Essay services

GET AN ESSAY OR ANY OTHER HOMEWORK WRITING HELP FOR A FAIR PRICE! CHECK IT HERE!


ORDER NOW

List of approved essay services



Dr roy stephen resume arise research

Business Directory | Welcome to the City of Martinsville, Illinois

Professor Luciano Floridi — Oxford Internet Institute

roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – i am not sure why you took it that way. roy: which study have i missed out on that has shown what my graphic above shows? you go on to say:Incorrect my actual resume (which i will not be posting online) shows my credentials are very relevant to computer science and information technology but unfortunately you are going to have to take my word for it.. mcdonald has received an intra grant for the academic year 2015-2016 from utsa’s office of the vice president for research to conduct research on the experiences of international faculty in u. can see why willis would bristle at those words initially, and possibly not even believe roy’s denial. nonetheless it is shame that dr roy joined in the chorus, led by qualified scientists, that aim slurs at the ordinary who try to understand what is going on and, if they are not convinced, will say so. roy doesn’t fully understand what r&c 1991 said, or he doesn’t fully understand what i’ve said.’m not surprised that your family favors titles of royalty.” interpretation, and i don’t think that’s the most reasonable one in light of roy’s subsequent denials. agree, but there is something quite insidious creeping through the uk at the moment; the emergence, via celebrity scientists, of a science-cult with in its culture, complete with priesthood and council of cardinals (royal society). jp is saying roy spencer could have put it in stronger terms, but didn’t. i would like it as much if it were roy correcting an error made by willis. primary research focus involves examining characteristics of interpersonal and family interaction. roy hasn’t come up with a single specific about what i’m supposed to have said, nor a single citation showing that my specific idea was anticipated by someone else.. mahood has published peer-reviewed articles in several journals, including the journal of broadcasting & electronic media, mass communication & society, health communication, the journal of current issues & research in advertising, and sex roles. some on this blog, i am not disturbed by this argument and as much as i side with willis in this case (sorry roy) i think the debate is healthy and a whole lot better than blogs where sycophantic sheep just chant the same thing over and over again. roy, next time … could you give me a phone call first? roy certainly  seems to think such an analysis leading to such a graphic exists … if so, i suggest that before he starts slamming me with accusations, he needs to cite the previous graphic that he claims that my graphic is merely repeating. it’s roy who is not getting the due credit, but he feels he can’t ask for it and it seems to be eating him up. as for roy, he seems no longer a participant, and probably by his own choosing. updates his professional knowledge with continuing education from the international society for performance improvement, institute management of consultants, american society of training and development, society for human resource managers, international federation of coaches, national communication association, linkage, stephen covey, coach university and many more. roy in essence “called him out” so i think the ok corral fight is called for..willis kicked the ball over to drroy now…rightly so. roy seems to be suffering from ivory tower syndrome and cannot be taken too seriously on this subject. this diversity has also proved helpful in finding common ground with a variety of external and internal constituencies, and i work well with both research- and practitioneroriented individuals. he has served as ceda’s south-central regional director several times, though he definitely prefers coaching, researching and listening to debate rounds., i haven’t read roy’s comments, but any commentary that starts with that graphic is not friendly. however, effective teaching must begin with scholarship: continued education in the discipline of communication through research is a prerequisite to instruction. it is not important if someone repeats work done by others even if ignorant of such previous research, in fact that should be one of it’s strengths, either providing an independent confirmation or providing an opportunity to view the subject from a different perspective. joppa, david gavaghan, richard harper, kenji takeda, stephen emmott,Ecosystem services: free lunch no more. the late dr van andel was a chemical engineer who certainly knew more about heat transfer than dr roy and probably knew more than all the so-called climate scientists put together. think the way to make this better is for wuwt to republish roy’s 2007 essay in its final form as roy withdrew it in 2008, so that everyone can see how much of willis’ thermostat hypothesis had already been put forward by roy. there is a limit, to be sure, on how much such prior research a scientist can be expected to do, especially an amateur., purves, vanderwel, lyutsarev, emmott, drew purves, vassily lyutsarev, lucas joppa, matthew smith, stephen emmott, s. and yet, even after making these sorts of insinuations, he’s asking roy for a courtesy phone call next time. has effectively called roy a liar, and insinuated that roy is being mean-spirited by putting up a simpson cartoon slide side-by-side with another of james hansen wearing a hat and getting arrested. hell, roy is my number one favorite climate scientist, but he is off on a bender criticizing willis for doing what he once did. do understand the broader point that roy is making: you are treading over very well worn ground, while giving the impression that you are breaking trail.“emergent phenomena” arise from processes in the system studied that had not previously been observed, but they are within the system. roy said other than he probably should have said it privately. roy’s article is without references my guess is that his future funding is being threatened., wordpress would seem to be somewhat of a poor fit for such a research discussion and even the “collaborative work tools” out of ibm, microsoft, and startups seems to be lacking; blogs are useful but not archival except for the author (until they crash). any failings ascribed to citizen scientists for lack of proper research should apply a thousandfold to an organization claiming to include hundreds of “top climate scientists” having just spend 4 years studying all the latest research.’s indignant letter is included in this enlightening, sometimes amusing history of the peer review process:What roy spencer wrote was not a hatchet job., this is a more relevant definition,Scientist (noun) “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”. outburst by roy spencer in defence of a defunct climate establishment is puzzling. do not post original climate science research but rather analyze and compile existing information., those – including me – who respect both roy spencer and willis eschenbach hope their disagreement can soon be resolved. he also regularly reviews research papers and books for various associations and publishing companies.. roy goes on to say:But cloud feedback is a hard enough subject without muddying the waters further. roy didn’t provide a link to the article he accuses me of “never mentioning”, i’ll remedy that, it’s here. jp is saying roy spencer could have put it in stronger terms, but didn’t. maybe i was wrong about roy having been the one who wrote the essay i remembered. knowing either man, my impression is this conversation should have taken place one-on-one between roy & willis (i., roy’s claim seems to be that my work couldn’t possibly be original, because all conceivable analyses of the data have already been done. cameron, researching public relations campaign effects, news topic dynamics, and international communication. am a scientist at microsoft research where i work on computational techniques for monitoring, modeling, and managing earth’s natural environments. willis is certainly the former, but as to whether roy is of the latter i do not know, or care. of people “pad” their resumes (if that’s what happened here) and they are not generally viewed as on the verge of a major psychological illness and there is no reason why someone who pads their resume can’t also do good science (unless you have to be a credentialed scientist to do good science). think dr roy has the support of many interested in the debate due to his apparent honesty ,and clarity of presentation,but so does willis .. roy begins his text by saying:I’ve been asked to comment on willis eschenbach’s recent analysis of ceres radiative budget data (e.… you’d do better developing a kinship with homer simpson, or yankee doodle, or whatever a west coast analog is than obsessing over roy’s attempt at cute humor.

Toxicology Research blog

for example, i notice that alec rawls has withdrawn his suggestion of a 2008 blog post by roy spencer on a ‘global thermostat’. to the hs & handcuffed hansen pics, i would have chosen differently, if i were roy. was at one time a research audiologist in the va medical system.’m sorry to hear that dr roy was having a bad hair day. there is a limit, to be sure, on how much such prior research a scientist can be expected to do, especially an amateur. roy hasn’t come up with a single specific about what i’m supposed to have said, nor a single citation showing that my specific idea was anticipated by someone else. roy is a liar who simultaneously has distaste for citizen scientists writ large, as willis flatly states. making any presumption about someone’s background research is perhaps “poor form” at best, and just dangerous (in the long run for the critic) at worse.. roy spencer admits academia limits the public’s access to science in a couple different ways:”so little information is available in a form that is easily digested by the public. in the case of my issued nanocarbon patents, including the most famous researchers in the us and europe in that obscure physics/electrochemistry subject, gogotsi, frackowiac, and beguin, at a june 2013 strasbourg conference where my experimental results scooped them., those – including me – who respect both roy spencer and willis eschenbach hope their disagreement can soon be resolved. just left this comment at roy spencer’s blog, and to be fair to willis, dr., roy said that i had “never mentioned” the r&c1991 study. roy thinks my ideas are not new, i’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. i think this kerfuffle has happened because roy spencer made a poor choice of example then compounded the error by using words which amounted to an accusation of plagiarism when – i suspect – the accusation was not intentional. we all make mistakes sometimes, and i regret that roy spencer has not acted to correct his on this occasion. and for the record, i admire roy spencer’s constraint in pointing that out. had hoped the matter would have been resolved by now, and i am saddened that roy spencer has chosen to continue it. why are you misleadingly implying your published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper? roy saw fit to comment on willis’ character: ” sometimes willis gives the impression that his analysis of the data (or his climate regulation theory) is original, which is far from the case. levitt teaches conflict resolution & mediation, public relations, and research methods.. i published in nature, as i said and have made no secret of, a piece of peer-reviewed original research as a “communications arising”. that attribute is one of the clearest possible distinctions between his work and so much of what passes for research writing in academe. the transformation of an hsi into a tier 1 research institution (data collection). teaching and research areas focus on new communication technologies, mobile communication, m-marketing, social media, and digital message design. the “management learning most-thought provoking phd paper award” at the 2012 qualitative research in management and organization conference. for example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. may be best to have a private conversation with roy asap, willis. roy said other than he probably should have said it privately. his research primarily focuses on public diplomacy, or public relations by national governments in international relations. in my opinion roy was making an attack on “citizen scientists” and he used willis as a well-known example.. team leader, multichannel imaging microwave radiometer (mimr) team, nasa (1992-present); team leader, amsr-e science team, nasa (1994-present); american meteorological society’s special award (1996); principal research scientist, earth system science center, university of alabama in huntsville (2001-present). smith, drew purves, lucas joppa, stephen emmott, vassily lyutsarev, christopher bishop, paul i. course, my assessment is only an opinion, but i am not willing to accept that a man with the integrity of roy spencer would deliberately and with malice aforethought mount a specific and personal attack on anyone. roy in his post, rc is just waving his hands and making accusations without any specifics, quotes, or citations. he is misleadingly implying his published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper. it is the only hospital in the country to have received approval from the national board of examination, new delhi for 4 seats in dnb urology (and 1 research fellow); 3 seats in nephrology and 2 seats in anesthesiology. roy is talking about that work or some other work. i hope you and scientist roy can enjoy a beer together. i’d bet on oversensitivity on willis’s part, and he really ought to have spent less time poisoning the well about roy and just addressed the points roy was making — which i basically agree with. ahmed, kenton o'hara, richard harper, stephen emmott, lucas joppa,In diversity and distributions,Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. as i said above:Yes, i’ve said that i thought that some of my research has been novel and original. willis and i write articles on entirely different subjects nevertheless it is worth pointing out writing an article and expressing it clearly takes an enormous amount of research. assuming the claim is true, the question then arises: was willis an engineer while he was… engineering? communications arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in nature. isn’t mutual irritation a part of the scientific process to motivate more rigor in the research? roy’s idea that “feedbacks only make sense over entire atmospheric circulation systems”..All here (i presume) will be interested in your considered response. roy has done very important work, and has been transparent and clear in his science.“that doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a bs or without any college degree at all. hey roy: that essay is the number one reason why i consider you the number one climate scientist in the world! roy’s creationist beliefs, to render them unfit to be scientists., i’m struck negatively by a few things:I admire and like both roy spencer and willis eschenbach, but i respectfully suggest that your post is a result of too much reflection. roy hasn’t done his own research on this particular matter. to come back today and find a post, and commenters, negative toward roy spencer is surreal. my opinion the regular beating many ego,s in the climate science world have received of late is partly responsible for dr roys post. if you are doing scientific research like willis, it is important to understand the proper scientific terminology for what it is you researching, instead of relying on your invented catch phrases (thunderstorm thermostat) for such a hypothesis. was called out by roy in a post whose title began: citizen scientist: willis ….. why did roy’s post include a photograph of a “real” climate scientist whose career has been largely devoted to denial of earth’s self-regulating mechanisms? fact, it took 13 paragraphs, most of which mentioned willis by name in addition to the aforementioned headline, before roy mentioned other citizen climate scientists, and only then in parentheses:Anyway, i applaud willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying.… and do understand the broader point that roy is making: you are treading over very well worn ground, while giving the impression that you are breaking trail. roy says he wants or am i being to homer simpsonish?

Professor Mark Graham — Oxford Internet Institute

roy actually believes that the consensus is right why then is he an obstructionist? would suggest that roy is not completely familiar with what willis has been doing.. roy posted a number of uncited and unreferenced claims in his essay. as spencer made clear both in his post and subsequent comments, he didn’t accuse willis of plagiarism; he accused him of not doing sufficient research on the origin of scientific ideas so that he can grant credit adequately., the project contributes to difference research in organizational communication, which has so far neglected to theorize national origin as it relates to other social identities such as gender, despite that the number of foreign workers in the u. and for the record, i admire roy spencer’s constraint in pointing that out. her work has been published in such scholarly journals as communication studies, the clinical gerontologist, health communication, psychology and health, and quality of life research. can you really not comprehend that willis does this stuff because it’s fun, not to be original, not to climb the academic ladder, not to upset roy etc etc…. spencer is doing this for emotional reasons, was probably offended by him; but at the same time really has it out for citizen scientists writ large and was as of 10 pm yesterday [roy’s time] still making that claim on roy’s blog,Ps—since you have such distaste for citizen scientists [as if it’s a flat-out, established fact] …. the accusation by roy spencer can only be understood as plagiarism which is either deliberate or inadvertent.. spencer’s statement indicates suitable research was not done…not that such research was done and was being attributed as original (not that it was “stolen” or “plagiarized”). this post is pretty much all about credibility as willis has, ill-advisedly in my opinion, taken to the belief that roy called him a plagiarist. anyway, i think you are being too harsh on roy spencer whom i think made a poor choice of example in his attack on “citizen scientists” in general and not willis in particular (whom he used as example), then compounded that error by a poor choice of words which were an unintended accusation of plagiarism. think you’re bothered in part because roy implied that blog commenters themselves often don’t think things through:“c’mon, folks! roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – i am not sure why you took it(sic) that way. dust devils arise when a small area of the land gets too hot, for example. spencer did you a favor — identifying these would only highlight [to everybody] the extent to which due-diligence background research is both overdue and not diligent. spencer’s blog post caused ill and roy is directly responsible. that is not the way of internet citizens and dr roy chose to play on willis’s turf; that is an admirable choice.. levitt’s current research project is understanding dynamics of international organizational teamwork. roy thinks my ideas are not new, i’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. on the other hand, having to be broad can prove a teaching and research strength, for such work creates familiarity with many disciplines as has been true in my case. and that can create a difficult working atmosphere for the paid researchers who are trying to get it right. he stated, “if you want to get some idea of what has been done on cloud feedback, then a good place to start is graeme stephens (2005) review of cloud feedback work performed over the years. research can be found in such journals as women & language, health communication, journal of health communication, social science and medicine and in edited volumes including communication yearbook (forthcoming), evaluating women’s health messages, and the handbook of health communication and constructing our health: the implications of narrative for enacting illness and wellness. willis, who is not part of academia and probably draws no significant salary from his research, has introduced many of us, not the climate scientists, to a better understanding of what the issues were and how complex things can get in the climate science. roy’s attempt to backpedal on what he’d said, and deny that he was dissing citizen scientists. it’s roy who is not getting the due credit, but he feels he can’t ask for it and it seems to be eating him up. i was accused without foundation, both in the title and in the body of roy’s post.’d do better developing a kinship with homer simpson, or yankee doodle, or whatever a west coast analog is than obsessing over roy’s attempt at cute humor. at least, there is no mention of r+c in roy’s essay. and i agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available. its inception, the computational science group has undertaken research and development into new modelling platforms for computational science. you have failed to post a link to your resume within the hour so i will assume you are not a computer analyst. roy said it was his attempt to flesh out lindzen’s “iris effect,” which is very necessary, since lindzen’s paper is practically unreadable, being written in energy balance terms that leaves the possible mechanisms poorly explained (at least to my untrained eye). wanted to give you a heads up as i will try to find time to check your multiple comments on roy’s blog. if you have any evidence that willis solicited roy’s comments, then please feel free to correct me. citizen scientists can & have done valuable original research & analysis, including those in the climate field cited by willis above. patel academic centrecourses20177 & 8 april : john fitzpatrick symposium on advanced ca prostate22 to 25 march : anadrology training workshop for postgraduates9th to 11th february : research on calculus kinetics2016dialogues in urophathology23rd to 25th december : arise program21st august : arise program5th & 6th august : vascular access course30th march to 2nd april : andrology workshop17th to 19th march : dr.” for reasons i never understood roy took this extended essay down in 2008, only to see willis go on a tear with the same terminology and the same subject matter starting in 2009, with willis’ own ever elaborating additions and understandings piling up. rather than worrying about his credentials, i’d wonder about a thought process that can claim roy spencer accused him of various things that roy spencer denies accusing him of in no uncertain terms — all the while while denying he’s effectively accusing roy spencer of lying. obviously, one cannot plagiarize what one hasn’t researched (“read up on what has been done first” unmistakably indicates his observation you didn’t consult pre-existing findings, hence, you couldn’t have stolen or plagiarized them as you mis-perceive him of accusing you of having done). roy spencer’s mental representation of what willis is doing seems to be wrong. her research is qualitative in nature and addresses social justice activism, intergroup alliances, and the role of communication in shaping ideologies about identity and difference. she has conducted research on hispanic television, media and immigration, migrant families and new technologies and cultural adaptation of u. nonscientists we can hold the scientists responsible for the quality of their research and public comments about the research.​ ​in particular i feel you may find these two emerging pieces of research very relevant:– the theory of crowd capital. roy closes with this plea:Anyway, i applaud willis, who is a sharp guy, for trying. he performed the search you did and came to those conclusions, he would need to learn how to do better research. my actual resume (which i will not be posting online) shows my credentials are very relevant to computer science and information technology but unfortunately you are going to have to take my word for it. willis and i aren’t career climate modelers, and i’m not sure many climate researchers would fit that label. roy apparently gets quite a lot of mail too, asking for comment. cameron and visiting professor magne haug from the norwegian school of management bi, researching behavioral effects of political advertising and international media relations. roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – i am not sure why you took it that way.. roy, if you can’t see the difference between that hypothesis about high cirrus clouds putting a lid on ssts in the pacific warm pool, and my hypothesis that thunderstorms and other emergent phenomena regulate worldwide temperatures … well, i don’t know what to say. went to considerable lengths to destroy the reputations of lempriere, ross, daly and even the git. according to wayback roy’s essay was first posted in march of 2007, two years before willis’ thermostat hypothesis post:Just as willis says that his thermostat hypothesis is entirely different from the mechanism put forward by ramanathan and collins in 1991, so too roy seemed to think that his willis-like “thermostat” hypothesis was entirely different from r+c 91. no wonder roy is upset in a degree that seems hard to fathom, as willis notes:It seems as if i’ve unknowingly done something that has deeply upset you, but i’m not clear what it is. seeing his resume helps me appreciate more what people are capable of. is a battle to be won and you and roy feuding is not the right way to fight the battle. i guess if 2,500 ipcc scientists missed the paper(s) you supposedly plagiarised i wouldn’t feel too bad about it.[…] i do not post original climate science research but rather analyze and compile existing information.

Professor Luciano Floridi — Oxford Internet Institute

Jordan Ziemer Juyan Zhang Charles Wright Richard West Viviana

primary research interest deals with the social-psychological effects of playing video games. roy’s blog post “from on high” of citizen scientists,, and you in particular. that doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a bs or without any college degree at all. his teaching, research, and consulting areas focus on strategic planning studies in public relations/public affairs, global corporate communication, issues management, and advertising/marketing. having read his blog post, i was left with the impression that the reason he didn’t support his claims with quotes and citations was because roy doesn’t really view you as his intellectual equal in the first place (hence the homer simpson graphical reference) so why should he bother? khan (co-pi)], social sciences and humanities research council of canada (sshrc), insight grant, 6,080. roy undoubtedly understands that, and of course he also understands the corollary: that you cannot have plagiarized a paper that you have not read and do not comprehend. on an engineer’s explanatio…daveburton on an engineer’s explanatio…andye on an engineer’s explanatio…henryp on questions on the rate of globa…benben on an engineer’s explanatio…fossilsage on off to a bumbling start at int…stephen wilde on an engineer’s explanatio…gloateus on an engineer’s explanatio…pierre dm on an engineer’s explanatio…cdquarles on an engineer’s explanatio…. you guys do it live up to the low standards of all fanboys when it comes to research. not only will this resolve the issue roy has with you but it will most likely improve your own ideas as well. really, actually think that roy spencer meant that depiction as a compliment, or anything even slightly positive? it’s roy who is not getting the due credit, but he feels he can’t ask for it and it seems to be eating him up. my recollection a few years ago was that it was roy, but if it wasn’t roy, i’m at a loss. can you really not comprehend that willis does this stuff because it’s fun, not to be original, not to climb the academic ladder, not to upset roy etc etc….… i presume that you realise that dr spenser is a “creationist”; what creationists have to say is of no interest to me. he has been involved with several global health research projects, working with scholars from india, kenya, china and canada. let me review the bidding:The r&c 1991 paper hypothesized that in certain extreme conditions a “super-greenhouse effect” arises, and as a result, cirrus clouds form that prevent the sea temperature in the pacific warm pool from going over 30°c. think the way to make this better is for wuwt to republish roy’s 2007 essay in its final form as roy withdrew it in 2008, so that everyone can see how much of willis’ thermostat hypothesis had already been put forward by roy. roy directly; ask him questions which you feel will lead him naturally to your point of view. his articles have appeared in journal of advertising research, international journal of advertising, international journal of commerce and management, journal of promotion management, journal of global competitiveness, business research yearbook, ecquid novi, asia pacific public relations journal, journal of marketing communications, journal of hospitality and leisure marketing and other publications. is up to you and others to do your own research, rather than act like children proclaiming to know the outcome of argument by absence of response. thanks nonetheless to poptech for posting willis eschenbach’s resume. he is misleadingly implying his published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper. think that you would be really interested in some recent research that i have come across about crowds and citizen science.“i think you are being too harsh on roy spencer whom i think made a poor choice of example in his attack on “citizen scientists” in general and not willis in particular (whom he used as example) …. as dr roy raised the issue, he should most certainly cite references, or man up and apologize and then back off. not only will this resolve the issue roy has with you but it will most likely improve your own ideas as well. communications arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in nature. roy – look at his comments as constructive criticism & improve your product. do not post original climate science research but rather analyze and compile existing information. roy issues an appology or at least a statement that proves his accusations, because i also respect him and his science. does a minor kerfuffle on roy spencer’s blog need to be brought here at all – what interest does it serve your readers? he is also active in organizing faculty and student research symposia and moderating refereed paper sessions at national conferences. research and scholarship resides in branding, story framing, with acute interests in visual rhetoric, semiotics, and cultural advocacy. roy should pull out those references if he wants to be taken seriously in his claim. the fact that willis tried to maintain that roy made both the allegation and the flat-out denial without lying strikes me as … well, disingenuous unless willis really didn’t see roy’s denial until last night.’m fascinated by roy’s us eof homer the scientist being led away in cuffs. my understanding is right then roy made a poor choice of example. roy would appear to draw the foul here because he initiated the public rebuke and (according to willis) failed to properly research & document his argument, which, ironically, is one of the faults he finds with willis. i saw that roy had taken his thermostat essay down i went and found it on the wayback machine and posted a copy on my own website. after roy’s second post completely denying that was published at least 12 hours earlier. roy, next time … could you give me a phone call first? roy needs to be attacking, to clean up his profession?  his sole-authored research has been published in the british journal of social psychology, language & communication, the journal of language and social psychology, the handbook of intergroup communication, and the oxford encyclopedia of intergroup communication. examinations for :Dnb (urology) course - 4 (four) seats & 1(one) research fellow. roy putting up cartoons of real scientists who do what he considers substandard or biased work? (phd) should be more supportive of “citizen climate scientists” who, like willis (no phd), invest hundreds of hours researching and analyzing the topic. roy has never come back to provide even the slightest scrap of support, evidence, or citations for his nasty claims and insinuations. agree with you that volcanic eruptions cannot adequately explain climatic phenomena such as the lia, but imo they can & do account for some weather observations, as those after tambora in 1815 & the 1257 event:The presumed consequences of this eruption are detailed in a study from giss (i know, i know…):Http://jrscience.. roy’s article is not a hatchet job, it is a cautionary tale and a reminder to cite precedent. he has presented at the international communication association (ica) conference, the international studies association (isa) conference, and the research conference on communication, information, and internet policy (a.. saumarez, i recommend this little story of the peer review process to you:Richard s courtney, let’s say jenn oates has a good point and roy spencer, contra my claims, did not mildly rebuke willis, he severely rebuked willis by playing the plagiarism card (i think this is a little exaggerated since accusing someone of not spending sufficient time to research who published what in the past isn’t the same as intentionally stealing from their work without attribution, but let’s go with jenn’s characterization). the hospital is trying to unfold a new chapter in medical care through not only imparting education but also through exploring in research and development as well. don’t be embarrassed about it, even if it is only a partial analysis, and good for willis for taking up what roy dropped, even if he did not know that roy had ever held it or dropped it. work has been published in peer-reviewed journals such as communication theory; the journal of applied communication research; management learning; management communication quarterly; and gender, work and organization. roy spencer’s two posts on his blog advising willis are the very source of my statement. roy spencer, and his reasonable support for the “citizen scientist”. course you’re right, but to write a single paper, a researcher doesn’t necessarily need to know as much about the subject as a phd. and how can roy write on and on about other researchers having previously written about the rain cycle as a thermostat without mentioning that he himself is one very prominent such person? in this exchange, i found myself in the middle between you and roy but when the dust settled, it’s clear that i agree with you much more than with roy. communications arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in nature. conducting research always starts with assessing what’s been done in the past… good or bad.

Post Graduation Education | Muljibhai Patel Urological Hospital

. pimm,In evolutionary and ecology research,Re-assessing the forest impacts of protection: the challenge of non-random location & a corrective method. his doctoral research was followed by post-doctoral fellowship at the faculty of health sciences, simon fraser university, and at the centre for global public health, university of manitoba, canada. roy’s latest rant is this one:Now, both anthony and steve have formal technical backgrounds, which i don’t believe is necessary… a person can be self-taught, which is what willis is. don’t know if he is without sin or not, but dr roy has cast the first stone. is not remotely the same as getting original research or a review paper published. once there as a lot of understanding (…) it is clear that they are part of the process from which they arise. of researchers have devoted their careers to understanding the climate system, including analyzing data from the erbe and ceres satellite missions that measure the earth’s radiative energy budget. though, i don’t see roy taking swipes at your underlying hypothesis other than noting that the cepex experiment arose out of the ramanathan and collins paper and that the issue is more complex and has been on the climate radar for a considerable period of time. regardless, talking about a depressive episode willis had years ago that he’s been very upfront about and using that to dismiss what willis says, or saying that is why roy is/should dismiss what willis says, is pure ad hominem, and a really awful and dangerous kind as well. as a true yearbook, it is organized to present cutting edge research.. roy was hounded into commenting on willis and gave it the time he could. joppa, , richard harper, , kenji takeda, kenton o'hara, david gavaghan, stephen emmott,American association for the advancement of science,Achieving the convention on biological diversity’s goals for plant conservation., you can point out their resumes and what that implies, but you imply this is a slam dunk. joppa, alexander pfaff,In proceedings of the royal society b,How many endangered species remain to be discovered in brazil? professional scientists do their research in the hours left after teaching and administrative duties and get paid generally by a university. so it is very strange to see roy now criticizing willis for not crediting r+c for an analysis similar to the one that roy himself did not credit r+c for. if you use your head, you will find that roy was spot on in his kindly recommendations to willis. roy has not pointed out one single example of what he is accusing me of. i lead microsoft research’s engagements on environmental sustainability, and my work includes aspects of what makes microsoft research so special – from artificial intelligence and machine learning to software and hardware development. of us that see value in willis’ work understand the extent to which his tantrums detract from it, and we certainly see the harm in willis launching on roy spencer, who takes more than his share of crap from the warmists of the world and does not deserve it from any of us.. if i had it in my power, send most home for a few-year break and on their own terabyte desktop super-computers research for free as many “citizen scientists” here already do so. yes, i’ve said that i thought that some of my research has been novel and original. i took advantage of the 24 hr hiatus in commenting to slowly go through all comments at roy’s blog and here. she has also conducted research related to health issues and family. roy, i definitely do acknowledge prior work as you advocate, like you i think it’s important … but only when it is relevant to my work. research focus was driven by interests in social interaction, cultural advocacy, and political communication design. his research examines topics such as the gender identity negotiation of nursing students, the underrepresentation of women in computing and information technology work, the experiences of international faculty in u. it logically follows from that you weren’t telling the truth when you say roy didn’t necessarily lie because there’s no way he could have both accused you of plagiarism and not accused you of plagiarism without lying. roy is trying to point out is what willis and the rest of the world should have learned in jr.’m not being harsh on roy spencer at all — i’m pointing out how his title referred to a citizen scientist, singular, and to willis, specifically. in 2015 i co-founded the nature + computing group, a diverse collection of scientists drawn from microsoft research who develop and apply the tools of data science to scientific data and whose research interests are focused on the study of nature., willis, whether or not your other criticisms of roy are valid, these two statements are true as evidenced by your description of the paper in the op as compared to the paper itself. spencer’s blog post caused ill and roy is directly responsible.. roy, save your time and ammunition to shoot warmist points of view. roy nor anyone else has come up with a scrap of evidence to back up dr. roy claims that willis was claiming originality for the ts hypothesis when willis specifically stated that he did not know whether it was original or not. willis’ past write-up dealt with thunderstorms in the tropics, i researched “thunderstorms” thunderstorms in the tropics and found such thunderstorms occasionally produce their anvils of cirrus clouds. phadke memorial symposium on early ca prostate (t1,t2)28th to 30th january : dialogues in uropathology201520 sep : arise program18 & 19 sept : female urology 26th april : anesthesia for high risk patients26th to 28th march : andrology training workshop for postgraduates12th to 14th feb : aua segura international urolithiasis course2nd to 4th jan : uro-oncology course201414th & 15th nov 2014 : renal transplant31 oct & 1 sept 2014 : ultrasound in urlogy1st june : arise13th & 14th june : stone institute hands-on lab and didactic25th to 26th april : renal transplant3rd to 5th april : andrology course7th & 8th march : basic laparoscopic course23rd feb 2014 : arise18th & 19th jan:nephropathology workshop201321 to 23 nov : pediatric workshop6 oct : arise21 to 23 november : pediatric course9th & 10th aug 2013 : miniperc workshop31 may & 1 june : dialogues in uro-oncology : uropathology summit5th may : arise4th to 6th april : andrology training workshop for postgraduates21 to 23 feb : aua segura international urolithiasis course14th & 15th jan : isn-mpuh nephropathology workshop; 16-17 february2013 : isn-mpuh regional workshop on “infections in renal transplant recipients”201222 & 23 nov : siu live webcasting of laparoscopic surgeries in urology2nd nov : arise20 sept : cadaver organ donation awareness programme19 aug : arise17 to 18 aug : pediatric19-20 july : urethra 14-15 june : small renal stone26-28 april : andrology training workshop8-10 march : robotic surgery5th feb : arise‏2011 february 13th : uro anesthesiamarch 10th to 12th : less: single portmarch 13th nephrology updatesmarch 24th to 26th : andrologyapril 1st to 3rd : optimizing stone treatmentmay 6th to 7th : uro oncology / post graduates may 27th & 29th : micro pcnljuly 1st to 3rd : paediatricjuly 28th to 30th : laparoscopy august 25th to 27th : rirs september 22nd to 24th : asian robotic urology symposium2010andrology 18th 20th march rupin shah, manish bankar, sanjay kalra, s. he is being accused of not having done his homework regarding previous research, not about anything wrong with his maths. the papers that roy has pointed out to you:Ramanathan and collins, 1991. i know of at least 90 separate models, all done independently by different researchers, some sharing common black box code. roy has long been a hero of mine, because of all his excellent scientific work … which is why his attack mystifies me. khan’s research is grounded in community-based health intervention and communication with a special focus on hiv/aids and marginalized communities. presume that you realise that dr spenser is a “creationist”; what creationists have to say is of no interest to me. undoubtedly, roy made those feather smoothing gestures because he understands what a jerk willis can be when willis’ opinion of willis is confronted with the reality of willis. i never called roy a liar, or implied that—that’s all on you. are not considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper. have had dealings with both roy and willis and will not opine on this matter. after roy’s second post completely denying that was published at least 12 hours earlier. i am sure that willis would not claim that all his research is original but, like me, sufficiently novel to be able to put over a new perspective on a subject that might be obscure or not very well understood. really, actually think that roy spencer meant, with that image, to make you look like a clueless dolt? roy waving his hand at a general review of the literature is not acceptable in the slightest. seems that the nut of spencer’s whine is that he gets asked to comment on the work of people who publish their own original (to them) research that they have funded themselves and via their tax dollars. he is misleadingly implying his published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper. roy on this very point in the past, although he’s likely unaware of that.“that doesn’t mean that the scientific work done by a researcher with a doctorate will necessarily be better than that done by a citizen scientist with a bs or without any college degree at all. (noun) “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”. dr roy may have something of value to say in this issue, but so far he hasn’t said it, and willis is correctly inviting him to do just that. roy) think those are the same hypothesis, i fear you need professional help—it’s beyond my poor abilities to add to or subtract from that kind of ignorance.. from this mutual irritation i would expect both will develop pearls of research that will move our collective understanding of the climate forward.“you have been informed by an expert in the field that you’re duplicating old work & need to go back & do more research up front to come up with something new. you must be getting close to something roy wishes he had thought of, and that is important.

Lucas Joppa at Microsoft Research

his recent research has explored how different types of advocacy organizations use the internet to communicate with their supporters and mobilize them; how the policies and technical features that companies like facebook and twitter implement affect freedom of expression online and the work of advocacy organizations; the different ways that advocacy organizations communicate with their supporters online about climate change; and the emerging ethics of online political strategists. claiming that roy called him a plagiarist — something roy expressly denies, saying that he thinks willis came to his thermostat model independently — willis hangs his hat on the words “never mentions”. basu roy, sihem amer-yahia, lucas joppa,In extending database technology,How many plant species are there, where are they, and at what rate are they going extinct?, willis, are you effectively accusing roy spencer of lying, as i have suggested? have been informed by an expert in the field that you’re duplicating old work & need to go back & do more research up front to come up with something new. think mockery or rebuttal of dr roy’s fatuous post is absolutely called for! roy clearly doesn’t realize that comparing citizen scientists to someone who is “incompetent, clumsy, lazy, a heavy drinker, and ignorant” is not a neutral act, nor is it “funny” ha ha—it is a slur on whoever is thus represented. time ago (years ago), i wrote to roy spencer on a number of occasions, pointing out that there was a major flaw in his repetitive claim that “clouds cool the climate system on average (they raise the planetary albedo, so they reduce solar input into the climate system)”.(2) roy spencer, probably known to everyone here and highly respected. have stephen (wilde), “[of willis] his non scientific output reminds me of those occasional missives from ‘friends’ not seen for years that make every mundane event sound like a world shattering achievement” ah, yes stephen then again we have your own “proper new ‘scientifcal’ climate model wot i ‘ave tried for years to promote with no success”, no grudge there then eh stephen? willis can at times be a difficult and prickly fellow to deal with i think dr roy’s cartoon is totally unjustified if he meant to have an exchange of ideas or to present constructive criticism. i can’t see any other way that he could have maintained roy both accused him of being a plagiarist and of being an independent thinker who came up with the idea on his own. for example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. to put into a dispassionate perspective the response to an apparent outreach effort by roy at mentoring an amateur. from roy’s point of view asking him to comment on whether there is a thermostat that acts in the tropics is, he can legitimately answer that this question was answered 22 years ago. no wonder roy is upset in a degree that seems hard to fathom, as willis notes:It seems as if i’ve unknowingly done something that has deeply upset you, but i’m not clear what it is. hope that dr roy has not been placed in the position of the “herd bull” (guard/protector) and notices that a possible predator is in view….” interpretation, and i don’t think that’s the most reasonable one in light of roy’s subsequent denials.“i’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — i don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” willis eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research…….. zhang’s teaching and research interests include public relations, international communication, journalism and media analysis. just like it is not hypocritical, per se, of the many anonymous commenters on this thread when they criticize roy or when they criticize non-anonymous commenters who support roy. researcher with an iq of 123 practicing the scientific method is more likely to achieve a valid result than an advocate with an iq of 153 not using the scientific method. bleating, roy is right and watts is is more than indulgent. that way the new research can build upon what’s already been done and avoid problems that were found. is of course feasible that dr roy has been leant on by the hierarchy that seek to control the destiny of mankind.. roy spencer phd is aware about not repeating old work. roy was hounded into commenting on willis and gave it the time he could. – i think roy’s statement should be seen as helpful not antagonistic. i would imagine that dr roy spencer has not read either paper or looked at the references cited. he actually lists on his resume, “refrigeration engineer”… which he has no business claiming. has a special interest in learning about new research that explains romantic relationships as well as student/teacher relationships. why are you misleadingly implying your published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper? asking why willis insists that roy accused him of plagiarism is a legitimate question as are other points he’s making i’m sure. roy is one of my heroes, and i’m mystified by his attack on citizen scientists in general, and on me in particular. point is that if willis’s back was up because of being accused of plagiarism, then implying that roy was going after citizen scientists instead of after him is a deflection at best, misleading at worst. research developed a tool in collaboration with iucn, ssc and ual, to allow the rapid mapping and assessment of species, threats to species and conservation interventions. he published close to a dozen papers and book chapters in such journals as public relations review, journal of communication management and newspaper research journal. seem to have much interest in this issue between willis and roy. i’ve also researched extensively into radical and revolutionary ideologies, which gives me some perspective on how the agw crowd thinks (and which, incidentally, shows an amazingly close parallel between the tactics of hitler in germany in 1933 and our own der fuehrer today – and of th4e agw crowd in their efforts to suppress contrary evidence).: to my great surprise, the essay by roy on”natures’s thermostat” is indeed not the essay that i remembered. i think roy was understanding about your lack of education (studying history so as to not relive it) and your lack of access to existing science on the topic. are not considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper. although i think the dr roy spencer’s article wasn’t as dismissive as you think. citizen scientists get paid for doing something else and do their research for the love of it at night and on weekends (except the lucky few who are retired or independently wealthy) rather than for the paycheck. it looks like willis very much wants to be part of a larger group as much as possible, rather than have much attention paid to roy’s specific criticisms of willis. could it be that roy took his essay down prematurely and is miffed that willis has grabbed his thunder? thing that remains curious to me is that dr roy chose to show the “real” scientist being cuffed for illegal activity. significantly, what spencer is advocating is for anyone that’s not involved full-time in formal research and all that arena’s processes–the “citizen scientist”–to engage in the established systems and build from there consistent with established procedures. claiming that roy called him a plagiarist — something roy expressly denies, saying that he thinks willis came to his thermostat model independently — willis hangs his hat on the words “never mentions”. roy thinks so, then he needs to provide evidence of that., this is a more relevant definition,Scientist (noun) “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”. a large extent, of course, this is originally the fault of some researchers working in the ipcc. zootracer is software developed at microsoft research, capable of accurately tracking multiple, unmarked, interacting individuals in arbitrary video footage. in effect, your suggestion is that roy spencer made a deliberate and personal attack on willis eschenbach with malice aforethought. haruna, alexander pfaff, sander van den ende, lucas joppa,In environmental research letters,Functional traits, land-use change and the structure of present and future bird communities in tropical forests., were you right, then roy would necessarily have had to have lied when he said he believes you probably thought it on your own as an original thinker. research appears in peer-reviewed journals such as the journal of social and personal relationships, the journal of applied communication research, journal of family communication, and western journal of communication. that is drummed into graduate students before you ever dream of starting the research. roy says:I’ve previously commented on willis’ thermostat hypothesis of climate system regulation, which willis never mentioned was originally put forth by ramanathan and collins in a 1991 nature article. roy spencer wrote was not derogatory toward willis, but an acknowledgement that the casual layperson (such as willis and myself) does not have the overall academic expertise and access that would allow for new ground to be covered in a paper. in his response roy takes a broad sweep without necessarily responding in detail. really, really regret that this disagreement between spencer and eschenbach has arisen, and i am very saddened that it is still continuing.

Toxicology Research blog

Dr. Roy Spencer's Ill Considered Comments on Citizen Science

when i found roy’s nature’s thermostat essay on wayback i assumed it was the essay i was looking for, but you are right. accusation by roy spencer can only be understood as plagiarism which is either deliberate or inadvertent. roy is being perfectly reasonable in expecting people involved in debating these issues to have read those sorts of papers and in expecting new ideas to refer to what has previously been done. roy spencer is associated and leonardo di ser piero da vinci. roy thinks my ideas are not new, i’m more than willing to look at any citations he brings to the table. explain in what way willis has pushed his defense of himself “a bit too far” when roy has yet to withdraw his accusations of plagiarism and incompetence, and please explain what “constraint” roy has applied.. academia, researcher reflexivity in qualitative research, feminist and queer approaches to organizing, and the communicative constitution of organizations. with the researches here, you could rework that piece & bring it up to date, citing it, & resubmit it to a more widely circulated journal. the importance of international marketing for multinational businesses and the social issues that arise, there is also particular public policy importance to this area. the thunderstorms are spiral waves like the spiral waves that arise in many observed and simulated nigh dimensional non-linear dissipative systems, like the rotational eddies in the sea currents and like dust-devils in deserts., roy has posted another gentle and kind remonstration to you on his blog. may be best to have a private conversation with roy asap, willis. i also understood that no “one” had to have invented this mechanism, something had to arise because of the 2nd law. notion of the 2nd law demanding natural thermostatting mechanisms (let’s say thunderstorms), came to me first via roy spencer’s wonderful book, climate confusion (2008), which has been open on my desk to page 56 for several days now. spencer is doing this for emotional reasons, was probably offended by him; but at the same time really has it out for citizen scientists writ large and was as of 10 pm yesterday [roy’s time] still making that claim on roy’s blog,Ps—since you have such distaste for citizen scientists [as if it’s a flat-out, established fact] …. it be that roy’s funding chain has changed recently ? roy has just written a diatribe against citizen scientists, comparing us inter alia to homer simpson and claiming various wrongdoings on our part. no, roy spencer and other climate scientists are upset that willis is onto something big here (with all his posts). does nothing to change the fact that then roy’s criticism would be all the more directed at willis and not at citizen scientists generally.. roy humanly misperceived some of willis’ work and sounded off in public about it without first asking willis about anything he had a problem with. roy is being perfectly reasonable in expecting people involved in debating these issues to have read those sorts of papers and in expecting new ideas to refer to what has previously been done. roy, nor you, nor anyone else, has brought up such a study …. of course there are many good-hearted, hard-working men like roy spencer on the inside of the bubble, but their apparent monopoly on truth is being severely and swiftly eroded – ultimately to the benefit of all of us who inhabit the worlds outside of academic nerdsville. i remember a talk by walter munk in the mid 70’s where he was discussing thunderstorms as tropical thermostats and the general research question of why is there a limit on tropical ocean surface temperatures. i thought roy spencer raised some good points, especially about researching the literature on what has come before and giving credit where credit is due. asking why willis insists that roy accused him of plagiarism is a legitimate question as are other points he’s making i’m sure. since demanding a consensus is not a legitimate position we are all left to form our own conclusion using readily available information and such additional research as desired. roy undoubtedly understands that, and of course he also understands the corollary: that you cannot have plagiarized a paper that you have not read and do not comprehend. if his research and ideas have merit, you would think that at least one of the experts in the field would find value in his work. and for the record, i admire roy spencer’s constraint in pointing that out. research has appeared in the peered-reviewed journals, environmental politics, new media & society, and the international journal of communication. mcdonald has also presented his research at numerous national and international academic conferences. it might give clue as to where roy adopted his approach from. william duffy in the department of philosophy & classics, researching unique "web-of-influence" interfaces, in order to create new interactive learning experiences for greek mythology students. and, i have to say the same about roy’s many posts on his blog, which accomplished the same thing – gave me a better understanding of the complexity and unresolved issues; contrasting with the consensus seeking politicians and some cooperative scientists. you can easily see that an implication that people who aren’t researchers shouldn’t use the scientific method is stupid, if you frame it in the words i have just used., none of this is an accusation that roy is lying. smith, stephen emmott, drew purves, lucas joppa, vassily lyutsarev,Building robust conservation plans.  he has been lead-author on studies published in the journal of communication, the journal of intercultural communication research, the chinese journal of communication, communicatio: south african journal for communication theory and research, the russian journal of communication, communication research reports, language & communication, and chapters published in intergroup communication: multiple perspectives, and the handbook of communication and social interaction skills. first, because homer probably knows more science than i do, and second because the child-like wonder with which homer approaches the world has always been a marker of the best researchers in the business. are not considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper. you are suggesting that roy was making a specific attack of willis. roy complains about doing other peoples’ homework (in comments) but i don’t see where this is done. was called out by roy in a post whose title began: citizen scientist: willis …. first, because homer probably knows more science than i do, and second because the child-like wonder with which homer approaches the world has always been a marker of the best researchers in the business. at roy spencer’s usually excellent blog, roy has published what could be called a hatchet job on “citizen climate scientists” in general and me in particular. comments are not intended to denigrate roy spencer – the above is simply my opinion of the public rebuke. please read willis’ comments on roy’s blog page to divine willis’ understanding. he also served as a graduate student teaching assistant and then as a teaching associate at the university of california at santa barbara (2000-2006), as well as a graduate student research assistant and then as a teaching assistant at penn state (1998-2000). roy didn’t do anything wrong by writing his post and expressing his opinion. roy seems to be pretending that his earlier really super great essay never existed, as if he is ashamed of it or something. roy be tweaked because, as i have noted before, he wrote a very nice account himself of how the speed of the rain cycle acts as what he called “nature’s thermostat,” with section headings like: “precipitation systems: nature’s air conditioner? ziemer’s research has been published in the journal of religion, media & digital culture, and he has presented his work at many competitive national and regional academic conferences. if you continue to talk about r&c just in terms of what is in the abstract, you will be making roy’s point for him. to my second to last comment, richard, i see willis has posted this at roy spencer’s blog:Don, dr. researched a number of climate, energy, and other deeply technical topics (usable nanosurface in helmholtz double layer capacitors), i can say with certainty that any academic advantage (other than real labs to do new physical experiments, which i had to contract for) is now minimal compared to any citizen willing to learn and research. i am stunned roy missed that- more evidence of a bad hair day on his part. in fact the squalls being in a line provides evidence of what roy states to be true.’s blog post on the wagner-spencer controversy, of which caca spewers like the odious gleick tried to make so much:Hatchet job on john christy and roy spencer by kevin trenberth, john abraham and peter gleick. communication; communication and development; applied communication for social issues; critical theories in health; social determinants of health/ health equity; global public health; hiv/aids prevention; community based participatory research; qualitative methods; social history of disease and medicine; knowledge systems, science and public policy.(a) the assertion by spencer that eschenbach plagiarised from ramanathan&collins. scholarship continues to evolve and deepen her contemporary focus of visual communication into research interests of digital humanities, human-centered design, designing for social awareness, project-based learning & teaching methods, as well as user experience and behaviors (ux/ui), all in the digital environment.

Here

sometimes i have to read a research article two or three times to understand the point they are making. his teaching and research are grounded in intergroup, intercultural, and organizational communication in a variety of social and professional contexts. the meantime its probably more useful to note that a lot of alternatives have been overllooked in the rush to certainty so your article is in fact useful and i would take roy’s comments in a positive way as it would become more useful to include as much on the topic as possible. there’s no possible way that roy could not be lying if he did allege that willis is a plagiarist and then deny it. i suspect that at his point establishment researchers feel very threatened. although i have worked in a lab with the title and grant money of a research audiologist, generated sound, measured it, collected data, entered data, did statistical analysis on data, published it, and have had it duplicated by others, i call myself an armchair student scientist in climate debate. don’t think it’s fair to expect roy to respond to everyone’s pet theories. her research tends to focus on areas of contested identity such as lesbian motherhood. maybe you’re trying to belittle willis by posting his resume. roy played the religion card after his testimony, he demonstrated that he is every bit a political animal first.. he published a comment in nature not an original research paper. willis, if you followed the common professional practice of adding a list of relevant references relating to your work, at the end of your submissions, it might keep dr roy happy. – the world needs and values you both: (a) the professional researchers/experts (of which i am sure dr spencer is a renowned member) operating at a scientific level far above the rest of us and (b) the “citizen scientists” such as willis with the gift of explaining the principles clearly to us lesser mortals (along with his many interesting illustrations/examples) and always ready with some new hypothesis, accepting that it might come crashing down in the course of a single thread. really, actually think that roy spencer meant that depiction as a compliment, or anything even slightly positive? focussed on quantifying the economic and environmental, trade-offs and synergies that arise under land use change. roy, the citizen climate scientists are the ones who have made the overwhelming majority of the gains in the struggle against rampant climate alarmism. are not considered the same thing as an original research paper let alone equal to the original paper. and i agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available. his other research and teaching interests are focused on medical pluralism, health equity, critical public health theory, social history of disease and medicine, communication and development, and applied communication for social issues., if you want to look at an actual glaring difference between willis’ ideas and published atmospheric science, then pay attention to the other issue that roy gently prodded willis to educate himself about: what goes up, forces something else down., i must confess that i have no memory of anything like that from roy. roy says:In 1991, ramanathan and collins advanced in nature their theory of surface temperature regulation by deep moist convection in the tropics. if you liked that anecdote:I am currently reading a lovely little book about stephenson and the other railway pioneers published in the early 19th c. by the way, i am a retired senior research scientist who worked in the fields of fluid dynamics and aeroelasticity, and held a commercial pilot licence requiring knowledge of meteorology. idiotic search using willis’s catch phrase in google scholar (the problems with your apparently do not understand) has nothing to do with research the average scientist would do. i freely admit, as i have before, that maybe the analysis has been done some time in the past, and my research hasn’t turned it up. roy is one of my heroes, and i’m mystified by his attack on citizen scientists in general, and on me in particular. roy’s all over my case … but he hasn’t yet pointed out either:A) what i’m supposedly ignorant of, or. communications arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in nature. roy’s comments as an attack on you at all – i am not sure why you took it that way. it is as close as it can get to calling his work plagiarised (the ultimate sin in academia) without explicitly doing so. clearly, roy spencer was in error to have suggested otherwise. although it does kinda make sense out of the intensity of roy’s upset … if that’s the case, if he thinks i’m plagiarizing him, why wouldn’t he say so?, titles are not royalty (at least not in the united states),Christopher, willis is vaguely published but is not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination. roy, the citizen climate scientists are the ones who have made the overwhelming majority of the gains in the struggle against rampant climate alarmism. am currently an honorary conservation fellow at the zoological society of london (zsl) and am a past honorary research fellow at the university of kent’s durrell institute for conservation and ecology (dice) . and for the record, i admire roy spencer’s constraint in pointing that out. i am fairly good at research and your work tends to make me do a lot of reading and research. he performed the search you did and came to those conclusions, he would need to learn how to do better research. he stated, “if you want to get some idea of what has been done on cloud feedback, then a good place to start is graeme stephens (2005) review of cloud feedback work performed over the years., i get your point about their resumes, but albert einstein’s resume would have read “patent clerk, swiss patent office”. willis, whilst agreeing that dr roy’s choice of words left a great deal to be desired, i thought i’d share a personal observation on dust devils., willis, are you effectively accusing roy spencer of lying, as i have suggested?. and still roy spencer won’t say where his sunrise/sunset data is. roys blog on 10-11-2013 between 3:22 pm (whatever time standard his logging is). roy’s likening willis to homer simpson being “just humour”, i decided to see how homer is described… on the wiki-bloody-pedia.), religion and communication: an anthology of extensions in theory, research, and method (pp. m de vos, lucas joppa, john l gittleman, patrick r stephens, stuart l pimm,In conservation biology,Impact of alternative metrics on estimates of extent of occurrence for extinction risk assessment. i do think of the billions spent doing your research – i wonder if the vast scale of pillage required for it is not the distinguishing characteristic and the major achievement. that exacerbated roy’s misstep in going off on willis in public.. meteorology (thesis: “a case study of african wave structure and energetics during atlantic transit“), university of wisconsin (1982); research scientist, space science and engineering center, university of wisconsin (1982-1984); senior scientist for climate studies, marshall space flight center, nasa (1984-2001); msfc center director’s commendation (1989); nasa exceptional scientific achievement medal (1991); u. roy made a one-line drive-by posting to the same effect, dr. but any researcher suggesting only one does not get automatic credit for the other. maybe roy is offended by something willis has recently done and is having an emotional snit as willis alludes to, and roy is being disingenuous by pointing to years of scientific behaviour on willis’s part that he doesn’t approve of, such as not making a larger effort to research work that has gone before and properly give credit. you wave your hands over lessor distinctions between r&c91 and willis, hoping to distract from the fundamental overlap that was the subject of roy’s gentle and measured constructive criticism. my actual resume (which i will not be posting online) shows my credentials are very relevant to computer science and information technology but unfortunately you are going to have to take my word for it……. only paper i’ve seen which uses the term thermostat in a similar fashion describing a similar effect as you discuss was this one linked in roy’s thread on his site: http://lightning. you “communication arising” is a comment on an original research paper. his articles have appeared in journal of broadcasting & electronic media, the asian journal of communication, the international journal of mobile communications, disability & society, newspaper research journal, journalism and mass communication educator, cyberpsychology and behavior, public relations review, health communication, mass communication and society, journal of asian pacific communication, international journal of instructional media, the community mental health journal, and among others. roy, i ask of you the simple thing i ask of everyone—if you object to something that i say, please quote my words, so we can all see what you are talking about. this play out reminds me of what happened between writer stephen ambrose (band of brothers) and his critics in the academic historian community. roy waving his hand at a general review of the literature is not acceptable in the slightest.

Thomas Szasz - Wikipedia

once there as a lot of understanding, as with some of the recurring eddies at the edge of the gulf stream, it is clear that they are part of the process from which they arise. don’t think it’s fair to expect roy to respond to everyone’s pet theories. going beyond the clinic: confronting stigma and discrimination among men who have sex with men in mysore through community-based participatory research.. roy has not given me any examples of other people doing the kind of analysis of the ceres data that i’m doing. bad it wasn’t a private discussion between roy and willis. graeme stephens 2005, the most recent paper, they say this:The lack of maturity of feedback analysis methods also suggests that progress in understanding climate feedback will require development of alternative methods of analysis. is of course feasible that dr roy has been leant on by the hierarchy that seek to control the destiny of mankind.. roy was hounded into commenting on willis and gave it the time he could. coming out in the field: a queer reflexive account of shifting researcher identity. communications arising are exceptionally interesting or important scientific comments and clarifications on original research papers or other peer-reviewed material published in nature. roy’s same claim (but made by someone else), i wrote:I disagree that the analysis of thunderstorms as a governing mechanism has been “extensively examined in the literature”. i also have critiques at times (from “outside”) of some of willis’ position and any way roy the academic scientist helps willis the citizen scientist be more effective all the better. reversal effect arises in response to a direct effect, and it combines with the direct effect such that the combination has opposite sign to the direct effect (i.'s welcomecomweek at utsacontact uscom student organizationscolfa student organizationsundergraduatebachelor's programcoursessyllabischolarshipsadvisingacademic resourcescareer resourceshonorsgraduatemaster's programrequirementsstatement of purposeadmissionscoursesassistantshipssyllabicurrent ma studentsscholarshipsvip nominationrecommendationsgraduate student awardsdean's fellowshipfaculty & stafffacultyfaculty centerfaculty researchresearch service centercom faculty publicationsresearch colloquium seriescolfa spring research conferencestaffinternshipsopportunitiesinformation sheetexpectationsportfolio requirementsguidelines for journalsdebate. and i agree, if research was public-funded, it should also be made publicly available” … “…read up on what has been done first, then add to it…”. one might have expected someone to silence willis the easy way, by providing references to the paper(s) that he has recognisably plagiarised..I think that roy has gotten too full of himself. it looks like willis very much wants to be part of a larger group as much as possible, rather than have much attention paid to roy’s specific criticisms of willis. foundational research that is common knowledge in the community in which it applies need not be cited. qualitative and quantitative evidence regarding the intrusiveness of recording devices in naturalistic research.. roy, what part of “cirrus clouds” are you not understanding? presents his “research” more as learning together as we go as opposed to some academia elitist approved incomprehensibly written pronouncement from the ivory tower. he is misleadingly implying his published comment on another paper in nature is on equal footing with an original research paper. her research focuses on the social construction of health, illness, and medicine especially with regard to women’s health issues. roy spencer, i have one of your books and you are one of my heroes, too. roy undoubtedly understands that, and of course he also understands the corollary: that you cannot have plagiarized a paper that you have not read and do not comprehend. is an opinion article at daily climate that perpetuates serious misunderstandings regarding the research of roy spencer and john christy. think the way to make this better is for wuwt to republish roy’s 2007 essay in its final form as roy withdrew it in 2008, so that everyone can see how much of willis’ thermostat hypothesis had already been put forward by roy. it reads as an objective, cautionary article aimed at trying to set a demarcation between retrospective analysis built on existing knowledge and new research and contribution to the body of literature.… you really, actually think that roy spencer meant, with that image, to make you look like a clueless dolt? theres lots of room to boost boths egos and all the egos of us agwsceptics…if the answer from drroy is made in the wuwt spirit…lets hope it is., roy has posted another gentle and kind remonstration to you on his blog. was really put off when roy engaged at the end of his testimony to give what seemd a pre- arranged message on his religious leanings. here for instance is the result of a search for the work of joanne simpson & citations of her contributions, to take but one early researcher in the field addressed by mr. roy per we) pay out rope and to watch the cowboy reel it in. passalacqua has done research in the areas of patient-centered communication, provider skills training, physician burnout and empathy, cancer communication, social support, and more. the papers that roy has pointed out to you:Ramanathan and collins, 1991. can see why willis would bristle at those words initially, and possibly not even believe roy’s denial., sadia ahmed, , kenton o'hara, richard harper, , stephen emmott, lucas joppa,In diversity and distributions,Socio-economic and ecological impacts of global protected area expansion plans. there is nothing further from the truth in roy’s case.'s welcomecomweek at utsacontact uscom student organizationscolfa student organizationsundergraduatebachelor's programcoursessyllabischolarshipsadvisingacademic resourcescareer resourceshonorsgraduatemaster's programrequirementsstatement of purposeadmissionscoursesassistantshipssyllabicurrent ma studentsscholarshipsvip nominationrecommendationsgraduate student awardsdean's fellowshipfaculty & stafffacultyfaculty centerfaculty researchresearch service centercom faculty publicationsresearch colloquium seriescolfa spring research conferencestaffinternshipsopportunitiesinformation sheetexpectationsportfolio requirementsguidelines for journalsdebate. for example, if thunderstorms alone are not sufficient to stop an area-wide temperature rise, a new emergent phenomenon arises. willis is ever able to pocket his ego, he will notice that he owes roy a great debt of gratitude, for his kind and gentle efforts in attempting to help willis to avoid that sort of embarrassment. i am quite sure that willis did not expect roy to publish a public comment on his “pet theory”. refer you to my conversation with roy spencer on his blog. roy himself tells me what study anticipated mine, i can’t give credit to anyone. as i said upstream, i think roy is wrong, but that he truly believes what he says. roy has so much free time on his hands that he can attack willis, maybe he should find a charity where he can donate some of his time–that would be constructive.. roy then goes on to claim that my ideas about thunderstorms regulating the global climate are not new because of the famous ramanathan and collins 1991 paper called “thermodynamic regulation of ocean warming by cirrus clouds deduced from observations of the 1987 el niño”. either willis is wrong in his interpretation or roy is lying in his denial. pimm,In proceedings of the royal society b,Measuring population growth around tropical protected areas: current issues and solutions. – no, someone not indulging you does not presume the binary result you stated. no matter, he is a true seeker of truth that roy should not have so backhandedly disparaged.. roy’s misguided piece that teed up willis the not surprising mud slinging that followed has not altered that one bit. roy took his thermostat essay down because he decided that such a partial analysis would not illuminate feedbacks (his statement that clouds rising in one place means clouds descending in others, so you can’t resolve the effects of the whole by looking in one place). as roy’s example in his essay pointed out, some people claim clounds in the lower atmospherer cool – ergo – water vapor as clouds don’t warm.. ziemer is an organizational communication scholar whose research agenda focuses on issues related to the construction, expression, enactment, and contestation of occupational identities in diverse work contexts. i value roy spencer, willis eschenback, and so many others., willis, i love you but this doesn’t mean that roy doesn’t have a point.’s also notable that roy has not responded here to willis in any form whatsoever. roy spencer’s rebuttal (posted this morning ) he flatly claims that “…you will find willis talking about the thermostat hypothesis as being ‘his’ theory. roy regarding a natural thermostat is actually an interesting claim … but it has little to do with my own hypothesis:It is now reasonably certain that changes in solar radiation cause temperature changes on earth.


How it works

STEP 1 Submit your order

STEP 2 Pay

STEP 3 Approve preview

STEP 4 Download


Why These Services?

Premium

Quality

Satisfaction

Guaranteed

Complete

Confidentiality

Secure

Payments


For security reasons we do not
store any credit card information.