distortion of science

BTW, westy, no reply to the trashing of your paid-by-the-paper fairy tale?!?! Are we to call you "Young Fraud"? :eusa_liar:




"The "First Author" is the person who is recognised as having the greatest contribution to the paper (whether true or not) intended to be submitted to a journal. Most scientific journals designate the first author as having special rights and controls over the editing of an article."

Papers are written with the use of Grant Money. The First Author is in control of the grant in most cases. Multiple papers are usually written from a single grant so yes academicians are paid "by the paper" for the most part. Just like back in the day publishers paid novelists by the word. In the academic world it has stayed pretty stagnant as far as grants and payment go.

My wife is still being published and that is how she gets paid.

I know of no one that gets paid by the paper. You get paid out of the grant and, if you don't publish enough, you may not get another one. As far as the first author goes and their importance, I've never heard of special rights and editing. That depends on the relationship between the first and last author, usually the grant holder. In my experience it's the last author who has those "special rights". After all, it's their grant and their reputation at stake. It's rare that a grant holder, except those just starting out and good enough to land a substantial grant early in their career, does any of the lab work or much of the writing. That's done by their research associates. The person with "special rights" advises and/or directs the experiments and has final say on the content of the paper. While some may do it all themselves, be first author and the grant holder, that's rare.
 
The source is Hansen and the method is called simple mathematics. You should study math some day.

And you should study logic. The deniers run away from it every oppotunity!




My 4 year old daughter knows more about logic now then you ever will konrad old chum.

You consider the claim that the current rise in CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warm Period without explanation of how that happens to be logical?!?! Then I have a bridge to sell you!!! Proclamations without back-up gets you a rejection from any decent scientific publication.
 
And you should study logic. The deniers run away from it every oppotunity!




My 4 year old daughter knows more about logic now then you ever will konrad old chum.

You consider the claim that the current rise in CO2 is the result of the Medieval Warm Period without explanation of how that happens to be logical?!?! Then I have a bridge to sell you!!! Proclamations without back-up gets you a rejection from any decent scientific publication.



Wow, scientific methodologies really aren't your fortay are they?

I presented you a hypothesis that the current CO2 rise is a artifice of the MWP.

I then presented coroborating evidence from the Vostock ice cores that show CO2 rise occurs approximately 800 years after the warming has begun.

I then pointed out that the MWP was around 800 years ago.

It is simple, elegant, fits the empirical data, and so far has not been tested. So test it.

Please show me where I have made a proclamation without backup. I have followed the scientific method to the letter.....the problem is you don't know what that means.

Which begs a further question...how can you hope to engage in a meaningful discussion when you can't even speak the language?
 
Last edited:
I find it hysterical that the first line of the second paragraph invokes the 'consensus'.

:rofl:

But more hysterical is a blog proclaiming the importance of a science argument yet uses rhetoric to argue against the Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Rocks does it again. What an idiot.

Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.

I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.

APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols

Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255

Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4


Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM–1:39 PM


Preview Abstract

Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)


Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.
Funny, at least the blog knew enough that this abstract was close to worthless. Here, Rocks. I've highlighted the value of your 'proof' (bold).

Yet, what you posted does nothing to refute what I said about your blog. They invoke 'consensus' (a logical fallacy, by the way) in the first line of the second paragraph and invoke rhetoric to argue AGAINST the Logic of Scientific Discovery. (I love the fact that I repeat myself, especially when it's in writing. :lol:)

Maybe you could attempt to refute what I actually posted, if you comprehend it at all, that is. Or, just keep making shit up for me. At least that's amusing.

And, I have to wonder who the hell reviewed this abstract, if anyone, with the presence of what is underlined.

Have a great day, dude. Those outside of reality usually do.

Have a great day yourself, posier. A scientist you are not. Adaquete proof of which you have just posted. Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not. In fact, the words you bolded will be present in almost all scientific articles.

Climate is far from completely understood. Yet the predictions that have been made so far have almost all been far too conservative. Two big freighters taking the Northeast Passage before 2010 was something no one predicted. The beginning of the outgassing of the Artic Ocean clatrates before mid-century was definately in no ones predictions. It has already began.
 
Here we have the other self proclaimed 'scientist' yapping about 'logic', yet not presenting a single peice of evidence to show the why the the warming we are experiancing is a chimera.

I think that you are Walleye are quite a pair to draw to. Self proclaimed scientists that eschew any presentation of real science.

APS -APS March Meeting 2010 - Event - Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols

Session B8: Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse Redux: The Physics of Global Catastrophes and Global Countermeasures
11:15 AM–2:15 PM, Monday, March 15, 2010
Room: Portland Ballroom 255

Sponsoring Unit: FIP
Chair: John W. Clark, Washington University in St. Louis

Abstract ID: BAPS.2010.MAR.B8.4


Abstract: B8.00004 : Global Response to Global Warming: Geoengineering with Stratospheric Aerosols
1:03 PM–1:39 PM


Preview Abstract

Author:
Jonathan Katz
(Washington University)


Despite efforts to stabilize the atmospheric CO$_2$ concentration, it is possible that the climate system could respond abruptly with unanticipated catastrophic consequences. Intentional intervention (``geoengineering'') has been proposed to avoid or ameliorate such consequences has been proposed. One contemplated intervention would be the injection of artificial aerosols into the stratosphere to reduce the amount of shortwave (visible and near-IR) Solar radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. Natural volcanic injections of sulfate aerosols are known to produce short-lived (about a year) cooling, providing a ``proof of principle''. Artificial production and injection of aerosols involves a number of poorly understood physical and chemical processes, as well as a choice of aerosol material and injection method. I will outline some of these technical issues and unanswered questions.
Funny, at least the blog knew enough that this abstract was close to worthless. Here, Rocks. I've highlighted the value of your 'proof' (bold).

Yet, what you posted does nothing to refute what I said about your blog. They invoke 'consensus' (a logical fallacy, by the way) in the first line of the second paragraph and invoke rhetoric to argue AGAINST the Logic of Scientific Discovery. (I love the fact that I repeat myself, especially when it's in writing. :lol:)

Maybe you could attempt to refute what I actually posted, if you comprehend it at all, that is. Or, just keep making shit up for me. At least that's amusing.

And, I have to wonder who the hell reviewed this abstract, if anyone, with the presence of what is underlined.

Have a great day, dude. Those outside of reality usually do.

Have a great day yourself, posier. A scientist you are not. Adaquete proof of which you have just posted. Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not. In fact, the words you bolded will be present in almost all scientific articles.

Climate is far from completely understood. Yet the predictions that have been made so far have almost all been far too conservative. Two big freighters taking the Northeast Passage before 2010 was something no one predicted. The beginning of the outgassing of the Artic Ocean clatrates before mid-century was definately in no ones predictions. It has already began.




Rrally? Hansen predicted that the Hudson river would be inundated by now. what happened to that little prediction there hypocrite.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.

By that standard I can prove that God is real because you cannot counter with any facts to prove he does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the people attempting to claim something exists, not the other way around. If the data does not fit into the theory the theory needs to be tweaked, not the data. The problem I see with the AGW crowd is they prefer to do it the other way.

Global warming is a fact, the claim that it is anthropomorphic is open to debate.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You really don't understand this at all. It's up to the AGW cult to prove their case. They've shown they can't do so without cherry-picked and distorted data, computer models designed to give the desired result, and masturbatory peer-review.

So simply saying AGW is true isn't good enough. You have to provide facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You have no room to be lecturing anyone about honor.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.





Wrong again bucko. As Aristotle said millenia ago...

"HE WHO ASSERTS MUST ALSO PROVE"


You'll see it in my tag line below as well. Learn it. Understand it. Live it.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.

By that standard I can prove that God is real because you cannot counter with any facts to prove he does not exist. The burden of proof lies with the people attempting to claim something exists, not the other way around. If the data does not fit into the theory the theory needs to be tweaked, not the data. The problem I see with the AGW crowd is they prefer to do it the other way.

Global warming is a fact, the claim that it is anthropomorphic is open to debate.

I see. Then your claim is that the physicists have been making incorrect measurements of the absorption bands of CO2 for the last 150 years?

And that all the scientific societies dealing with physics and chemistry in the world are in on a vast conspiracy to hide the facts from superior intellects like yourself?

Then tell us, o enlightened one, what are the absorption bands for CO2? For CH4?

Windbag, that you are for sure.:razz:
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.





Wrong again bucko. As Aristotle said millenia ago...

"HE WHO ASSERTS MUST ALSO PROVE"


You'll see it in my tag line below as well. Learn it. Understand it. Live it.

Oh mighty survivor of the Amazonian jungle, coming from you that is hilarious:lol::lol::lol:
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You really don't understand this at all. It's up to the AGW cult to prove their case. They've shown they can't do so without cherry-picked and distorted data, computer models designed to give the desired result, and masturbatory peer-review.

So simply saying AGW is true isn't good enough. You have to provide facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You have no room to be lecturing anyone about honor.

Now Dumbass Dave, why don't you enlighten us with some facts of your own? Or are you just an echo chamber for wingnut talking points?
 
Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not.

"The science is settled."

Thanks for admitting AGW is a cult.

Well, Dumbass, the science is settled. CO2 has absorption bands that absorb radiaton in the infrared. Which results in the atmosphere warming, and evaporating more water vapor, an even more effective GHG.

The first predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere was made by Svante Arnnhenius, a Nobel Chemist, in 1896. And they were suprisingly accurate.

Now how fast we will expreriance further warming depends on feedbacks in permafrost, ocean lifeforms, and ocean clathrates. And, of course, how much additional GHGs we add to the atmosphere.

Now Dumbass, why don't you actually surprise us all and say something that shows a glimmer of intelligiance.
 
Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not.

"The science is settled."

Thanks for admitting AGW is a cult.

Well, Dumbass, the science is settled. CO2 has absorption bands that absorb radiaton in the infrared. Which results in the atmosphere warming, and evaporating more water vapor, an even more effective GHG.

The first predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere was made by Svante Arnnhenius, a Nobel Chemist, in 1896. And they were suprisingly accurate.

Now how fast we will expreriance further warming depends on feedbacks in permafrost, ocean lifeforms, and ocean clathrates. And, of course, how much additional GHGs we add to the atmosphere.

Now Dumbass, why don't you actually surprise us all and say something that shows a glimmer of intelligiance.




Yet another poster child for ignorance. Can't understand sarcasm either. Good job clown.
 
Where's your honor, dave? The cultists are those that only believe what fits their biases. Simply saying AGW isn't true, isn't good enough. You have to counter the facts with facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You really don't understand this at all. It's up to the AGW cult to prove their case. They've shown they can't do so without cherry-picked and distorted data, computer models designed to give the desired result, and masturbatory peer-review.

So simply saying AGW is true isn't good enough. You have to provide facts of your own or it's all just BS.

You have no room to be lecturing anyone about honor.

Now Dumbass Dave, why don't you enlighten us with some facts of your own? Or are you just an echo chamber for wingnut talking points?
You don't get it, either. You make the assertion, you prove it.

So far, you haven't.
 
Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not.

"The science is settled."

Thanks for admitting AGW is a cult.

Well, Dumbass, the science is settled.
"Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not."

Indeed, Reverend Rocks.
CO2 has absorption bands that absorb radiaton in the infrared. Which results in the atmosphere warming, and evaporating more water vapor, an even more effective GHG.

The first predictions concerning the warming of the atmosphere was made by Svante Arnnhenius, a Nobel Chemist, in 1896. And they were suprisingly accurate.

Now how fast we will expreriance further warming depends on feedbacks in permafrost, ocean lifeforms, and ocean clathrates. And, of course, how much additional GHGs we add to the atmosphere.

Now Dumbass, why don't you actually surprise us all and say something that shows a glimmer of intelligiance.
Your definition of "intelligiance" [sic] being, of course, "agreeing with me". :lol:
 
Holy Roller Preachers speak in absolutes, scientists do not.

"The science is settled."

Thanks for admitting AGW is a cult.

Well, Dumbass, the science is settled.
....
That about sums up your ignorance.

And, your strawmen about simple sophomore chemistry being settled is irrelevant.

Christ almighty, you haven't a clue.

Fucking dilettantes, like you and Gore, need to keep to what you know. Stop playing at something where you are clueless. You look the fool and you soil it. You epitomize the ememies of science.
 
Last edited:
"The science is settled."

Thanks for admitting AGW is a cult.

Well, Dumbass, the science is settled.
....
That about sums up your ignorance.

And, your strawmen about simple sophomore chemistry being settled is irrelevant.

Christ almighty, you haven't a clue.

Fucking dilettantes, like you and Gore, need to keep to what you know. Stop playing at something where you are clueless. You look the fool and you soil it. You epitomize the ememies of science.




Please don't sully the term of dilettante! Gore and old fraud are nothing of the sort. They know NOTHING about what they speak. At least a dilettante is usually well read.
 

Forum List

Back
Top