tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post5648942608256100454..comments2024-03-16T05:00:38.826-04:00Comments on Egnorance: Wesley J. Smith on Chris Mooney and white male global warming skepticsmregnorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-4179402997568043062011-09-22T06:57:26.346-04:002011-09-22T06:57:26.346-04:00@bach:
[Probably 90% of papers should not have be...@bach:<br /><br />[Probably 90% of papers should not have been published... ]<br /><br />Very true. <br /><br />[Richard Dawkins is a theoretical biologist.]<br /><br />No he's not. Theoretical biology is a discipline in itself, very respectable and very rigorous. Lots of mathematical modeling, etc. Dawkins isn't qualified to clean their toilets. <br /><br />Dawkins is an second rate ethologist who made a career for himself writing books for laymen. He writes passably-- I'm not a big fan of his style, but he's better than some (Dennett is unreadable). He's grossly incompetent in philosophy and theology.<br /><br />[Dawkins has published ideas that are mind changing, for example the Selfish Gene.]<br /><br />The locus of actor in natural selection has long been debated. Dawkins' books for the lay press aren't even real science, and more than Hawking's "Brief History of Time" is real science. It's a popular science book for laypeople. The difference is that Hawking also does real science, unlike Dawkins. <br /><br />Real scientists in theoretical biology, evolutionary biology, etc publish real scientific articles addressing these issues-- on what does NS act, etc. Coffee table books don't count. <br /><br />[PZ Myers works at a small teaching university, where excellence in teaching is more highly prized than research.]<br /><br />I think that excellence in teaching is very important. If Pharyngula dealt with controversies in education, that'd be fine.mregnorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11431770851694587832noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-57732379950251621732011-09-21T23:53:15.598-04:002011-09-21T23:53:15.598-04:00Michael,
Richard Dawkins is a theoretical biologi...Michael,<br /><br />Richard Dawkins is a theoretical biologist. Like theoretical physicists, they hardly ever see the inside of a laboratory. Einstein was a theoretical physicist too, and the only times that he attempted real experiments, he either almost killed himself or got the result wrong.<br /><br />Publishing isn't everything. Probably 90% of papers should not have been published. I remember one paper discussing the nuclear atypic within epithelial cells within vasectomy specimens from more elderly patients. It managed to get cited in one of the standard surgical pathology textbooks as being written by authors who leapt over the heads of their peers into obscurity.<br /><br />Dawkins has published ideas that are mind changing, for example the Selfish Gene. PZ Myers works at a small teaching university, where excellence in teaching is more highly prized than research.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-45127910993893402042011-09-21T11:15:22.113-04:002011-09-21T11:15:22.113-04:00Egnor: Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fa...Egnor: <i>Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fame rests entirely on his writing for the lay public. No debate. </i> <br /><br />I don't think so. A large number of citations for his 1979 paper indicates that he has made a difference. <br /><br />Be that as it may, Behe is a lesser scientist than Dawkins, however you slice it. And Dembski has completely fallen off the radar screen.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-34914240004233241952011-09-21T09:57:06.535-04:002011-09-21T09:57:06.535-04:00Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fame rest...Dawkins is a second rate scientist whose fame rests entirely on his writing for the lay public. No debate. <br /><br />h-index has a great deal to do with number of publications in a field generally, and is useful for comparison within a field, much less useful for comparisons between fields, where total publications differ markedly. <br /><br />I'm not saying that all public Darwinists are second rate scientists-- Coyne is very well published and does cutting edge work. Larry Krauss is a very accomplished physicist, and Larry Moran is a very accomplished biochemist. They all suck as philosophers and theologians, but why must I repeat the obvious. <br /><br />Dawkins is a narcissistic putz, and Myers is a joke.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-88156934937819062032011-09-21T08:33:49.285-04:002011-09-21T08:33:49.285-04:00Oh, we can play this game.
Let's take Richar...Oh, we can play this game. <br /><br />Let's take Richard Dawkins's record of <i>scientific</i> publications (journal articles, not books). He has an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index" rel="nofollow">h-index</a> of 18. Solid, although not mind-boggling. One of his papers, "Arms Races between and within Species," <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0081" rel="nofollow">Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 205, 489 (1979)</a>, has been cited in the literature 600+ times. <br /><br />Let's compare Dawkins, by all accounts not the best representative of evolutionary biology, just a popular author, to that leading light of ID research Michael Behe. Behe's h-index is 16. His <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/nar/23.4.689" rel="nofollow">most cited article</a> has 89 citations. <br /><br />Or to Bill Dembski, the other leading light of ID. H-index of 2, most cited article has 4 citations. <br /><br />Wow.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-15390909110613080772011-09-21T07:52:11.448-04:002011-09-21T07:52:11.448-04:00@Matteo:
Many of these staunch defenders of scien...@Matteo:<br /><br />Many of these staunch defenders of science are very low level scientists. Dawkins is a second rate scientist who hasn't seen the inside of a lab in 30 years. His specialty was ethology-- animal behavior. His last real scientific work was in the 1980's. Pretty thin gruel. He's a famous 'scientist' for publishing a series of popular books for laymen. <br /><br />PZ Myers is a joke-- check his publications on medline. <br /><br />A lot of these atheist scientific superstars are wanker scientists who are famous because they've towed the ideological line.<br /><br />Most genuine scientists work quietly and hard.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-22437577485567194522011-09-20T23:19:56.892-04:002011-09-20T23:19:56.892-04:00"Sure, if you're engaged in minor league ..."Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here."<br /><br />Why do so many scientists seem to be such prisses? Is it because the stakes are so low?Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-41456013946533727862011-09-20T18:19:00.736-04:002011-09-20T18:19:00.736-04:00Fair enough, bachfiend. I watch Grey's Anatomy...Fair enough, bachfiend. I watch Grey's Anatomy too!troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32182698509626115442011-09-20T17:43:16.523-04:002011-09-20T17:43:16.523-04:00Troy,
Of course, the h-index isn't perfect. ...Troy,<br /><br />Of course, the h-index isn't perfect. Clinicians get tenure for other reasons than research publications. Technical proficiency and teaching for example. Neurosurgeons are rather rare animals, so the number of people around to cite a neurosurgeon's published papers are limited, also requiring the other neurosurgeon's to be publishing too.bachfiendhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14752055891882312204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-35520227729660350132011-09-20T15:42:34.617-04:002011-09-20T15:42:34.617-04:00Oleg:
"Sure, if you're engaged in minor ...Oleg:<br /><br />"Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here."<br /><br />An h-index of 6 (h publications at least cited h times). Worthy of an advanced PhD student. How did Michael ever get tenure? I have to assume by fraud until proven otherwise to my satisfaction. ;-)troyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05136662027396943138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-60339108434612247292011-09-20T15:33:30.076-04:002011-09-20T15:33:30.076-04:00@oleg:
"The judge also determined that Cucci...@oleg:<br /><br />"The judge also determined that Cuccinelli can only investigate one of the five grants awarded to Mann, since only one had been awarded by the state of Virginia. The others were federal grants."<br /><br />Mann is behaving just like any criminal, fighting against revealing evidence. <br /><br />Cuccinelli still has plenty of options. The most interesting option would be to investigate Mann's federal grants. Cuccinelli can do that, when he's appointed AG of the US by President Perry in 2013.Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67476577184008438222011-09-20T15:17:25.227-04:002011-09-20T15:17:25.227-04:00@oleg:
[What are you talking about? You are confu...@oleg:<br /><br />[What are you talking about? You are confusing me with someone else.]<br /><br />Actually, you're right. I apologize.<br /><br />How DO you feel about population control?Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-72579104254594173572011-09-20T14:27:03.211-04:002011-09-20T14:27:03.211-04:00Egnor: 1) If the funding is public, they're no...Egnor: <i>1) If the funding is public, they're not your emails. </i><br /><br />No, emails are not in public domain. I have no obligation to show you my emails without a court order. In fact, there are specific instances where I am expressly forbidden from making emails public by law. See FERPA.<br /><br /><i>2) Other scientists aren't your 'competitors', they're colleagues. You're not a businessman.</i> <br /><br />Sure, if you're engaged in minor league research. I've seen your publication record, so no surprise here.<br /><br /><i>3)If you were a businessman, and you behave like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth et al, you would go to prison.</i><br /><br />You have repeated this assertion several times but that didn't make it any more convincing. In reality, three panels looked at Michael Mann's scientific conduct and found no improprieties. A fishing expedition against him was dismissed by a judge. Conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, of course. <br /><br /><i>4) I don't know about you, but when I have email discussions with other scientists about my research, I don't say anything that would not be appropriate for public consumption.</i> <br /><br />Of course. Your silly rants on this blog are a confirmation of that. Mwahahaha!oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82267336392550191622011-09-20T14:16:15.815-04:002011-09-20T14:16:15.815-04:00Egnor: That's pretty funny. You make excuses f...Egnor: <i>That's pretty funny. You make excuses for a totalitarian population control policy that controls the most intimate aspects of every person's life, but, when you are asked about releasing publicly-funded emails, you DEMAND privacy.</i> <br /><br />What are you talking about? You are confusing me with someone else. Link, please. Put up or shut up.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18616973494433338932011-09-20T13:02:59.976-04:002011-09-20T13:02:59.976-04:00@ oleg:
[No. Why would I open my research emails ...@ oleg:<br /><br />[No. Why would I open my research emails to competitors?]<br /><br />That's pretty funny. You make excuses for a totalitarian population control policy that controls the most intimate aspects of every person's life, but, when you are asked about releasing publicly-funded emails, you DEMAND privacy.<br /><br />Hey, when asked to release emails, why not just pretend that you've been forced to pass control of your intimate family life and procreation to the government. <br /><br />You're so blase about totalitarian population control, and so protective of privacy about emails...Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-68431876466513612512011-09-20T12:33:45.386-04:002011-09-20T12:33:45.386-04:00@ oleg:
My email: "Joe, let's double-che...@ oleg:<br /><br />My email: "Joe, let's double-check our data to make sure it's right..."<br /><br />Climate scientist email: "Joe, lets keep other people from double-checking our data so they can't find out if it's right..."Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-82656972373767051162011-09-20T12:31:06.566-04:002011-09-20T12:31:06.566-04:00@oleg:
[Why would I open my research emails to co...@oleg:<br /><br />[Why would I open my research emails to competitors?]<br /><br />1) If the funding is public, they're not your emails. <br /><br />2) Other scientists aren't your 'competitors', they're colleagues. You're not a businessman. <br /><br />3)If you were a businessman, and you behave like Mann, Jones, Briffa, Trenberth et al, you would go to prison.<br /><br />4) I don't know about you, but when I have email discussions with other scientists about my research, I don't say anything that would not be appropriate for public consumption.<br /><br />Are you admitting to hiding things?Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-67383324751189621512011-09-20T12:12:29.201-04:002011-09-20T12:12:29.201-04:00Egnor: I would have no issue releasing my emails t...Egnor: <i>I would have no issue releasing my emails that relate to my research. Would you?</i> <br /><br />No. Why would I open my research emails to competitors?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55407937994223039612011-09-20T12:07:05.597-04:002011-09-20T12:07:05.597-04:00Here is the North Korean approach to an AGW fix......<a href="http://daily-faustian.blogspot.com/2011/09/nk-death-camps-revealed-in-detail.html" rel="nofollow">Here is the North Korean approach</a> to an AGW fix.... or any fix. <br />The Atheist state at work on it's own people.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14739783974158130525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-21580549141018021772011-09-20T12:06:58.819-04:002011-09-20T12:06:58.819-04:00@oleg:
Mann could have avoided being dragged to c...@oleg:<br /><br />Mann could have avoided being dragged to court by just releasing the emails. <br /><br />I would have no issue releasing my emails that relate to my research. Would you?Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-51847038876527309982011-09-20T11:56:28.058-04:002011-09-20T11:56:28.058-04:00Say what?
The "hidden decline" is a wel...Say what?<br /><br />The "hidden decline" is a well known effect publicly discussed in the scientific literature. It was described in a <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v391/n6668/abs/391678a0.html" rel="nofollow">paper</a> published in a top scientific journal Nature. If you can't be bothered to read the literature, don't complain.<br /><br />And Mann didn't <i>go</i> to court to keep his emails, he was <i>dragged</i> to court by an overzealous Attorney General. Fortunately for Mann, the judge saw through Cuccinelli's charade. As a self-described proponent of academic freedom, you should be ashamed of being on Cuccinelli's side.oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-37068017565707013922011-09-20T11:45:32.310-04:002011-09-20T11:45:32.310-04:00@oleg:
Delete data rather than share it, hide dec...@oleg:<br /><br />Delete data rather than share it, hide declines, go to court to keep publicly-funded emails secret...<br /><br />Why do you guys always act like you have something to hide?Mike Egnornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-18299402941461735132011-09-20T11:33:38.584-04:002011-09-20T11:33:38.584-04:00In fact, even AGW skeptics thought that Cuccinelli...In fact, even AGW skeptics thought that Cuccinelli went to far with his witch hunt. <br /><br /><a href="http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/02/cuccinelli-v-mann/" rel="nofollow">Steve McIntyre</a>: <i>This is a repugnant piece of over-zealousness by the Virginia Attorney General, that I condemn.</i>oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-55405377657640930142011-09-20T11:29:23.643-04:002011-09-20T11:29:23.643-04:00Cuccinelli can put a sock in it. The judgesaw that...Cuccinelli can put a sock in it. The judgesaw that this is nothing but a fishing expedition and <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/judge-dismisses-ken-cuccinelli-mann-0437.html" rel="nofollow">dismissed</a> the case: <br /><br /><i>Judge Paul Peatross Jr. ruled that while the Virginia attorney general could investigate state grants awarded to scientists, Cuccinelli and his staff failed to demonstrate that such an investigation was warranted in this case. “The nature of the conduct is not stated so that any reasonable person could glean what Dr. Mann did to violate the statute,” the judge wrote. “… The Court…understands the controversy regarding Dr. Mann’s work on the issue of global warming. However, it is not clear what he did that was misleading, false or fraudulent in obtaining funds from the Commonwealth of Virginia.”</i>oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3555199390227912207.post-32664325712801056632011-09-20T11:28:17.882-04:002011-09-20T11:28:17.882-04:00Get your terms straight, Anon. Michael is a "...Get your terms straight, Anon. Michael is a "theist". Just for the sake of honesty, could we please see your definition of "creationist", so we can tell whether you understand the terms you are using?Matteohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05393908406875742989noreply@blogger.com