Cara Bermain Game Tembak Ikan Android Situs Terpercaya

27 responses to “Cara Bermain Game Tembak Ikan Android Situs Terpercaya”

1. 
   R. de Haan 11. January 2011 at 2:49 PM | Permalink

   I really think Nir Sharviv is doing his students a great favor.
   Just think about your own youth.

   There was no bigger challenge than to investigate, try out and tread on “forbidden” territories and no go zones.

   I think Nir Sharviv is a great promoter of climate skepticism among his students.

   That does not change the fact that science today is held hostage by a doctrine and broad opposition is needed to break it.

   1. 
      P Gosselin 11. January 2011 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

      Sure he’s a great sceptic, but is he maybe unintentionally encouraging his students to avoid finding the truth? Only one student in a project for astrophysics, Nir’s own field! Like: “Yeah it’s my field, but take it from me, you don’t want to go there!”

2. 
   P Gosselin 11. January 2011 at 2:58 PM | Permalink

   We need to send truth-seekers into climate science, and not take them out.

3. 
   DirkH 11. January 2011 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

   It will get worse before it gets better.
   The EU apparatchiks have invented the “European Climate Protection Capital”, a title that goes to one city each year; 2011 it’s Hamburg. During such a year, tons of EU money are thrown at propaganda agencies who run brainwashing projects with the dough.
   http://klima.hamburg.de/contentblob/2031096/data/klimaschutzdrucksache-2009.pdf
   page 119 ff., “Bewusstseinsbildung” (awareness raising)
   Most of these projects are exercised on the kids as they are victims that can’t easily run away. Interestingly, the pdf shows the amount of money spent.

4. 
   Bernd Felsche 11. January 2011 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

   Back in 1977, as an undergraduate doing 1st year Engineering, one of the subjects was chemistry. One of the experiments we had was to determine Avogadro’s number. The method given was to produce a “oil-slick” on a graticule and count the covered squares to determine the area.

   The count is easy for most of the squares, until you get to the edge. The error in reading a scale of measurement is +/- half the smallest division of the scale. So when I added the possible accumulated errors, one could only justify 3 significant digits in the result.

   Which I concluded in the report; having shown why it was so. The result was a low mark with the lab instructor’s remark being something to the effect that one should be abel to be more precise — without a hint of where my error analysis was wrong or an alternative method of determining the area covered on the graticule.

   I wasn’t happy about that so I approached an independent chemistry tutor to explain. His response was to ask why I didn’t simply fudge the raw data to get the known result.

   I guess that I’m “different”: http://www.dilbert.com/fast/2011-01-11/

5. 
   R. de Haan 11. January 2011 at 5:30 PM | Permalink

   Yes, we need truth, not spin.
   http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/01/al-fin-big-money-in-climate-change-who.html

   Our climate is dominated by natural cycles, not by humans.

6. 
   Ike 11. January 2011 at 6:11 PM | Permalink

   “That was in the old times. Now progress is achieved by scientists falling in line and keeping their doubts to themselves.” 🙂

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdxaxJNs15s&feature=player_embedded

7. 
   Nir Shaviv 11. January 2011 at 7:09 PM | Permalink

   Correction… I meant all but one _didn’t_ work on a pure astrophysics project (my typo in the comment yesterday!). The problem with working on climate stuff and not holding the party line is that it is awfully hard to publish (see for instance some of the climategate e-mails depicting what happens if the party doesn’t like your line), and without publishing you cannot advance (in the academia we all know the infamous “publish or parish”). So, it is very unfortunate, but because climate science is so dogmatic, if you’re young and want to make sure you advance, you ride the wave. You work on something popular and sexy. That’s why you find many young people building their career by being alarmist, and that why there are relatively few young skeptics. It would be hard for a young skeptic to find a tenure track position for example. This is not a phenomenon which is absent in other fields. The problem is that in climate science this effect is extreme! Sad, but true.
   — Nir
   ===============================
   PG: No problem. Link to your correction added, and I’ve edited accordingly.

   1. 
      Rob Honeycutt 11. January 2011 at 9:19 PM | Permalink

      Mr Shaviv… I would like to ask if you believe the criticisms of your work are unjustified? I’ve read a number of criticisms on Real Climate. I also seem to remember watching one lecture where Dr Richard Alley said the “work is really really interesting but most likely a ‘small control knob’ on climate.”

   2. 
      Dana 12. January 2011 at 4:54 AM | Permalink

      “see for instance some of the climategate e-mails depicting what happens if the party doesn’t like your line”

      Yeah they talk trash about you behind your back in private emails. Oooooh that’s rough!

      Funny, climate scientists who don’t “toe the party line” like Spencer, Lindzen, Christy, Douglass, Carter, etc. etc. don’t seem to have any trouble getting funding or publishing.

   3. 
      ArndB 12. January 2011 at 2:23 PM | Permalink

      Hello Nir Shaviv RE:” climate science is so dogmatic” & “climate science this effect is extreme“

      Having had the pleasure to hear your fine presentation in Berlin recently please be assured that I do not mean you but “climate science”, although in no way less: “skeptics”.

      A main problem of communication in this field is the completely flawed terminology with regard to “weather” and “climate”. Science is even incapable of giving the word CLIMATE another meaning as: “average weather”, but is reluctant (presumably unable) to define WEATHER in the first place. Both words (and average weather) are layman’s terms ever since, and lack any academic standards. For ‘climate science’ it is so convenient to work with meaningless terminology and definitions, and has been very successful with it over the last two to three decades. Skeptics should have been the first to complain, and to demand a change.
      If you are interested kindly have a look at the following links, to avoid to bore you and others here, with material that starts in 1992
      ___(ca.50 pages) http://www.whatisclimate.com/conditions-for-the-protection-of-the-global-climate.html
      ___(short: Letter to NATURE) http://www.whatisclimate.com/1992-nature.html
      And end with the most recent discussion here:
      ___(2009) http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html
      ___(2010) http://www.whatisclimate.com/b206_need_to_talk_July_2010.html
      ___(2008/2010) http://www.whatisclimate.com/index.html
      Best regards
      Arnd Bernaerts

8. 
   DirkH 11. January 2011 at 11:11 PM | Permalink

   Strong correlation between SOI, inverted and shifted by 7 months and global temperatures.
   Temperatures follow the Southern Ocean Index. This means we will get a progressively colder anomaly, as the SOI is at the biggest high since 1973 now.
   http://joannenova.com.au/2011/01/laptop-beats-met-supercomputer-soi-index-scores-a-win/

9. 
   R. de Haan 12. January 2011 at 12:16 AM | Permalink

   Great article at WUWT
   http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/11/something-topical-2/

10. 
    R. de Haan 12. January 2011 at 12:19 AM | Permalink

    Nir Shaviv
    11. Januar 2011 at 19:09 | Permalink | Reply
    Correction… I meant all but one _didn’t_ work on a pure astrophysics project (my typo in the comment yesterday!). The problem with working on climate stuff and not holding the party line is that it is awfully hard to publish (see for instance some of the climategate e-mails depicting what happens if the party doesn’t like your line), and without publishing you cannot advance (in the academia we all know the infamous “publish or parish”). So, it is very unfortunate, but because climate science is so dogmatic, if you’re young and want to make sure you advance, you ride the wave. You work on something popular and sexy. That’s why you find many young people building their career by being alarmist, and that why there are relatively few young skeptics. It would be hard for a young skeptic to find a tenure track position for example. This is not a phenomenon which is absent in other fields. The problem is that in climate science this effect is extreme! Sad, but true.
    – Nir

    And that’s how climate science has become a religion.

    This is an extremely unfortunate development.

    1. 
       Mindert Eiting 12. January 2011 at 10:38 AM | Permalink

       Yes, Ron, it’s a tragedy that so many young people build their career on a null field, as Ioannides calls it. I always thought that young people (especially young men) were risk takers. Presently, the older (retired) men take the risk of being skeptic. It seems as if the younger people are more concerned about their mortgages.

11. 
    Brian H 12. January 2011 at 6:11 AM | Permalink

    Dana;
    That’s because — duh — they’re established and tenured. Judith Curry, before striking out on her “talk with the savages (skeptics)” venture, said her reputation and position were secure, so she could afford to do it.

    1. 
       Dana 12. January 2011 at 5:40 PM | Permalink

       Sorry, that’s a load of nonsense. It also contradicts Dr. Shaviv’s comments, as he referred to the ‘climategate e-mails’, which were specifically about “established and tenured” scientists.

       I suggest you (both) read about what goes into the decisions of science funding panels.
       http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/reflections-on-funding-panels/

       1. 
          Brian H 12. January 2011 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

          Quoting Nir: ” That’s why you find many young people building their career by being alarmist, and that why there are relatively few young skeptics. It would be hard for a young skeptic to find a tenure track position for example. This is not a phenomenon which is absent in other fields. The problem is that in climate science this effect is extreme!”

          So extreme that only the most secure and bravest, like Lindzen and Curry, dare challenge the Team. And they immediately are/were assailed and maligned. Continue pretending otherwise if you wish; some things are so obvious that even the most vigorous obfuscation cannot conceal them.

          1. 
             Dana 14. January 2011 at 2:44 AM | Permalink

             Yeah life is tough when you’re a scientist with a scientifically-indefensible belief.

12. 
    Brian H 12. January 2011 at 6:17 AM | Permalink

    Nir;
    It’s still a brain-twister. Do you mean that only one did work on a pure astrophysics project? Why not say so rather than resort to an odd double-negative: “All but one didn’t …”.

    Your lectures must be compound-complex, indeed.

13. 
    hr 12. January 2011 at 8:46 AM | Permalink

    Nir: I’m still confused about what your students are doing – could you rephrase/clarify? What are those who are not working on pure astrophysics doing? Are any working on climate-related topics?

14. 
    R. de Haan 13. January 2011 at 12:49 AM | Permalink

    Let’s see how far the scare will go now Hanson calls for Chinese Communists to defeat the USA in order to save humanity.
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/01/hansen-chinese-communists-have-to-lead.html

    I really wonder how it it possible that this complete idiot is heading NASA/GISS.

15. 
    R. de Haan 13. January 2011 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    A positive sign:

    A conversation with the Author.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/a-conversation-with-the-author/#more-31577

16. 
    R. de Haan 13. January 2011 at 10:08 PM | Permalink

    The Solution To Global Warming
    Posted on January 13, 2011 by stevengoddard
    Global warming is caused by the billions of dollars being funneled into people who have no skills outside of making up global warming propaganda. They depend on the money for their personal survival, because they have almost no hope of getting a job doing anything useful.

    My solution :

    Offer a large reward to the first ten alarmist scientists willing to come clean.
    Replace global warming activism funding with a welfare program. It would be much cheaper in the long run.
    Cut off research funding for anything with the terms “climate change” or “global warming.” Make scientific neutrality be an absolute requirement for obtaining research grants.

    From Real Science

17. 
    R. de Haan 13. January 2011 at 10:15 PM | Permalink

    A negative sign:
    Trenberths upcoming AMS talk climategate thoughts
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/13/trenberths-upcoming-ams-meeting-talk-climategate-thoughts/

    Also read Lubos Motls thoughts that have been linked to the original article.

    IMO Trenberth is a rat.

18. 
    R. de Haan 14. January 2011 at 3:17 AM | Permalink

    Questions may be asked….
    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/questions-may-be-asked.html

19. 
    R. de Haan 14. January 2011 at 6:10 AM | Permalink

    January Global Temps drop below running means
    http://www.accuweather.com/video/748914366001/global-temps-have-dropped-below-running-means-in-jan.asp?channel=vbbastaj