climate science rap

Post Reply New Topic

My diagnosis was based on an anomaly of my amigdala as revealed by an MRI scan. That and some behavioral traits. That is as objective a medical diagnosis for Aspergers as can be had at this juncture. I didn't go to a psychologist. I went to a neurophysiologist. I always had difficulties socially and in the way I processed data. I finally discovered my peculiarity complies aligns with the current definition of Asperger's Syndrome. What I got was a name for my pain.

Psychology is basically unscientific. It is based on the notion of Mind which is bogus since a mind is not objectively observable the way a brain is.

The MRI and PET scans I had completely align with the current behavioral definitions. Also it runs in my biological family which indicates a genetic factor at work. You can't get more objective than genes.

Be that as it may, my critique of so called Climate Science is still valid. To many models each with too many adjustable factors. That is bad science.

ruveyn

I can assure you that climate scientists are not interested in regulating your doings. If they were they would be politicians rather than scientists. Attacking the messenger is disingenuous and slanderous. You're acting just as bad as the creationists who think evolutionary biologists are part of a conspiracy to destroy the Christian religion.

Last edited by marshall on 22 May 2011, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The climatologists are responding to the funding. Those who support AGW will get money. Those who don't will get less or not.

The government is buying scientific backing to justify its ever expanding regulations of our daily doings.

ruveyn

I'm familiar with some of the literature. The vast majority of published papers are at best tangentially connected the AGW hypothesis. You don't need to state a position on the AGW hypothesis to study the climatology of equatorial ocean stratus clouds or to design an algorithm to improve the physical realism of simulated oceanic stratus clouds. Climate scientists are curious about phenomenon that the majority of the public have no interest in or consider esoteric, yet are necessary for a proper understanding of the earth's climate system. This notion skeptics have that climate scientists do nothing but cheer-lead for AGW is laughably off. Probably another case of projection as most skeptics are not in the least bit interested in actually studying the earth's climate as they're too busy trying to discredit AGW.

Also, contrary to your belief, skepticism tends to increase rather than decrease the drive for funding. The incentive for funding is to improve the science. The current consensus on AGW obviously isn't very satisfying to most policy makers and the energy industries. Uncertainty only increases the demand for research funding.

Pascal's wager involves their own fate. The global warming version involves the fate of others after they die. So it's less personal. THat's likely the difference. But of course Pascal's wager doesn't make any sense anyway. It excludes about a billion billion other betting options in favor of a judeo-christian or bust approach.

Maybe after they die, if they don't plan on living much more than 10-20 more years from now...

You understand nothing about how power work. Those who are aginst regulations got a better access and more influence to politicians that ordinary citizens and organisations asking for better regulations.
More so, proofs of global warming are not beneficial for govnerments, as it show them as unable and innefuable for stoping it. It make them look like cowards and fools!

Also, it's not the climatologists that have make this problem so politised, it's the ones who don't want to believe or hear about it.

Asperger's is not a neurophysiological diagnosis. It is a psychological diagnosis, based on the DSM. While Asperger's (and other ASDs) are somewhere between 60-90% genetic in origin based on familial patterns, no single gene or even set of genes has been found that is clearly and consistently associated with it. Until that happens, 'it's genetic' is just a fancy way of saying 'it runs in families.' While the amygdala may be involved, there is no where near the consensus in the neurobiolgical community that disorders of the amygdala are always the cause or are the main cause, much less that one can diagnose Asperger's based on that criterion.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19568927
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-screening.html
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... t/68/5/467
Until the medical community is in tighter agreement, consulting a PET scan for an Asperger's diagnosis is fancier but not much more scientific than consulting a phrenologist.
By contrast, climate scientists are universally convinced that global warming is happening and nearly uniformly convinced that humans are contributing to the problem. By contrast, climate models are proving frighteningly accurate in their predictions of the effects of global warming.

your insistence that climate scientists are only doing their research because the government pays them to do so does not account for the fact that said scientists are almost universally finding anthropogenic forcing of the climate, unless you also wish to imply that said scientists are engaged in massive falsification of their data on scale so enormous that it would amount to the greatest conspiracy on the history of the planet. If you wish to engage in conspiracy theorism, you're going to have to present better evidence than 'the guv'mint wahnts to cuntrul me.'

Most denialists will engage in conspiracy theories. You see, it isn't enough that scientists might be mistaken. Nooooo. They must be part of an EVIL government conspiracy. They must be accused of forging data and making the whole thing up. They must be slandered and destroyed. The ugly tone the denialists take just proves that their motive is political rather than scientific. The accusations are usually projectory as well, coming from political slime balls in the pockets of the oil industry. Most denialists would not hesitate to forge data if it suited their purpose.

Even worse, the effects of climate change are pretty consistently coming in towards or at the high end of the models. That is, close or at the worst case predictions of the models.

That's what anti-socialist zealots believe, yes. Like the Marshall Institute. They basically dismiss the science behind any problem that might require a government solution. Smoking health risks, ozone depletion, warming, acid rain, etc. They've denied it all because the solutions required the action of governments. The founder, Seitz, was the guy who later made the original online global warming denialist petition. He's also a creationist and sells homeschooling kits that include that coursework.

There are also first line scientists including physicists and meteorologist who have their doubts and misgivings. The case for human caused global warming is far from air-tight

Have a look at that:

http://itmakessenseblog.com/2011/04/02/ ... ng-claims/

ruveyn

That's true. So why not advocate them that way? Why not advocate increased fuel taxes, the only sure way of improving energy efficiency? Why insist on the nondefinitive findings of "global warming" to justify them?

Only the intellectually deficient or dishonest insist that climate change isn't happening, and that human activities are contributing.

That being said, I would and do advocate action on the component issues. On their own they should be addressed so we have clean water, clean air, steady food supply and so forth.

I think it's utterly stupid to deny climate change as a pretense to argue against making progress on all those fronts.

Few doubt that we are in a warming epoch, which we have been in since the end of the Little Ice Age starting around 1820. The real question is to what degree is human activity responsible for the warming. There are factors other than human made CO2. There are orbital variations, variations in the tilt of the earth's axis of rotation. Cosmic ray activity that affects the formation of clouds. Clouds are a very important component of how the earth keeps or loses heat.

ruveyn

We shouldn't do what we can, because there are things we can't? That's ridiculous.