It’s always a mistake to reach conclusions in advance of your data
Bookworm on May 17 2009 at 10:15 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
Scientists are becoming very frustrated because the data doesn’t match their theory. Because they deeply love their theory, they’re becoming hostile to their data collectors. Read here to see why. I bet that, once you’ve followed the link, you’ll want to send it on to others too.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
11 Responses to “It’s always a mistake to reach conclusions in advance of your data”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Sort of the same topic, just different settings..
http://nooilforpacifists.blogspot.com/2009/05/global-warming-gigo.html
Anyone that can think for themselves has always known that this so-called global warming is a scam by con artists that always try to scam the monies out of the gullible public.Think about how the main con artist got elected.
The people I trust on this subject all agree that there is warming over time and there is a human-caused component. I don’t know yet if something here will change that.
In any case whatever is happening now, there will be warming or cooling over time; the climate always have and always will change in one direction or another at varying speeds for varying lengths of time.
The question that will always be before is is how much it’s likely to change in what timeframe and what if anything we should do about it (“not much” being an honorable choice in many cases.
Viewed like this, climate is just one of the many things on our plate, to which we must devote varying degrees of attention depending on circumstances. The problem recently has been an overwhelming desire to treat the climate as an apocalyptic situation warranting apocalyptic counter-responses. Few things warrant this concern, but there are a number of scary things that really could bring our world to an end (see the videos of the comet striking Jupiter for an eye-opening example), but those are mostly ignored (an apocalyptic-climate change believer colleague of mine snidely called the meteor scenario “science fiction” when I brought it up as something to actually be worried about).
If stopping meteor collisions isn’t worth much attention either, perhaps we could all agree on getting fresh water sources and nutritional enhancement to the poorest areas of the world; actions that would save vast number of lives at minimal cost. We all want to actually save some human lives while making ourselves feel good through our self-righteousness, right?
The problem recently has been an overwhelming desire to treat the climate as an apocalyptic situation warranting apocalyptic counter-responses.
They don’t want apocalyptic counter-responses, whether they work or not. They want funds for research and for political initiatives. A key difference.
I would describe Kyoto and “cap and trade” and the like as apocalyptic counter-responses rather than some funding…
NEWS ALERT:
Chicken Little: “The sky is falling”
Global Warming Enthusiasts: “The oceans are rising”
Opportunists: “Give us your money, we’ll recreate the world in our own image”
They’re all buoyed by their own agendas.
It’s really a “crap and trade” policy – they’re trying to sell us crap and we’re supposed to trade in reality!
>>The people I trust on this subject all agree that there is warming over time and there is a human-caused component. I don’t know yet if something here will change that.>>
Check out this blog:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
and especially check out “sunspots”
You may revise your opinion.
The sunspots stuff is interesting and may be a factor, but I don’t think it removes other indications of warming.
Mind you, I’m referring to sources like Bjorn Lomborg and Patrick Michaels, who are by no means global warming zealots (in fact the catastrophists consider them total heretics), who have a pretty deep understanding of the science and agree with the basic IPCC findings, but have very strong disagreements with the policy implications and the exaggerations of Gore and company.
Also, human-caused or not, climate change in any direction is something we may well have to do something about to mitigate the impact on humans (and often the thing to do is “adapt”). It’s just that there are many fewer things we need to address than the zealots would have us believe, and that there are other critical things we should be doing that would have a much bigger impact on the world.
Check out Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus, which brings together experts from around the world each year to rank the best ways we could do improve the world in the immediate future, based on a cost/benefit analysis. While they do recognize some value to addressing global warming (global warming shows up this year at positions #14, #29, and #30 out of 30 items), there are thirteen items that place above it, with nutrition for 3rd world children and trade enhancements taking the top slots.
Lomborg is my hero for putting this together…unlike Gore and the others he criticizes, he is actually looking for the best ways to improve the world and then going and doing something about it.
There has to be a reason that Greenland was called Greenland. It was settled for a couple of hundred years, then abandoned due to the encroachment of ice. It was clear that there had been ice there in earlier times. Why did it get warmer? why did it get cooler?
And if you do some research on the “Maunder-minimum” it becomes clear that that big yellow thing up there in the sky has a huge influence.
The question is what influence does human activity have on climate? Personally, I think the answer is very close to Zero. Maybe not a perfect Zero, but percentage wise, out to the 5th, 6th or 7th place so that it approaches Zero.
I have no problem with someone trying to improve the world, but if the steps taken to improve the world actually worsen the world, somebody messed up.
I put a link to a graduation speech given by an engineer to an engineering class on the “will the climate change hysteria change…” post. Do read it. It’s long, but worth the time.
I agree with suek. Discussing emission limits years ago, I reasoned:
“Kyoto emission caps are justified only if all five of the following are true:
1) global warming exists
2) global warming would be harmful
3) global warming is man-made, as a result of increased CO2 emissions
4) Kyoto caps would significantly reduce emissions
5) the costs of imposing Kyoto caps are less than the benefits”
I now agree that there’s been some warming–though only about 0.5 degrees C per century. But for carbon caps to be sound, propositions 2-5 must also be true. Yet even assuming (generously) that there’s a 50 percent chance each is accurate, there’s only a 6.25 percent probability that limiting carbon is warranted. Seems like a bad bet.
I want to clarify my position, as I think I may be in the odd situation (for me) of being consider a “global warming defender” when I am anything but…
On my blog I have made numerous posts like this one explaining why I think we shouldn’t do much about whatever global warming may exist, human-caused or not.
I am also very wary of ill-advised attempts to improve the world that actually make things worse (as almost all popular environmental initiatives do).
I do tend to believe there is something to human-caused warming, in that I trust people like Lomborg who see evidence for warming but are extremely skeptical antagonists of Al Gore and company because their proposed solutions do not match up to the science and the likely impact of any warming.
What I like about Lomborg’s Copenhagen Consensus is that he focuses on ways we actually can improve the world — by which he means make things better for humans — at relatively low cost, and with less chance of screwing things up in the process. Personally, I am all for improving water supplies in 3rd world countries and getting basic nutrition to starving children.
I believe the more healthy humans we have on the planet, the better life gets for everyone, and the more benefit we get from all those functioning brains providing more inventions and solutions. I also believe the answer to negative human impacts on the environment, and to sustainable population growth, is making as many humans as possible rich. Rich people naturally start improving the environment and naturally start reducing population through lower birth rates.
I caution either side of the global warming debate not to put all their eggs in the “it does exist/it doesn’t exist” basket — that’s kind of a side show that’s beside the point. Throughout the history of the planet, the climate has changed, and it will change in the future regardless of our current trends; and it’s possible some outside force could cause a pretty catastrophic change. At any point in history, something is happening with the climate, and we’re having to adapt or adjust our behavior in response.
The real question is: Given the information we have now, what are the best ways we can use our current resources to improve life for humans on the planet?
Lomborg’s Copenhagen consensus says spreading nutrition and free trade should be our highest priorities, and I tend to agree.