That’s the thinking in the academic world. Unless you’re one of nearly 500 scientists listed by the National Academy of Science as climate change skeptic deniers.
In which case it’s “publish and perish.”
|
|||||
Hot Mic
Bloggers in Arms
BlogrollContinuous WavePaid to BlogReciprocating EnginesSmarter'n MeWingmen
OmakaseAmazon Search |
37 comments to Publish or Perish |
Targets of Opportunityblog advertising is good for you Credo"Sign on, young man, and sail with me. The stature of our homeland is no more than the measure of ourselves. Our job is to keep her free. Our will is to keep the torch of freedom burning for all. To this solemn purpose we call on the young, the brave, the strong, and the free. Heed my call, Come to the sea. Come Sail with me." -- John Paul Jones "Pardon him, Theodotus; he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature" --George Bernard Shaw, "Caesar and Cleopatra" "And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music."--Friedrich Nietzsche "A kind Providence has placed in our breasts a hatred of the unjust and cruel, in order that we may preserve ourselves from cruelty and injustice. They who bear cruelty, are accomplices in it. The pretended gentleness which excludes that charitable rancour, produces an indifference which is half an approbation. They never will love where they ought to love, who do not hate where they ought to hate."--Edmund Burke “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”--General Sir Charles Napier "Μολὼν λαβέ" -- Leonidas "Blogito Ergo Sum" -- Neptunus Lex Amazon AssociateFor the Effort!Winnar! Subscribe CategoriesPagesTagsacademy
afghanistan
Araby
Blogging
buffoonery
culture
Defense Industry
economy
Flying
Friday Musings
geopol
Gratuitous slap
GWOT
Headlines
health care
History
iran
iraq
issues
libya
Media
Memory Lane
Military
Navy
norks
Oz
pakistan
piracy
politicians
politics
Politics and Culture
prc
pundits
science
sea stories
silliness
Small Stuff
SoCal
Tech Lust
technology
UAVs
UK
usaf
usmc
weapons
|
|||
|
Copyright © 2013 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
While the “world” tells us we must eliminate the horrific influence of a faith based view of life via the Judeo-Christian ideas, because, you know…it has caused all the evil in the world and killing, and poverty, and…well, everything bad, like even threatening scientists who bothered to note the Earth was not the center of the Universe.
And now that adopt the same habits…
I’m thinking the make it all secular crowd needs to recognize this is not a problem related to religion, but to that of the human condition.
And, I’d like scientists to get back to using the “scientific method” some day soon. That would be nice…
xformed,
On the topic of the elimination of all things non-secular did you see this? http://www.godblock.com/
Many I know in the Computer software “pseudo-intellectual” crowd have embraced this as a save intelligence from the evils of religion, spirituality, and y’know all that other hokum, magic pill.
-JC
Crap….guess these people never heard of Stalin, or Mao, or Pol Pot, or…Lenin, etc, etc…
When you teach “junk history” you get junky ideas, no?
I often wonder: Are these people so afraid of their neighbors beliefs that they may be converted and have to treat their neighbor as their themselves? Oh, WAIT! That’s what the kumbaya crowd “preaches” but their not preaching, because that would be like “religion.”
Glad to see a dear friend on that list. He used to be a planetary climatologist with a federal agency recently tasked with improving the feelings of Muslims with respect to their technical contributions.
A year or two ago the retired Navy CDR submitted an article to Proceedings on how AGW was largely comprised of hossschitt rather than the cause of it. USNI Proceedings did not select the article for publication.
Can’t trust those that have made a career of accurately predicting climatologic change on other planets, can we.
In an era when feeling trump knowledge and experience…it’s to be expected. I hear Hugo got rid of a lot of non-ideologically aligned people in his nationalized oil industry, and production, while still making some, is nothing like it used to be. That is the effect of surrounding yourself with “yes men” at the detriment of your own well being.
What could go wrong so long as we “feel” we are saving the planet?
BTW: OT, but not: Just what the he77 are we saving it for? Want to be sure it’s still around when the Sun goes Red Giant on us and expands to outside of Earth’s orbit.
Never have heard and answer yet. Forward ‘em if ya got ‘em!
And in other news today, a British panel clears climate scientists involved in ‘Climatgate’,
and the global heat wave hitting the US reignites the climate change debate. FWIW
Flit;
I recall, just a few months back, as records were broken by falling mercury, the question raised was: “So, how is AGW a factor as we freeze our butts off?” and the snark filled answer was “Temperature does not equate to climate!’ Nonsensical, but that’s what I have come to expect from pseudo scientists playing scientist on TV and blogs….
So, as far as your own clan of AGW peeps goes, the heat wave is not any more evidence of global warming as the hard winter was of global cooling.
Can’t have it both ways, unless you spin in a healthy dose of “talking points” and then just know reality bites, when it smacks you in the face.
And California is having near record lows for this time of year. San Diego only in the 60s? Sacramento and most of the Central Valley only in the 80s? Almost unheard of for this time of year. But, of course, since that doesn’t support Global Warming, it gets ignored.
The AGW religionists are as corrupt as the anit-gun nuts.
I should add: “Follow the money.” Who paid for the review by that panel? Yep, East Anglia, the home of CRU CRU. Kind of funny how a bunch of people in the pay of the people they were investigating just happen to clear them, other than on what amounts to some footnoting errors.
Flit, you strike me as one of the Cheney conspiracy believers. Would you accept a report paid for by him exonerating him of all the crimes he supposedly has committed?
Ok. When it’s cool you guys say “weather is not climate.” When it’s hot, you say it furthers your position.
Actually, since they made the last change to Climate Change, anything – warming, cooling,unusually wet or dry, even average conditions – gets used to support the scam.
This is nothing more than an ad hominem fallicy writ large. And while I don’t want to fall into the appeal to authority fallicy the fact remains that Freeman Dyson is one of the top 10 minds this species has created. EVER. If you’re on the opposite side of an issue from him you’d better have more in your quiver than models and hand-adjusted data-sets.
The fact of the matter is that the climate debate isn’t science. Science decribes processes, it publishes data, and it makes source code public, specifically because men can succeed where man is fallible. The minute you start claiming that people can be ignored because they disagree with your theory you can turn in your lab coat because you’re no longer attempting to find truth, you’re building support for your orthodoxy.
The people responsible for this travesty being written and published should be drummed out of the scientific community, and the NAS owe all of us an apology for allowing such unremediable and unmitigated bull^&*%& to be published under its name.
…And Jeff’s citation of Dyson is “appeal to authority” writ large.
Clue: Freeman Dyson is a theoretical physicist and mathematician. Alas, he is NOT a climate expert, nor is he especially qualified in computer modeling. In this respect he is merely a very intelligent layman on the topic.
Here’s a question I’ve never heard raised (much less answered): what is “normal” for Earth’s climate? Is it today? Was it the global average for 1945? What about 1845? What about the Medieval Warm Period? Or was it “the year without summer?”
If we can’t define “normal,” how can we define warming & cooling? Maybe the Earth is returning to an earlier (natural) state. Maybe there is AGW, but it’s the only thing keeping us out of the next ice age. Go back and check the patterns of previous ice ages and inter-glacial periods; we’re due. Maybe the best thing we could do is build yet even more coal-fired plants.
So why don’t we figure out what normal is, before we start talking about what’s abnormal.
Peer approval. I seem to recall reading something in the leaked emails how that works in the climate scam field.
God their peers must feel so gulled by these ‘scientists’ and their clear and obvious ‘data’ and their complete fully described models that enable ANYBODY to repeat the results using their models and their data….
Embarrassed must only begin to describe their professional ‘reputation’.
One teensy problem.
The Brit Information Commissioner issued a ruling that states the Motley CRU from East Anglia *did* break the rules regarding their failure to release climate data.
By what logic could Muir Russell clear the “climate scientists” of the charge that they’d violated the FOIA when the Brit Information Commissioner made it clear “beyond argument” that they *had* violated the FOIA?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/07/hacked-climate-science-emails-climate-change
FWIW? About what I paid, which was nada.
The CRU business is just a white wash. No one was cleared. If you really believe that, then I’ve got a wind farm investment in the Gobi you can buy into. High risk/High return. For me, at least.
The gullibility of the climate change crowd is truly astounding.
And in other news, Flit (yet again) provides a link which does not indicate what he thinks it does. I’m tempted to ask Lex to rename Flit “Princess Bride” Flit.
Anyone who follows through on that panel’s “investigation” knows it’s the worst sort of whitewash.
Jesus, Flit, do you ever read the links you put up? Seriously?
Checked out the CS Monitor piece; provocative headline, not much follow-up.
(my emphasis)
Also from the Yale spokesman:
What the article fails to address is that overall averages (i.e. frequencies) have also gone down the past 10 years.
So the CS Monitor puts out an article with an inflammatory headline; the Monitor is the only one in this case talking about a “re-ignition” of the debate. They quote a Yale climatologist, who pretty much contradicts the Monitor by approaching the question in what I consider a responsible scientific manner. Ok, I might argue with him on increasing frequency of record highs. Other experts have claimed warming would produce not necessarily hotter weather, but longer warm seasons, and pushing warm & temperate climate bands further north.
Point being that this article in no way unambiguously supports Flit’s position. So I have to ask: does he actually read what he links to, for comprehension, or does he just clap his hands in glee, and exlcaim “My, that looks tasty!?”
In other news today, Muir Russell announced the results of his investigation into Climategate and he determined that the Motley CRU — despite e-mails stating they’d destroy data rather than comply with FOIA requests — did *not* threaten to destroy data rather than comply with FOIA requests, and that all involved were absolute cherubs and it was all just a misunderstanding.
Of course, the only people he interviewed were members of the Motley CRU.
Sort of like investigating a mugging six months after the fact and only interviewing the perp…
I love the circular logic/argument: Because we, the pro-AGW crowd, have actively conspired to keep our skeptics from publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals (and greatly succeeded in those efforts) we then turn round and point to the very lack of publication by those conspired-against skeptics in those self-same journals as evidence of their lack of scientific bona fides. Brilliant!
PS: TOTALLY worthy of the best efforts/logic of Blacque Jacques Shellac.
As any honest scientist will tell you, science can’t prove that anything is true. All science can do is prove that something is false. The arguments of the AGW folks seem right falsifiable, to me.
I’ve always wondered what the motivation is to suppress, black ball and out right censor the loyal opposition in scientific debate. Isn’t the founding principle of science to identify the “Truth” and therefore if a hypothesis is indeed to be accepted as “Law” or a “Truth” it is by definition “Defensible” in logic and proof.
If my desire was to be taken seriously in my claims of AGW it would stand to reason (scientific reason) that all of my methods, my data, my conclusions would be open to the most criticl of reviewers to disprove my findings… no?
I am lead to wonder what Einstein would say about the severe lack of Scientific Method being utilized in today’s supposed scientific research.
Sickens the mind.
A really great book, just for the story, but as a case study in why “settled science” hasn’t ever been: “A Short History of Nearly Everything” by Bill Bryson.
Did ya know we didn’t call them “tectonic plates” until a scientific paper in 1968? Seems it was “settled” that the oceans were just large flat basins to accumulate silt, until the began looking at fathometer logs from a WWII Merchant Skipper who ran the device on his entire transits to and from Europe in convoys. There was a funny lump out in the middle…and the rest turned the geological “experts” determinations on their heads.
The book is replete with the changes in several forms of science, how we knew what we knew, until we found out we really knew poop when the new observation proved it wrong.
The fully faithful of the AGW cult should take heed.
Oh, spoiler alert:
But when you get to the last chapter, on evolution, it’s precisely figured out, computed and known and Darwin was a great genius for unlocking the secret of the ages, and don’t you dare thing anyone else knows anything else about it because they don’t. I found that the be a strange ending point or an otherwise excellent book.
E pur se muove
Ah, yes, sometimes I have to restrain myself from saying that to policemen.
I checked the list. Identified by country they were. Still looking for the Muslim scientists….you know, the ones NASA is courting?? Maybe another list?
I am reminded of an old cartoon, two robed dons sauntering past a row of racked bicycles while entering their quad. “Poor old Perkins,” one remarks, “Published and published but perished just the same.”
Actually, “climate change deniers” is a misnomer. People are AGW skeptics *because* they know the climate has been changing for — roughly — a half-billion years.
What AGW skeptics are skeptical about is the claim that the human-contributed 3% of the 390 parts per *million* of CO2 in the atmosphere can physically raise the Earth’s temperature by one degree per century — particularly since there has never been a study that showed CO2 in free circulation has *any* effect on temperature.
First you have to figure out how to measure the “temperature” of the earth as a single number without figuring out how to take all the variables into account, with no consistent over time (like a couple of dozen centuries)recorded with consistent methodology, evenly distributed sample points. The data out of central Africa, or backwoods China, or the central south Atlantic off the trade routes, or backwoods Alaska isn’t all that rigorous and doesn’t go back all that far.
Climatologists who never made a synoptic weather report. Unhuh.
Proven theory? First prove you aren’t just throwing out the numbers that don’t support your bright idea.
The odd thing is that if your crank the actual numbers from 30 years ago into the “model”, it doesn’t predict the current conditions.
What you are seeing is the degraded state of college science these days. So called climatologists see little real math and science, so have little understanding of what all those numbers really mean.
It’s much like Sociologists who take Psychology and Statistics and think they’ve had math and science. It really is a pathetic sight to see those people struggle with real math and real science as it is so far over there heads they don’t know it when they see it.
Charlatons all.
Bingo, QM.
Most recent bit of insanity was a “scientific” study claiming that, if the air temperature rises above 96F and the humidity rises to 85% or higher, sweat won’t evaporate, and people will not be able to survive more than a few weeks due to heat stress.
Unfortunately, people who live between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn haven’t been informed of that “fact” yet, and they continue to go about their daily lives — which usually *do* average more than a few weeks long — darned climate deniers that they are…
Hey, I live in Southern FL, and it gets like that here a lot of the time. I don’t like it one bit, but I seem to have survived it, having spent about half of my life here.
P.s. It’s really hell on cell phones, though. Most of them seem to be designed to be used by gurlz and salesmen, in air-conditioning. If you wear one on yer belt, and go outside and sweat, that kills it. Why doesn’t anybody make a cell phone which will survive the same environment in which a human can live?
Grandpa, Jerry Pournelle has raised that point several times by asking “just how do we determine average global temperature?”
Good question. No good answer as yet.
He has also said, “You can prove anything, if you make up your data.”
I finally clicked on the link, having seen it at Doctor Jerry’s site. The author is Frank Tipler, one of my favorite foamypimples, who’s written a book on theophysics which I have, but don’t understand, not having the math. Freeman Dyson is also on that blacklist. FREEMAN EFFING DYSON! He’s the smartest Englishman alive who can still talk! As I wrote above, science ain’t about believing, it’s about falsifying and disproving, and skepticism. Those concepts were compendiously explicated in the comments to the linked post.