I had a fight with the Ph.D. supervisor of the the student I was working with (and training) about authorship of a paper. He believed because ‘his’ student had authorship, then as official supervisor, he should have authorship. It was all very messy and I made a very powerful enemy. The people who do the actual work, training and mentorship are not necessarily the people who get the funding. Some people are very good at gran writing and politicing and run paper-mills whereby the Ph.D.’s and pos-Doc’s do the work.
A quick read of Retraction Watch will show you that a highly stressed Ph.D. or post-Doc is ‘responsible’ for the duplicated images or faked control lanes in gels.
If you put your name on the paper, you are responsible for it, if it all goes pear-shaped.
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
Or there is also this.
http://grist.org/news/americans-just-arent-buying-that-climate-denial-crap-anymore/
↧
Comment on Week in review by DocMartyn
Masochist? I have been a West Brom fan since the 70′s; imagine what it was like in the 90′s and 00′s.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Matthew R Marler
Herman Alexander Pope: NO, EARTH IS ALWAYS IN OR VERY NEAR EQUILIBRIUM.
The Earth is never “in” equilibrium. How “near” to equilibrium depends on how you define distance, and what distance qualifies as “near”, or “very near”. If 288K be the current :equilibrium value, most places on Earth are within 10% of equilibrium most of the time. Deep ocean, for example, at about 280K is only 8/288 away from equilibrium. Missouri summer daytime and polar winter nighttime are much farther than that.
↧
Comment on Week in review by Jim D
The Tea Partiers also get their news from this station. A fount of wisdom as we see here when it comes to climate.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/31/10-dumbest-things-fox-said-about-climate-change/191859
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
I agree with Jim. The quoted statement seems obviously right.
By way of analogy suppose you put 20% of your monthly salary in an IRA and the remaining 80% in an account that you spend down at 40% a month. If you switch to putting 90% in that account, the account “responds faster” (i.e. grows more quickly) but your IRA now grows only half as fast as before while the 10% extra in your account participates in the 40% outflow. At the end of the year, even though your account may have more in it, your net worth with the 10/90 ratio is less than it would have been with the 20/80 ratio because you’ve been spending more.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Matthew R Marler
Vaughan Pratt: Can’t you do it yourself?
Sure, but why? You were obviously correct and DS was obviously wrong — you can tell that by eyeballing the curve with a straightedge . The only importance to the fact that wft did not fit a polynomial was that I could not illustrate the polynomial using the same tool that DS used.
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Matthew R Marler
WebHubTelescope: <i>You must realize Marler that your opinion may be of zero value. </i>
Many lurkers hang on my every word. I am sure of it.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by GaryM
Somebody else, on a dfferent blog said something that suggested he might share my opinion.
And this is evidence of skeptics on Climate Etc. willard,
OK, now I get it. You are playing an online game of pin the non sequitur on the skeptic.
Glad I can help fill your free time.
↧
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by Brandon Shollenberger
I think you said what you said, and I think you claimed Joshua’s links provided support for what you said. If you meant something other than what you said, and if you meant Joshua’s links didn’t actually support what you said but something else…
I’m not going to have fun with that. I don’t believe in mind-reading, and I don’t think it’s hard to avoid intentionally exaggerating people’s positions to make them seem more unreasonable.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by GaryM
OK, that was weird, half of two comments got spliced. Not sure how I managed that.
↧
Comment on The 52% ‘consensus’ by Lies my president told me - Eco-Imperialism
[…] survey (that went to 10,257 scientists). 700 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientistsand 48% of US meteorologists say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous warming or climate […]
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by tomwys
From the IPCC (link provided below):
“Conceptual framework, methodology and scope
Assessment objectives
The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies.”
http://ipbes.unepwcmc-004.vm.brightbox.net/assessments/88
The key words are “…human -induced climate change,…”
Does the IPCC presume that non human-induced climate change poses no risk and has no need for “…adaptation and mitigation.”? Or even study???
If the IPCC is looking for humans, they likely will find them. When politicians tell people what they want to see, the Emperor WILL be provided with a haberdasher. And therein lies the origin of the expression “The Naked Truth.”
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@max: <i>How about the “globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature” (which has been cooling at a rate of 0.04C per decade over the past decade)?</i>
God, what a hypocrite. You moan about other people implying projections and then turn right around and do it yourself.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by Wagathon
True, true the government-education complex is stabbing America in the back.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by DocMartyn
“1) Medical researchers have incentives not found in other sciences.”
Right. So other researchers are not human? You know that personal bias is the root of most problems and biomedicals researchers are a least aware of potential bias in their experimental design. You talked about Mann’s Hockey-Stick and other conformation studies earlier; are you aware of the number of combinations and permutations one can get by picking different proxy-series based on gut feeling?
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by willard (@nevaudit)
> Not sure how I managed that.
Damn progressives!
You know, GaryM, that the evidence you asked for was provided to you.
Yet you continue to epilogue.
Speaking of which:
Edmund Burke and Thomas Paine’s exceptional concerns about their legacies should not surprise us. They were right to assume that their names and their words, if not their mortal remains, would not be left to rest but would continue to play key roles in the great debate they had helped launch. Assorted radical leaders the world over laid claim to the legacy of Thomas Paine, as did the mainstream labor and progressive movements in the Anglo-American world. Conservative cultural and political movements have laid claim to Edmund Burke’s name and ideas.
Ironically, our understanding of the Burke-Paine debate has actually suffered some from such persistent political attention to both men. The revolutionaries who adopted Paine as their own would too often infuse his historical memory with socialist sensibilities that would have been largely foreign to Paine himself. And a great deal of the commentary (and even the scholarship) regarding Burke, particularly over the past century, has seemed to want to make him (even) more temperamentally conservative than he was.
Now, please retract your accusation.
↧
↧
Comment on Is Earth in energy deficit? by Vaughan Pratt
@R. Gates: it it always flowing from ocean to atmosphere.
Sure, but why couldn’t a warmer atmosphere reduce that flow? With flow of heat everything’s relative.
@Pekka: Based on this approach warmer atmosphere may very well heat the oceans.
Yes, exactly.
@Pekka: Or – perhaps I have misunderstood, what each one is saying.
Hard to see how. Seems like R. Gates is simply confused about heat flow, much like some of the contributors to the talk page at the Wikipedia article on heat,
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by JCH
As I have said before, I am a person of average intelligence. You’re really smart. I mean, that is obvious. I would say you’re easily well into the upper 5%. We’re in the upper 5% of income earners. It’s a funny world. I’ll take being a moron.
↧
Comment on Has science lost its way? by willard (@nevaudit)
> You said people say that’s <strong>always</strong> the case.
Citation needed.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
