Wikipedia says it, so it must be true.
ZJ is most famous for winning the 2005 Golden Horseshoes, but lucked out in 2006, despite being called a "titan of mendacity". An example to us all. Tim Ball has a glowing tribute to ZJ, and there can be no deeper condemnation than that. It is entirely fitting that TB uncritically repeats some of the self-promoting lies that ZJ told about himself, including the imaginary senate hearing. And he puffs Beck! What more can you ask?
"Tim Ball has a glowing tribute to ZJ, and there can be no deeper condemnation than that."
I note that Tim Ball writes: "One reason for nasty personal attacks is when someone is qualified." He adds, in commenting on Beck, that he is another "... whose contributions are measured by the nastiness of attacks on him and his work."
Gee, by that metric, Mike Mann must be an absolute scientific giant given all the attacks he has endured! I can only imagine that Tim Ball is acknowledging Dr. Mann's genius in this indirect fashion. And, er, didn't someone by the initials TB partake in some of those attacks ... and does that mean that those attacks were actually a form of (subconscious) recognition by Tim Ball of Dr. Mann's "effectiveness" (to use Tim Ball's word)?
The mind boggles.
Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone and another one gone
Another one bites the dust hey
Seems Wikipedia points to a Polish article, undoubtedly linked by someone understanding Polish. Didn't know he was that old already.
[Google translate did a fair job on it for me -W]
I feel suddenly sad, not so much for J, whom I didn't know except through his nonsense, but for the still poorly understood phenomenon of emerititis (emeritoma?). I am getting on in years, and our lack of understanding leaves open the possibility that it might afflict anyone, including me. Will I notice the onset? Will it hurt? How lucrative is it? Will I still find the residual decency to feel ashamed?
More research is needed.
[Aye, likely we're all headed that way in the end -W]
William, it must be said that your tact and empathy are second to none.
I ask you!
I originally read it as 'stuff', and wondered what exactly the point of the post was.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."
-- Max Planck, A Scientific Autobiography, 1949
[That was the one I was thinking of, Bishop -W]
I thought the "stiff" was a bit rude (though I still chuckled), but then I looked at CA's latest.
All I can say is, there's a new baseline for tastelessness, and you're way clear of it.
[The weird attempt to conflate the sex-abuse stuff? In a way, that is good to see, because it shows how empty McI is. I find it hard to believe that even his dittoheads will lap that stuff up, but I could be wrong -W]
Martin, as of June, Eli will be available for postdocs in interesting places and well renumerated consulting positions. OTOH, Ms. Rabett has always asked what the bunny does with his spare change.
[I never knew you were so wrinkly -W]
So Eli, now you're just a chair impeachment away from retirement? :)
I find it hard to believe that even his dittoheads will lap that stuff up, but I could be wrong
It appears you're wrong ...
John Mashey's analysis found that the physicist-denialists were disproportionately old, so Planck gets still more support.
Too bad a mountain climber couldn't get the facts straight about threats to mountain glaciers.
I'm afraid that refers to controversies without vested interests being involved. Knut Angstrom (the middle one) died and so did his saturation effect, but his idea has now been zombified. The main change involves a decline in quality of the arguments and calibre of the individuals.
William --- This topic is stiff and cold. New post, please.
[I'm not doing a very good job of keeping the crowd fed, am I? Still - would you rather have Curry? -W]
Would you rather have Curry's commentors?
[Quality over Quantity, I say -W]