The climatological models are way too complicated to make a prediction one way or another. One (serious) cliamtologist will contradict another. Here in town we have who was considered the superstar in the field before all this nonsense came up. Now he's an outcast because he doesn't buy the anthropogenesis of the warming or change that is observed. His name is Linzen and he's at MIT. He has written several pieces on this topic and he's pretty pissed off about all his colleagues (and a lot of non-specialists) jumping on the bandwagon of anthropogenic climate change. Since then I have read about several guys that have got their funding cut as soon as they crossed this religion. One is a guy named Gray. Yes, that's a stupid wiki. Gray was the #1 climatologist back when I was an undergrad. I had meteorologist roomates and Gray was their hero along with Fujita (of tornado fame). All that I am barraging you with is no proof of anything, but for people to go 'round saying there is scientific consensus on this is nonsense. If the top two guys in Quantum Field Theory say an approach is doomed, that's not consensus.
very interesting. i had always thought gore's movie was awful (particularly the bit where he extrapolates) but i assumed he was correct that everyone agreed, just that gore's argument was unconvincing. You cited 2 people: are there other leading scientists in that field, and what do they say?
Yeah. It seems that a lot of this is trumped up (as far as the unanimity is concerned). Of course these nonserious types might very well be right, but that's no reason to wreck the economy on their prejudices.
Another example that comes to mind is of course String Theory. For decades now it has been the contention of the Great and Powerful that they were 'close' to quantum gravity and maybe a theory of everything. They said that they were were making rapid progress and redoubling their efforts and so on.
So what has happened? Well, about grant time every year, NOVA has a big episode on QFT with some photogenic mathematical "physicist".
Stem cells have been sold as a panacea to everyone while in fact the drug companies couldn't give a shit about it, and Gray got his funding cut off as long as he dares Al Gore, the Science Guy.
Could be that all this is coincidences.
Could be that the universities (not the Left?!?!) are deciding how to channel grant money absolutely cynically, to feather their own nests?
And how do they do so, generally? Have you perchance seen a lot of papers from Asst Profs around "substantiating" their higher-ups' claims, right around tenure time?
Here's the story of cute little Asst Prof Meg Daly. She has discovered something very interesting indeed! There are little anemones that live off the sulphur in the bones of whale carcasses (which last about a century on the ocean floor). For soem reason, Cute Dr Meg thinks we should learn something about Anthropogenic Global Warming frmo this. Do you smell grant? Do you smell tenure?
But remember, JJ, that these well timed acts of lickspittleism increase greatly the odds on tenure, hence the ability to increase the number of your meme-ics in the next university generation, hence "Academic fitness" is enhanced. Isn't that what life is all about? Kudos to Pepe for not letting anything icky like conscience and respect for truth to interfere with Important Things
10 comments:
That be be just about the same thing. There is no place for brainwashing and the promotion of any superstition in schools.
What about Global Warming?
even if you think it's a crock, at the very least there is data there.
there's data about prayers' working, too. so what? it's all bullshit and mass hysteria to think we're causing the warming
engineered by the marxist foes of capitalism?
The climatological models are way too complicated to make a prediction one way or another. One (serious) cliamtologist will contradict another.
Here in town we have who was considered the superstar in the field before all this nonsense came up. Now he's an outcast because he doesn't buy the anthropogenesis of the warming or change that is observed.
His name is Linzen and he's at MIT. He has written several pieces on this topic and he's pretty pissed off about all his colleagues (and a lot of non-specialists) jumping on the bandwagon of anthropogenic climate change.
Since then I have read about several guys that have got their funding cut as soon as they crossed this religion. One is a guy named Gray. Yes, that's a stupid wiki.
Gray was the #1 climatologist back when I was an undergrad. I had meteorologist roomates and Gray was their hero along with Fujita (of tornado fame).
All that I am barraging you with is no proof of anything, but for people to go 'round saying there is scientific consensus on this is nonsense.
If the top two guys in Quantum Field Theory say an approach is doomed, that's not consensus.
very interesting. i had always thought gore's movie was awful (particularly the bit where he extrapolates) but i assumed he was correct that everyone agreed, just that gore's argument was unconvincing.
You cited 2 people: are there other leading scientists in that field, and what do they say?
Yeah. It seems that a lot of this is trumped up (as far as the unanimity is concerned). Of course these nonserious types might very well be right, but that's no reason to wreck the economy on their prejudices.
Another example that comes to mind is of course String Theory. For decades now it has been the contention of the Great and Powerful that they were 'close' to quantum gravity and maybe a theory of everything. They said that they were were making rapid progress and redoubling their efforts and so on.
So what has happened? Well, about grant time every year, NOVA has a big episode on QFT with some photogenic mathematical "physicist".
Stem cells have been sold as a panacea to everyone while in fact the drug companies couldn't give a shit about it, and Gray got his funding cut off as long as he dares Al Gore, the Science Guy.
Could be that all this is coincidences.
Could be that the universities (not the Left?!?!) are deciding how to channel grant money absolutely cynically, to feather their own nests?
And how do they do so, generally? Have you perchance seen a lot of papers from Asst Profs around "substantiating" their higher-ups' claims, right around tenure time?
I'll give an example in two minutes.
Here's the story of cute little Asst Prof Meg Daly. She has discovered something very interesting indeed! There are little anemones that live off the sulphur in the bones of whale carcasses (which last about a century on the ocean floor).
For soem reason, Cute Dr Meg thinks we should learn something about Anthropogenic Global Warming frmo this.
Do you smell grant?
Do you smell tenure?
But remember, JJ, that these well timed acts of lickspittleism increase greatly the odds on tenure, hence the ability to increase the number of your meme-ics in the next university generation, hence "Academic fitness" is enhanced.
Isn't that what life is all about? Kudos to Pepe for not letting anything icky like conscience and respect for truth to interfere with Important Things
Post a Comment