August 31, 2011

Why Be a Global Warming Skeptic - Greatest Hits [ArthurK]
— Open Blogger

Charles Martin gives some reasons why he's skeptical of Global Warming. It's a decent read which includes some killer quotes I'm dying to share with you.

All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding.

Anyone with a unbiased eye who looks into it will find any number of people who have found that a model that predicts more warming gets funded; a model that predicts relatively less warming gets less funding. Pre-tenure researchers in particular are warned away from results that don’t fit orthodoxy.

YES! This work is done by humans with human weaknesses.

...they’re selecting data points that fit the models well - but then testing the models by how well they fit the data.

The models themselves turn out not to be very predictive. (that is, they don't work) ... These models are often revised so that after the fact that predict what really happened. This isn’t very satisfactory. ...

It’s unclear how the AGW hypothesis can be falsified in its current form.

Falsifiability. That's a key word that people forget when talking about science, theories and what's real. If something is part of science it must be falsifiable. That means there must be some method that can be used to prove that theory* wrong. That doesn't mean that you have to disprove the theory - but it must be possible to attempt to disprove it.

*I'm often using theory where I should be using hypothesis or speculation.

For example, very recent creationism. I'll say my theory is God created the universe 24 hours ago. That sounds absurd! You remember things happening more than 24 hours ago. That tree over there took more than 24 hours to grow (and a million other arguments). But my theory has the answer to those arguments. You remember something from last week? God created those memories! That tree looks old? God made it that way!

This sounds like a game a kid would play to pester his parents. But look at what's scientifically wrong with very recent creationism. It's not falsifiable! There's no method conceivable that could disprove it because the results of any experiment that refutes the theory are answered by "God made it that way." So it's not science.

That doesn't mean it's not true! God may have created the universe 24 hours ago. It's just that proving or disproving it isn't in the realm of science since the theory isn't falsifiable. Just because you can't prove something happened doesn't mean it didn't happen. But science is a finicky bitch - she doesn't try to cover everything.

The arguments against the skeptics turn out to be unscientific, and often unprofessional, in the extreme.

These range from the common "the consensus is" ...

"The consensus is" neglects the fact that science isn’t decided by consensus, not permanently at least. (At one time, the consensus was that fire involved a special elemental substance called phlogiston...)

Yeah. Science isn't a democracy. Our politicians have a problem with that since they're used to building consensus. That's good for governing but they shouldn't apply that idea to science. Just as science can't speak on things that aren't falsifiable, government shouldn't try and force consensus into areas it doesn't work.

As a reward for making it this far, I give you a graph.

us_post_causes_global_warming.jpg

Science!

Published by Ace.

Ace here, still. One idea I had about open blogging was this -- write posts whenever you like, but then put them into draft. Then let me know it's there.

This has a couple of big virtues. For one thing, I can schedule them properly, and not have posts piling on top of one another.

Another thing is that Open Blog posts are often thinky/general interest posts which are not time-sensitive as news stories are. These posts tend to be overlooked during the day. But at night or on weekends -- off-hours, in other words -- they get read a lot more. Because people are more in the mood for that, and there's not as much news anyway.

Anyway, this seems like a good idea to me.

Posted by: Open Blogger at 03:15 PM | Comments (43)
Post contains 696 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at August 31, 2011 04:17 PM (1Nzoh)

2 steevy, I like the reptition, but can you say F*ck whn you repeat that? It gets tough when there are so many f-bombs.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2011 04:18 PM (nj1bB)

3 2 Sure ace.

Posted by: steevy at August 31, 2011 04:19 PM (1Nzoh)

4 1 Obama is a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at August 31, 2011 09:17 PM (1Nzoh)

A falsifiable theory, that. We can look at his record to date as proof. Its science!

Posted by: Grey Fox. broke and unemployed at August 31, 2011 04:20 PM (nEMLy)

5 Obama is a life support system for a sack of meat.

Posted by: LGoPs at August 31, 2011 04:23 PM (lHn6+)

6 He's a sack of meat with lips. Purple lips.

Posted by: LGoPs at August 31, 2011 04:25 PM (lHn6+)

7

Another thing is that Open Blog posts are often thinky/general interest posts which are not time-sensitive as news stories are. These posts tend to be overlooked during the day. But at night or on weekends -- off-hours, in other words -- they get read a lot more. Because people are more in the mood for that, and there's not as much news anyway.

This new concept of weekends confuses me.

Posted by: fluffy at August 31, 2011 04:25 PM (O6q63)

8 Obama is a stuttering clusterbomb of miserable failure. Because it has less fs. Ruins the meme, but we "won" that one anyway.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 31, 2011 04:26 PM (bxiXv)

9 All modeling efforts will inevitably converge on the result most likely to lead to further funding. Why will no one fund my research into IF MY AUNT HAD BALLS SHE"D BE THE UNCLE OF GLOBAL WARMING thesis ?

Posted by: Bill D. Cat at August 31, 2011 04:26 PM (npr0X)

10 I snorted Scotch through my nose because of that graph.  Not an experience I care to repeat.

Posted by: no good deed at August 31, 2011 04:28 PM (mjR67)

11 I will create the world 10 minutes after you read this...mind blown?

Posted by: MostlyRight at August 31, 2011 04:29 PM (ZG8Ti)

12 With enough paper and ink, one can graph anything.

Rub my stomach !!!!!!!

Posted by: Buddha ( near Pearl Harbor) at August 31, 2011 04:30 PM (UqKQV)

13 People have a lot of misconceptions about science. For example - making millions of dollar off government-mandated carbon-trading schemes - not science. Especially when the "carbon threat" hypothesis remains largely untested (as in actual tests of real-world conditions, not models assuming an atmosphere of infinite depth).

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 31, 2011 04:30 PM (bxiXv)

14 The Hallmark Channel has started showing 'Jesse Stone' movies again

Me like 'Stone Cold'!!   Rub my stomach!!

Posted by: Buddha ( near Pearl Harbor) at August 31, 2011 04:32 PM (UqKQV)

15 Look wingnuts.  It's f*ckin hot (happy, ace?) ... That proves global warning is real.




Pay no attention to where I live.   It's irrelevant.

Posted by: eastvalleyphx at August 31, 2011 04:33 PM (qiOph)

16 Rub your own stomach, ya fat perv.

Posted by: fluffy at August 31, 2011 04:33 PM (O6q63)

17 It's the GODDAM POST OFFICE!

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at August 31, 2011 04:36 PM (sILPb)

18 I am so sick of these people who say Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. The earth is billions of years old. Mankind was created on the earth around 6,000 years ago, and you can trace your genealogy back to Adam. Read the source, for Gods sake. There is no missing link; and I challenge any one of you pre-Adamic neanderthals to refute this.

"Where were you when I laid the foundation of the Earth?" - God Almighty


Posted by: Breaker19 at August 31, 2011 04:37 PM (WCm02)

19 If AGW is science, why isn't Creationism?

Posted by: nickless at August 31, 2011 04:38 PM (MMC8r)

20  A chart of the 'global temp' compared to federal spending/national debt could be interesting too.

Posted by: Waste93 at August 31, 2011 04:39 PM (idYP7)

21 Jim rubs my stomach--several times a day.   Thanks, Jim

Posted by: Buddha ( near Pearl Harbor) at August 31, 2011 04:39 PM (UqKQV)

22 A chart of the 'global temp' compared to federal spending/national debt could be interesting too.

Posted by: Waste93 at August 31, 2011 09:39 PM (idYP7)

So here's the theory. More government = Global Warmening.  Cook find the facts to prove this theory. Grants for all!

Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde at August 31, 2011 04:40 PM (sILPb)

23

It's the GODDAM POST OFFICE!

It's bulk mail, all the way down!

Posted by: fluffy at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (O6q63)

24 18 I am so sick of these people who say Christians believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. The earth is billions of years old. Mankind was created on the earth around 6,000 years ago, and you can trace your genealogy back to Adam. Read the source, for Gods sake. There is no missing link; and I challenge any one of you pre-Adamic neanderthals to refute this.

The first man Adam became a living soul 1 Corinthians 15:45

Posted by: The Robot Devil at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (j0+ql)

25 You'll  never catch ace using the "f*rnicate" word.

Posted by: Breaker19 at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (WCm02)

26

For example, very recent creationism. I'll say my theory is God created the universe 24 hours ago. That sounds absurd! You remember things happening more than 24 hours ago. That tree over there took more than 24 hours to grow (and a million other arguments). But my theory has the answer to those arguments. You remember something from last week? God created those memories! That tree looks old? God made it that way!

 

I think this is a classic " Beg the question".  Not how everyone uses it now, but in the classic, circular reasoning sense.  Hell, even Scully knew the difference.

Posted by: Hammer at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (hVGDL)

27 Why isn't the phone company on that graph , man ?

Posted by: Dr. Johnny Fever at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (npr0X)

28 I will ease up my f*ckin' f-bombs, too. Sorry.

Posted by: Ima Wurdibitsch at August 31, 2011 04:41 PM (otfJ1)

29

Why isn't the phone company on that graph , man ?

Is ace taking payola from AT&T? Just asking questions.

Posted by: fluffy at August 31, 2011 04:43 PM (O6q63)

30 Eat your peas, bitches.

Posted by: SCOAMFOTUS at August 31, 2011 04:43 PM (XhcnD)

31 I argued earlier today that the models can predict squat accurately, which makes them as useless as Nancy Pelosi on a taxpayer funded jet.
 
Really, I couldn't think of anything much more useless than that. But I have feeling y'all can. Okay, so can I.

Posted by: GnuBreed at August 31, 2011 04:46 PM (ENKCw)

32 2 steevy, I like the reptition, but can you say F*ck whn you repeat that?

It gets tough when there are so many f-bombs.

Posted by: ace at August 31, 2011 09:18 PM (nj1bB)

 

But how are they going to find it on Google then?

Posted by: CanaDave plays a Gibson Les Paul Custom at August 31, 2011 04:47 PM (UlfCH)

33 Answer to population growth - all-powerful government. Answer to pollution - all-powerful government. Answer to bad weather - all-powerful government. Answer to economic woes - all-powerful government. Answer to running out of ice cream - all-powerful government. I sense a connection.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 31, 2011 04:48 PM (bxiXv)

34 32 I argued earlier today that the models can predict squat accurately, which makes them as useless as Nancy Pelosi on a taxpayer funded jet. Posted by: GnuBreed at August 31, 2011 09:46 PM (ENKCw) As stated in the linked article, they seem to predict funding very well. If the models state what the bureaucrats want (more power for bureaucrats), then the modelers get more funding. Easy-peasy lemon squeezy!

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at August 31, 2011 04:49 PM (bxiXv)

35 Nice work Arthur.

Posted by: D. Bowman at August 31, 2011 04:49 PM (v6HKW)

36 36 Nice work Arthur.
Posted by: D. Bowman at August 31, 2011 09:49 PM (v6HKW)

/sock

Posted by: krakatoa at August 31, 2011 04:53 PM (v6HKW)

37 Here's a better correlation: Rock Music vs. US Peak Oil http://tinyurl.com/3srwzt The obvious conclusion? Drill for more oil and we'll get better music.

Posted by: Count de Money at August 31, 2011 05:00 PM (ttYsp)

38 "Really, I couldn't think of anything much more useless than that." Well, there's *useless as tits on a Nancy Pelosi* [srsly. First guy to say "uh... I'd hit that" is elected Hobo of Teh Evening]

Posted by: Running Hobo at August 31, 2011 05:57 PM (l1oyw)

39 I don’t usually add my comments, but I will in this case. Nice work. I look forward to reading more.

Posted by: The Ice Limit AudioBook at August 31, 2011 06:25 PM (qhonK)

40 #27 What really begs the question is the models. The models are designed around their assumption that increased co2 will increase the temperature. They run the models, which show increased temperatures because that's how they programmed them, and then somehow jump to that proving the theory

Posted by: err head at August 31, 2011 10:46 PM (VlSqZ)

41 The bias is settled, you crazy wingnuts!

Posted by: Marmo at September 01, 2011 02:06 AM (Tm9Vp)

42 I knew the post office was full of a bunch of evil bastards wreaking havoc on the planet!

Posted by: 1idvet at September 01, 2011 05:50 AM (xUxh3)

43 sock off

Posted by: Stateless Infidel at September 02, 2011 02:08 PM (GKQDR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
92kb generated in CPU 0.25, elapsed 2.9011 seconds.
62 queries taking 2.7494 seconds, 279 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.