Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, July 27. 2009

Resisting Climate Hysteria

MIT atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen's short essay is rightly making the rounds today. One quote:



...all models predicting significant warming are greatly overestimating warming. This should not be surprising (though inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data. Thus, Santer, et al (2008), argue that stretching uncertainties in observations and models might marginally eliminate the inconsistency. That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community).



 Read the whole thing. Related, a wamist read Prof. Ian Plimer's book, and was converted.

Posted by Bird Dog in Natural History and Conservation at 18:49 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Neither side is doing science, which is how it is that they can come to opposite conclusions, and avoid each other's meetings.

The warmers can't solve the physics equations so they solve equations they pull out of their asses. This is called modelling.

The deniers are denying that that's science. They're model deniers vs model affirmers, which will continue for as long as government funding lasts.

It's not science however.

Science is still open to anybody with curiosity; the Navier Stokes equations are there for anybody to be curious about. But the computation for the earth's atmosphere is beyond what science knows how to do now and for the immediate future.

So it's not a science disagreement at all.
#1 rhhardin (Link) on 2009-07-27 19:16 (Reply)
Well said.
#2 Bird Dog on 2009-07-27 19:22 (Reply)
I dunno. Here's some science from straight out of the commander's ass. Well, the same temperature anyways.

I lived in the Puget sound area for over 20 years before it got over 95 degrees. In the 10 years since, it’s been 95+ at least once just about every year, sometimes a few days a year. It was 98 today. The NWS claims it’ll hit 95-105 the rest of this week, meeting or beating last year's record.

But as I’ve said before, no panic here. It's been easy to adapt to the heat for minimal cash outlay on my part.
#3 commander clopfelter (Link) on 2009-07-27 21:50 (Reply)
Those are interesting observations, Commander C. Because the time frame -30 to -10 (the "20 years before") are exactly when Dr. Hansen said the globe was warming and you didn't get any 95+ days. Between -10 and now ("the 10 years since") has been a period when Dr. Hansen's measures indicated level or cooling temps and you seem to have local warming.
Having lived in Tucson and in Billings, I am having trouble feeling bad about "a few days a year" over 95. Although our summer here has been exceptionally mild so far.
#3.1 Geoff on 2009-07-29 18:05 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.