Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Dont laugh he's serious.... Obama on climate change
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dont laugh he's serious.... Obama on climate change
On 30/01/2010 5:33 PM, Jonno wrote: http://www.youtube.com/v/q20cnn8vOfg..._embedded&fs=1 The comment about science being self correcting is true, over the long term. Nature (not the journal) provides the main impetus, though humans often help. Of course 'climate science' is a special sort of science. It has no underpinning theory: there is no theory of global warming, just a lot of observations, a lot of dubious hypothesis, and a large number of computer models which don't agree with each other, let alone observation. Above all, climate science has become the holy of holy: you can't question any part of it without being bad mouthed. For example, you might want to question if a tree, or a group of trees in Siberia or the US have a 'magic radio' which permits us to learn, via tree ring data, whether the summer of 1786 was globally colder or warmer than the summer of 1929. Since many factors go in to tree growth, you might want to question wether or that tree says anything about its own temperature history, let alone that of the entire world. But if you do question that 'fact' you are told 'the science is settled and only climate deiners refuse to accept it'. The data is proprietary (let us remember that successful and allegedly criminal attempts at blocking UK FOI requests are at the heart of Climategate). So if a group of scientist with no qualifications in advanced statistics write a flawed paper, itself reviewed by people with undergraduate statistical expertise, that data, their algoritms, etc., are not available for independent critical review. Thats a pretty unique branch - a science with no theoretical underpinning (find me a testable 'theory of global warming') which cannot be questioned, where the methodologies cannot be questioned, where the data is proprietary (and therefore cannot be questioned), where the conclusions are drawn from models which have no demonstrated predictive skill, and which is, above all, overseen by a POLITICAL BODY, which is what the IPCC is. And its not just the IPCC: anybody looking for research money knows there is an awful lot more money in research with a climate angle than anything else these days. And the problem with science these days is, you get the answers you pay for. There is no other branch of science that comes close to climate science in terms of shoddiness of theory or purposeful obfuscation of the underlying data. And yet climate science dominates public policy like no other branch of science. Better versed people than DHS you can find here http://www.technologyreview.com/business/24389/page1/-- Their comments are very interesting too. You can find them on the bottom of the page as usual |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Serious Tools for Serious Gardeners | Gardening | |||
Climate Change: The return of Swampy........ | United Kingdom | |||
'DEALING WITH PEAK OIL AND CLIMATE CHANGE' IN LONDON | Permaculture | |||
Wasps are responsible for climate change! | United Kingdom | |||
Global Warming "The debate on whether climate change is occurring has ended." | alt.forestry |