birdog1960

some of the greatest scientists made their name bucking consensus. this is a perfect opportunity for a better idea if one exists.

it was chan f'ing gailey and buddy nix. lynch didn't need a crystal ball to see into the future of the bills for the next few years. no one should have.. those that stayed, collected a paycheck and little else.

the personalities of the scientists you know must be much weaker than the ones i do.

the point, in case you missed it, is that perennial managerial incompetence shares a significant part of the blame for his failure here.

i would start by assembling a decent team with an outside chance at a super bowl around him.

so your argument against the fact that many very talented people either have not realized that they have devoted their working life to a lie, have realized it and decided to continue the lie or just don't care is that they are invariably pummeled into submission by the consensus. and their disincentive to bring down a faulty thesis and replace it with a better one of their own is that they feel threatened by the consensus or loss of employment. try again. many of the people you are dismissing are rare intellects that have plenty of alternative opportunities.

i don't think folks are absolving him of his idiocy, just pointing out that he was salvageable (and clearly worth the effort), just not by a poorly run organization.

so why don't you attack a werak spot in my argument? the consensus here is defintely one of denial.

or perhaps the majority of organizational members are convinced of the high likelihood of future calamity and are trying their best to change its course. your argument discounts the time, effort and innate intelligence required to obtain and maintain a doctoral position at a highly regarded institution like NASA. these individuals had years to decide if what they were studying was legitimate. most all of them have the skills and drive necessary to change career path then or even now. why would they choose to make their life's work about lies? your argument also discounts the intense competitiveness often found in the sciences. destroying a competitors thesis and elevating your own is a frequent ambition. a weak spot can and will be attacked.

possibly. ultimately, every move can be traced back to wilson. but i believe the proximate cause was nix. he was/is a buffoon. the fact that he couldn't produce a team that leveraged lynch's considerable skills and used a top draft choice to take another low yielding rb shoulda got him fired long ago. as it is, he's just now being shown the door. ridiculous.

actually, it's either ironic or it isn't.

in successful large organization the internal debate is won by the strongest and wisest. that hasn't been the case for the bills as far as winning is concerned. it may well change.

wow. i didn't put him there before this but i guess he's correct. wow.

oops, there it is…sour grapes. not in with the cool kids, huh tom?

do you have a reference that says it's untrue. cuz the one you linked doesn't say that.

a bit more context to francis' words: http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html Others, though, have noted that in virtually all societies, freedom of speech has its limits, from laws against Holocaust denial to racially motivated hate speech. Recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that, while denouncing the Paris attacks, urged the media to treat religions with respect. Francis, who has called on Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further Thursday when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion. "There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasbarri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

yes, really. i said the vast majority and i stand by it. i didn't say 97% although i don't doubt that's far from the truth. the definition of what is agreed upon by the vast majority given by the article matches mine pretty well, i think. so can we agree that the vast majority of scientist involved in the study of this phenomenon agree that climate change is predominantly man made. if we can agree to that then we can discuss the validity of this premise. if not, perhaps we should investigate the question of how many of the 3,5,or even 10% of scientists that are public deniers have a financial dog in the hunt. therefore i assume that you believe that difficulty is based on bias and not lousy science…(although i'm sure in a few cases an editorial board looked at a paper and said "not this moron again. let's read it for laughs…"

i wondered if someone would make this silly argument. yes, of course, it would be more consequential if you yelled "fire" when a fire wasn't present. i thought that wouild be understtod. silly me! but in much the same way, there were predictable consequences to baiting a rabid group of fundamentalists lunatics. the violence that resulted is in no way acceptable or able to be condoned but ait shouldn't have been a huge surprise that it occurred. and i recall you once insulting my mother on these very pages so i don't put much stock in what you consider acceptable.

here's the thing: there's some pretty smart people on both sides of the debate. most understand basic chemistry and physics. the vast majority with widely accepted scientific credentials agree that there is man made climate change.

some nice readers on that site: " scratch a liberal and you'll find a fascist" this apparently looks like red meat to the anti francis gangs. except it isn't. he said that violence in the name of God was unacceptable. he said nothing like your bolded statements.

there are accepted limits to free speech in many regards. one does not have the right to yell "fire" in a theater, for instance.

really, i don't see the connection. he says one shouldn't insult anothers religion. he uses the analogy of criticizing his mother and getting punched for it. he doesn't condone killing those that insult. seems a perfectly reasonable and measured comment. doesn't change my opinion of him in the least.

no, they serve to illustrate your pettiness and insecurity

whether you surpuss the threshold for harm by a factor of 1, 10, 100 or 3.66 is irrelevant in regards to whether you produce harm. is the discussion not about the fundamental question of man made harm to the environment?

atomic mass of C =12. atomic mass of CO2 = 44. 44/12 = 3.66. there are 3.66 tons of CO2 for every ton of C. brilliant. someone taking HS gen chem could answer this, not that it is necessary to the discussion.