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
Monday, March 1. 2010
- The new, improved Science. Prof. Phil Jones:
- You can now forget everything they said about hurricanes. Never mind.
- Everybody is mocking Al Gore's goofy NYT op-ed piece. I am beginning to feel sorry for the guy. This from Big Journalism's Former Veep Goes Girly-Man, Has Hissy Fit in Pages of New York Times:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"I am beginning to feel sorry for the guy."
Not me. But I am beginning to wonder when the criminal indictments will start to appear.
"not standard practice" . Oh my. Good research used to mean that more than one group of scientists had reviewed the documentation and agreed with the conclusion. Are you saying that now research (and the concomitant funding) are to be considered the unquestionable conclusions of a very small group of people each isolated and surrounded by the borders of a particular university? My o my--we have come a long way baby!
I found the new car for the left. Prius is so yesterday.
This is so absurd...anthropogenic global warming (AGW) was disproved years before U East Anglia's CRU was exposed. The original hockey stick graph (there were two) was explained and debunked in roughly the summer of 2008. The actual role of carbon dioxide in AGW was well enough understood before that to discredit all claims that it was the cause of warming. It was known that in past epochs, CO2 levels were far higher than today during very cold periods, and it was obvious that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period had been ignored by the AGW lunatics because those years show nature simply bouncing around without help from humankind. Al Gore's propaganda masterpiece -- right up there with Leni Riefenstahl's finest efforts -- was debunked systematically shortly after it came out.
This was never a battle of scientists vs. skeptics. It was always a propaganda war between real science and a confederacy of liars who pretended to be scientists.
In that war, the lap dog media promoted AGW hysteria, made Gore rich, and ignored hard science. Forced to report the truth, they finally gave in. Slowly, and very incompletely. Their current reporting remains unbalanced and biased in favor of AGW: it puts all the emphasis on leaked e-mails, when the real story is what genuine science has to say. The result is that the average guy remains ignorant of the full truth.
AGW far surpasses Piltdown. It's a huge disgrace, as it proves how unscientific and hysterical the "modern age" can be. Ignorance and ideology still count for just as much as does knowledge, I'm sorry to insist, and that holds for many scholars, educators, and researchers. Nobody is crazier than Jim Hansen at NASA, for example. Unfortunately Hansen is even more dangerous than Al Gore, because morons like Boxer and Waxman listen to him.
Mark Steyn grows weary of the whole foul crew:
(quote from link)
Only Connect [Mark Steyn]
In Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich tied together the anti-IRS suicide pilot, the Tea Parties and the Republicans into what he called the Axis of the Obsessed and Deranged.
Speaking of which, if he's minded to do a follow-up, how about this?
Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their daughter and her toddler brother before killing themselves.
Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.
However, their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her father's handgun missed her vital organs.
Why would anyone do such a thing? Well, according to the suicide note:
Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming...
So how about it, Frankie? As an expert on the obsessed and deranged, you're just the man for the job. And it's not like it's the first time , or anything.
I will be happy when Algore is finally prosecuted for investment fraud.
Re: Loco's comment up above:
"But I am beginning to wonder when the criminal indictments will start to appear."
Chief Scientician Phil just keeps opening his big trap.
The professional PR guy that CRU East Anglia hired to clean up this mess is probably on his mobile phone right now, "For God's sake, tell Jones to shut up and say nothing more! Everytime he opens his mouth you sink deeper in the mud!"
C'mon, folks. Al Gore must be sincere and altruistic. After all, he does have a Nobel Prize.
Say, come to think of it, so does President Obama...
...he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.
Phil Jones's claim shows that he is a member of the then a miracle occurs school of scientific research. If it is not "standard practice" to enable other scientists to "check and challenge research," then we are reduced to inserting miracles into equations, which by their very nature cannot be checked. Accepting scientific claims on faith because they cannot be checked is a very contradiction of scientific procedure.
"And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research. "
It all depends on what Jones meant by "release." Open any professional science journal and look for raw data and model code. Will you find them? No you won't. What you will find are summaries and tables and graphs of data and descriptions of methodology.
In many fields, data acquired at national research facilities are archived and released after a brief proprietary period to anyone who wants to do an independent analysis. In fact, that is what the CRU was PAID to do: gather the data and archive them so they could be analyzed by climate scientists, i.e., by the CRU staff and their collaborators and also by independent researchers.
Ask an author for his model code so you can use it for your own research? Generally it doesn't happen. Your chances are better at getting access to the code if you offer to collaborate with those who wrote the original code. That's the way it's done. Just imagine some lazy SOB hanging around and systematically taking advantage of the tools developed by other people to further his own career without ever doing any of the hard work himself. It happens in science as in every other endeavor.
Finally, in some fields of experimental science where there is a high barrier to getting the chance to duplicate the same experiment being performed by another group, the data resulting from that experiment may be archived and released to the public. In other fields, where the barrier is not so high and several groups have access to similar equipment or facilities, they both (or all) may do the same experiment, which serves as a consistency check. If the results of the different groups disagree, then the race to get the answer really heats up. This makes the science self-correcting. And it's a lot of fun, too.