Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 467

1) Government funds your study and provides your grant
2) Government wants a particular result from your study
3) Government does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove

And...

1) Private industry funds your study and provides your grant
2) Private industry wants a particular result from your study
3) Private industry does not renew your grant when the study does not prove what they set out to prove
4) Private industry tries to censor any study that has results that embarrass private industry

Comment Re:Predictions, so far, have been accurate (Score 1) 467

Look up "polar amplification" or "stratospheric cooling", these are phenomena that were seen in models before they were observed in nature. There are about a dozen such phenomena that have been discovered via climate models.

BTW: Climate models are based on finite element analysis, AKA numerical integration. Statistics doesn't come into it until you compare the results to historical data (hindcasting). Hindcasting is the standard method to test any FEA model, doesn't matter if you are modeling the casting of an engine block or the earth's climate.

Last I check you need at least eight decimal places and statistically significant sample not to be laughed out of most fields.

In cosmology and astrophysics getting a result that is within a few orders of magnitude is considered "accurate". In archeology a radioactive dating result with 10% is considered a "good result". Science isn't all about measuring the width of a proton, other than particle physics, there are actually very few scientific fields that "demand" eight decimal places of accuracy.

The problem I have with critiques of climate models like yours is they are non-sequiturs and born from ignorance, they don't make any sense because they are sourced from MSM articles that (for political reasons) aim to convince you that modeling physical phenomena is some kind of scam that scientists are using to make money. If you want to critique the models then write a paper explaining why you need "eight nines" to convincingly demonstrate to others that the north pole is melting. There are lists of rebuttals to these fake critiques on the web, skepticalscience is one of the better ones, I'm sure you will find a few of your favorite talking points torn to shreds on that page..

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 1) 467

The field wouldn't exists without government grants for the research.

Are you suggesting that only private industry should be allowed to fund research? That would mean only research that could result in profits would be funded. That can't possibly be what you're saying, but considering your other notions, I can't rule out the possibility that's what you think.

Comment Re:The basic question is answered...but still... (Score 4, Funny) 467

Technically, the climate scientists are the "friends" here, of the politicians who have latched onto this as the latest excuse to take your money and give it to their friends.

Wait. Let me try to wrap my head around this argument. You're saying that global warming is an excuse for politicians to steal our money so they can give it to climate scientists? Because climate scientists are their buddies?

I'm speechless. Gobsmacked. Utterly bereft of words to express the stupidity of this argument.

Let me read what you wrote again, in case I missed something and have got it wrong:

Technically, the climate scientists are the "friends" here, of the politicians who have latched onto this as the latest excuse to take your money and give it to their friends.

Nope. That's what you said. I think I need to sit down. This level of stupidity is giving me vertigo.

Comment Re:Economics is a social science (Score 5, Interesting) 467

Some economists can very accurately be called scientists because they use the scientific method and economics is quite properly categorized as a social science.

If this is enough for you to say Economics is a science, then it is the softest science of all. Parapsychology (and I'm absolutely serious about this), is based more on data and scientific rigor than economics. Psychology is many times more rigorous than Economics. Fucking Gender Studies is more rigorous and data-based than Economics.

I'm guessing you don't actually know any real economists.

I am probably the only Slashdot user who has actually taken a course from Milton Friedman. My views on the pseudoscience of Economics is based on 30 years experience having economists as colleagues, friends, neighbors and lunchmates. I have played in a weekly poker game with economists. I lived next door to a Nobel-nominated economist for years back in Chicago. I watched Superbowl XLI with him and had to explain what it means to arbitrage a point spread that has moved 10 points.

Plus, if you read any Economics articles, you will find that their math is very unimpressive, and even suspect.

Slashdot Top Deals

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...