131–140 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You shouldn't encourage ESR to produce content.
He can certainly produce good content when he wants to. It's just when you give him the chance, his ideological blinders make him go wild. Forcing him to make concrete predictions and disciplining him with empiricism would move his content from dealing with fantasies in his head to the actual existing world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He can certainly produce good content when he wants to. It's just when you give him the chance, his ideological blinders make him go wild. Forcing him to make concrete predictions and disciplining him with empiricism would move his content from dealing with fantasies in his head to the actual existing world.
One can falsify claims without having to present alternatives. It works like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png
Science works by building theories and programmes of research. A single counterexample, contrary to what you seem to think, doesn't invalidate a theory--it's driven by multiple lines of evidence. And ESR's strategy of digging through comments of source code to quote out of context fragments doesn't even approach providing a single counterexample, particularly when he admits that he's in a quest to show that climate scientists are a conspiracy, part Gaian-religionists and part KGB psyops. Like, really.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be very interesting is for ESR to publish his own predictions, as he feigns expertise. Or, hell, any global warming denialist to publish predictions at all, or build any model at all beyond their day jobs of quote mining and writing clever PR releases that prey on the public's scientific illiteracy and fossil fuel barons' desire to violate other people's lives and properties with untrammeled carbon polluti…
If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make a prediction? Also, using the phrase "global warming denialist" distracts from your point. When some scientists thought neutrinos traveled faster than light, they weren't called "light speed denialists". Have some respect for alternate scientific opinions. The…
Like, for real. He more or less explicitly lied when reviewing the stolen Climategate source code, very deliberately and consciously presenting commented out code in a way to deceive his audience and provide talking points for right wing media. And when called out on it, he refused to take it down or even acknowledge the critique.
Unless you also think it's mean to call Rush Limbaugh a global warming denialist, calling ESR out on this is totally fair game. He's a hack. I wouldn't say the same thing of, say, Lindzen, but ESR is very committed to motivated, destroy-the-liberals reasoning, for the good of the Party.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an ardent defender of science, I tend to agree. There's always been a nagging intuition I've had about climate change that to this day I haven't resolved. It comes down to the evolutionary history of Earth throughout life's 4 billion year tenure on this planet. The climate has gone through EXTREME changes [1][2], including the Chicxulub impact, which radically impacted the atmosphere's composition and life on this…
It happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth.... I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious glob…
At this point, that should be worth at most an eye roll. But it bears re-iterating: never happened. Not true. And repeating it is dishonest.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One can falsify claims without having to present alternatives. It works like this: http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20131031.png
It's unclear what you're even arguing for. Naive falsificationism? Even Popper didn't argue for that. Science works by building theories and programmes of research. A single counterexample, contrary to what you seem to think, doesn't invalidate a theory--it's driven by multiple lines of evidence. And ESR's strategy of digging through comments of source code to quote out of context fragments doesn't even approach prov…
I took that to mean that you considered his criticism of climate models to be invalid because he hasn't produced better models himself.
Perhaps I mistook your meaning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I found that downloading IDV at https://www.unidata.ucar.edu/downloads/idv/current/index.jsp and not using Webstart resolved the startup errors I reported above and now I see the Map View. However, I'm still not able to get any data to render on the map. Would love help still!
@bbuchalter Thanks for registering and downloading. We like it when our users register because we have to report usage metrics back to our NSF sponsors. Are you able to load the catalog (the .xml not .html suffix for the catalog URI) in the IDV dashboard, Data Choosers tab, and see the NCML files available at that resource?
1. Add the catalog.xml in the Data Choosers
2. Select Image Collection in the Field Selector and click Create Display
3. The error I recieve when I click create display: "Unknown XML root:catalog"
4. The subsequent Image Collection screen which I'm not sure how to use.
Thank you again for continuing to engage with me on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If one's argument is that we don't know enough about what really drives our climate to make these types of predictions, why would one then turn around and make a prediction? Also, using the phrase "global warming denialist" distracts from your point. When some scientists thought neutrinos traveled faster than light, they weren't called "light speed denialists". Have some respect for alternate scientific opinions. The…
ESR is a global warming denialist. It's possible for people to publish hypotheses that don't support or that contradict climate change, but it's frankly playing it a bit too cute for you claim what he's doing at all approximates scientific discourse. Like, for real. He more or less explicitly lied when reviewing the stolen Climategate source code, very deliberately and consciously presenting commented out code in a w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It happened earlier than that, or at least according to a science journalist friend who interviewed MIT Professor Richard Lindzen in 1990 plus or minus a year. He quoted Lindzen saying that he had thought scientists were interested in the truth.... I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. Amusingly enough, one of those guys became one of the most notorious glob…
I'm old enough to remember when the Scientific Consensus was that we were causing global cooling. At this point, that should be worth at most an eye roll. But it bears re-iterating: never happened. Not true. And repeating it is dishonest.
Try again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are these the same climate scientists that were accused of fabricating data by adjusting the adjustments in order to support their political desires? Those climate scientists? Because if anyone is having trouble with credibility right now it's the entire industry of grant-chasing climatologists. The IPCC even admired that climate policy was a means to redistribute world wealth. Does that not scare anyone? Has Al Gore…
In your various comments you display such a startling misunderstanding and ignorance of how science itself works that it must be hard for anyone educated on these subjects to know where to begin. The accusations you mention completely flopped and the "accused" were exonerated by half a dozen independent committees and investigations. Climate scientists do not on the whole make a lot of money for their level of techni…
http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn...
Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy.
Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
@bbuchalter Thanks for registering and downloading. We like it when our users register because we have to report usage metrics back to our NSF sponsors. Are you able to load the catalog (the .xml not .html suffix for the catalog URI) in the IDV dashboard, Data Choosers tab, and see the NCML files available at that resource?
@julienchastang thanks for your reply. I don't believe I'm able to see the NCML files. I've put some screenshots together here in sequence: http://imgur.com/a/4oI3q#0 1. Add the catalog.xml in the Data Choosers 2. Select Image Collection in the Field Selector and click Create Display 3. The error I recieve when I click create display: "Unknown XML root:catalog" 4. The subsequent Image Collection screen which I'm not…
