21–30 of 92 posts
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
What makes you think it's 'advocacy' science? How would climate science have to change to convince you otherwise?
Instead, he wrote about, what appears to be the same phenomena, the "cigarettes are bad deniers" of the 1900s.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The transition away from the gold standard and years of living in a post-gold-standard world show that fiat is a totally reasonable system of money. I'd love to see you support or justify your claims, so we can at least debate from a basis of shared understanding and fact instead of hyperbole. Your statement is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
If you consider the sharp upturn in divide between the rich and the poor since 1972 to be "totally reasonable".
It's no surprise that wealth inequality started going up and to the right as soon as these things changed, in the years immediately following when Reagan took office (1981) [3] -- over a decade of decline after the switch from the gold standard in 1971. It's all in the graphs attached. Broadly, it's "Reaganomics" related.
By all means have at those windmills though.
tl:dr; if you let rich people keep more of their money, they have more of the money. If you simultaneously take from poor people, they stay poor. We could be on the banana standard for all it matters with this type economic policy.
[1] https://nickgogerty.typepad.com/designing_better_futures/200...
[2] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/social-mobility-memos/2017/11...
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
Clearly this is a fluff piece of journalism. He said - she said. "5 sigma". Sounds great. What does it mean? 2 out of 3 satellites reported data that gave the 5 sigma conclusion by 2005, the third by 2016. Great. What does it mean? It doesn't really say, other than a 95 percent chance that global warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Somebody said they would like to notch that up to 99% chance. Another person would…
Not all climate science is bad, of course.
The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science.
Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science.
Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media) is bad science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflammatory comments with no supporting evidence are usually downvoted, irrespective of the opinion they espouse.
Except the followup inflammatory comments, of course.
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
Personally, I'd like to see a financial market develop that allows people to predict future global temperatures in short, mid and long term time frames. (let's say 5 years, 10 years, 30 years). That market would reveal humanities unbiased view of climate change predictions. It would give us a great tool to put things in perspective.
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
I used to evaluate scientific contracts for the federal government. I was lied to on a monthly basis. Scientific fraud is not a thing of the past. It's not even rare. Karl Popper is turning over in his grave.
Sure, but even accusations of scientific fraud require evidence to back them up. Can you provide some credible evidence to show that the majority of the scientific community is engaging in fraud?
Take two parts physics, four parts advocacy science, and two hundred parts advocacy journalism, and what do you get? In Christian circles, you get creation science. It's cute when climate scientists pretend their work is on the level of finding the Higgs boson. Advocate science is garbage.
If you're interested in learning more about this why this style of argument gets used online, I recommend The Alt-Right Playbook series on YouTube.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly this is a fluff piece of journalism. He said - she said. "5 sigma". Sounds great. What does it mean? 2 out of 3 satellites reported data that gave the 5 sigma conclusion by 2005, the third by 2016. Great. What does it mean? It doesn't really say, other than a 95 percent chance that global warming since 1950 is caused by humans. Somebody said they would like to notch that up to 99% chance. Another person would…
I deride it based on bad journalism AND bad science. Not all climate science is bad, of course. The kind that takes an RCP of 8.5 with zero chance of happening and uses it as an input to policy recommendations is bad science. Attributing current weather extremes (hint, occurrences are non Gaussian) is bad science. Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not…
I'm pretty sure the general conclusion is that, on average, the climate is warming, which makes weather extremes worse.
> Releasing doom and gloom predictions to the media before peer review that are then ripped apart (but not covered by media)
What are these predictions, and where are they being ripped apart?