generating "weather" in the US? You need to think through your hypothesis.
Dude, you'll get modded "troll" here at slashdot if you make sense on things like "climate change". When science displaced religion, all of the Inquisitors became climate scientists. Judith Curry is quite concerned about it actually.
You can't overturn a 1952 conviction for something that was against the law in 1952. That would make the legal system a complete nonsense, with people's convictions for past illegal acts being overturned as the law changed.
It really depends on what the product will be used for, doesn't it. I mean you don't need to name a public institute to do that. You could just as well hire people into GCHQ. So my guess is that it's nothing to do with intelligence as such; simply the government trying to pick a winner for the future. And as we know, government is absolutely terrible at doing that. It's £42 million down the drain I suppose.
If Freedman had trouble in South America then that's entirely due to the weakness and inherent corruption of the (extractive) institutions there, the existence of which inherited the weakness and corruption of their forebears (in this case mostly the Spanish and Portuguese). North America inherited the classical liberal tradition of Britain, which itself had driven the industrial revolution. That is why the industrial revolution happened in Britain and not in Spain or Portugal and it's the main reason why South America is so much poorer than North America despite being arguably at least as blessed with natural resources and settled around the same time.
If you're talking about investment banks and banks in general, even there government involvement has made them MORE of a risk, not less. Investment banking used to be separated from retail banking for starters. Then you have government savings guarantees which alter behaviour (who cares, the government has guaranteed the money). Then there's the 10,000 (yes TEN THOUSAND) pages of regulations government imposes on the financial services industry to try to control it, that has the perverse affect of making it much harder for new entrants to arrive in the marketplace (cost of compliance). Worse, nobody, not one single legislator, understands it or has even read it. Who could? It would take a lifetime. They still pop up with new rules and regulations every so often, with no damned clue what the consequences of their actions will actually be.
The fact that banks blew up was because of Government, not despite it.
When there's no longer a compelling reason to think morally or to aspire to be moral and to act in a moral way, as seems to be the case today because "the government" has taken upon itself the responsibility to behave in this manner, then fewer people will have that sense. You will have no choice but to extract their "help" at the point of a gun when the chorus of "something must be done" starts up because some group or another has a perceived `disadvantage'.
Except when it isn't. It turns out that if the free market is focused on making the CEO and his cronys rich
So what? Who cares if he gets rich? I don't. It isn't as if he's keeping his cash in a shed at the bottom of the garden is it. Whatever money he has control over is working 24/7 in the world economy, investing in other businesses, new technology, creating jobs.
But regardless, read back your own comment. You are hypothesising a CEO who's making poor investment decisions. What do you think is eventually going to happen to his business and money? Yea - he's going to lose it. The chances are he wouldn't have made it in the first place. If you want a good ceo to make poor investment decisions, simply give him a government contract.
Now your average commissar doesn't give a crap whether he makes a bad investment decision or not. It's not his money. He doesn't care.
Is it? Sweden has neo-liberal economic policy, a small population and lots of natural resources. Indeed, Sweden adopted neo-liberal economic reforms precisely because socialism was slowly destroy it.
In my view having a choice in the matter of whether to aid your fellow man and deciding to do it is a more moral act than being compelled to at the point of a gun or a prison cell.
Many years ago, the rightmost elements decided that a strong government was not beneficial to the wealthiest citizens and in fact was a threat to them. Therefore, the goal became to reduce the size of government to the bare essentials - the smallest possible size that would protect them and their hoards - and then, control it.
Wow. You're full of shit aren't you AC. Please compare the supermarket shelves in the USA with those in Venezuela or North Korea and then come back here and tell me why big government controlling the means and distribution of production is a good idea, compared to the free market, with people providing each other with services in return for a token of exchange (currency).
The free market is far better at both optimising the use of resources, matching them with people's desires and making investment decisions than government is. When it comes to science, the problem with government funding is that it attracts activists and other idiots who suck all of the oxygen (funding) out of the room in the interests of what are essentially political objects.
Of course plenty of corporations suck up to government in order to leech funding in various ways, taking advantage of the idiocy of the civil service when it comes to managing such projects. This isn't the free market in action, it's corporatism and it's not much different from the kind of socialism you desire. For example, Solyndra in the USA, managed to bag half a billion dollars from the US government (a government in debt by $17,000,000,000,000) and piss it up the wall.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of them are of course. I mean they're Human so subject to various biases. These biases can also be fuelled by things like the need to secure academic positions, tenure and so on, which is where they intersect with the interests of an institution in its continued funding (usually from government). Government's interests are of course subject to various other biases that we need not go into!
All in all the best you can say is that science is a messy process, yet it's hardly ever presented as such by the media.
Not redundant. This is precisely where it leads. From pseudo-science to inclusion of people who disagree with any scientific consensus on anything, especially those paradigms with dominant political activists.
The reason I'm going "ape shit" is because this is one story in a continual stream of complete bollocks the press releases from which get recycled into the "media" on a regular basis, making scientists look truly stupid and helping to destroy public trust in science, the scientific method and scientists as a whole.
Good God. Seriously? Really wonkey_monkey? You're willing to give these idiota the benefit of the doubt because... they found a correlation? I know what happens next: The correlation becomes a model, the model predicts utter doom for mankind, possibly, but first more money is needed to fund further research!
They should be fired for brining science into disrepute. I bet their "correlation" doesn't have any error bars because, well, they have no idea how accurate their measurement is.
This is by far the stupidest "climate" story published on slashdot this week. And as you can imagine, that's up against some pretty stiff competition.
"Climate confusionist", oh, a new phrase to "defeat" your mortal enemies. Grow up.
I thought they got it wrong by around 150%. But hey, what's 50% between scientists when you're already 100% wrong? The whole argument is utterly moronic. They don't know jack-shit about anything much. They can measure temperature reasonably well, but even there the temptation to go back and "adjust" past temperatures to make them cooler and "adjust" current temperatures to make them warmer, thus exaggerating the trend, is too much for them. The fact that we allow them to get away with this is one of the reasons public trust in science and scientists is rapidly reducing. Pretty soon these "scientists" (doing science in its broadest possible sense) will be held in as high esteem as lawyers and estate agents.
Don't be silly. What's happened is scientists have absolutely no clucking clue what caused the warming, or indeed the cooling, or indeed the warming before that or the cooling before that, but nevertheless will hoover up huge grants for their research institutions by pretending they do.
What a load of utter shite.
I pointed out that the heat is apparently "missing" in the deep ocean, but that argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because the ocean heats the atmosphere more than the atmosphere heats the ocean, as we know from El Nino and La Nina. It must do. It's 1000 x the heat capacity. Again, thermodynamics. What is wrong with you?
Feminism, like many "isms" is about the politics of special interest groups. You should see the cat fights between feminists and transsexuals; the way many feminists deny the rights of transsexuals to get involved in feminist issues. It's quite an eye opener.
What he needs to do is concentrate on making games that are fun to play.
Are you suggesting El Niño and La Niña are influenced by the temperature of the atmosphere as influenced by man with a few parts per million of CO2? The ocean has one thousand times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. The hypothesis is insane in those terms alone. Re-read your thermodynamics textbook.
But that can't be so. According to Trenbreth and other morons the extra energy is hiding at the bottom of the ocean. If it's hiding there, how the hell is it generating "weather" in the US? You need to think through your hypothesis.
Your children won't know or remember what a category 5 hurricane looks like. Still, at least they got the snow back.
Dude, you'll get modded "troll" here at slashdot if you make sense on things like "climate change". When science displaced religion, all of the Inquisitors became climate scientists. Judith Curry is quite concerned about it actually.
You can't overturn a 1952 conviction for something that was against the law in 1952. That would make the legal system a complete nonsense, with people's convictions for past illegal acts being overturned as the law changed.
It really depends on what the product will be used for, doesn't it. I mean you don't need to name a public institute to do that. You could just as well hire people into GCHQ. So my guess is that it's nothing to do with intelligence as such; simply the government trying to pick a winner for the future. And as we know, government is absolutely terrible at doing that. It's £42 million down the drain I suppose.
If Freedman had trouble in South America then that's entirely due to the weakness and inherent corruption of the (extractive) institutions there, the existence of which inherited the weakness and corruption of their forebears (in this case mostly the Spanish and Portuguese). North America inherited the classical liberal tradition of Britain, which itself had driven the industrial revolution. That is why the industrial revolution happened in Britain and not in Spain or Portugal and it's the main reason why South America is so much poorer than North America despite being arguably at least as blessed with natural resources and settled around the same time.
If you're talking about investment banks and banks in general, even there government involvement has made them MORE of a risk, not less. Investment banking used to be separated from retail banking for starters. Then you have government savings guarantees which alter behaviour (who cares, the government has guaranteed the money). Then there's the 10,000 (yes TEN THOUSAND) pages of regulations government imposes on the financial services industry to try to control it, that has the perverse affect of making it much harder for new entrants to arrive in the marketplace (cost of compliance). Worse, nobody, not one single legislator, understands it or has even read it. Who could? It would take a lifetime. They still pop up with new rules and regulations every so often, with no damned clue what the consequences of their actions will actually be.
The fact that banks blew up was because of Government, not despite it.
When there's no longer a compelling reason to think morally or to aspire to be moral and to act in a moral way, as seems to be the case today because "the government" has taken upon itself the responsibility to behave in this manner, then fewer people will have that sense. You will have no choice but to extract their "help" at the point of a gun when the chorus of "something must be done" starts up because some group or another has a perceived `disadvantage'.
So what? Who cares if he gets rich? I don't. It isn't as if he's keeping his cash in a shed at the bottom of the garden is it. Whatever money he has control over is working 24/7 in the world economy, investing in other businesses, new technology, creating jobs.
But regardless, read back your own comment. You are hypothesising a CEO who's making poor investment decisions. What do you think is eventually going to happen to his business and money? Yea - he's going to lose it. The chances are he wouldn't have made it in the first place. If you want a good ceo to make poor investment decisions, simply give him a government contract.
Now your average commissar doesn't give a crap whether he makes a bad investment decision or not. It's not his money. He doesn't care.
Is it? Sweden has neo-liberal economic policy, a small population and lots of natural resources. Indeed, Sweden adopted neo-liberal economic reforms precisely because socialism was slowly destroy it.
In my view having a choice in the matter of whether to aid your fellow man and deciding to do it is a more moral act than being compelled to at the point of a gun or a prison cell.
Wow. You're full of shit aren't you AC. Please compare the supermarket shelves in the USA with those in Venezuela or North Korea and then come back here and tell me why big government controlling the means and distribution of production is a good idea, compared to the free market, with people providing each other with services in return for a token of exchange (currency).
The free market is far better at both optimising the use of resources, matching them with people's desires and making investment decisions than government is. When it comes to science, the problem with government funding is that it attracts activists and other idiots who suck all of the oxygen (funding) out of the room in the interests of what are essentially political objects.
Of course plenty of corporations suck up to government in order to leech funding in various ways, taking advantage of the idiocy of the civil service when it comes to managing such projects. This isn't the free market in action, it's corporatism and it's not much different from the kind of socialism you desire. For example, Solyndra in the USA, managed to bag half a billion dollars from the US government (a government in debt by $17,000,000,000,000) and piss it up the wall.