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

[Joe Campbell]

Just to be clear, you can do what you want (ethics and the law
permitting). If I had your interests and beliefs, and I wanted to get
a PhD anyway, I'd get one in climate modeling or some related field.

What I wouldn't do is continue to harp on an area of empirical science
if I lacked a PhD in science, especially if one was available and I
wanted to get a PhD anyway; and especially if it was an important
subject, related to important policy issues; and especially if it was
in need of solid work, like you keep suggesting it is. If you're even
half right you can do some good. It fact, getting a PhD in some
related topic is exactly what you should do given the beliefs you
profess to have.

Criticisms of philosophy are a dime a dozen but most people who
criticize philosophy don't know what they are talking about. It is
annoying. Can folks without philosophy PhDs criticize philosophy? Of
course they can! And I can point out there is little reason to listen
to them, just as well. And in the end, anyone worth his salt will take
my word over theirs.

Likewise you can continue to talk about things that, I'm still
guessing, you don't understand half as much as you think you do. But I
and everyone else besides the birthers and the folks who watch Fox
News will continue to listen to the experts and simply ignore you (or
criticize you, as I'm doing). You want to get in the game? Put some
knowledge where your mouth is. Or keep sounding like a birther.
Doesn't matter much to me!


On Jan 7, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Paul
>
>> 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
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>