Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Naive Beliefs that have been Exploded in the Noughties"
Actually, once you get away from climate change this is still the case.
But then with the politicisation of the climate change issue, I do feel that the scientists are being forced into talking in more absolute terms than then usually do. Any other area of new scientific research (and climatology is relatively new and massively complex) and the scientists are a lot more humble, a lot more dismissive of any suggestions that an accurate model or result will be found at all let alone soon.
There was a good example of this on Material World yesterday afternoon, the lady had been drilling in earthquake zones was pretty sceptical of them ever being able to get to a stage where they could forcast earthquakes.
Spot on. Some think I was naive, but I would like them to consider the principled stand taken by members of the drugs advisory group that resigned a few weeks ago.
2. Belief. Scientists follow the scientific model and only a very few will allow glory, fame or greed distort their efforts.
Actually, once you get away from climate change this is still the case.
But then with the politicisation of the climate change issue, I do feel that the scientists are being forced into talking in more absolute terms than then usually do. Any other area of new scientific research (and climatology is relatively new and massively complex) and the scientists are a lot more humble, a lot more dismissive of any suggestions that an accurate model or result will be found at all let alone soon.
There was a good example of this on Material World yesterday afternoon, the lady had been drilling in earthquake zones was pretty sceptical of them ever being able to get to a stage where they could forcast earthquakes.
I think he was trying to find a common thread through these three great ideas, that are not performing as is intended. He was probably fishing for something like
'The decade when trust finally broke down'
It's a good post, but I can't help feeling that it's more a question of getting older, gaining more experience and (hopefully) wisdom, rather than a product of the decade.
I remember years ago, naively thinking that banks and financial institutions would act in my best interest. Well maybe not in my best interest, but at least not actively try to screw me over.
According to Wiki and AskOxford 'teen' corresponds to the numerals between 13 and 19, though it does derive from ten according to the latter. Teenies doesn't sound quite right either. But then again neither does tens and tenties. 2010s sounds okay, but is a bit long-winded. I wonder how they tackled this sticky problem (mod 100) years ago.
Leave a comment: