The Köppen-Geiger system is the most widely used climate classification. Thanks to a group at the Veternary Medical University in Vienna (Institute for Veterinary Public Health), everyone can check out the beauty of the system. Scientists and non-scientists. E.g. for picking the next holiday or long-burning questions such as: Why can't I find a Brazilian wine?
#FightTheFog (16) ancestors (3) animals (3) artwork (7) Austria (2) bad science (6) Beall's legacy (6) bias (2) branch support (3) Bundestagswahl (6) comment (10) curiosities (1) data links (3) European (5) France (9) free science (5) funny things (3) Germany (7) in Deutsch (24) infographics (27) introduction (1) Ireland (1) Köppen-Geiger (3) Landtagswahlen (8) languages (5) lost science (2) not science (7) oddities (13) open access (1) open data (2) palaeontology (9) peer review (10) Philosophisches (4) phylo-networks (13) plants (12) politics (26) public interest (16) satire (9) science-related (16) Sweden (4) terminology (4) tips (18) travelling (1) USA (18) Wahl-O-Mat (9)
Es scheint, ich bin nicht der einzige, der gegen Windmühlen reitet. In der heutigen SZ konnte man einen Artikel lesen über eine Online Petition, die Augsburger Puppenkiste zurück auf den Bildschirm zu bringen.
At the end of the 20th and into the new 21st century, phylogenies have been largely reduced to stick graphs, often quite unappealing ones. In the papers I co-authored, I always tried to enhance the graphics, and I have not rarely been asked how I do it. So here's my protocol for a little basic tree-and-networks magic.
As long as the U.S. pretend to be a frontier state under threat to be recolonised by Her Majesty's troops, there will be regular mass shootings like the one in Florida. For a European, the logic of the 2nd Amendment is already hard to grasp. But what really surprised me, is the photos you find on the president's Instagram account.
Elsevier is the main publishing platform of RELX, a highly profitable information company. Their business model is quite unique: the public pays for most of the work, it pays for the publication, and it pays for getting access to the publication. And from time-to-time Elsevier asks its only customers – and slaves (scientists) – on their opinion how to make more money.
In my last post, I gave a fresh example how the confidential peer review maintains the publication of dubious scientific results. Naturally I confronted the authors of the paper and editors of the journal. With revealing results.