Not sure how you think a pending lawsuit for libel filed by Mann proves Mann is a fraud? Even if he doesn't win the libel case that doesn't mean his research was fraudulent, do you see why?Every climate reconstruction study since '98 has essentially confirmed Mann's study but that is neither here nor there.Are we really re-litigating ClimateGate in 2018? I thought you guys had moved on to attacking other institutional pillars of society from the NYT to the FBI. If you annoy everything, nothing remains unannoyed.
Not sure how you think a pending lawsuit for libel filed by Mann proves Mann is a fraud? Even if he doesn't win the libel case that doesn't mean his research was fraudulent, do you see why?Every climate reconstruction study since '98 has essentially confirmed Mann's study but that is neither here nor there.Are we really re-litigating ClimateGate in 2018? I thought you guys had moved on to attacking other institutional pillars of society from the NYT to the FBI.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others. Or you could say it's the Sark rule. Where you take 26 players every year and less than 10 Actually ever stay past the first 2 years. So you perpetually have big classes full of shit players.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
No. We were discussing 247 non -coaches selling subscriptions using opinions with flawed data, they try to fit into a scientific model.