Den 31.07.2012 14:53, skrev Nightjar:
On 31/07/2012 11:09, Jo Stein wrote:
....
I am at the top without beeing a professor.
Does that mean that your peers do not agree with your assessment?
Today I am retired and compete with myself in marathon.
Accidents can happen.
When the The Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giæver graduated
from my university, he got the grade 4.0 i math and physics.
1.0 was top and 6.0 was bottom.
He became a professor by emigrating to the US where 4.0 was the top.
In the long run the systen has a selfcleaning property.
Quality floats to the top and stay there,
garbage sinks to the bottom and stay there.
You have never heard of the Dolson Principle, which states that those at
higher levels can reach those levels politically and/or by luck, and
need very little actual ability or knowledge to perform their jobs?
An alternative view is the Peter Principle, which states that people
will rise in an organisation until they reach the point at which they
are no longer competent to do their job, after which they will stop
getting promoted.
Today Ivar Giæver stays at the bottom as a climate skeptic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_Giaever
On 13 September 2011 Giaever resigned from the American Physical
Society over its official position that "the evidence is
incontrovertible."
So, he is a person who is willing to stand up for his principles. That
would, IMO, make him well worth listening to whether you agree with him
or not and several contributors here, myself included, would agree with
him about climate change having taken on all the aspects of a religion.
I agree with the climate skeptic Michael Crichton when he descripe
"the green movement" as a religion:
There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity
with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution
as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a
result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all.
We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek
salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability
is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic
food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the
right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Science, climate science and its consensus is something completely
different. If I were religious, climate skeptics should go to hell.
IG was a good chessplayer as a student. He has some ideeas that I like.
17:10 minutes into this video he tell that we know almost everything
today. Science is not an infinite field, it is a finite field.
We have broken the code of nature, and for most practical purposes
there are no need for any new laws of nature.
http://www.nobelprize.org/mediaplayer/index.php?id=713
Today he is old, runs his private company and fits into my
model were climate sceptics are loosers that take revenge
against the elite.
--
jo
There is a tension between short-term, individual welfare
and long-term, group welfare or world welfare.
If it were left to Darwinism alone, there could be no hope.
Short-term greed is bound to win. The only hope lies in
the unique human capacity to use our big brains with our
massive communal database and our forward-simulating imaginations.
From Dr. Dawkins' acceptance speech at the 2001 Kistler Prize Banquet