[Vision2020] The green hijack of the Met Office is cripplingBritain

Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 7 18:15:25 PST 2011

Joe Campbell wrote:
> What exactly are you commenting on? Do you read scientific journals?
> Can you, would you be able to understand that information? Or are you
> basing these judgments on reports from critics? I'll tell you that
> there is just no possible way that you could have enough information
> to make these kinds of judgments -- unless you have a PhD in
> climatology! My guess is you read criticisms of scientific studies
> (from biased sources) without reading the studies themselves. That's
> what it sounds like.

I have read published papers, I have read sections of IPCC reports and 
played with the math involved, I have studied related concepts, I have 
downloaded as close to the raw data as I can find and have written 
programs to graph it.  I follow what interests me from subject to 
subject.  I do read blogs, and I have read criticisms of scientific 
papers.  I have read rebuttals of those criticisms, and the subject 
often has lead me to read about other related subjects.  I have read 
skeptic blogs, and I have read believer blogs.  I've also read many of 
the Climate Gate emails.

And I shall continue to do so, since I find it stimulating - assuming 
that's OK with you of course.

> Admittedly this is an area that I don't know Jack about but I'm going
> to trust the actual climatologists I've talked to more than I'll trust
> you! It isn't as if you or anyone else is bias-free on this issue, so
> that complaint is a wash. Ultimately it is an empirical issue. And
> like it or not you are not qualified to speak to this issue. Sorry!
> Get a PhD and we'll talk.

Just to be sure I'm understanding your criteria, should I get a PhD in 
climate science, or would any old PhD do?  Could it be in a related 
field?  Do I have to have published in peer reviewed scientific journals 
as well?

Does this criteria apply only to me and to this subject, or does it 
apply to everyone here on every subject we converse on?

Just curious.  I've been thinking on going back to school, but I was 
thinking more about either mathematics or computer science.  Maybe I 
should try my hand and climate modeling?


> On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 8:09 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well, I don't know what to tell you.  I've looked into evolution and
>> what's behind it, and it made sense.  I came away from it even more
>> convinced that the very underpinnings of evolution were sound.  In fact,
>> I used some of the basics of natural selection and evolutionary theory
>> to design a program that watches the stock market looking for stocks to
>> invest in, using genetic algorithms.  I've looked at some of the actual
>> facts, and came to the same conclusions.
>> Climate science sets off my bullshit detectors, though.  Too much
>> political pressure, too much reliance on the idea of conformity amidst
>> the community, almost no examination of other hypotheses.  They're
>> assuming their hypothesis is true, and are trying to prove it.  They
>> should be assuming their hypothesis is false and should be trying to
>> find holes in it.  Throw some obvious crap in the mix like trying to
>> wipe out the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period in order to
>> pretend that temperatures were stable until mankind fucked it up, and my
>> bullshit detector explodes.
>> The earth is warming, but it was warming even before SUVs hit the
>> market.  Climate has been changing forever.  I see no reason to believe
>> that mankind is behind enough of it that taking massive sweeping
>> measures at this time is warranted.  Come up with some validated
>> predictions, and maybe I'll give the models a closer look.  Take, say,
>> 20 years to show me how close everything that is happening fits their
>> models and maybe I'll stop thinking of them as a bunch of politically
>> connected buffoons suffering from confirmation bias.
>> Paul
>> Andreas Schou wrote:
>>> That's a little harsh. Sorry. Shouldn't send email at midnight.
>>> It's just bizarre to see someone who's normally so well-informed, and
>>> a huge advocate of science, attacking literally an entire field of
>>> science. Climatology's consensus around global warming is as uniform
>>> and well-supported as biology's consensus around evolution. What's
>>> left over is a motley collection of crank physicists, conservative
>>> economists, conspiracy bloggers, geologists, and TV weathermen,
>>> well-funded by the petroleum industry. They've produced an argument
>>> that's superficially convincing to the myopic and managed to (since
>>> the 1990s) disinform a plurality of Americans, who -- back in the
>>> 1990s -- used to believe in global warming.
>>> I've tried to stay quiet, but the whole thing just makes me nauseous.
>>> --  ACS
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list