On 1 Jan., 22:29, Rav1ng rabbit wrote:
A common mistake of non-scientists is to think that science could create
something as magical as "the truth" which is a holy grail word invented
by creationists.

Certainly not. Creationists do not make inventions, they believe Holy
Scripts.

And the notion of truth does not have to be invented. Even some
animals are able to lie.

Scientists will in general not speak about the truth, or claim that they
have found the final answer to all your problems.

One can speak about the truth, without problem. One should only
distinguish truth (which you can find) from certainty about having
found the truth (which cannot be obtained except by delusion).

Anywhere where this
occurs "science itself" is directly depreciated to "technology" to be
submitted to a patent office.

Science is of course a nice instrument for improving technology,
but it is more. The human interest in understanding our universe
is as different from the aim of improving technology as the urge
for sex is different from the wish to create children.

More common behavior is that scientists are never satisfied with an
answer, there is always something to do within their field.

The more fundamental question is, how do you trickle scientists to
become and stay productive for the rest of their career?

You cannot. But the point is that there is not much need: As you have
written, the scientists themself are never satisfied with the current
state.

Then, there is scientific fame. To become famous as a scientist, you
have to find something new, something really worth. Imagine you have
a secure job. In such a secure situation, fame becomes much more
important as an incentive as if you have to think about your next job
after the two years of the current grant.

And fame is the better incentive. You cannot become famous as
a whore. You cannot become really famous by inventing something
which fails. You have to find something new, and something which is
true. Only this gives you fame for a long time.

Then, the job starts after university. I have no objection against a
hard
competition between those who want to get the jobs. But this
competition
should be short. After this, it is clear that the winners are not
stupid, but
able to find something new.

If you just give away the money then experience tells that "fat ass
civil servants" are often not motivated any long to do science.

Whores are even less motivated.

The most productive ones happen to work on grants, knowing that also
their position could be affected if they don't publish in peer review
journals. The most productive ones publish with high citation indexes,
win awards and produce new PhD's in their field.

No. That's on the surface. Once you evaluate the productivity by
counting publications in peer-reviewed journals, and counting
citations,
and the guys who are evaluated know about this, and are clever enough
even to finish universities, they are also clever enough to win such
competitions without having really good ideas:

1.) Work in a domain where many other people work. There are more
grants
to apply for, more journals to publish (if one rejects your paper,
submit it to
the next), more potential readers to cite them.

2.) Don't contradict established authorities. They decide about the
grants.

3.) Split your publishable ideas into lots of papers (unit: one publon
- the smallest idea publishable as a separate paper).

4.) Present your ideas at lot's of conferences. This gives you
additional publications in the conference proceedings, allows you to
establish personal relations with the authorities who decide about
your next grants, and so on.

5.) Exchange of citations: You cite me, I cite you.

All this leads to lots of unnecessary papers, published for the sole
purpose of increasing the number of publications, and unnecessary
citations. More dangerous, it leads to concentration of scientific
research into a few fads (like string theory in physics). And it makes
the job much harder for true innovations: Less journals to publish the
results, and even if published they may be lost in the large number of
unnecessary publications. Questioning the consent of some scientific
community becomes much harder - at least one of the anonymous referees
will not like it, and there are not that many journals to publish it.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.

You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!

No, just local warming, I have no desire to
control or affect the lives and comfort of others.

This location traditionally had a couple
of 100 degree days a year, this year the high
for the year was 92, not really enough to dry
out the swamp paths.

On 1/2/10 8:41 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.

You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!

No, just local warming, I have no desire to
control or affect the lives and comfort of others.

This location traditionally had a couple
of 100 degree days a year, this year the high
for the year was 92, not really enough to dry
out the swamp paths.


Can't say for your location, but in Iowa one result of
global warming is an increase in rainfall and an increase
in relative humidity and dewpoint. That has the effect of
decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and
increasing low temperaturs at night (less cooling).


Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:47:32 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:26 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 05:50:17 -0600, Sam


Ref: http://dichionary.reference.com/search?q=parrot

par·rot

1. One who teaches or instructs; one whose business or occupation
is to instruct others; an instructor; a tutor.

2. A person having expert knowledge of one or more sciences,
especially a natural or physical science.

Source: The American Heritige® Dichionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghtin Mifflen Company.
Published by Houghtin Mifflen Company. All rights reserved.


And you teach totally certain science?


Science is a process... and does not strive to claim "certainty".


And AGW is a process, to pull the wool
over the eyes of people that don't suspect
the do-gooders are actually high powered
con men.

If Hansen were to use raw weather data,
I could try to understand what is going on,
but as long as every number is modified for
one reason or another, I have no confidence,
and that makes me more of a skeptic than
I would normally be when my observations
do not match the published data.

For 35 years it was thought radar could
detect an aircraft approaching, then all of a
sudden, things changed. How could so
many have been so .... what word should
I use?

On 1/2/10 8:54 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


If Hansen were to use raw weather data,
I could try to understand what is going on,
but as long as every number is modified for
one reason or another, I have no confidence,
and that makes me more of a skeptic than
I would normally be when my observations
do not match the published data.

Speaking of your buddy, Hanson, here are slides from
Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting
Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/A...s_20081217.pdf

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:07:19 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:01 AM, TUKA wrote:
On 2010-01-02, Sam wrote:
On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.


You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!


What? Wait until all the current predictors are in their graves?

If they couldn't predict the current cooling, then they can't predict
future heating either.


1998, 2005 and 2007 being the three hottest years recently
doesn't support your claim of "cooling"

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...emp-trends.gif


And 1932, 1934, and 1952 were just as hot,
at least before the books were cooked.

My thoughts are "just why did anybody
settle down where it gets so cold?".

Most of the "civilized" industrial world
has an average temperature lower than
the published global average, and here
we see idiot activists wanting us to reduce
the amount of heating fuel used.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:53:18 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:41 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 07:45:46 -0600, Sam
wrote:

On 1/2/10 7:37 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:
There is no auto-continuing "trend" in local
or global temperatures, please get off my back
unless the weather at least gets up to normal,
the present projected length of this cold spell
is extraordinary.

You and woger have the cool Pacific to
moderate your weather, I am right in the
path of the Alberta Clippers.

You do like to complain about the cold weather!
You probably wish there was.... wait for it....
Global Warming!

No, just local warming, I have no desire to
control or affect the lives and comfort of others.

This location traditionally had a couple
of 100 degree days a year, this year the high
for the year was 92, not really enough to dry
out the swamp paths.


Can't say for your location, but in Iowa one result of
global warming is an increase in rainfall and an increase
in relative humidity and dewpoint. That has the effect of
decreasing high temperatures during the daytime and
increasing low temperaturs at night (less cooling).


You are nuts, aren't you? :-)


Decreasing high temperatures during the daytime
and increasing low temperatures at night, how awful,
how will you survive?

The sun is peeking out now, it is still
in the teens F, I am evaporating 3 gallons
of water with a steam humidifier but I have
blood in my nose from the dry air ( won't
try to explain the issue of cold air exchange
causing discomfort and disease now).


Here's some data from Iowa State University
http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/facult...entations.html

More from University of Iowa

http://www.engineering.uiowa.edu/fac.../schnoor_j.php


So it isn't getting hotter, it just isn't getting
as cold?

And somehow you are sure the whole world
is suffering the same horrors?

Can't you find a more useless agenda to
pursue? What is this, applying the Peter
Principle to the entire scientific world?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 09:00:50 -0600, Sam Wormley
wrote:

On 1/2/10 8:54 AM, I M @ good guy wrote:


If Hansen were to use raw weather data,
I could try to understand what is going on,
but as long as every number is modified for
one reason or another, I have no confidence,
and that makes me more of a skeptic than
I would normally be when my observations
do not match the published data.

Speaking of your buddy, Hanson, here are slides from
Jim Hanson's Bjerknes Lecture at San Francisco AGU meeting
Dec. 17, 2008
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/A...s_20081217.pdf


Please check the name spelling, when I
am joking I get it wrong on purpose, but you
should never get it wrong in a reference.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 06:09:45 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 1/1/10 9:06 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:


http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/HadCRUT3.jpg



Gee: there seems to be some discrepancy here!

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif

Now what could that be, bubba?

That's not temperature, that's "Temperature change", whatever that is. It
certainly isn't change from a fixed value, as there is no large peak in
1934. Nope, this is just another example of some lying commie *******
fudging the data with special a definition to fool weak minded idiots.

You weren't fooled by it, were you?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:09:03 -0600, TUKA wrote:
According to who? GISS and CRU and the rest of those tainted by
Climategate?

Not tainted. Utterly discredited as frauds, liars, even criminals for
evading the Freedom of Information act.

Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...-surface-temp-
trends.gif


Until they release the raw data, no one can believe that.

That would be neat, since they destroyed it so no one could see it.