Ethon is in danger of deletion. As it says "Google for "ethon + prometheus -wikipedia" gives a handful of hits from nonreliable sources". Eli unreliable? But at least I now know what all that liver stuff was about.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There's a thread on twitter, started by "@JacquelynGill" noting "The Day After Tomorrow", "@ClimateOfGavin" replying that "it was that movie and lame sci community response that prompted me to start blogging", and continuing "Spring 2004 was pre-RC, Scienceblogs, etc. Deltoid was around, Stoat, @…
A somewhat unfair title; the person in question is Marcel Leroux and the "death" is the deletion of his wiki page. The "sales" is his wacko views on GW. I don't think ML is particularly interesting - wiki certainly thought not - but perhaps the way wiki deals with minor characters is.
Background:…
Prometheus describes the phenomenon of the arrogance of ignorance:
...the real issue is that everybody thinks that they are "above average";and have difficulty comparing their abilities to those of others. In the absence of actual face-to-face comparison, they assume that their abilities are equal…
Nowadays I seem to rely on wikipedia for my news stories. Not necessarily for the truth, but that something has occurred. So this little thread at global warming piqued my interest (note, BTW, how the poor dear septics don't even bother trying to edit the page any more, having been crushed so often…
This comes as no surprise what with the big bird's inactivity due to his regular lunch being on sabbatical in Blighty this year. Enforced diets are tough!
Of course, Eli is a bloody Rabett.
I added the (as far as I can tell) only ancient reference, Hyg. fab. 31, 5, to the original article's talk page; but I see that the latest editor, Marshall, doesn't treat it as a name. Originally it would have been an adjective, as at Homer, Iliad 15, 690 aietos aithon, the ?glossy brown? eagle. Presumably, it had already been mistaken for a name in Hyginus (who was writing Latin).
[Ah, that seems rather plausible. Nice to have people who know these things -W]
Lunch is now brunch, courtesy of the New York Times, where this sighting occurred this past week -- a rather admirable example of spinning news, I thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/science/18clim.html?ref=environment
He manages to get into print an argument that I think utterly bogus, that they print without comment:
> "That N.R.D.C. suit [on ozone chemistry] was
> critical because it turned the burden of proof
> around from having to show there was a problem
> to proving there was not," said Roger A. Pielke Jr.
And we all know science can't prove a negative. He's claiming the United States was somehow tricked into agreeing to help ban chlorofluorocarbons, apparently. Or into prematurely banning them before anyone was capable of "proving" there was a problem.
I imagine he's thinking that there wasn't any ozone hole occurring in the USA back then. People sunbathing on the beaches in Massachusetts weren't affected by whatever little contribution the USA was making to this alleged global problem.
His name popped up there and I thought, Oh, Lord, first this Tierney hokus-bogus-spin-scientist guy and now -- Roger??
There are so many legitimate scientists they could have interviewed. Heck, there are legitimate legal experts they could have interviewed. But no, they're digging in the cracks looking for something that's neither.