Monday, October 12, 2009

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

It's a truism of human nature that honesty, integrity and openness are seen by evil and greedy men as weakness, something to be exploited and used..... The only remedy is to keep shining the light and keep telling the truth...."

-- Peter Sinclair, Climate Denial Crock of the Week


13 comments:

rhhardin said...

There's the same feeling on the other side.

Cut off funding and see how fast the entire crisis disappears.

Dano said...

So cut off funding to scientists and the planet's temperature will magically drop, the glaciers will magically advance, species will magically move down and south, CO2 in the atmosphere will magically decrease, oceans magically will return to their previous pH, droughts magically will lessen, bark beetles will magically return to pre-infestation levels, etc?!?!?!?

Wow. Who knew funding to scientists upset the planet's ecological balance?!?

That's magically good news, friend!!!!! *heart* !!!

Best,

D

rhhardin said...

Somehow the planet magically got along fine forever with out predictive alarms.

As soon as predictive alarms become sociologically possible, alarms will be raised.

That's a fact of human nature.

Maybe how obvious that is depends on how long you've worked in large scientific organizations, where the smart career choice includes what you might call a management track.

As opposed to just remaining a schlub with obsessive curiosity in this or that narrow field, like the old popular conception of the oddball scientist.

The latter is the one doing science.

David Appell said...

rhardin: "predictive alarms" are hardly a fact of nature. Before about 1975, they were hardly heard of at all.

You seem to continually berate any suggestion that man is influencing the climate. And yet you never once have offered any counter-evidence.

Either put-up or shut-up.

Ian said...

rhhardin says "...the planet magically got along fine..."

What does "fine" mean?

rhhardin said...

1975 was when computer models became more or less widely available, and everything became predictable, meaning capable of bogus pronouncement.

Got along fine means had only a natural history.

Jonas N said...

I wouldn't link to Peter Sinclair's homecooked clips if I wanted to be taken seriosly.

This one is particularly poor.

Dano said...

This one is particularly poor.

Poor = "revealing the mendacity of the noise machine and therefore uncomfortable".

Got it.

And Ron, thanks for your vague bullsh-- that addresses nothing. It is indicative of the strength of your position, which is: you got nothin'.

Best,

D

rhhardin said...

The termperature is either increasing (Global Warming Crisis!) or cooling (Global Ice Age Crisis!).

The crisis part comes from models that are constructed from equations pulled out of nowhere, the actual physics equations being too hard.

The models from from funding for models that predict crisis.

Whatever you pay for, you will get.

That's why I always say that if you want science, look for curiosity, not lab coats.

The lab coats are part of the act.

Just a reminder: the actual physics equations are at least hyperbolic.

Dano said...

Like I said: vague gibberish.

Oh, wait: I said vague bullsh-- didn't I?

The temperature is increasing and it is not a result of computer models, despite a wish to spread FUD to make it seem so. Or whatever the vague bullsh-- is 'sposed to create.

Best,

D

rhhardin said...

The temperature is always either rising or falling. The models, not the temperature, produce the alarm.

The models are not science.

Dano said...

The temperature is always either rising or falling. The models, not the temperature, produce the alarm.

...chuckle...

The average long-term temperature (climate) is rising. Stop spreading your silly-*ss bullsh--. The models are data/output and as such produce zero subjective assessments.

Do you put on or take off the red honky nose and floppy shoes when you type this stuff?

Best,

D

rhhardin said...

A model can exactly match past data and predict anything you want for the future with the same equations.

That's pretty subjective.

Moving data from future to past is how model revision is possible.

This does not improve the predictions.