• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  

ajbram

Members
  • Content count

    211
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ajbram

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Great Lakes
  • Interests
    Dark rum and going fast

Recent Profile Visitors

2,067 profile views
  1. Hull 131 ex-Road Runner, then Jolie Blon, has left Duluth. Some friends of mine bought it and hit a deer with it as they were trailering back to Windsor, ON. The boat is now aptly named RoadKill and sailing out of LMYC just outside of Windsor.
  2. We have one of these http://www.astrayacht.com/wp/gamp-multiplexer/?lang=en and we use the ESA Regatta Pro software to calculate custom polars. Seems to work well so far.
  3. Anyone firing guns at anyone is not cool. It doesn't matter if it's a colleague whose findings I agree with or not. I don't see why it's incumbent upon us to actively denounce it. The default setting of anyone who isn't a dick is to be against gun violence. Don't try to construe silence as acceptance.
  4. Hi Maggie... great input. I did not miss the intent of your quote. I am on the same side of this as you. Tongue in cheek, I was reinforcing your point. Namely, if god was held to the same standards of academic rigor as you and I, he (she/it/other) would likely not be successful in retaining a job. Very familiar with Box. Actually used that quote during my PhD defense to rebutt a statistician who wanted me to use quadratic spline regression instead of linear for a certain analysis. "Sure you can get an R squared of .97 instead of .72, but does that model retain any predictive relevance?" Not sure about confirmation bias here. A general model with fairly robust support is difficult to refute without the introduction of new parameters. I don't know that we have alternative parameters that are compelling enough to constitute a cohesive minority opinion. In other words, I don't think a viable alternative hypothesis has been presented. I don't think your distrust of current models makes you a heretic, but I would challenge you and others to provide an alternative hypothesis rather than simply casting doubt upon admittedly imperfect but useful models.
  5. Let me explain the joke for you Crash. My scientific opinion would be the same no matter who is in office. This particular comment-in-jest has nothing to do with science. It just has to do with Trump being a giant Ushanka of an asshat in polite society.
  6. She's a little big, French, and modestly-dressed for Twitler's taste. Maintenance will probably cease next week.
  7. They are still painful shitheaps, but that's not mutually exclusive to having been cool all along.
  8. This is a strange thing for people to get mad about. Surely Nat. Geo., being a popular media outlet, is entitled to editorializing with its cover images, no? If the American public is so easily impressionable as to assume that we will be seeing this along the shoreline of NY within the immediate future, we have other issues. Honestly, if I thought it was deliberately "chicken little-ing" I would have an issue with it, but I see it as editorializing about a worst case scenario that we will probably not see in our lifetime.
  9. Or not... Why God never won tenure. 1. He had only one major publication. 2. It was in Hebrew. 3. It had no references. 4. It wasn't published in a refereed journal. 5. Some even doubt he wrote it by himself. 6. It may be true that he created the world, but what has he done since then? 7. His cooperative efforts have been quite limited. 8. The scientific community has had a hard time replicating his results. 9. He never applied to the ethics board for permission to use human subjects. 10.When one experiment went awry he tried to cover it by drowning his subjects. 11.When subjects didn't behave as predicted, he deleted them from the sample. 12.He rarely came to class, just told students to read the book. 13.Some say he had his son teach the class. 14.He expelled his first two students for learning. 15.Although there were only 10 requirements, most of his students failed his tests. 16.His office hours were infrequent and usually held on a mountaintop.
  10. This is not academic puffery. I work alongside tons of people with and without PhDs, within and outside of academia. I work extensively with end users and as stated in a previous post, I am indebted to them for their work to make our findings into useful tools for resource managers etc. Their perspectives are valid and valued, and they offer me the same kind of respect. I take offense at the insinuation that I am not a real scientist - you asked for credentials, and they were provided. So now you want to complain about listing of credentials as academic puffery? You can't have it both ways. Are you also going to consider it puffery if I tell you my current funding is from USEPA, NOAA, NSF, and IMO? Time to give the personal attacks a rest.
  11. Ditto. I have a PhD in Environmental Science (2011). I am a prof of Aquatic Ecology at a major university. I have published over 30 papers in the last ~10 years, and 4 of them published in the last 18 months were about the responses of aquatic communities to climate change. My current research is supported by over $3 million in external grants. I sit on the editorial boards of 3 journals and review for an additional 10+. I am secure enough in my status as a real scientist that I don't need to out myself for climate deniers and corporate shills to fill my inbox with garbage. My science gains enough traction without me having to advertise it.
  12. Wrong
  13. The fact that you even uttered the term "settled science" shows your ignorance of the scientific method. Unfortunately the shills and deniers will use this statement as ammunition against theories that are well substantiated by evidence, but science is not the business of proving anything right beyond a shadow of a doubt. That's what lawyers and snake oil salesmen are for. Science works by testing and attempting to refute hypotheses. It's an ongoing practice of eliminating explanations that don't stand up to testing, or can't account for the observational data we have. So there's no such thing as settled science, and any real scientist can attest to this. In fact, for a model to be a "scientific theory," there must exist (hypothetically) a set of observations that, if encountered, would refute the theory. Of all the possible hypothetical scenarios that, if encountered, would refute our theories with respect to CO2 mediated climate change, we have not yet come across any. Equally ignorant and frankly quite offensive was the insinuation made earlier on this thread that "scientists use statistics to lie." On the contrary, we use statistics in order to express the probability that any given outcome could occur at random within your sample population. If that probability is small, generally <0.05, consensus is that the phenomenon in question did not arise by chance. Of course this means further testing needs to be done, but that statistical probability forms the basis for p-values that we report. We call this expressing our level of uncertainty. If your doctor or mechanic expressed his level of uncertainty as honestly and transparently as scientists are required to, you would be horrified. With each test that arrives at the same conclusion, the probability that the outcome can arise randomly gets exponentially smaller. For instance, if I hypothesize that a die is loaded and will land on 1, the chance of me getting that outcome randomly is 1/6 (0.167). If I repeat it and get another 1, the probability that that outcome can happen by chance is 1/6 X 1/6 (0.0278), the chance of rolling three 1s in a row is 0.00046, and so on. The chances of getting multiple 1s in a row by any means other than a loaded die becomes infinitesimally small. After thousands of experiments and model runs, the chance that the climate patterns we see could arise by anything other than CO2 forcing are now infinitesimally small. If you don't understand the philosophy and method of real science, you have nothing worthwhile to contribute here.
  14. You "mere engineers" are often the ones responsible for selling scientifically-defensible solutions to people in the "real world" who would often be happy enough with something cheap, easy, and wrong. Having a working knowledge of the scientific concepts that make your solutions viable and being able to show a project proponent how science can save them time and money in the long run is an important skill set to have. Sometimes taking our science and applying it to someone's personal example is what it takes to get the message home. E.O. Wilson once wrote, "The ideal scientist thinks like a poet, works like a bookkeeper, and writes like a journalist." That's a pretty apt description, but we are also indebted to the mathematicians who give us the tools to evaluate our ideas and datasets, and the the engineers who take our dry technical writing and use those concepts to (hopefully) enhance our lives.
  15. So much beer.