David Harsanyi:...as Climategate proves, a bit of skepticism will rarely steer you wrong. In fact, it's one of the key elements of rational thinking.
posted by Helen at 9:01 AM
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Is Tiger hiding something?
- What would Milton Friedman say?
- I wonder if Tiger Woods will get the same treatme...
- Happy Thanksgiving! Hope all my readers enjoy the ...
- "...a warm greeting to a would-be robber eliminate...
- Darn it: I'm getting a mammogram
- "Your right to bring your screaming child on a pla...
- I was just reading about Black Friday on CNBC and ...
- PJTV: Fighting for Political Diversity
- "Democrats and Unaffiliateds More Likely To Be Une...
7 Comments:
I thought true science was simply believing what is presented; if you question it, you're a fool. After all, only *real* scientists believe in global warming. And only *real* scientists believe in evolution — just ask Ben Stein, as presented in "Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed" regarding Intelligent Design.
Clam up and believe. Science is wonderful in its simplicity.
It’s now official: Climate Science is the Women’s Studies of the scientific community.
As for the garbage in, garbage processing, (garbage out)^2 “computer model”, I thought we were well past the days when people believed, “It’s from a computer so it must be right.”
There's an easy way to differentiate real science from pseudoscience/religion/politics:
Quantum Theory is a theory.
Relativity is a theory.
Evolution is a theory.
But "AGW is settled science" and "the debate between capitalism and socialism is over."
We have seen the effect of bullying by people like Al Gore, who knows absolutely nothing except which side puts money in his pocket, and others with ideological axes to grind. Why people do not resist this is a sad commentary on our modern society. The very fact that these are the people pushing this stuff ought to run up all manner of red flags, but people are simply too cowed to stand up and say, "I don't think so."
I am perhaps more fortunate than many in that I have been using computers to solve differential equation models for quite a few years, so I am well aware of the pit falls inherent in the process. I doubted these findings from the very beginning on two grounds:
(1) quality of the models;
(2) quality of the numerical solutions.
This was all before we caught them red-handed in the data manipulation that has recently come to light. No one should now believe in AGW; it is pure hog wash.
Dr. D.
I'm glad to see another compsci professional with sense enough to see the flaws in the AGW argument. Although I don't do the heavy math stuff, it's pretty well understood that bad data leads to bad reporting. While I'm not sure that climate change isn't happening (how can you tell one way or another with such bad data...?), I do try to err on the side of caution and realize that a good percentage of the folks whining about man-made global warming have a great deal to gain by making sure that the "little people" are kept down. After all, how can they be treated like lords if "lesser men" aren't made into vassals?
While I'm not sure that climate change isn't happening (how can you tell one way or another with such bad data...?)
I think we can all rest assured that the climate is changing. It has been constantly changing throughout geologic time with ice ages big and little followed by warming periods. For example, about 12,000 years ago, much of what is now the northern United States was covered by very thick ice. That ice age ended with naturally caused global warming. Beginning in roughly 1350, there was a 500 year long "Little Ice Age" that finally ended around 1850.
The question then becomes one of determining if the rate of climate change being measured now is unnatural. In other words, are human activities influecing the climate and if so, to what degree (no pun intended). With such garbage data and even worse computer model programming, it seems impossible to say one way or the other.
There's been way too much NewAge/magical/delusional thinking going on (starting in the '60s) and skepticsm is all we have to get us out of this mess. For instance, "Hope and Change" was never a political platform - and should have been laughed out of existence when it was first suggested as one - but we've been so inundated, with this current Oprah/The Secret mentality, that almost any scam can sneak through (in almost any area of life) with barely a mention of how nonsensical it is.
It's absolutely shameful a tragedy always has to happen (Hello, Tiger!) for Americans to decide that intellectual maturity has an even more important role to play in our lives than the fun-and-games most use as a social lubricant.
We are literally destroying ourselves.
There's been way too much NewAge/magical/delusional thinking going on (starting in the '60s) and skepticsm is all we have to get us out of this mess. For instance, "Hope and Change" was never a political platform - and should have been laughed out of existence when it was first suggested as one - but we've been so inundated, with this current Oprah/The Secret mentality, that almost any scam can sneak through (in almost any area of life) with barely a mention of how nonsensical it is.
It's absolutely shameful a tragedy always has to happen (Hello, Tiger!) for Americans to decide that intellectual maturity has an even more important role to play in our lives than the fun-and-games most use as a social lubricant.
We are literally destroying ourselves.
Post a Comment
<< Home