Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Scale? (Score 1) 167

by BergZ (#47522533) Attached to: Ebola Outbreak Continues To Expand

"A virus with high mortaility and rapid spread will rapidly kill all susceptible individuals within it's catchment area, so it's likely that such things have never really gotten off the evolutionary drawing board."

Generally speaking I agree, but only when the virus is lethal to all susceptible individuals.
If the virus is non-lethal to some susceptible individuals then those individuals could become carriers (a reservoir where the virus can continue reproduce but does not kill its host). Carriers are how a virus can have a high mortaility and rapid spread without becoming an evolutionary dead-end.

In the case of Ebola I have heard that it is suspected that fruit bats are carriers. If it is true that fruit bats are Ebola carriers then I think that means Ebola has some susceptible individuals (humans) where it is highly lethal and some susceptible individuals (fruit bats) where it is non-lethal.

Comment: Re:climate science, conspiracy, scientists (Score 1) 178

by BergZ (#47432151) Attached to: Peer Review Ring Broken - 60 Articles Retracted
I see you've decided to use an article that has nothing to do with climate change as an excuse to make snide comments about climate science and the people who advocate it.
I usually associate that kind of behavior with people who have a "____ derangement syndrome" (they make everything about the topic/person they hate most: Obama or Bush, Liberals or Conservatives, Communists or Capitalists, Secularism or Religion, etc).

Comment: Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (Score 1) 497

by BergZ (#47431757) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

"If you think a whitewash of 5 reports makes all of this ok ... [logical fallacy (ad hominem) omitted]"

I have seen the "skeptics" of climate change state that the independent investigations were, as you have said, "a whitewash" yet they've never provided a shred of credible evidence to support that statement. Prove it (let's just get this out of the way: blogs & op-eds do not count as evidence).
It is time for you to put-up or shut-up.

All I've seen so far is you "skeptics" complaining about getting exactly what you asked for (you asked for "an audit of climate science") but it didn't arrive at the conclusion you wanted (the conclusion you wanted "climate science is a hoax/fraud/scam")!

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 2) 497

by BergZ (#47426689) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
You say:

"Science is not supposed to be driven by consensus."

It isn't and nobody ever said it was. You're arguing against position that nobody believes.
Scientific consensus is only important as a signal to the general public. When a scientific consensus forms around a new theory it signals that the evidence for a theory is so strong that it has convinced a large majority of scientists in a field of study that the theory is accurate. It tells us "you can take the theory seriously now".

You say:

"You are supposed to design a theory that makes worthwhile predictions about some aspect of the real world and then test it in the real world to ensure it actually predicts stuff."

I'm not a Climatologist but I'm pretty sure that is exactly what they've been doing: Making predictions and testing them.
I suspect that the recently launched Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite is going to collect data that will be used to test some predictions climate science has made about the sources and sinks of carbon.

Comment: Re:"Thus ends "Climategate." Hopefully." (Score 1) 497

by BergZ (#47424083) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
You know how Creationists like to repeat (over and over and over again) "it's just a theory!" about Evolution?
Personally I just roll my eyes at that argument because I can see that they're trying to conflate the scientific use of the word "theory" and the common use of the word "theory".
Your argument is no better.
You are trying to conflate the scientific use of the word "consensus" with the common use of the "consensus".
There is a difference.

Comment: Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (Score 2) 497

by BergZ (#47423235) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann

"If what occurred at CRU is within normal bounds of science then science is in a sad state of affairs."

I've heard reports that the number of scientific papers being retracted is rising in all fields of study, so I have to ask:
How do you know that what occurred at the CRU is not "within normal bounds of science"? You can't actually know that unless we can read the work related emails of all scientists in all fields of study to objectively compare them... and that's where a sincere argument for greater scientific transparency begins:
A sincere argument for greater scientific transparency starts with new rules that apply generally to all scientists in all fields of study regardless of who pays for their research (public or private funding). That's how you raise the bar for scrutiny when you genuinely care about the quality of science.

The American Traditions Institute is not genuinely interested in greater scientific transparency, they're just interested in casting doubt on a specific scientist (and his specific field of study) because they have deemed his research "heresy" to their politics.

Comment: Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (Score 2) 497

by BergZ (#47421763) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
There were at least 5 independent investigations launched as a result of Climategate and none of them found any evidence of scientific malpractice. That is to say the emails didn't reveal anything about Climatology that isn't happening in every other branch of scientific research.

Say, but on the topic of scientific malpractice: Did you hear what happened to the climate change "skeptic" journal Pattern Recognition in Physics?
The nepotism and scientific malpractice became so rampant that the publisher actually had to shut the whole thing down (it was becoming an embarrassment)!

Comment: Re:Modern Day Anti-Evolutionists (Score 3, Insightful) 497

by BergZ (#47415115) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
Creationists blame Christopher Hitchens for "polarizing the Evolution debate"... and I do not accept their argument.
The Creationists are wrong about that because:
(1) Hitchens (like Gore) is not a scientist. You can not draw any conclusions about the validity of a scientific theory on the basis of the statements of non-scientists.
(2) It doesn't matter how Hitchens said what he said. We are all responsible for deciding what we believe. Responsible people ignore the polarization and examine the arguments logically. Idiots blame their dismissal of science on "the other guy" for not being nice.

If I wouldn't accept the "that guy polarized the debate" argument from Creationists; why would I accept it from you?

Comment: Re:That is not how conspiracy theories work. (Score 4, Insightful) 497

by BergZ (#47414931) Attached to: Climate Change Skeptic Group Must Pay Damages To UVA, Michael Mann
Nope. Mann's work, just like every other scientist on the planet, should be judged on the basis of what he has published.
We all know why ATI wanted access to Mann's emails: So that they could cherry-pick some juicy out of context quote to smear Mann with.

Comment: Re:Sad, sad times... (Score 1) 333

The AC reply to your comment points out this study was conducted with people ranging in age from 18 to 77 (same results) ... but isn't it interesting that you read the results of one study and you knee-jerk to complaining about "the kids these days"?
Since your core premise is wrong the rest of your comment reveals a lot about who you are:
It tells me (1) that you are very judgmental, and (2) that your misconceptions about the young are protected by a strong confirmation bias.
How else could you fail to notice that this wasn't just about young people?

Comment: Re:You would think. But you would be wrong. (Score 2) 190

by BergZ (#47351035) Attached to: NASA Launching Satellite To Track Carbon

"... they are convinced that government funding of scientific research is one of the factors contributing to their tax liability."

The people who say that are just making up excuses to dismiss the conclusions of scientific research.
In that way they're no different than Creationists who claim that Evolution is "just some secular hoax to fool the faithful".

... And they don't even consistently apply their "government money" argument: You never hear them make those sorts of complaints about the results from the LHC (that costed about ~$9billion split across many nations).

+ - Wind turbine energy payback time less than a year-> 2

Submitted by mdsolar
mdsolar (1045926) writes ""Researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the U.S. Pacific Northwest. They conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.""
Link to Original Source

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody