My comment was a troll? Don't be so ridiculous. It was simply pointing out that the argument that some people are questioning what should not be questioned is an extremely weak one.
+1 for mentioning "the zone". I've experienced this. It's that time when you know what you're doing and how you're going to do it and every line of code you write is progress.
Please mod up everybody. This man has hit the nail on the head.
So many times I've been at work doing nothing because I didn't have a solution or at least I had a gut feeling that the approach I was taking wasn't a good one. A night's sleep and a hot shower next morning and ta-da! The solution is suddenly makes itself available.
There's a false dichotomy involved in these debates that really gets on my tits. I believe it's possible to be an atheist and still believe in The Transcendent. It's similar to agnosticism but rather than the one hand being God and the other Science, the other hand is what cannot in principle be known.
"long term growth" is simply "short term growth" integrated over time. What you're basically saying is, "there shouldn't be any growth" in the absence of an economically viable alternative.
Sure, people like you protesting, then trotting off to pick up a benefit cheque to feed and house yourself that people like me have paid taxes on earned income to provide, muttering incoherently to yourself about how utterly selfish market economics is.
Personal attacks on people who aren't upholding the principles of the scientific method are absolutely in order. People who're using their positions in science to `manufacture' evidence to support a political and (for their institutions) financial cause is reprehensible.
Have you seen the oil price? The market is very well able to do that all by itself. All she is achieving is the destruction of jobs and prosperity in Europe.
If you want the clearest statement of this, then just read what the EU's "Climate Change Commissioner" said:
Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.
I put the most interesting words in bold there. She actually said regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong you plebs can pay more for your fucking fuel, bitch. Amazing.
What a load of unmitigated rubbish. Not much of a surprise it's been given a +5 here at Slashdot.
"Laws" in politics are normative. People can be rational or irrational and politicians are no different. Scientists can be correct or incorrect. Sometimes the effects they claim decline over time. Sometimes they're just plain wrong, and sometimes the political consequences of doing what they say is impossible for the electorate to accept. Only in Plato's Republic would you want scientists dictating policy.
The battle between Liberal Capitalism and Marxism is over, in case you weren't aware. Liberal Capitalism won. You Trots failed to feed and clothe your people. You kept hold of power by repression of freedoms. You lost the ideological battle, please get the fuck over it. Collectivism no longer has a viable economic theory. Come back to Slashdot and post an article when you've thought one up.
Yes. Other researchers using invalid statistical methods, just as Mann did, have managed to generate hockey stick graphs too. That doesn't surprise me.
Despite all the vitriol directed at him Michael Mann's infamous hockey stick graph is still standing
Are you suggesting that because people keep using his graph, his graph is therefore correct? Just wait and see if it appears again in the next IPCC report. I guarantee you it won't be seen for dust.
(and the fact that you think it's a big deal that they tune models to fit past data, as that is the CORE of modeling in general)
Forget "how you test how accurate a model is". Simply look at the divergence between the model output and actual reality. Actual reality is the arbiter of how good the model is especially if you're going to use that model to predict the future. That graph is from a Nature Climate Change Study. It shows the average of the top 32 climate models.
What are you talking about "false"? Here's how accurate the models actually are. It's so terrible it's embarrassing. Is there a scientist alive who'd validate and defend models that are so utterly shite? Would you base policy on such rubbish? The bit they got almost right is only almost right because it's been tuned to fit it backwards in time.
The hilarity continues. A letter from Michael Kelly in today's Times:
Sir, In any form of exact science or engineering, having a discrepancy of a factor of two between theory and experiment would be a source of grave embarrassment. This is not so with climate science where the climate models have overestimated the effect of increasing CO2 on the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by a factor of two over the past 25 years.
For this reason, the divergence between the predictions of theoretical models and real-world data is growing. If the forthcoming fifth assessment report does not address this problem and its implications in an open and candid manner, the validity of the report will be widely questioned.
Why should they be trying to keep out any paper? They should be dispassionately evaluating the evidence. That they don't do that is one of the reasons they're no longer taken seriously by policy makers.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your comment demonstrates just why public trust in science and scientific inquiry is waning.
My comment was a troll? Don't be so ridiculous. It was simply pointing out that the argument that some people are questioning what should not be questioned is an extremely weak one.
No. Falsification; a staple of scientific inquiry (except climate science).
I don't think climate change is mistakenly up for grabs, if the difference between the predictions and the actual reality are anything to go by. Evolution certainly is, as it's an organising principle that would be extremely easy to falsify (just show the fossil of a rabbit found in Devonian strata).
Mod Up. I remember reading about this when I was an undergrad 20 years ago. It's not a new hypothesis.
Yea, it's called a neural network. Ground-breaking stuff....
+1 for mentioning "the zone". I've experienced this. It's that time when you know what you're doing and how you're going to do it and every line of code you write is progress.
Please mod up everybody. This man has hit the nail on the head.
So many times I've been at work doing nothing because I didn't have a solution or at least I had a gut feeling that the approach I was taking wasn't a good one. A night's sleep and a hot shower next morning and ta-da! The solution is suddenly makes itself available.
Or, the tyranny of the planners, Soviet Union style. That worked out well, didn't it.
There's a false dichotomy involved in these debates that really gets on my tits. I believe it's possible to be an atheist and still believe in The Transcendent. It's similar to agnosticism but rather than the one hand being God and the other Science, the other hand is what cannot in principle be known.
"long term growth" is simply "short term growth" integrated over time. What you're basically saying is, "there shouldn't be any growth" in the absence of an economically viable alternative.
Sure, people like you protesting, then trotting off to pick up a benefit cheque to feed and house yourself that people like me have paid taxes on earned income to provide, muttering incoherently to yourself about how utterly selfish market economics is.
A quite hilariously stupid world view you have.
Yes. Wanting jobs and prosperity is totally selfish.
Personal attacks on people who aren't upholding the principles of the scientific method are absolutely in order. People who're using their positions in science to `manufacture' evidence to support a political and (for their institutions) financial cause is reprehensible.
Have you seen the oil price? The market is very well able to do that all by itself. All she is achieving is the destruction of jobs and prosperity in Europe.
What is wrong with you people?
You seem to have confused carbon dioxide with carbon monoxide. It's an easy mistake to make, if you don't know what you're talking about.
I put the most interesting words in bold there. She actually said regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong you plebs can pay more for your fucking fuel, bitch. Amazing.
What a load of unmitigated rubbish. Not much of a surprise it's been given a +5 here at Slashdot.
"Laws" in politics are normative. People can be rational or irrational and politicians are no different. Scientists can be correct or incorrect. Sometimes the effects they claim decline over time. Sometimes they're just plain wrong, and sometimes the political consequences of doing what they say is impossible for the electorate to accept. Only in Plato's Republic would you want scientists dictating policy.
The battle between Liberal Capitalism and Marxism is over, in case you weren't aware. Liberal Capitalism won. You Trots failed to feed and clothe your people. You kept hold of power by repression of freedoms. You lost the ideological battle, please get the fuck over it. Collectivism no longer has a viable economic theory. Come back to Slashdot and post an article when you've thought one up.
The paper was already peer reviewed.
Yes. Other researchers using invalid statistical methods, just as Mann did, have managed to generate hockey stick graphs too. That doesn't surprise me.
Are you suggesting that because people keep using his graph, his graph is therefore correct? Just wait and see if it appears again in the next IPCC report. I guarantee you it won't be seen for dust.
Here's the paper. The top 32 climate models overestimate temperature by between 71 and 159%.
Forget "how you test how accurate a model is". Simply look at the divergence between the model output and actual reality. Actual reality is the arbiter of how good the model is especially if you're going to use that model to predict the future. That graph is from a Nature Climate Change Study. It shows the average of the top 32 climate models.
What are you talking about "false"? Here's how accurate the models actually are. It's so terrible it's embarrassing. Is there a scientist alive who'd validate and defend models that are so utterly shite? Would you base policy on such rubbish? The bit they got almost right is only almost right because it's been tuned to fit it backwards in time.
Why should they be trying to keep out any paper? They should be dispassionately evaluating the evidence. That they don't do that is one of the reasons they're no longer taken seriously by policy makers.