Tuesday, May 26, 2009

American Institute of Physics: THE WORST!!!! Are the physicists at the American Institute of Physics just Al Gore zombies too?

Are the physicists at the American Institute of Physics just Al Gore zombies too?
http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html

Or, is it just that Y/A has a lot of anti-science extremists that deny the prevailing scientific opinion?

First...if you're prepared to accept something as fact because it is the "prevailing" scientific opinion...then you are not a scientist.To be a real scientist you need to base your opinions on provable data, not on what all the cool kids are doing.In the early 1900's the "prevailing" scientific opinion believed that you could tell if someone would be a violent criminal later in life based on the bumps on their heads.Also remember, that up to WWII, most prominent scientists believed in Eugenics. So I don't think you really want to tie yourself to the "prevailing" scientific opinion.I know a number of people who belong to the AGU that do not accept the AGW theory. Just like any organization, the very loud people, even if they are not the majority, tend to be what gets heard. I cannot say for sure, but it would not surprise me if the authors of the AGW support paper for the AGU where a minority that is well placed at the top of the organization.


I come on this site once or twice a month. Every time I do I see that you have a number of posts that are all along the vein of "If you don't agree with me you're stupid". At the end of that you still call me presumptuous...well, give me something else to base my estimation on.

1 comment:

  1. It really amazing!

    http://bogusconferences.blogspot.com/2009/05/bogus-conferences-ieee-confess.html


    Isn't it?

    Please, read:

    A letter from Evan M. Butterfield (Director of Products & Services, IEEE Computer Society10662 Los Vaqueros Circle, Los Alamitos, CA 90720714.816.2165) informed in Jan 17, 2009 the following:

    The IEEE Computer Society (CS) has evidence that multiple (IEEE) conferences are receiving machine-generated papers. In two cases, conferences have actually accepted an obviously fraudulent submission. This is a serious issue that threatens the credibility of your conference, the quality of the digital library, and the reputation of both the IEEE and CS. It requires your immediate attention. Please take this opportunity to ensure that your peer review processes are being followed, and adapt to any new requirements that may be communicated by the IEEE or the Computer Society. No conference published by CPS should rely on an abstract review. It is very important that you review carefully the full text of all papers submitted to your conference. If you have already accepted papers, your program committee should review the full text again. While CPS staff will be conducting random spot-checks of conference papers in the publishing queue, we are relying on you to authenticate the content of your proceedings. Any papers that were not actually presented at your conference need to be brought to our attention, and should receive close review. In known cases, the machine-generated origin is obvious from a reading of the first few paragraphs of the paper; the abstracts are human-generated and do not indicate the quality of the paper itself. In the past, papers have been submitted by “Herbert Schlangemann,” but be mindful that the perpetrator of this fraud will change the approach over time. In the event you discover any evidence of questionable content or behavior, please communicate that to us immediately along with an action plan for addressing the problem. Thank you for your help in maintaining the quality of our products. See: http://bogusconferences.blogspot.com/2009/05/bogus-conferences-ieee-confess.html

    ReplyDelete