forgot password / register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#misc


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
778,822 comments by 11,510 users, 2 online now: BlueSardine, Tenpoundbass
new post
« prev   misc   next »

0
1

Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant: If the Light of Day Scares You, You May Be a Germ

By KimJongUn following x   2017 Jul 10, 10:26am 260 views   2 comments   watch   quote     share  


The Climate Change Mafia is threatening to go to the mattresses over EPA director Scott Pruitt’s plans to hold a “red team/blue team” exercise to evaluate climate science. Given the billions the US lavishes on this research, such a review is a salutary thing: but perhaps because it threatens said billions, the Mafia is going nuts:

The idea has been derided by activists and scientists who say it’s “dangerous” to elevate dissenting voices who disagree with them on global warming.

“Such calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate,” wrote climate scientist Ben Santer and Kerry Emanuel and historian and activist Naomi Oreskes.

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

Defenders of the “consensus” argue the existing peer-review process works well and a red-blue team dynamic is not needed. They further argue scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, provide a forum for scientific debates.

“Developing science, far from being ignored, is confronted directly and openly in such assessments,” Santer, Emanuel and Oreskes wrote.

This is very, very revealing. What Pruitt is planning threatens the role of people like Santer and Emanuel as gatekeepers–although “trolls under the bridge” is probably a better metaphor. They dominate peer review, through a variety of mechanisms. They are the editors of the journals. They are the go-to referees. Look back at some of the references to peer review in the Climategate emails if you doubt this. No Little Skeptical Billy Goat or Medium Size Skeptical Billy Goat is going to make it over their bridge of peer review. But the sight of Pruitt and Trump playing the role of The Big Billy Goat Gruff has them quaking in fear.*

As for “scientific bodies, like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change” providing a “forum for scientific debates”–don’t make me laugh. There was more open debate at Soviet Party Congresses in the 1930s. Again–these people dominate these forums, and like any guild or clerisy, they cannot tolerate the rise of competing forums where contrary voices may be heard.

This is all very revealing. Truly confident scientists would welcome the opportunity to prove in a very public way that they are right. They would welcome the opportunity to vanquish publicly–and if they are so right, to humiliate–their adversaries.

This lot is very fond of pointing out what transpired during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Well, here’s their opportunity to make their supposedly anti-science opposition a public laughingstock, just like Clarence Darrow did (unfairly, truth be told) in 1925. Yet they recoil at the prospect.

Telling, no?

http://streetwiseprofessor.com/?p=10576

1 Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 10, 11:30am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

Straw Man says

“They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science,” the three wrote in a recent Washington Post op-ed.

The point can be made clear by watching any alphabet news channel. Anytime you see a field expert in a debate with a random pundit, paid by that news channel to represent a side, it is a loss for actual knowledge and discussion. It's not a debate of opposing ideas to further knowledge. It is a debate for entertainment and pure sportsmanship.

2 Rew   ignore (0)   2017 Jul 10, 11:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)     quote        

I'm all ears if scientific peers want to debate. I love seeing compelling counter and fringe scientific ideas.

Red v Blue over climate change? Stupid. Talk about the world laughing.


Comment as anon_c9df6 or log in at top of page:

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail   old posts by year  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home