For sake of argument, assume that there is an objective way to measure who takes greater care of their appearance and that all 42 judges are experts at measuring that and never wrong. In that case, these results boil down to 18 out of 30 women taking better care of their appearances during one of their ovulation phases than during one of their non-ovulation phases. When you combine that with the possibility that some of the judges could be wrong (thus increasing the expected variance), it's even less significant - not more. I'm going to go with Scooter on this one.
Granted, I haven't thought too hard on this one, so I might be missing something, but the judges opinions can not be treated independently from what they are judging.
So, assuming that you've inferred the situation correctly (and it's the best I've heard so far), it sounds like the 20% claim is actually a conflation of the total number of disabled (~20%) and the fact that the unemployment rate decreased in 2003 (from 6.4% to 6.1%) due to a decrease in the labor force rather than an increase in the number of employed (a good example of the problem with the unemployment rate definition, but not the 20% claim).
If you're reading this MarxistHacker42, does that sound right to you?
I think you might misapprehend me. I'm not claiming everything's peachy, I know it's not. My favorite pair of statistics are the mean wage (rising) and the median wage (falling), which taken together obviously paint a picture of increased disparity. I was just thought that 20% was a might high number not to be making all kinds of news.
Do you make less then $20 an hour?
Why yes, yes I do. Of course, I'm currently back in graduate school... (On the other hand, if you include the fact that my stipend pays for my tuition, it comes out to about $41k per annum, I reckon, but that hardly influences "poverty".)
OK, I went to the DOL statistics website, and what I see doesn't back up this claim. Specifically, the labor force in 1999 is listed as 117.1 million, and the labor force in 2002 is listed as 122.5 million. (Note: these are the "not seasonally adjusted" figures.) For the same time frame, "not in labor force" went from 68.4 million to 72.7 million. "Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now" went from 4.6 million to 4.7 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available" went from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking" went from 0.3 million to 0.4 million, and "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Reasons Other Than Discouragement" went from 0.9 million to 1.1 million.
For every Galileo/Einstein/etc., there are probably > 10,000 Modern Geocentrists/Timecubers/etc. The world is a mighty big place.
Also, as with the modern geocentrists/flat earthers, the global warming deniers aren't trying to present new theories. Rather, they're trying to return to old theories. That hardly makes them mavericks. Correspondingly, you'll notice that most (if not all) climatologists who are used to support the global warming deniers (the climatologists themselves aren't necessarily deniers) are usually fairly old. (Unlike geocentrism, the old theory has been replaced by the new within their lifetime.)
That's very similar to what he says in The Satanic Gases. He does indeed acknowledge that there is a human contribution to warming, against which I don't think anyone would argue these days, but that is a far cry from claiming that global warming is due, as you said, "primarily to anthropogenic factors".
Fair enough. I was recalling what he said and didn't have the article in front of me at the time. His other comments imply that the human contribution is at least significant however, if not dominant. If you feel that I'm being too generous with Pat Michaels, I can guarantee you, it is not my intent.
My problem is with the non-science-literate people you mention, spewing forth on something they don't understand, actively steering other people away from skeptical research with the claim that it's all corrupt because it's funded by the energy industry.
My problem is with anyone saying that it's a logical fallacy to mention the source of funding, when non-science-literate people are trying to decide who to trust. I'm a scientist and I think it is very valid for me to support my position in anthropogenic global warming by pointing out that almost all climatologists agree that it is a real phenomenon, and that the very few who don't are all receiving money from fossil-fuel companies. What's really idiotic is when the deniers chime in with "oh yeah, well those who don't receive money from fossil-fuel companies receive money from the government, and everyone knows that the Bush administration is all about AGW." (OK, they neglect to mention the Bush administration. That was just a lame attempt at humor.)
As for honest scientists being affected by their source of funding, you need to more narrowly define "affected". It can certainly influence their directions of exploration, their initial hypotheses, or what they consider to be anomalous vs. expected results, but funding doesn't change the laws of physics. And to whatever degree that it can affect scientists, it does so on both sides of the issue.
Well, what immediately comes to mind is a recent study done with respect to drinks. One thing worth mentioning is that studies with disparaging results are allowed to be suppressed by those doing the funding, unless the scientist demands otherwise prior to doing his research. (I.e., unless he carefully reads the fine print.) Demanding such freedom is likely in many cases to result in not being funded. Note that this is not true when your funding comes from NIH, NSF, etc.
I have a degree in physics (two, actually), and I know that my understanding of physics helps me to understand climate science. Sure, one should trust the (average) opinion of climatologists over the opinion of physicists on matters of climatology, but when they agree I don't see what the problem is.
...even Pat Michaels no longer claims that global warming is not due primarily to anthropogenic factors.
Could you point me in the right direction to find that reference? I've only read The Satanic Gases, not his more recent stuff.
There was an article in the Cville discussing An Inconvenient Truth where he wrote:
But the theory of global warming itself, and the effects of carbon dioxide on the atmosphere...
Well, since the human warming got initiated, or began--which most people would view somewhere around the mid-1970s--the rate of global temperature rise has been remarkably constant. It's uncanny how constant it is. And it's about.17 degrees Celsius per decade, or about 1.7 degrees per century. That number is significantly low, and it suggests to me that this becomes a self-limiting issue in the following way: 100 years from now, the technology that runs our society, and powers our society, is going to be radically different than it is today. It will almost certainly be a more efficient, maybe not even a carbon-based fuel society.
I think that if one is familiar with the science, the science can stand on its own irrespective of the funding. However, for people who are not science literate (or even people who don't have time to wade through the details), it is helpful to point out why one might expect expert A to disagree with experts B-Z when expert A is being funded by fossil fuel companies. Also, as others have pointed out, even honest researchers are affected by their source of funding.
This has been addressed over and over again. It was the popular media, not scientists, who were talking about global cooling in the 1970's. Kind of like those shark scares we see today. (Yes, you might have found a small handful of scientists who were concerned. However, even back then climatologists were warning about global warming, not global cooling.)
You can follow the links for the actual science. It's there, I promise. When I say "boilerplate argument", I mean that I'm not taking the time to tailor it to the particular post. However, as the post is just the typical "What about Mars?" question, it's not really necessary to tailor it.
If you think producing controversial science ends your career, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Albert. He got a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect despite having this crazy theory about space and time. (Yes, there were a lot of people calling his theories nonsense, but it didn't exactly end his career.)
Actually, I think it's a pretty good indication that almost anyone who understands science and the scientific method knows that this is a real problem. I find it odd that you think this somehow indicates a vast scientific conspiracy. (Yeah, I know you didn't use those words, but what else might you be implying by "something other than science"?)
Even those few scientists who denied it in the past seem to be accepting it now. For example, even Pat Michaels no longer claims that global warming is not due primarily to anthropogenic factors. However, he still believes that technology will automagically fix the problem so we don't need to worry about it. The fact that he receives most of his funding from fossil fuel companies has no impact on that opinion, I'm sure.
Yeah, I don't think Nanpa was being sarcastic either (you'll notice the difference in authorship between the OP and the one claiming you missed the sarcasm), but perhaps I'm just not feeling very optimistic today.
Since I feel like preaching to the choir for a bit (arguing with ostriches can wear a person out), here's an analogy:
Will a bullet fired at your heart from a.357 kill you?
We're not sure. Several people have been shot at by.357s and lived. Those that die after being shot probably just died from other causes.
Will a bullet from a.357 travel faster than from every other gun?
Certainly not!
Is there anything we can do about it? - this is the biggie
No, because if you cover up your heart they can just shoot at your head, etc.
If you're one of those who don't trust realclimate.org (after all, it is biased in favor of climatology!), feel free to follow the references. If you're someone who trusts junkscience.com more, then I guess you also think that smoking is healthy. (I'm just covering my bases here. I seriously doubt that you trust junkscience over realclimate, but there are those who do.)
If you read the article, the authors show that signals from our current Anti-ballistic missile radar could be detected within a 30 pc radius of the earth using existing and proposed instruments that are designed to probe the epoch of reionization.
Actually, according to the article linked above, it's 30 lightyears, or about 9 pc. The paper, however, mentions ~10^{1-2.7}pc or about 33-1600 lightyears.
It will only prove that they paid this company something.
No, it proves that someone paid this company something using a credit card with the suspect's name on it. Could be a stolen credit card, or possibly just a stolen number. Could even be a stolen identity used to obtain a credit card.
No joke. Sometimes I do speed accidently. It can happen if the road is exceptionally straight and you're not paying due diligence to your speedometer. That said, I don't think this explains going 75 in a 55 zone.
Well, if/. is any indication, it seems you are correct. I consider myself to be a creative, independent thinker, and I wouldn't be bothered too much by random drug tests (assuming they're not too frequent and/or intrusive), but I also realize that as a creative, independent thinker, my thoughts/feelings won't necessarily be shared by other creative, independent thinkers.
But I also see differences. As far as I understand, being a homosexual is far less of a choice than smoking pot. Of course, I have no familiarity with either being a homosexual or smoking pot, so this is based mainly on what I've heard of the former and on what I've intuited of the latter.
Slashdot Mirror
For sake of argument, assume that there is an objective way to measure who takes greater care of their appearance and that all 42 judges are experts at measuring that and never wrong. In that case, these results boil down to 18 out of 30 women taking better care of their appearances during one of their ovulation phases than during one of their non-ovulation phases. When you combine that with the possibility that some of the judges could be wrong (thus increasing the expected variance), it's even less significant - not more. I'm going to go with Scooter on this one.
Granted, I haven't thought too hard on this one, so I might be missing something, but the judges opinions can not be treated independently from what they are judging.
So, assuming that you've inferred the situation correctly (and it's the best I've heard so far), it sounds like the 20% claim is actually a conflation of the total number of disabled (~20%) and the fact that the unemployment rate decreased in 2003 (from 6.4% to 6.1%) due to a decrease in the labor force rather than an increase in the number of employed (a good example of the problem with the unemployment rate definition, but not the 20% claim).
If you're reading this MarxistHacker42, does that sound right to you?
I think you might misapprehend me. I'm not claiming everything's peachy, I know it's not. My favorite pair of statistics are the mean wage (rising) and the median wage (falling), which taken together obviously paint a picture of increased disparity. I was just thought that 20% was a might high number not to be making all kinds of news.
Why yes, yes I do. Of course, I'm currently back in graduate school... (On the other hand, if you include the fact that my stipend pays for my tuition, it comes out to about $41k per annum, I reckon, but that hardly influences "poverty".)
OK, I went to the DOL statistics website, and what I see doesn't back up this claim. Specifically, the labor force in 1999 is listed as 117.1 million, and the labor force in 2002 is listed as 122.5 million. (Note: these are the "not seasonally adjusted" figures.) For the same time frame, "not in labor force" went from 68.4 million to 72.7 million. "Not in Labor Force, Want a Job Now" went from 4.6 million to 4.7 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available" went from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Discouraged Reasons For Not Currently Looking" went from 0.3 million to 0.4 million, and "Not in Labor Force, Searched For Work and Available, Reasons Other Than Discouragement" went from 0.9 million to 1.1 million.
I can't find disabled or displaced figures.
I'd always heard that it was Idaho that didn't exist.
For every Galileo/Einstein/etc., there are probably > 10,000 Modern Geocentrists/Timecubers/etc. The world is a mighty big place.
Also, as with the modern geocentrists/flat earthers, the global warming deniers aren't trying to present new theories. Rather, they're trying to return to old theories. That hardly makes them mavericks. Correspondingly, you'll notice that most (if not all) climatologists who are used to support the global warming deniers (the climatologists themselves aren't necessarily deniers) are usually fairly old. (Unlike geocentrism, the old theory has been replaced by the new within their lifetime.)
That one's already been spoken for, too.
Fair enough. I was recalling what he said and didn't have the article in front of me at the time. His other comments imply that the human contribution is at least significant however, if not dominant. If you feel that I'm being too generous with Pat Michaels, I can guarantee you, it is not my intent.
My problem is with anyone saying that it's a logical fallacy to mention the source of funding, when non-science-literate people are trying to decide who to trust. I'm a scientist and I think it is very valid for me to support my position in anthropogenic global warming by pointing out that almost all climatologists agree that it is a real phenomenon, and that the very few who don't are all receiving money from fossil-fuel companies. What's really idiotic is when the deniers chime in with "oh yeah, well those who don't receive money from fossil-fuel companies receive money from the government, and everyone knows that the Bush administration is all about AGW." (OK, they neglect to mention the Bush administration. That was just a lame attempt at humor.)
Well, what immediately comes to mind is a recent study done with respect to drinks. One thing worth mentioning is that studies with disparaging results are allowed to be suppressed by those doing the funding, unless the scientist demands otherwise prior to doing his research. (I.e., unless he carefully reads the fine print.) Demanding such freedom is likely in many cases to result in not being funded. Note that this is not true when your funding comes from NIH, NSF, etc.I'm guessing he's running Linux, not Mac.
I have a degree in physics (two, actually), and I know that my understanding of physics helps me to understand climate science. Sure, one should trust the (average) opinion of climatologists over the opinion of physicists on matters of climatology, but when they agree I don't see what the problem is.
I think that if one is familiar with the science, the science can stand on its own irrespective of the funding. However, for people who are not science literate (or even people who don't have time to wade through the details), it is helpful to point out why one might expect expert A to disagree with experts B-Z when expert A is being funded by fossil fuel companies. Also, as others have pointed out, even honest researchers are affected by their source of funding.
This has been addressed over and over again. It was the popular media, not scientists, who were talking about global cooling in the 1970's. Kind of like those shark scares we see today. (Yes, you might have found a small handful of scientists who were concerned. However, even back then climatologists were warning about global warming, not global cooling.)
You can follow the links for the actual science. It's there, I promise. When I say "boilerplate argument", I mean that I'm not taking the time to tailor it to the particular post. However, as the post is just the typical "What about Mars?" question, it's not really necessary to tailor it.
If you think producing controversial science ends your career, I'd like to introduce you to my friend Albert. He got a Nobel Prize in Physics for his work on the photoelectric effect despite having this crazy theory about space and time. (Yes, there were a lot of people calling his theories nonsense, but it didn't exactly end his career.)
Actually, I think it's a pretty good indication that almost anyone who understands science and the scientific method knows that this is a real problem. I find it odd that you think this somehow indicates a vast scientific conspiracy. (Yeah, I know you didn't use those words, but what else might you be implying by "something other than science"?)
Even those few scientists who denied it in the past seem to be accepting it now. For example, even Pat Michaels no longer claims that global warming is not due primarily to anthropogenic factors. However, he still believes that technology will automagically fix the problem so we don't need to worry about it. The fact that he receives most of his funding from fossil fuel companies has no impact on that opinion, I'm sure.
Yeah, I don't think Nanpa was being sarcastic either (you'll notice the difference in authorship between the OP and the one claiming you missed the sarcasm), but perhaps I'm just not feeling very optimistic today.
Since I feel like preaching to the choir for a bit (arguing with ostriches can wear a person out), here's an analogy:
Will a bullet fired at your heart from a .357 kill you? .357s and lived. Those that die after being shot probably just died from other causes.
We're not sure. Several people have been shot at by
Will a bullet from a .357 travel faster than from every other gun?
Certainly not!
Is there anything we can do about it? - this is the biggie
No, because if you cover up your heart they can just shoot at your head, etc.
Against the Mars canard:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
If you're one of those who don't trust realclimate.org (after all, it is biased in favor of climatology!), feel free to follow the references. If you're someone who trusts junkscience.com more, then I guess you also think that smoking is healthy. (I'm just covering my bases here. I seriously doubt that you trust junkscience over realclimate, but there are those who do.)
And, as anyone can tell you, ~10^{1-2.7}pc is ~33-1600 ly. (1 parsec = ~3.26 lightyears)
Actually, according to the article linked above, it's 30 lightyears, or about 9 pc. The paper, however, mentions ~10^{1-2.7}pc or about 33-1600 lightyears.
Nah, 4.5" is just the size of the aperture.
No, it proves that someone paid this company something using a credit card with the suspect's name on it. Could be a stolen credit card, or possibly just a stolen number. Could even be a stolen identity used to obtain a credit card.
No joke. Sometimes I do speed accidently. It can happen if the road is exceptionally straight and you're not paying due diligence to your speedometer. That said, I don't think this explains going 75 in a 55 zone.
Well, if /. is any indication, it seems you are correct. I consider myself to be a creative, independent thinker, and I wouldn't be bothered too much by random drug tests (assuming they're not too frequent and/or intrusive), but I also realize that as a creative, independent thinker, my thoughts/feelings won't necessarily be shared by other creative, independent thinkers.
But I also see differences. As far as I understand, being a homosexual is far less of a choice than smoking pot. Of course, I have no familiarity with either being a homosexual or smoking pot, so this is based mainly on what I've heard of the former and on what I've intuited of the latter.