* Posts by swarmboy

7 publicly visible posts • joined 23 Nov 2011

Globe slowly warming, insists 'Hansen's Bulldog'


You're quite right, of course. It has nothing to do with climate change. I was in rant mode. But, once again, we find a market fundamentalist backed by mysterious, undisclosed private money, opposing climate change. I agree that their statistical methods are highly dubious. But equally, one bit of dodgy science doesn't cancel out the vast majority of climate scientists' opinions on this matter. And no one on the sceptical side has ever provided a reason why the consensus has formed. I mean, are they suggesting that all scientists are secret Marxists? they're certainly not seeking glory, because they're just confirming each other's data. The deniers, by contrast are almost always loons, assocated with loons, or funded by private money with an interest in proving the science wrong.


here we go again

Dr Whitehouse is a scientist, yes. An astronomer to be exact. Not a climate specialist. He's also a well-known climate sceptic, being chief scientific advisor to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a privately (and secretly - it hasrefused to reveal its donors) funded think tank led by Lord Nigel Lawson, free-market fundamentalist, another prominent climate sceptic, and architect of Margaret Thatcher's de-regulation of the banking sector, which has worked out sooooo well for us.

Look at the report. It's interesting, and the statistics are hokey. Then look for counter examples, and counter examples to those counter examples, and work it out for yourselves. Do not participate in this echo-chamber bullshit.

Beware confirmation bias.

Climategate 2.0: Fresh trove of embarrassing emails


Pretty much, yep. Normally I stay away from stuff like this, but once in a while my anger exceeds my boredom and I feel the need to speak, how can I put this? not so much truth to power as facts to fuckwits.


1 - semantics. It prevents heat from escaping. Same thing.

2 - incorrect. It has fluctuated dramatically, and It has massively accelerated since industrialisation.

3 - state your source for this completely nonsensical figure.

4 - again, incorrect. The models correct for cyclical fluctuations and other predictable factors.

5 - believe what you want to believe. I'm not the one disagreeing with virtually every scientist in the world

Also, co2 is not the only issue.


For what it's worth (nothing I suspect, since you are clearly ignorant of both science and philosophy), the argument you have made is the exact opposite of the celestial teapot. The argument is that the burden of proof lies with those making claims unsupported by evidence.

Essentially, most of the worlds scientists are saying : look, here are some photos of the teapot. We are certain about its mass, colour, location, but we're not sure about it orbital trajectory. We've built a model which appears to predict its future location but only with about 70% accuracy, say. There's a chance, they say that it's orbit will bring it into collision with the earth, so on such-and-such day, it might (only might, mind you) be safest to stay indoors.

And you, sir, from absolutely nowhere and a position of abject ignorance make the assertion (and it is just an assertion ) that the photos are fake, the measurements of mass are a lie and it's position is part of global conspiracy / fraud (to what possible end, I have yet to hear a coherent argument, but that kind of goes with the territory).

If you're going to use the arguments of one of the greatest philosophers to have ever lived, at least, please, try not to get it 100% wrong.


thanks for making my point for me. anyone who could take these books seriously, and even not laugh out fucking loud when they hear "non expanding universe truth" needs medicating, not humouring. i can prove to you that the universe is expanding with 12 year olds' physics and a fucking etch-a-sketch


a sigh and a yawn

for the love of god, why does the otherwise excellent orlowski (whose articles on media, music, the rise of the freetard, etc are almost uniformly great) ally himself to this particular form of idiocy?

here are some facts :

1) carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas (it causes warming) - you can prove this yourself in a high school science lab

2) carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased enormously since the world began industrialising

3) almost all of the increase in carbon dioxide is anthropogenic (mainly from burning fossil fuels and deforestation)

4) the earth is getting warmer

5) the effects of this are unknown.

there are two issues (and they apply to other gasses such as methane, btw):

firstly, whether 1,2, and 3 are causing 4. the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it is. every other possible explanation from sunspots and solar activity to cyclical changes has been comprehensively debunked. again, and again, and again.

the problem, of course, is that in order to "prove" that 1,2,3 are causing 4 you need to do an experiment, which brings us to point 5.

since the main question - what will the effects be - being asked relates to the future, you can't actually do an experiment, so you have to build models. the scientists who build these models are the first to admit that these are, at best, a poor representation of reality, and that is why they build in massive margins of error.

you build a model based on the science, see if it fits the data, see (most importantly) if it has any predictive power and if not, you tweak the model. not perfect, but the best we have.

as for intellectual honesty / corruption, the climate change sceptics are among the least intellectually honest groups you are likely to find - up there with young earth creationists and 9/11 truthers. they are allied with the worst kind of right wing nut-jobs, ayn-rand-reading crazies and tea party whackos. oh and people like lord monckton who has apparently invented a medicine that can cure all known diseases. he's also emphatically not any kind of scientist. you will find that this is almost uniformly the case among sceptics (a word it almost hurts me to use - there is nothing sceptical about their position - it is pure received wisdom)

and seriously, criticism of peer review again? what do you suggest that's better? the peer review process is far from perfect but it's a fuck sight better than the echo-chamber/circle-jerk of the blogosphere where half-arsed, long-ago debunked bollocks gets recycled as though it were even worth debunking again.

furthermore the assertion that the previous "climate gate" was not investigated is a bare-faced lie. as orlowski knows, three seperate independent inquiries were held and none found any significant wrongdoing, and none - not a single one - found that it altered the scientific position.

since climate gate - this latest batch of emails are from the same period - the evidence for anthropgenic climate change has strengthened. the world is getting hotter much, much faster than the models predicted.

whether it will make the blindest bit of difference to you and i or our lifestyle or our choices remains to be seen, and even the bravest scientist would never claim to know for certain, and that is exactly the point. they do not claim to. they give probabilities based on the best evidence we have. they sometimes us "will" or "is" as scientific shorthand, and because it's pretty fucking boring having to explain everything, yet again, to scientifically illiterate lunatics who don't want to believe it, from first principles.

most of the scientists, in this case, are operating under what is called the precautionary principle - you weigh possible action against the possible consequences. in this case, extreme uncertainty about the climate (and therefore availability of food, water, habitable land, etc), and consider whether it's worth maintaining the status quo or attempting to do something about the situation.

science, on the whole, is the opposite of arrogance. its very reason for being is to prove itself and its practitioners wrong. almost every advance in human life has come through the application of science, and most of the bad shit that has happened has been because of dogmatic, willful ignorance of the evidence in the face of received opinion.

the climate sceptics are the ones who cherry pick evidence, claim expertise in areas they are barely qualified to comment upon. when some real, genuine science by an actual scientist without an axe to grind or a paymaster to please , comes along to show a glaring error in the current scientific consensus, other scientists will want - indeed, will stake their careers - on being on the right side of the truth.

now, go ahead and believe whatever the fuck you want to believe. just don't claim it's science.