Morning Links

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012
Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

44 Responses to “Morning Links”

  1. #1 |  Mario | 

    I’ve been casually following the Ravi case since I read the piece in the New Yorker published some weeks ago, to which the Nation essay refers. The tension between the roommates, the immaturity evidenced by Ravi, and Clementi’s eventual suicide are all very tragic, but I can’t help but think that we’re seeing something even more tragic going on.

    “Hate” has become an industry in itself, and there is a kind of public hysteria that fuels reactions to any news story that can be construed as evidence of prejudice, a hysteria that’s right up there with McCarthyism and, before that, the Salem Witch Trials.

    There is a spectrum of prejudice, and its a nuanced subject. I thought that was what Norman Lear was trying to point out when he produced those ’70s sitcoms. What Ravi did was stupid, what Clementi did was sad; but there is no real evidence that there is any meaningful connection between the two. But, don’t let that kind of reasonable doubt stop anyone with an agenda to push.

    This case is the definition of sensationalism.

  2. #2 |  Al | 

    The comments on The Hill’s story make YouTube commenters look sane and reasonable.

  3. #3 |  omar | 

    @#2 Al

    Ha! Yea, that comment thread pulls out the big crazy guns real quick.

  4. #4 |  SamK | 

    Eh, I’d argue that there’s a fairly obvious “connection” between Ravi’s shaming of Clementi and his mood and suicide, it’s just that it’s not the “cause” of those things. I’d be pissed if someone ran over my kid and I might kill the fucker and it’s obviously related but that doesn’t mean one caused the other.

    Ravi’s actions were already illegal and he should’ve gotten his ass kicked (legally, as it were) for them, but they’re not any more illegal because Clementi committed suicide. This wasn’t a constant hounding towards suicide, unending harassment, and intentionally attempting to inflict harm through indirect means…it was invasion of privacy, broadcasting sexual acts without permission, and being an immature jackass. I’m ok with him getting a conviction for those things, it just shouldn’t matter that Clementi was gay.

  5. #5 |  Aresen | 

    The Hill story:

    “Russia sends special forces, counterterrorism units to Syria”

    Why shouldn’t the Russians be just as hated as NATO?

    I agree about the commenters. Who lifted their rock?

  6. #6 |  Lee | 

    Ravi faced 15 counts of invasion of privacy, bias intimidation, tampering with evidence and a witness, and hindering apprehension. He was not charged in Clementi’s death.

    Science and libertarianism is at most a marriage of convenience. As an example look at environmental issues. Science might say that we need to stop people doing X in order to prevent (or mitigate) Y. Examples of that would be CFCs, reduction in lead in the environment, etc.

  7. #7 |  Sam | 

    1. Ravi turned down a plea deal because he didn’t think he’d done ANYTHING wrong.

    2. He wasn’t punished for Clementi’s death. He was punished for the spying and the coverup.

  8. #8 |  FTP | 

    @Sam

    I’m not certain Ravi ever claimed that he hadn’t done anything wrong. I was under the impression he opted not to plea because a guilty plea might result in his being deported.

  9. #9 |  Mike T | 

    #4,

    I’m ok with him getting a conviction for those things, it just shouldn’t matter that Clementi was gay.

    His being gay is the only reason it even got this much publicity. If it had happened to a woman, he’d have faced a few years, plead down to a few months and it’d be done.

  10. #10 |  Mike T | 

    * If Clementi had been straight, he’d probably be laughed at and Ravi wouldn’t have gotten the time of day from the DA.

  11. #11 |  H. Rearden | 

    Sam-
    Ravi received a 10-year plus deportation sentence for these infractions. We could easily find criminals who received much lighter sentences for much graver infractions that invasion of privacy and evidence tampering (deleting a tweet id evidence tampering!). From what little I’ve read, despite no assertion that Ravi’s actions were a proximate cause of Clementi’s suicide, his suicide was a prominent topic during the prosecution. I find it hard to believe that you think that anything more than a University sanction would have been the result had there been no suicide. How can you honestly argue that Ravi turned down a plea because the thought that he hadn’t done ‘ANYTHING’ wrong or that Ravi isn’t being punished because of the suicide? Why don’t you just come clean and admit that you applaud the verdict because Clementi was a homosexual?

  12. #12 |  John | 

    The “science as libertarianism” article is weak.

    “Similarly, the seductive allure of libertarianism relies on its simple assumptions: People should be as free as possible. Our laws should reflect reality. Government policies should be analyzed using logic, not ideology.”

    Right, because libertarians are nonideological. I don’t know a mainstream political philosophy that aims for a lack of liberty, or basing laws off of imaginary bullshit. Liberalism and conservatism (and yes, libertarianism) make those mistakes, but pushing that off as “part of the philosophy” is weak.

    Really, science comes into conflict with any American political ideology fairly frequently. Conservatism is an anti-scientific abomination (‘sup global warming and fetus as child). A lot of economic libertarianism relies on people being rational agents (oh hey psychology). Liberalism and its many “dead-kid” and other knee-jerk laws show a lack of understanding of statistics.

    The claim that libertarianism is the political philosophy of science to me is equivalent to claiming that libertarianism is entirely rational, which just doesn’t fly for me. It’s the “my philosophy is always good, other philosophies are always bad” mentality, a well-known cognitive bias.

    The number of claims: like: “When truth is revealed, issues that conservatives, liberals and progressives normally worry about will begin to take care of themselves” which are provided without a real shred of evidence (and a good bit of evidence against, human beings are really good at ignoring information that contradicts our assumptions) show that certainly at least his argument for libertarianism as scientific reason are just off.

  13. #13 |  awp | 

    Re: Science and Politics
    Lee:”Science might say that we need to stop people doing X in order to prevent (or mitigate) Y.” wrong

    Science says reducing/increasing X would reduce/increase Y. Nothing about Should.

    Politics says whether the people think that the costs of changing X are worth the benefits of the following change in Y.

  14. #14 |  Steven | 

    Ya wonder who the Economist thinks Louisiana is named after? New Orleans was a French possession long after Canada was ceded to Britain.

  15. #15 |  Andrew S. | 

    That reddit AMA scares me. We live in Florida and my daughter loves Disney (and especially the princesses), so we go 2 or 3 times a year, and every time, we go to the special character meals featuring the princesses. I’m not sure I’ll be able to look at them (or any of the other characters) the same way again.

  16. #16 |  Deoxy | 

    Conservatism is an anti-scientific abomination (‘sup global warming and fetus as child).

    Well, good to know where YOUR biases lie.

    1) The globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, well over 10 years ago. If there was ANYTHING to the whole CO2 thing, it would keep warming (since CO2 levels have kept rising). In fact, I’d actually put the “abomination of science” portion regarding “global warming” squarely on the left/liberal side – the historical of “climate change” is that the left freaks out about it regularly; all that changes is which way (hot/cold). It’s been going on for decades (and several of those decades, which they now say were part of the “warming” part, they were freaking out about global COOLING).

    2) “fetus as child” – thanks for assuming the entire argument; “begging the question” is a logical fallacy. From an entirely scientific stand-point, the fetus meets the criteria for being alive (heart beat, brainwaves – the criteria used to determine death) at approximately the end of the first trimester, and is viable outside the womb (with modern technology) LONG before natural birth.

    There are certainly areas of conservativism that are violently against established science, but you just picked the absolute worst 2 examples that I know of. Bias, idiocy, or just plain ignorance?

    Facebook networks reflect colonial empires

    Meh… I looked at those, and they reflect language spoken far better. The British one, in particular, didn’t match very well… and what’s the international language of trade these days? Yeah.

    Sure, there’s some colonial empire influence on language spoken, so I guess you could make that case, but it’s a far more NUANCED situation, I’d say (OMG, a conservative type using nuance? IMPOSSIBLE! heh).

  17. #17 |  Pi Guy | 

    @John on Science & Libertarianism:

    Ideological =/= libertarian. I’d even go so far as to say that the lack of ideology is almost the definition of being libertarian (not Libertarian, the party; libertarian, the way of assessing social issues)

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  18. #18 |  omar | 

    @#16 | Deoxy

    The globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, well over 10 years ago. If there was ANYTHING to the whole CO2 thing, it would keep warming

    You cannot distil complex mathematical concepts and observations into a simple talking point. If you’re not a climate scientist, your opinion simply doesn’t matter.

    From an entirely scientific stand-point, the fetus meets the criteria for being alive (heart beat, brainwaves

    So does an earthworm. If you’re not a developmental biologist, your opinion simply doesn’t matter.

    I’m neither of these professionals, but I do read books written by people in those fields and they keep shooting these ideas down as the ideological falsehoods they are. They tell me there is a fairly solid consensus on these issues, and I believe them.

  19. #19 |  John | 

    @17: Oh yeah, libertarianism as an ideology is better than libertarianism as a party. However, you can call liberalism “the attempt to use reason to ensure” and then insert your definition of liberalism, and follow it with “while maximizing liberty.”

    When I say libertarian, I mean libertarianism as it is practised today. Liberalism doesn’t require the stupid kneejerk laws, in fact you can argue that they’re anti-liberal. Conservative doesn’t inherently mean anti-science, and I don’t even think it necessarily is that way outside of the US.

    Much as I’d love to analyze ideologies based on what they’d like to be, I have to look at them based on what thoughts they actually produce. I’ve yet to hear a good explanation of how libertarianism would account for economic externalities, I’d say holding the idea that libertarianism is the best economic philosophy while ignoring externalities is an ideological act in the same way liberals who ignore that government regulation will occasionally lead to stupid taxi cartels are being ideological. For this and other examples, I say libertarianism is ideological.

  20. #20 |  Corkscrew | 

    The globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, well over 10 years ago.

    You’re comparing apples and oranges. 1998 was an exceptional year – the El Nino oscillation peaked pretty dramatically then. A lot of work has gone into stripping out this “noise” from the climate chart, and the results show a strong warming trend.

    The “freaking out about global COOLING” thing is another myth. Long story short: the freaking-out was primarily a media phenomenon.

    It’s worth noting that these arguments aren’t just slightly wrong; they’re completely terrible. They demonstrate a total disconnect from the scientific community and its knowledge of climate modelling. So if I were you, I’d be really worried about my sources.

    Unfortunately most of the libertarian movement seems to have the same disconnect (presumably because we mostly get info from each other?). This is not good, people.

  21. #21 |  Chuchundra | 

    1) The globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, well over 10 years ago. If there was ANYTHING to the whole CO2 thing, it would keep warming (since CO2 levels have kept rising).

    Dude, do you know what an outlier is? Year to year temperature data is noisy. One year with the temperature way above the trend line means nothing.

    What’s important in climate sciece are trends and the fact is that every year since 2000 has been hotter than any year before 1997. Not to mention that according to the NASA GISS measurments, 2005 and 2010 were hotter than 1998.

  22. #22 |  awp | 

    Re: science and ideology

    In explaining how libertarians have no ideology, he describes my libertarian ideology, “People should be as free as possible.”

    Maybe I don’t really understand what an Ideology is, but I always just thought of them as shortcuts.

    Given my understanding of the way the world works.
    For any policy choice outside my realm of knowledge, the choice that is most likely to maximizing well being is that which

    Progressive: minimizes inequality
    Conservative: follows tradition
    Libertarian: minimizes coercion

    With an open mind(to take in new knowledge) none of these is inherently anti-science. Conservatives might be a little slow figuring out how to match tradition to new knowledge.

    I think most of the close mindedness/ anti-science on every side is due more to partisanship than ideology.

  23. #23 |  nigmalg | 

    @omar

    credentialism will be the death of intelligent discussion.

  24. #24 |  Stephen | 

    Since when is global warming a bad thing? Sure we might lose a few beaches and islands, but we will gain a much larger area of arable land to grow food on. Longer growing seasons too. CO2 also makes plants grow better. Besides, nothing the USA can do will stop CO2 emissions from increasing. Everybody in the USA could die right now and CO2 would still go up after a mere handful of years.

  25. #25 |  albatross | 

    Science isnt going to give you any help with moral questions like “when is it okay to kill an x-month fetus?” Science can give you some help with predicting what the likely outcome of continuing our current path of increasing global CO2 emissions, subject to the possibility that the models are wrong in some way (easy enough to happen in a pretty young science modeling a very complicated and incompletely-understood system), but it can’t tell you whether or not it’s worth taking some action (say, doubling energy prices worldwide) in order try to head those consequences off.

    Lots of people want to put science in the corner of their political/social beliefs, for much the same reason other people want to put God there–that way, they can appeal to some authority to win arguments or silence critics.

  26. #26 |  JOR | 

    “A lot of economic libertarianism relies on people being rational agents…”

    No, it doesn’t. Or at least, it doesn’t rely on them being ‘rational agents’ in the sense you mean.

    That said, any person who postures themselves or some idea or philosophy as non-ideological is full of shit (this goes for scientists, too).

  27. #27 |  JOR | 

    “If you’re not a developmental biologist, your opinion simply doesn’t matter.”

    It’s sort of like those people who tell me I’m not fit to judge God (as presented in the Bible or whatever). The proper answer is the same; if I’m not fit to dissent, I’m not fit to assent either, and so the Authority in question is irrelevant to what I should think or do about anything.

    Not too long ago, Men of Science would have had us stabbing homosexuals and through the brain with ice picks. Science is as ideological as libertarianism, or anything else.

  28. #28 |  JOR | 

    #24 – “Lots of people want to put science in the corner of their political/social beliefs, for much the same reason other people want to put God there–that way, they can appeal to some authority to win arguments or silence critics.”

    Exactly right. It’s the same instinct that moves people to declare their ideology is non-ideological.

  29. #29 |  Thomas D | 

    So does an earthworm. If you’re not a developmental biologist, your opinion simply doesn’t matter.

    I’m neither of these professionals, but I do read books written by people in those fields and they keep shooting these ideas down as the ideological falsehoods they are. They tell me there is a fairly solid consensus on these issues, and I believe them.

    This kind of thing is stunning to me.

    To be completely forthright here, I have no idea where I stand on abortion. What I do know is that “developmental biologists” don’t get to win the argument just because you say so. Are you even listening to yourself, man? Have you truly, thoroughly unpacked all the assumptions that comprise the assertion you’re making there?

  30. #30 |  Frank Hummel | 

    Re: Russians in Syria and Facebook maps

    Did anyone notice how Russia is kinda dark blue on all maps? I guess Russians have “friends” in all those countries.

  31. #31 |  Chuchundra | 

    “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
    ― Carl Sagan

  32. #32 |  Babylon Bike-a-thon | 

    @16:
    “The globe hasn’t warmed since 1998, well over 10 years ago.”
    Actually, 1998 was a particularly strong el nino year. The average global temperature recorded in this year alone was indeed higher than in any year before or following, but it was for reasons completely unrelated to CO2 emissions. One of the biggest issues in climate science is that they work in a noisy system where several variables (greenhouse gases, solar irradiance, ocean currents, etc) are acting once to affect Earth’s climate, so it’s necessary to remove background noise in order to accurately measure the impact of any single factor. This is usually done by establishing trendlines, averaging the temperatures over periods of 5 or 10 years. If you could simply draw a line from point to point, it would be just as valid to draw a line from 1997 or 1999 and show that the climate has warmed. Oh, and just for the record, annual temperatures have exceeded 1998 in some recent years.
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

    “If there was ANYTHING to the whole CO2 thing…”
    “The whole CO2 thing,” ehh? If you’re questioning the ability of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide to absorb infrared radiation, you’re fighting an uphill battle. That stuff is basic physical chemistry that’s been around for more than 150 years now.

    “they were freaking out about global COOLING”
    This is silly. Global DIMMING was a theory more or less unrelated to the current theory of global warming, based upon the observation that solid particulate matter (aerosols) added to through atmosphere through pollution reflects sunlight back into space, thus cooling Earth’s climate. There were plenty of scientists advocating global warming; the real controversy at this time was whether greenhouse gas emissions would outpace aerosols or vice versa.

  33. #33 |  el coronado | 

    That’s a nice quote from the pompous dead guy, #30. Richard Feynman had a few nice ones too. Problem is, AFAICT, climate scientists don’t seem to want to follow that template. Especially the ones who are part of the ‘world is warming, send us money & we’ll tell you how to fix it!’ crowd: their record of fudged & cherry-picked numbers, temp stations located smack dab in the middle of huge heat islands, emails suggesting coverups and blackballing dissenters…

    It kinda stinks to high hell, especially the part about shouting down dissenters or calling them “deniers”. Also the part where they tend to rush past the 400-year-long Medieval Warm Period and the subsequent 17th century Maunder Minimum: no cars or factories back then, so WTF?

    It *REALLY* stinks when you compare that attitude to Feynman’s – who I’m pretty sure was smarter than any climatologist currently living – to Feynman’s notion of What Is Good Science: “There is no harm in doubt and skepticism, for it is through these that new discoveries are made.”

    I’m just a guy who’s inclined to doubt the Chicken Littles. Not because of any scientific background, just ’cause of cynicism. Daddy always said beware of advocates posing as scientists, (Margie Mead and Al Kinsey come immediately to mind)(for that matter, so do Mengele and the good “doctors” of Japan’s oddly-unknown Unit 731), and now look.

  34. #34 |  omar | 

    Have you truly, thoroughly unpacked all the assumptions that comprise the assertion you’re making there?

    I’m trying, man, I really am. I read and read and read, and the more I read, the more I realize that the people who devote their entire life to the scientific method are coming to the same conclusions.

    Science is a reach for the truth that encourages argument and dissent, but it also demands a high level of intelectual honesty. It’s systematic and designed to root out its own bias. That people don’t always achieve this ideal, doesn’t mean the method is invalid. Scientists has been wrong about a lot of things in the past, and they are wrong about things now. But those wrongs have only been corrected by other scientists who spent more time studying the issues.

    As soon as I try to read anything that’s not talking down to me as a layman, I am lost. I have tried to read academic papers on developmental biology and climate models, and sadly, I don’t have the training and deep background to fully understand them. I would need to devote my life to their study for several years to be capable of making meaningful statements.

    I don’t understand why this is a controversial opinion. It’s not hero worship, it’s not blind faith. We can only know what we take the time to learn. If we have opinions on other science issues, we have to skeptically trust those who are “experts”.

  35. #35 |  Lee | 

    @awp

    That is why ‘should’ is not present in what I wrote. The science might be that we need to do something that is completely at odds with what we should do (or want to do).

    @el coronado

    Medieval Warming Period and Maunder Minimum are zombie arguments.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/werent-temperatures-warmer-during-the-medieval-warm-period-than-they-are-today/

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/did-the-sun-hit-record-highs-over-the-last-few-decades/

  36. #36 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    @31

    That’s a nice quote from the pompous dead guy…

    Classy.

  37. #37 |  Boyd Durkin | 

    @15

    …we go to the special character meals featuring the princesses. I’m not sure I’ll be able to look at them…the same way again.

    I was thinking my next meal with the Disney princesses just got a whole lot better.

  38. #38 |  awp | 

    Lee,

    two possibilities in the context of this conversation

    1)my “should” is implicitly within your “need”
    2) “should” we is the the important question

    Assume: Science has correctly come to the conclusion that the current and projected levels of production of CO2 is going to cause Anthropomorphic Climate Change(ACC).
    Therefore: If we are going to prevent ACC we NEED to reduce current and projected levels of production of CO2

    If that is how you mean NEED I propose that that is the wrong question.

    Unfortunately, while reduction of CO2 will have the benefit of reducing ACC it will also have costs in the lowering of the quality of life of everyone. Because, the use of energy is beneficial to everyone and fossil fuels are the cheapest way that we currently know how to produce energy.

    Therefore: The proper question is SHOULD we reduce the production of energy given all of the costs(lower QOL, growth, development, etc.) and benefits(cleaner air, less ACC, etc.) associated with it. Science will help us determine the existence and levels of the costs and benefits but will never be able to determine how you and I value those costs and benefits.

  39. #39 |  el coronado | 

    @Lee –

    Wondering how we got a marked worldwide warming period followed by a remarkable worldwide cooling period long before the onset of industrialization is a “zombie argument”, now? Common sense isn’t allowed to be a part of this question?

    Yeah, no advocacy *there*, Bubba. Your attitude would sorely disappoint – but probably not surprise – Feynman and the pompous dead guy.

  40. #40 |  Deoxy | 

    I think omar is by sarcastic. I think. I bloody hope so, anyway.

    Global cooling/global warming/global dimming/etc: there are countries in the world RIGHT NOW (Russia, for one) worried about global cooling more than global warming.

    Global temperature data: it depends on who you listen to and how much “fudging” they’ve done to their data. Basically, throw the NASA data in the trash – it’s been trashed by ideology, and the proof is publicly available*.

    I’m not contending that CO2 does NOTHING – I’m pointing out that the claims about it ending the silly world are bunk. I’m pointing out that even if you take ACC/AGW pushers at their world and use their own data, you still don’t get a very big change in global temperature (not nearly as big as they keep saying). Also, CO2’s heat-related functions share wavelengths with water vapor; there’s a maximum upper bound before it’s all done, and water vapour already does most of that.

    I’m well aware of the “chemistry that’s been around for 150 years now”; what I’m pointing out is that the claims made by the ACC folks far exceed what that requires or even suggests.

    The historical record doesn’t support their claims, either – if you look at CO2 concentrations in the long term of earth history, it’s a lagging indicator of rise in temperature. If you look at the modern history of CO2 concentration versus when the temperature actually rose (and how much) in the 19th and 20th centuries, it doesn’t match well AT ALL – CO2 rates climb all through the 20th century, but temperature risesw more in the first half than the second.

    All of this without mentioning the huge frauds that have already been proven (hockey stick being only the most well-known) – what else HASN’T been proven?

    I’ve no trust left for proven shysters.

    *publicly published data from before Hansen headed the NASSA weather stuff shows a certain set of data. A few years later, they published it again, and the data had essentially been rotated several degrees around 1973 or so – a noticeable slope change. “Corrections” before that year were almost uniformly down, “corrections” after that year were almost uniformly up. That’s not “correction” that’s fabrication. The actual data measurements didn’t change – the data was simply changed without explanation. Other sources still show more reasonable data.

  41. #41 |  Lee | 

    @awp

    Your correct, but science only says what we need to do in order to reduce further climate change. It does not say what we should do. That is why science and libertarianism are not necessarily compatible.

    Reduction of CO2 does not necessarily mean a reduction in a standard of living.

    http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_gates.html

    @awp Medieval Warming Period and Maunder Minimum are zombie arguments. MWP is based on a number of false premises and the discussion of sunspot activity is summed up best by the last paragraph of in one of the above links.

    “Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.”

    @Deoxy You are apparently unfamiliar with B.E.S.T.’s work.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature

  42. #42 |  Voss | 

    The science and libertarianism piece is pretty ironic, as Ron Paul is a creationist…

  43. #43 |  Deoxy | 

    Nope, hadn’t heard of BEST – nice that they are at least claiming to go back to the basics, actually publish all the results, and let the chips fall where the may. Considering the long track record of BS from climate groups, I’ll believe it when I see it, but they are at least implicitly admitting the previous problems, which is a great step in the right direction.

    Just reading the wikipedia article you linked, there are still several points of interest that will require more digging:
    -urban heat island: the primary claim of the urban hear island problem is that, as urban areas expand, measurement stations are affected, not the whole globe. Their treatment of the point does not acknowledge that at all.

    -“About 1/3 of temperature sites around the world reported global cooling over the past 70 years (including much of the United States and northern Europe).” Seriously, 1/3 of the (measured) world is cooling more than warming, and that’s “global warming”? Just that one point alone (I really do appreciate the honesty from them!!) is quite serious and puts a HUGE doubt (in my opinion) on the mechanisms claimed. If there was absolutely no global trend, we’d expect to see a 50/50 split, and all they’re getting is a 66/33? That’s not a strong trend, especially considering that the US and Europe have been the primary CO2 emitters over the past 70 years!!!

    -“The group uses an algorithm that attaches an automatic weighting to every data point, according to its consistency with comparable readings.” This is a HUGE red flag. Certainly, there may be honest and reasonable ways to do this, but the long history of climate science is not the reasonable or honest way. I’m long past the point of taking their word for it.

    In short, yes, that looks like a good start (especially if they actually follow through on putting everything out publicly), and I will be following it closely to see if there’s actually good follow through, or if it falls back into the usual pattern of not liking what they find and massaging it to what they want.

    This looks like an actual attempt to convince people instead of just brow-beating them into submission. Wow, science! Nifty.

  44. #44 |  Deoxy | 

    MWP is based on a number of false premises

    Having looked into that before, I’m still not aware of what these “false premises” are, nor why you would call it a “zombie argument”. Something a little more substantive than a hand-wave?

Leave a Reply