Arctic scientist under investigation

[luckytxn 2,265]

A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician were sitting at a table at an outdoor cafe, watching the world go by. They saw two people going into the house across the street, and, a little while later, three people coming out.

"They have reproduced," said the biologist.

"The measurement wasn't accurate," said the physicist.

"If now exactly one person enters the house," said the mathematician, "it will be empty again."

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Math majors do it by example.

Math majors do it by induction.

Math majors do it with a pencil.

Mathematicians do it as a finite sum of an infinite series.

Mathematicians do it as continuous function.

Mathematicians do it associatively.

Mathematicians do it commutatively.

Mathematicians do it constantly.

Mathematicians do it continuously.

Mathematicians do it discretely.

Mathematicians do it exponentially.

Mathematicians do it forever if they can do one and can do one more.

Mathematicians do it functionally.

Mathematicians do it homologically.

Mathematicians do it in fields.

Mathematicians do it in groups.

Mathematicians do it in imaginary domain.

Mathematicians do it in imaginary planes.

Mathematicians do it in numbers.

Mathematicians do it in theory.

Mathematicians do it on smooth contours.

Mathematicians do it over and under the curves.

Mathematicians do it parallel and perpendicular.

Mathematicians do it partially.

Mathematicians do it rationally.

Mathematicians do it reflexively.

Mathematicians do it symmetrically.

Mathematicians do it to prove themselves.

Mathematicians do it to their limits.

Mathematicians do it totally.

Mathematicians do it transcendentally.

Mathematicians do it transitively.

Mathematicians do it variably.

Mathematicians do it with imaginary parts.

Mathematicians do it with linear pairs.

Mathematicians do it with logs.

Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife.

Mathematicians do it with odd functions.

Mathematicians do it with prime roots.

Mathematicians do it with relations.

Mathematicians do it with rings.

Mathematicians do it with their real parts.

Mathematicians do it without limit.

Mathematicians do over an open unmeasurable interval.

Mathematicians have to prove they did it.

Mathematicians prove they did it.

Mathematicians take it to the limit.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Math majors do it by example.

Math majors do it by induction.

Math majors do it with a pencil.

Mathematicians do it as a finite sum of an infinite series.

Mathematicians do it as continuous function.

Mathematicians do it associatively.

Mathematicians do it commutatively.

Mathematicians do it constantly.

Mathematicians do it continuously.

Mathematicians do it discretely.

Mathematicians do it exponentially.

Mathematicians do it forever if they can do one and can do one more.

Mathematicians do it functionally.

Mathematicians do it homologically.

Mathematicians do it in fields.

Mathematicians do it in groups.

Mathematicians do it in imaginary domain.

Mathematicians do it in imaginary planes.

Mathematicians do it in numbers.

Mathematicians do it in theory.

Mathematicians do it on smooth contours.

Mathematicians do it over and under the curves.

Mathematicians do it parallel and perpendicular.

Mathematicians do it partially.

Mathematicians do it rationally.

Mathematicians do it reflexively.

Mathematicians do it symmetrically.

Mathematicians do it to prove themselves.

Mathematicians do it to their limits.

Mathematicians do it totally.

Mathematicians do it transcendentally.

Mathematicians do it transitively.

Mathematicians do it variably.

Mathematicians do it with imaginary parts.

Mathematicians do it with linear pairs.

Mathematicians do it with logs.

Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife.

Mathematicians do it with odd functions.

Mathematicians do it with prime roots.

Mathematicians do it with relations.

Mathematicians do it with rings.

Mathematicians do it with their real parts.

Mathematicians do it without limit.

Mathematicians do over an open unmeasurable interval.

Mathematicians have to prove they did it.

Mathematicians prove they did it.

Mathematicians take it to the limit.

OK my chuckle is now a headache.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Just for the record, the OP has been refuted. The suspension is temporary and COMPLETELY unrelated to the drowned polar bear report and the bogus "investigation" into said report.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Just for the record, the OP has been refuted. The suspension is temporary and COMPLETELY unrelated to the drowned polar bear report and the bogus "investigation" into said report.

It don't matter to the king of obfuscation and his wall of posts.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Every major study ever done in support of GW has been shown to be wrong, falsified or fraudulent.

[Zero Sum 305]

Get help, lucky.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Get help, lucky.

Spoken like a true sheep being led to slaughter.

[Zero Sum 305]

Spoken like a true sheep being led to slaughter.

What was your simple, succinct opinion on the science?

Don't have one, that's right. Instead, we get repetitive posts with faulty summaries and conflicting data that buckles lucky's own point of view. Must be sad not realizing that huh buddy?

But you will save us all.

[luckytxn 2,265]

What was your simple, succinct opinion on the science?

Don't have one, that's right. Instead, we get repetitive posts with faulty summaries and conflicting data that buckles lucky's own point of view. Must be sad not realizing that huh buddy?

But you will save us all.

I see we get the usual.........nothing. You asked for feedback you got it. Now show us where the scientists that did the peer review was wrong. Of course we didn't get it last time and won't now. ALL studies and research conclusions have to withstand peer review and NO GW so called proof has withstood scrutiny.

[Zero Sum 305]

I see we get the usual.........nothing. You asked for feedback you got it. Now show us where the scientists that did the peer review was wrong. Of course we didn't get it last time and won't now. ALL studies and research conclusions have to withstand peer review and NO GW so called proof has withstood scrutiny.

Usually, when you emphasize such absolutes that obviously ignore the thousands of studies in the entire field, and think people are stupid enough to fall for what a few select reviewers' conclusions say about summarized data, then yes, you have nothing. It only shows how flawed your ability to track science is.

I asked for simple feedback that you still refuse to provide. Give us lucky's take on things, that's all. Too chicken?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I see we get the usual.........nothing. You asked for feedback you got it. Now show us where the scientists that did the peer review was wrong. Of course we didn't get it last time and won't now. ALL studies and research conclusions have to withstand peer review and NO GW so called proof has withstood scrutiny.

Can you provide examples?

[Zero Sum 305]

Oh nooooo.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I recently discovered scholar.google.com which is pretty cool - it links to direct research.

[Zero Sum 305]

Yes, its pretty nice. It doesn't filter irrelevant info at times, but it gets close to more discipline-specific databases. Its a search engine, after all.