Nobody ever wants to go on strike, any more than employers want a lockout. It's the nuclear option, used as a last resort.
This chapter goes between the present chapters seven and eight.
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"?
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.
This is sophistry. The behavior I outlined is inexcusable, as it exemplified actions completely against scientific principles. This isn't some new or changing standard. All you're doing is weakening science by defending this garbage because it fits your political position.
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.
Maybe they aren't, but it goes beyond the American Traditions Institute. As Climategate showed, there was plenty of rotten science to be uncovered, which Mann was deeply involved in. There are legit skeptics, and it starts with Steve McIntyre's original and continuing work on exposing the flawed foundations of the "hockey stick" and other abuses.
The audio circuitry is the primary function of a phone, whereas on a desktop computer it may never get used at all. Priorities...
OK Phablet in protective case in shirt pocket, fairly snug fit, never so much as a hint of coming loose.
There are hundreds of billions of dollars of tribute payment from vassal states in the pretend buy of those aircraft. No matter how bad they are they need to be made and sold in order to collect those tribute payments. In fact the worse they are the more money the US will be able to collect of those vassal states as they pay through the nose in repairs, bug fixes and upgrades.
That's the one's who survive. Hundreds die and thousands are injured. Dubai is a stain upon the earth a clear measure of what is in store for the majority of workers if they allow it to happen.
And invest in some personal hygiene. Just because you're a genius recluse doesn't mean you have to look like one.
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.
If what occurred at CRU is within normal bounds of science then science is in a sad state of affairs. What kind of scientist withholds data on the grounds that somebody will find fault with their work? What kind of scientist would rather delete said data than see it released? What kind of scientist asks other scientists to delete email discussions on a public report of global impact regarding the environmental issue of the day? What kind of scientist chops off proxy data that shows a discrepeancy and splices in non-proxy data in its place?
The answer to all of those questions is Phil Jones. If you think a whitewash of 5 reports makes all of this ok, then you don't care about science. That he wasn't, at a minimum, fired for misconduct speaks volumes. That to this day he is still defended as a legitimate scientist shows the problems with the politics of climate science as a whole.
By the way, at least one report dinged him on the data withholding and the WMO graph, but he was never held accountable to the extent he should have been.
Just add the word "game" to your searches for "go", and you will find mostly relevant matches.
Nope. Mann's work, just like every other scientist on the planet, should be judged on the basis of what he has published.
If the email revealed wrong-doing in generating those published results, that should also be part of the judgment.
You can't pretend like Climategate didn't reveal a bunch of nasty stuff that should not have been going on (intentional lack of transparency, deleting data, subverting peer review, and chopping off inconvenient data that showed discrepancies in published graphs). It's better for this to have been aired than kept under wraps, even if it some of it was taken out of context (no, global warming isn't a massive hoax, but it isn't "settled" science, either).
Climategate was email leaked from CRU. Too bad something similar didn't happen at UVA. We need more transparency, not less.
People have argued the right to not incriminate themselves right up to the European courts, but it was rejected. When you are arrested in the UK you are told that if you fail to mention when questioned anything you later rely on in court it may harm your defence, so there is no right to silence either.
I enquired about that. Here's a situation where it "may harm your defence". Let's say you are a crime suspect. You say you have a witness you can give evidence that you were nowhere near the crime scene. What should happen is that you tell the police who your witness is, they question your witness, and either let you go because the witness convinces them you were not there, or the witness says your story is bullshit, or they decide not to believe your witness and investigate further. In the last two cases this will then come up in your court case.
But let's say you refuse to say who the witness is. The police has no chance to check if the witness says the truth or not because they don't know who the witness is. And in your court case you suddenly present the witness. In that case, the judge can throw that witness out because the police had no chance to investigate.
So you do have the right to remain silence, and it doesn't harm your defense if you remain silent all the time including the court case. It _can_ harm your defense if you remain silent but only until you appear in court.
Destiny and me woke up at the same time the next morning. We cuddled a while, made love again, then made coffee and took a shower together while the robots made us steak and cheese omelettes and toast and hash browns. Destiny put on the news. There was something about a problem in one of the company's boat factories; some machinery malfunctioned and killed a guy. I sure took notice of that! They didn't really have much information about it, though
It doesn't matter. In the UK, you face jail time for not turning over passwords... even if you can prove you never had them.
And that is exactly nonsense. You can only go to jail if they can prove that you have the password and don't turn it over.