Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#21, Raster,
Love it. I know the wing nuts won’t get it, but damn that was good.
The only way it could have been better would be if you had of put a goat in there.
al gore frozen stiff again…
#17 Oh, I get it. All that evidence explains exactly nothing. What a brilliant conclusion!
Buzz, you’re the only one that has stated “All that evidence explains exactly nothing”. I simply pointed out that you answered your own question.
The science is flawed, but that doesn’t mean it’s worthless or that I think it explains nothing as you wrongly supposed. The process is flawed, the science is suspect and incomplete, there are many thousands of scientists who consider the concept of “scientific consensus” as bad science… and on and on and on. So although I wouldn’t categorize my opinion as brilliant, I would say it’s sensible, and justified.
“One thin September soon
A floating continent disappears
In midnight (ice) sun
(Snow) Vapors rise as
(Chill) Fever settles on an acid sea
Neptune’s bones (freeze) dissolve
Snow glides (to) from the mountain
(Flood) Ice fathers (ice) floods for a season
A (glacier) hard-rain comes quickly…”
Interesting little fact from Isaac Asimov:
“During most of the history of the third planet from the Sun (our Earth), the North and South Poles have been free of ice.”
#38,
Interesting fact, Asimov was correct. The phenomena known as “Continental Drift” explains it.
Asimov also wrote about a planet with multiple suns. Again, plausible even if not proven.
#36
I’m wondering. How many professional organizations, groups, societies, and/or associations, holding to the peer review standard, hold the science of climate change is false? Naming a couple would be very helpful.
Since there are many thousands of scientists who consider the concept of “scientific consensus” as bad science… and on and on and on. it shouldn’t be hard.
And please note that every time I ask no one answers.
“Them collidge boyz think ther so smart! Ther awl a-lyin to yez… Why, fer awl yew know, we maht not even be speakin English! They maht have secretly bin teachin us Chinese our entire lives! ‘At’d be jist lahk ‘em!”
WE’RE ALL SPEAKING CHINESE, I TELL YA!!!
#40
No one answers because firstly they don’t know and secondly because it would takes days of digging to find them. And if one finds them without double checking it’ll make them look more of an ahole.
People just go back to my polar bear reference and you’ll understand.
And since this is a “Cherman” thread, it can mean only one thing…crazed lunatics debating over and over and over and over and over on climate. This is Cherman’s KFC. He’s going to have the chicken whether you or I like it or not 🙁
Don’t worry, Al. You’ll thaw out when you get to Baptist Hell!
Al Gore making a speech on Global warming from his front porch today. He lives in TN and it might warm up to freezing here today. We are having a week long + frigid arctic blast. The dude is full of hot air so…
Re #36, Ralph, the Bus Driver“How many professional organizations, groups, societies, and/or associations, holding to the peer review standard, hold the science of climate change is false?”
I suspect no one answers because…
a) every scientist KNOWS climate change is constantly happening, so it stands to reason that there aren’t and scientific groups who believe otherwise.
b) no matter how may times I state WHY I’m skeptical, you can’t seem to grasp the reason
c) Science isn’t anything about groups. It is only about “a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws” That’s why “group think” as in a consensus, leads to bad science.
Consider this… “Another basic expectation [of the scientific method] is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Now refer to climategate, and many other fiascos of the past year. The above hasn’t happened. Climate scientists, AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS, are undermining the above expectation at every opportunity. So either you continue to wear blinders, or you become appalled at the sloppy science being done, and skeptical of the results.
#42, Theone, read #45 and learn something.
Climate change won’t really affect Cherman’s generation (and I’m guessing I’m older than he) and who gives a crap about the kids or grandkids, right? They’ll be dead broke anyway. Reduce the surplus population, right?
#45
“Another basic expectation [of the scientific method] is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.
Well, not quite. Maybe in your dream world, but seldom in reality.
Maybe you don’t realize that most data used in research is actually privileged. Don’t believe it, go ask any drug study for their raw data. No? Then ask a government funded study for their data. Still no go? Ask Gallup or Neilson for the data on any of their studies. Or, you could ask any University to release one of their study’s raw data.
FYI, the climate data from most countries is considered confidential. Don’t believe me? Go ask the government for it.
*
That science isn’t about groups is only partly true. I doubt you can find any “group” except for some fringe religious groups, denying evolution or promoting intelligent design, or claiming the earth is flat.
To different extents, science does fall into groups. Some, such as psychiatrists, have codified their science. Others, such as nuclear physicists enjoy their divergent views.
While there may be some individual scientists that continue to disagree, EVERY professional Society, Association, or whatever agrees we are entering a period of global warming. The last group were the oil company supported geologists.
*
Skepticism is good. One should understand what it is and why they don’t accept something though. That is why the majority of scientists that understand the science agree that GW is being caused by excessive CO2.
*
Since the emails were hacked from East Anglia University, we have seen ONE cryptic email that is the base to call the whole science a scam. The same group that have openly embraced such total bullshit as “well volcanoes emit more CO2 than man” have to fabricate the meaning of one from thousands of emails.
Ya, they are skeptical too.
OK, OK, so there was climate change in the past but that doesn’t change the fact that Capitalism is the only reason for climate change now. And since it IS Capitalism that is causing it, it is a very bad thing and no good can come from it.
And further more, I don’t have a problem with the fact that government funds science mostly so the scientists will come up with problems that only massive government intervention can solve…. With the help of scientists, of course.
We were wrong to laugh at the African witch doctors who tell people that without their protection, a witch might hex your wedding tackle and make it shrivel. We have people who basically do the same thing here.
Again,
I’m a debunker, not a denier.