Quote of the Week: 'global warming stunts black holes'

Science is all about self-promotion these days. You see catchy titles and puns in paper titles all the time (e.g., “Some Like It Hot” or “Caught in the Act”). I don’t fault a scientist for trying to get her peers to read her papers, any more than websites using controversial-sounding headlines to get clicks.
The analogy is metaphorically apt but has nothing to do with planetary climate science at all. THAT’S WHY IT’S FUNNY TO ASTROPHYSICISTS.
I don’t see how this is any different than the New Scientist using catchy-sounding findings to increase readership, or how Anthony has taken the study totally out of context to take any dig at scientists.
What I see as malicious is this: Why didn’t Anthony attempt to contact the author(s), as Carrick has, to see what they meant? Their emails are publicly available, and Tanaka seemed very willing to answer questions. Why just call them “weapons-grade stupid” on a very technical paper that is light-years outside your own expertise? In my view, this was done solely to incite controversy, and is unethical.

Robert, “You know, I find Dr. Tanaka’s use of the term “climate change deniers” vs. “activists” quite revealing in itself.”
Why? They’re standard terms. Nobody can decide what either side should be called, and it seems no matter what you call them, they’re going to object (or the other group will object).
Please come up with a term that we can all agree on, and we’ll all agree to use it.
[Reply: Concerning the pejorative “deniers”, please read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

Carrick says:
June 11, 2012 at 11:18 am
Robert, “You know, I find Dr. Tanaka’s use of the term “climate change deniers” vs. “activists” quite revealing in itself.”
Why? They’re standard terms.
For one thing, the term “climate change denier” is a lie. Skeptics do *not* deny that the climate changes; we affirm that it does, and it’s a part of natural variation for which there’s empirical evidence, as opposed to those who believe — on the basis of no evidence — that humans are somehow the cause of global warming/climate change *right now*.

Bill, some people do deny that climate is changing. Heck some of them deny the existence of photons! Others deny well established physics like radiative physics. Or well established measurement practices (once you hit this threshold, ironically, you’ve included people on both side of the divide including some people being excoriated on another thread for their flawed statistical methodology).
Robert, I think it’s a bit unfair to expect him to spend over-much time on your feelings in using a broadly used term used commonly in the press to describe you (see who this thread was activity and perhaps unfairly ridiculing). I can understand not liking the term, I won’t use it myself, but I am a lot more heavily involved in the debate that Taka is.
If you guys want to get really grumpy, read this on climate change deniaal i n the Wikipedia.
I agree that calling everybody who is skeptical of proposed remediations of potential catastrophic AGW is over broad a “denier” is overly broad and unfair. Enough said, IMO, let it lie.

* “guess what this person is *thinking* …”

The real questions are, can these black holes migrate fast enough to avoid extinction? And will this “global warming” force the larger ones to eat the smaller ones?

This one… is weapons grade stupidity.

….one of the best Anthony Watt-isms I’ve read yet!! Must remember that for the future!!

Bill, just to be clear CAGW not “my” hypothesis nor do I think it’s valid.. Just because I don’t drink one group’s koolaid doesn’t mean that I accept every precept of CAGW, nor do I think all of the claims of the CAGW alarmists are supported by the main stream science that they are supposedly based on.
Seriously the reason I suggest we wind this down is because this has become a completely fricking boring go-nowhere conversation. That’s my opinion too. You’ve said what you think, same for me. What’s left other than ad nausea repetitions?
As to stereotypes, I’m the one who admits most people don’t fit into one and seems like you’re the one trying to put everybody into one including me.
Ciao.

Now I have a picture in my head of Stephen Colbert criticizing sports announcers on his show for “misleadingly” referring to big players as “bears” to promote the “ursine agenda”. You know, being angry at people for making an analogy to something he’s angry about. … And that’s my analogy to this whole situation! HEY-OH!

Bill Tuttle says:
June 11, 2012 at 11:20 pm
Carrick says:
June 11, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Bill, some people do deny that climate is changing. Heck some of them deny the existence of photons! Others deny well established physics like radiative physics.
The fact that “some people” do is not a valid argument for tarring all skeptics with that brush, particularly since — as I pointed out — skeptics *affirm* that the climate changes, so the term “climate change denier” is a flat-out lie. Your attempted explanation is a No-Go At This Station — retake Logic 101.
Not only a flat out lie, but the term “climate change denier” logically applies to AGW activists who think climate never changed/changes, but remained/remains flat until man-made emissions changed/change it, the Hockey Stick is their emblem.
They use the term applicable only to themselves to distract from the fact that they are nincompoops for believing climate never changes and for believing that carbon dioxide can magically heat the earth 33°C.
Rather than sceptics objecting to the Holocaust connection, which is the reason they use the term against us, and getting further distracted by getting sidetracked by their endless ‘no we don’t mean it’ arguments, we could simply remind them that they are the ones in denial of climate change as we have ample proof that ice ages come and go which neither we nor carbon dioxide had anything to do with initiating, and, that only nincompoops could believe that the Hockey Stick trumps the Vostok Graph which shows all these massive global climate changes in and out of ice ages where carbon dioxide levels lag behind dramatic warming by 800 years.
That’s what they’re really distracting us from – showing them up to be akin to flat earthers and unable to conceptualise outside of their “Climate Change Denial Hockey Stick” emblem like those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth.
As for this paper, I could begin to make sense of it, or rather what they were trying to say, once I’d translated global to universal. As it stands the use of global in the play on words merely obfuscates for me, as I first thought they meant the black hole was being heated by “back-radiation” …. 🙂
I’m clearly not the target audience.

catdeadalive says:
June 12, 2012 at 12:14 am
If you read the New Scientist piece, it’s clearly an analogy. But as Tanaka says in his bemused comments, just skimming the headline can induce a “WTF” reaction.
You need to check the definition of “bemused” — Tanaka wasn’t confused by the reaction his use of the terms elicited, he was delighted, because he got the reaction he was hoping to get.

catdeadalive says:
June 12, 2012 at 7:35 am
Bill Tuttle: “You need to check the definition of ‘bemused’ ”
Oops, I meant “amused”.
I once heard a briefer use “conjugation” when he meant “conjunction.”
Hilarity ensued.

Richard T. Fowler says:
June 12, 2012 at 8:59 am
The following is for all the commenters on this page who, in a disappointing display of lesser critical thinking skills, have still failed to see that it’s the ethics rather than the physics of the authors’ words that is more questionable.
Hopefully the following will help clarify the ethical lapse that is at issue here.
We had the eugenics argument here a month ago — you’re ‘way late to the party…

Richard T. Fowler says:
“Please also notice that the title does not describe the same thing that the abstract does. As I wrote before (but no one seemed to pick up on it), “self-regulating” in that context implies that the MBHes are regulating their own population, whereas the abstract says it’s miniquasars doing the regulating. So it appears that great lengths were gone to to make the connection to AGW more noticeable, even to the point of writing a title that misrepresents the actual subject of the study.”
No such misrepresentation has taken place.
For making such statements about things being “obvious”, etc., I get the feeling you haven’t even bothered to look up what a quasar is.
From reading the paper, the New Scientist, and phys.org pieces, I learned that “quasars” = “growing supermassive black holes”.
So “miniquasars” = “smaller black holes, some of which are growing into supermassive black holes”.
So the title and the abstract are totally talking about the same thing.

catalivedead says:
June 12, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Richard T. Fowler says: “Please also notice that the title does not describe the same thing that the abstract does. As I wrote before (but no one seemed to pick up on it), “self-regulating” in that context implies that the MBHes are regulating their own population, whereas the abstract says it’s miniquasars doing the regulating. So it appears that great lengths were gone to to make the connection to AGW more noticeable, even to the point of writing a title that misrepresents the actual subject of the study.”
No such misrepresentation has taken place.
For making such statements about things being “obvious”, etc., I get the feeling you haven’t even bothered to look up what a quasar is.
From reading the paper, the New Scientist, and phys.org pieces, I learned that “quasars” = “growing supermassive black holes”.
So “miniquasars” = “smaller black holes, some of which are growing into supermassive black holes”.
So the title and the abstract are totally talking about the same thing.
No, they’re not. A quasar is the collision of the gas accretion formed by a *spinning* black hole. The black hole’s gravity pulls gas toward it, and the hole’s spin orients the gas toward its equatorial plane, which ejects most of it in two jets of magnetized gas oriented 180⁰ apart. That action is what reduces the gas “in the neighborhood.” A spinning black hole powers the quasar – a non-rotating black hole will not produce a quasar, so equating a quasar with a black hole is incorrect. A quasar is not a black hole, a quasar is *powered* by a black hole.

Thank you, Bill. This does get tiresome at times.
RTF

A few observations.
1) Typing “miniquasar” into Wikipedia redirects to “X-ray binary” where we find that there are a number of different types, none of which is called a”miniquasar”. But we read that in X-ray binaries generally,
“The X-rays are produced by matter falling from one component, called the donor (usually a relatively normal star) to the other component, called the accretor, which is compact: a white dwarf, neutron star, or black hole. ”
2) Under the section “Classification”, we read that there is such thing as “microquasars” which are described as “radio-jet X-ray binaries that can house either a neutron star or a black hole.” So again, even with the specific type of X-ray binary known as the microquasar, there is no requirement for a black hole.
3) According to the article, the low-, intermediate-, and high-mass X-ray binaries (which are types that are all distinct from microquasars) can all have a neutron star as their accretor. (This is what I had been taught in both high school and college, but I now have found current support for it in that article.)
4) There are two other types of X-ray binaries listed: X-ray bursters and X-ray pulsars. In the Wiki. article “X-ray burster” is found:
“These astrophysical systems are composed of an accreting compact object, typically a neutron star or occasionally a black hole, and a companion ‘donor’ star”
and in the article for “X-ray pulsar” we find:
“An X-ray pulsar consists of a magnetized neutron star in orbit with a normal stellar companion and are a type of binary star system.”
5) So apparently there is no requirement for any type of X-ray binary to involve a black hole, making catalivedead’s argument about miniquasars even less accurate.
6) Finally, I note that in the Wikipedia article for “Quasar” there is this:
“Quasars may also be ignited or re-ignited from normal galaxies when infused with a fresh source of matter. In fact, it has been theorized that a quasar could form as the Andromeda Galaxy collides with our own Milky Way galaxy in approximately 3–5 billion years.[6][7][8]”
So once again, no black-hole requirement. The two categories, black hole and “miniquasar” may perhaps have overlap, but they also appear to have a degree of independence from each other. Which was my understanding at the time I began commenting about the title of the Tanaka et al. paper.
RTF

The author of the original post and some commenters here seem to be approaching Tanaka’s paper from a “shoot-first (don’t bother asking questions later)” attitude. The original author came across something he didn’t understand, and he assumed it was very (“weapons grade”) stupid. Instead of writing to the author (whose email address is easily found, as it was Carrick managed to find it without difficulty) he decided to ooo and ahh at the stupidity instead of making an honest attempt to see whether the author was actually saying anything stupid.
Don’t you think it’s a good idea to approach life by not assuming complete strangers are idiots but instead by making a good-faith effort to see what they’re saying?
It seems to me that this whole conversation has devolved into searching for a reason to be upset and offended by what Tanaka wrote. I suppose one could have a reasonable debate about whether there’s ever a place for humorous (to experts) titles in the scientific literature. Here’s another example from astrophysics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.1874 — no astronomer would ever think the author is actually talking about frogs; instead, s/he would figure out what the term is referring to. Does the “humor” (not really laugh-out-loud humor, granted) or playfulness of the title add to the product or detract? I could imagine reasonable people disagreeing on this matter, and I’m not sure what the right answer is, myself. When you read highly technical material for a living, a moment of linguistic levity can be refreshing, but clearly clarity is important too. But the assumption that the authors are doing this for base motives (to gain fame and fortune) is a pretty ungenerous one, and in this case seems to be to be completely unrealistic. Really, the idea that the NSF would fund the research more because the paper has the words “global warming” in it is pretty absurd. NSF astrophysics grant applications are judged by other astrophysicists, who are exactly the people who are not confused by the language of Tanaka’s title and manuscript.

NoonMoon says:
June 13, 2012 at 7:54 am
(Incidentally, if a quasar is “ignited” by the merger of Andromeda with the Milky Way, it will be because of fresh gas accreting onto the black holes at the centers of Andromeda and/or the Milky Way.)
That could turn out to be either the Mother Of All Supernovae or the unverse’s largest red dwarf. Any ideas?

OK–I’m a nobody in the “global” scheme of things–(published researcher but in social sciences–not applicable here). However I have to defend Anthony for finding this worth noting–as did I. Those of you turning on Anthony and this blog are trying to make too much about an observation regarding a nutty title to a paper. (I read the whole thread and its both funny and provocative)
The abstract could have easily read “the IGM warming” instead of “globally warm the IGM.” and I doubt Anthony or myself would have found this “weapons grade stupid.” Tanaka admitted he was trying to make a play on words– but to what avail? He said it was intended for his peers–but he and his peers know that others will misinterpret it and THAT is what makes it funny to them and quasi-offesive to me.
I wouldn’t say “unethical” but I would say silly. So it gave his peers a laugh or two at our seeming expense, who cares? Let us laugh back at them. However, why do you say Anthony was “wrong?” He ovbiously knew the scientist wasn’t writing about CO2 issues on earth and wondered why he was using those terms when he noted, “Either way, it shows how global warming on the brain tends to create an environment for such ridiculous comparisons to make it to press.”
Thank you Anthony for drawing attention to this rediculous comparison. Your observation did give me a chuckle and Tenaka’s responses only convinces me that the warmists have no respect for honest scientific discourse.

I haven’t seen any credible evidence that I am wrong, and I don’t believe I am. So DB is wrong when writing the things that DB says I “know”. Enough said. Oh yeah: I didn’t “jump” to any conclusions. Only in some people’s overactive imagination, perhaps. And there’s no “charade” on my part, and no reason to think there is. I have called it as I’ve seen it. More offensive words being tossed for no rational reason.
Thank you, Anthony, for bringing this to our attention and drawing Dr. Tanaka out to make his awful comment, so that (among other things) I knew that my instinct was correct and also knew not to bother with reading the paper.
Richard

@NoonMoon. please read Tuttle’s June 13, 2012 at 8:48 pm response to DB–he says what I would, only better. I agree that neither of us know what “Dr. Tanaka had in mind when writing the paper.” I was referring to the title and what he told us about why he used those terms.
And you are right, I don’t *want* your advice, but I’m going to take it in this case. “but my advice would be to reserve taking offense (or quasi-offense) for situations that are truly worth it” because on this you are also right.

A person does not always have to write their intention for others to know what it is. What they think is funny or “cute”, what they find relevant or irrelevant, or even what they find to be true or false, can sometimes prove volumes about their intent.
What is unclear to one person can be proven to another. Witness AGW theory, for example. There is much that is proven or disproven to some, but getting others to comprehend (or to admit their comprehension) is entirely another matter. Sometimes people just have to agree to disagree, and move on to other issues.
RTF

(If you want further response or explanation from me, please email me.)
Enough.
It is amazing that so many people are sure of what my and my coauthors’ intents were. First people assumed I had less than perfect command of the English language, and now people are assuming what was in my and my coauthors’ heads.
Allow me to save you the trouble of speculation. Am I being honest in what I say below? I can only hope you take me at my word, because that is all I can offer.
All of this really is rather unfortunate. My email address is right on the abstract. If you had asked me nicely what I meant to say, as Carrick has, I would have been happy to clarify my position and save you the trouble of speculating and assuming things about me. I would still be happy, if any of you are ever in Munich, to explain the astrophysics of my work to you over a beer and a good laugh. I have many friends who have polar political views from mine; this does not prevent us from enjoying a baseball game or talking about the Universe. Again, my contact information is not hard to find.
Let me address several things:
(1) Our intent behind the use of the term “global warming”.
Again:
– In that we are describing a *global feedback process* (this is an astrophysical term, distinct from “local feedback”, that means the feedback acts on very large distance scales) that *warms the intergalactic medium*, this is correct English.
– It is also analogous to how purported AGW is supposed to work. The black holes change the “cosmic climate” (the temperature of intergalactic gas) and they live with the consequences (lower accretion rates). We think (and have been told by our peers!) that this is a useful analogy that conveniently conveys the physical process to other astrophysicists whose specialty might not be the early Universe or quasars.
If you find the analogy distasteful or offensive, then we can agree to disagree.
However, my coauthors and I did not mean to offend or anger anyone. To suggest that I *wanted* people to shout about our work on the internet is ridiculous. In general, I do not want to make people angry or play jokes on them. (I try to be a nice person.) I do not enjoy being called “weapons grade stupid” on a blog, “unethical” in its comments, or an “idiot” on Twitter. As I referred to earlier, the reaction from dozens of our astrophysicist colleagues (mostly senior scientists, several at the director level) has been overwhelmingly positive. Precisely zero colleagues found our choice of words misleading or confusing. (There was actually some discussion on other technical wording issues, but not on our use of “global warming”.)
We joked that a super-green activist organization or a conservative member of Congress or might contact us to explain the effect of CO2 on black holes. We *joked* because we didn’t think such a misunderstanding would actually happen.
This brings me to Bill Tuttle’s last comment:
— ‘Then why did he say “I concede that a total layperson hearing the words ‘black-hole-made global warming’ could get the wrong impression” ?’
==> Because taking any words, especially scientific jargon, out of context is misleading.
— ‘A paper purporting to be a proper scientific report should be worded such that *no one* can misunderstand it.’
==> I would respond that anyone reading the paper in full would not confuse our astrophysical study as anything more than an analogy to AGW. Just reading the title and assuming you know what is in the paper is silly (see “Propeller and Frog” example by NoonMoon above).
As NoonMoon has noted above, it’s easy to misunderstand when you don’t know the terminology. Richard T. Fowler suggested that we went through great lengths to connect black holes and miniquasars to make the global warming analogy. This is not correct, as the growth of black holes and miniquasars are inseparable in this context. Richard incorrectly speculated we made a sketchy stretch of logic, at least in part because he did not understand the terminology.
The suggestion that I have acted to promote the AGW paradigm for “Team climate science”, or that I would somehow benefit from using this terminology, is also incorrect. My personal views on AGW should be irrelevant … but if you’re curious, I’m an agnostic — I will buy the current scientific consensus, until I see overwhelming arguments against it. (But I’m not an expert, nor do I have a strong emotional attachment to this topic, so forgive me for not wanting to debate AGW any more than I wish to debate proper macroeconomic policy for the EuroZone.) We make no statements endorsing or refuting AGW. We merely compare the process by which BHs can change the cosmic climate and in so doing affect themselves to the way AGW is said to work.
That I am not an expertise in climate science does not disqualify me from making a broad analogy. The term “survival of the fittest” appear in the title of at least one astrophysics paper, for example, but I doubt the authors are experts in evolutionary biology. There are numerous other examples: “weather forecast of the galactic center” (referring to predicting the astronomical appearance of gas falling in the supermassive black hole there); “Let there be light” (usually referring to the formation of the first stars). If I compare an astrophysical process to Bigfoot or talk about black holes regulating their own population, that does not mean I believe in Bigfoot and population control or are endorsing them. Assigning guilt or belief in this way is unfair; again, why didn’t you just email me instead of writing “I think this guy meant these things because he used these words”?
(2) As for my supposedly “condescending” attitude.
I was not aware that the term “climate change denier” is a pejorative. If you prefer to be called skeptics, or whatever other term, then I will call you that. I did not mean it as an insult, and did not realize it is an offensive term to some. Sorry!
(3) Speaking of condescending attitudes….
I do believe that the author of this blog, and the commenters, have been unfair to me. If you find the analogy distasteful, fine. But please do not insult my intelligence on a public forum, when I have done nothing of the kind to you. This is hurtful because you are also insulting my coauthors and all of our colleagues who read and approved of our work — and I respect them all tremendously. There is a difference between disagreement and calling someone stupid (again, I have many friends whose intellects I respect but with whose politics I disagree).
Lastly, I would like the “motivational poster” to be removed or modified. I found it a little funny, because I never imagined someone would ever put my name on one of these things.
BUT: It attributes directly to me, and to the New Scientist, words that I have NEVER uttered and have not appeared in that publication. It is a FABRICATED quotation, published in a public forum, presented in a context that is ridiculing my intelligence and work, and therefore damaging to my reputation.
Again, if you think our analogy to AGW is ridiculous, that’s fine. Then at least use an accurate quote in the poster. (If you choose to use the New Scientist one in which I refer to the “global warming process”, please put quotes around “global warming” for context.)
And please, tone it down a little. After some of the people here (collectively) have accused me and my colleagues of being stupid, unethical, intentionally politicizing, condescending, promoting the AGW paradigm, etc. … after this, I’ve explained what I meant, and I’ve offered to answer your questions over email or in person over a drink. And I’ve tried to do it nicely. (I hope there are no pejoratives I didn’t know about in this comment!) I would appreciate it very much if you would extend the same courtesy to me and my colleagues.
Best regards,
Taka

By the way, it looks like a lot of the links in my post above are broken. If you want to see the pages I tried to link to, Include the text of the form “…210.0809B” that follows the link as part of the url, and copy and paste into the url bar of a browser.

@Carrick, @NoonMoon, @DB, @catalivedead/@catdeadalive, @”A fan of *MORE* discourse” and others who have argued in my and my colleagues’ favor:
Thank you for giving me and my coauthors the benefit of the doubt and helping to explain some of the astrophysical jargon.
Again, to anyone that wants more clarification or explanation: Please email me. If you have questions about my intentions or our scientific study, I am happy to respond as time allows. I don’t bite, I don’t think I’m condescending, and I enjoy intellectual discourse as long as it is civil and open-minded.

Taka,
I appreciate you addressing my arguments seriously and politely, which is more than I can say for quite a few others in similar circumstances.
I do start to get the sense from your words that you actually may not have understood the effect and meaning (to us) of the term “climate change denier”. If so, I accept your apology.
I am sorry that you took offense at some of my words. All I can think to say is that you should treat this as an object lesson to yourself, by considering that your words may have made me and others feel the same way or worse. I still cannot really tell if it seems relevant to you how a non-astrophysicist feels about the tone and suggestions of your words in a scientific paper. If it does seem relevant to you, then that is much appreciated, and perhaps some good can have come out of all this.
For my part, the term “skeptic” is good enough for this context. I appreciate the offer of a change of terminology. But please, can we avoid “climate change skeptic”, as I have yet to encounter anyone who is skeptical of the existence of climate change.
I didn’t try to e-mail you because of the very negative experiences, in doing so, of some AGW skeptics, particularly Steve McIntyre, in corresponding with some AGW “agnostics” or other non-AGW-skeptics. And also because some of your statements which I have commented about were very hurtful and it seemed quite impossible that there was not deliberate intent present. With your latest comment here, I accept that there is certainly now room for doubt about your intent in that regard. If my lack of e-mail correspondence has produced any effects that have been hurtful to you, I am sorry that you have felt this way, but please consider that what is happening to average people as a result of the politics that you are “agnostic” about is extremely, extremely hurtful to me and to many others, including many who are and have been close to me. Given this fact, and with great regret, I am doubtful that there is anything accurate and relevant I could have written that would not have given you this kind of reaction. In any event, while you may not see it as any big thing for AGW skeptics to contact you, I personally am sufficiently concerned, in this day and age, for the security of my loved ones that I go out of my way to avoid corresponding with those who have expressed disagreement with me on political issues.
I humbly suggest that you look into climate-related issues a little more, and try to suspend judgment as much as possible unless and until you can see the matter through the eyes of someone who has truly been damaged by the policies and the “research” that you are “agnostic” about. There has indeed been overwhelming evidence and, on some mattesr, proof amassed against the mainstream views. And it is very relevant to all of us. So please, if nothing else, I beg you to take an emotional interest in it. Lives are most definitely at stake, and have been at stake.
Regarding your list of other types of analogies and your statement, “Assigning guilt or belief in this way is unfair”, I respectfully suggest to you that this is different, because this involves a global effort by many thousands to do serious harm to many millions using just such tactics as have been associated (whether rightly or wrongly) with you and your colleagues. So I humbly and respectfully suggest that some leeway is in order on this particular issue.
If there is anything that you feel needs to be addressed by me that I have failed to address, I invite you to again call it to my attention, and I will try to address it to your satisfaction. Thank you again for your reply.
Richard T. Fowlr

Dear Mr. Tanaka–thank you for this answer. I very much appreciate it and retract the “weapons grade stupid”–as i see how you took that to impugn your intelligence or your paper–not so. I was actually referring to the perceived crassness and what appeared to be the “joke” in the title on Climate Realists. When I put in my 2 cents worth, I had already read your initial response and it sounded like you intended it to be misleading and thought the analogy funny to be misleading. What Mr Fowler replied with reflects my beliefs to a tee.( Richard T. Fowler:
June 14, 2012 at 6:01 am)
How I mistook what you intended–you also mistook my comment–I certainly respect your profession and personally know how much work and dedication go into these papers. Most “stupid” people don’t publish papers. So forgive me for my misunderstanding and any hurtful comments I made. You have demonstrated integrity here, gained my respect, and show an openness for honest dialog so needed in the scientific community. (at least once it has become politicized)
Thank you for joining us.