Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:more pseudo science (Score 1) 869

Oh this is rich. The AC calling the scientists ignorant about how the peer review process works. Nice try AC, but GP is right, peer reviewers systematically try to tear pretty much anything that comes their way to shreds. I'm a scientists, and not only do I see this happening to my papers, I do the same to the papers I get to review. Extremely critical reviewers are an essential part of the scientific process.

Contrary to GP, I feel it's normal that it's so difficult to get a paper published. What is not normal is that scientists are under such high pressure to get so many papers published per year; the process could benefit from some "slowing down". But that's an entirely different discussion.

It is well documented that climate science circles are small and papers with a right conclusions are easier to publish as papers with the wrong conclusions.

The fact that in your field the process works well, does not mean that it works well in another fields.

Comment: Re:more pseudo science (Score 2) 869

Hopefully in a journal that is reviewed by skeptics rather than Ideologues.

All scientific journals are reviewed by skeptics.

That's because all scientists are skeptics.

This is just patently false.

James Hansen, one of the leading scientist sitting on top of the time series, called for trials of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature". When a human commits himself to such political ambitions, it becomes much harder to objectively accept position which would undermine the strong political stand he's taking.

Or how about the personification of "climate scientist", Michael Mann? Well, he refers to his fellow scientist who are not sharing his preconceived opinions as "not helping the cause".

These examples does not speak about scientists excising scepticism but more like political activists doing group thinking.

Comment: Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

by nyri (#46702763) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

Reposted because of moderation abuse. Mods, at least READ the comments you're modding down. When a group of people is trying to put words in your mouth, lying about what you're saying

Sir, your abominable messages equating gay sex to bestiality have to stop. I understand that you try to convince others of normalcy of gay sex by comparing it to your personal experiences having sex with goats. Nevertheless, we feel that it is offensive and moderators are right to continue to mod down your vile messages.

Or did I mean to say that they might down vote you if you just rant and harp about your own point of view without listening anyone. Telling others to "STFU" is not constructive messaging.

I can't remember but do carry on.

Comment: Re:The Re-Hate Campaign (Score 1) 1116

by nyri (#46702741) Attached to: Mozilla CEO Firestorm Likely Violated California Law

2) A segment of the public was in opposition to his cause, and spoke out opposing his viewpoint - fine

You are not being completely honest here. Let's be precise here: They didn't speak out opposing his viewpoint. They spoke out against the person making the point. Not only didn't they try to convince anyone about their views, they singled out one person to be bullied and harassed.

3) A website stopped allowing Mozilla on their site due to being in opposition of his viewpoint - fine

And bullied and harassed they did basically attacking the employee of the said person forcing them to fire him. Nice job.

Bear in mind that these actions that you are fine with are nothing more than actions trying to stifle political discussion by harassing individuals. Giving campaign contributions that target in convincing others about a certain view (even an objectionable view) is different from harassing individuals. The first adds to discussion, the latter removes from it.

The Military

United States Begins Flying Stealth Bombers Over South Korea 567

Posted by samzenpus
from the nice-day-for-a-flight dept.
skade88 writes "The New York Times is reporting that the United States has started flying B-2 stealth bomber runs over South Korea as a show of force to North Korea. The bombers flew 6,500 miles to bomb a South Korean island with mock explosives. Earlier this month the U.S. Military ran mock B-52 bombing runs over the same South Korean island. The U.S. military says it shows that it can execute precision bombing runs at will with little notice needed. The U.S. also reaffirmed their commitment to protecting its allies in the region. The North Koreans have been making threats to turn South Korea into a sea of fire. North Korea has also made threats claiming they will nuke the United States' mainland."

Comment: Re:give me data not personal opinions or beliefs (Score 1) 655

by nyri (#42231567) Attached to: Strong Climate Change Opinions Are Self-Reinforcing

Show me the numbers. Not someone's opinion about what they mean, but a detailed description of each experiment and the raw data that resulted.

They already have: it's called the scientific literature. It's not their fault you haven't taken the time and effort to read and understand it.

You obviously haven't followed Stephen McIntyre's never ending battles with Michael Mann and other luminaries in climate science community. Basically what we have is somewhat vague scientific literature and concentrated effort to hide the data and the details of methods.

Comment: Re:Job Performance (Score 1) 401

by nyri (#41941155) Attached to: CIA Director David Petraeus Resigns, Citing Affair

As long as it was between consenting adults, an affair is between him, the 'afairee' and his family.

I disagree. The husband of Paula Broadwell (the 'afairee' as you put it) has the right to know that his wife is seriously two-timing him. If this getting this public is the only way of getting the word to him then so be it.

As long as it doesn't effect one's job performance its really nobody's business.

The director of CIA should not put himself in a position where he can be blackmailed. This is such a basic stuff that I'm willing to guess that CIA has a policy on this.

Comment: Re:Personal attacks (Score 0) 605

by nyri (#40905423) Attached to: NASA Scientist: Heat Waves Really Are From Global Warming

Wait for the dirty tricks and personal attacks to begin.

The fossil fuel lobby won't take such a show of flagrant anti-rich, anti-1% dissent lying down.

Like the poor fool who dares to step between the pigs and their swill, this fellow is gonna get mauled.

That is just bullshit.

First, there is no great conspiracy of evil "fossil fuel lobby".

Second, fossil fuels are the friend of the poor. It is Al Gore and other obnoxiously rich people who can afford their electricity bill to threefold without any impact to their lifestyle. Make no mistake about it: If the solutions that are on the table for solving the global warming are implemented, it is the poor who will see their level of confort plummeting. They probably won't be able to afford such luxuries as private automobiles. Meanwhile Al Gore will be still living in his air conditioned castles while flying between them with his private jet.

Comment: Re:Long time WoW player here (Score 1) 247

by nyri (#40764635) Attached to: <em>World of Warcraft: Mists of Pandaria</em> Launches On September 25

I have 5 level 80+ chars on WoW, but haven't played the game in at least a year, maybe two, and don't plan to go back to it, even for Pandas.

Even for Pandas? So you are saying that Pandas are basically cool but the game sucks otherwise? I seriously thought that adding Pandas was a bad case of jumping the shark. Well, maybe I just need to admit it to my self: I'm totally out of touch with gamers today. Now if you excuse me, I'll go and find rumors about Football Manager 2013 which I will eventually buy but won't find time to play.

Comment: Re:Cheap publicity stunt (Score 1) 160

by nyri (#37634364) Attached to: Indian Mathematician Takes Shot At Proving Riemann Hypothesis

This is a cheap publicity stunt, nothing more.

And that is a bad thing exactly how?

Mathematics is not dancing with the stars or what not.

Says who? If you don't like it, don't watch it. I say that if this draw even a few bright people towards maths and shows them that this is really interesting stuff, it is a good thing. I do not understand why Mathematicians should appear as some sage-like, ascetic monks.

Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman

Working...