i've been using an exercise bike while working on my computer, for at least 10 years
Just remove the handlebar in order to free your hands.
Because you will probably be sitting higher on your bike, you may have to add length to your table legs (you can use anything including phonebooks).
Most scientists experience first hand that science was built by all the previous scientists and that their purpose in life, as a scientist, is to continue building the culture of humanity.
All scientific papers acknowledge some of the previous papers upon wich they build.
Humanity's culture has given you so much, why not give something back ? And you may even live long enough to see what you gave being improved by others, which is one of the greatest satisfaction.
You can get much more than what you give. This is like a relationship with someone who has a very big potential, namely humanity.
If you deny that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories", you are a denier.
If you deny that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
If you deny climate scientists the right to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories", you are a denier.
A denier of science.
Do you think that "some theories are more supported by facts than other theories" ?
If yes then you have to accept the right of climate scientists to say that "some climate theories are more supported by facts than other climate theories".
The IPCC reports acknowledge that other theories could be right in the end, that is why they use the word "likely" for their predictions instead of saying "we are certain that...".
So calling the IPCC reports "religious" is clearly a mistake. No religion uses the word "likely" for its beliefs.
Are calling a religion the previous sentence "some theories are more supported by facts than others" ?
This is strange because all religions think that their beliefs don't need to be supported by facts.
In all scientific fields, some theories are more supported by facts than others, thus they are more likely than others.
This is also the case for astronomy.
Here is an example where those who choose to ignore mountains of facts in order to deny the most supported theories are called deniers by astronomers:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/09/im-skeptical-of-denialism/
The belief that "if you don't have replicates of some subject to use as a control group, you can't know if a theory will make good predictions about this subject" is false.
We only have one universe , with no control group, but scientists have been able to accurately predict things about our universe.
Solomonoff's inductive inference is a mathematical formalization of how to make a good prediction in a unique universe. It is a mathematical Occam's razor: shorter theories give better predictions, provided that they perfectly describe previous observations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Inductive_inference&oldid=471899642
USB? I thought we were talking about TTY here.
If I have not seen so far it is because I stood in giant's footsteps.
