Dilbert 1, Scientists 0. Read the whole thing while I slay a tangent dragon. This is the manifestation of sciency through the mouths of putative "scientist" who apparently have never done science. Scott Adam's Dilbert character nails the problem with the sciency but not scientific Climate Alarmist P(piled)h(higher &) D(deeper) set. They have no arguments, they are simply manipulating data in an attempt to charge up society to act in the way they wish. This is never science, this is lobbying, and lobbying of an infernal sort. More below. The article sifts through the incoherent thinking, the circular reasoning, and non sequiturs to find the ultimate nugget of truth, the climate alarmist have made a 4:52 minute, live action YouTube video which precisely confirms the 8 panel Dilbert cartoon they seek to refute. It probably took Adams less time to create, draw, and publish this cartoon then it took these lunkhead climate alarmist P(iled)h(igher &)D(eeper)'s to create, write, film, and publish their "rebuttal," which is really a confirmation.
This speaks volumes about why one should never allow ones thinking, reasoning, and analysis to be limited to an echo chamber of like minded thinkers. Once this happens even simple reasoning becomes laborious, even simple analysis become extraordinarily difficult, and conclusions become simplistic. It also becomes nearly impossible to understand, and counter arguments which undermine your position. What we see here is the same problem that the progressive left has had for decades, when faced with simple straight forward arguments which undermine their positions, the progressive left, here the climate alarmists, cannot reasonably respond to those arguments. It is this which keeps the likes of Michael Mann from publishing the data, and algorithms underlying his research. Mann does not have the ability to debate, or support his assumption, or conclusions, he has too long been marinating as a True Believer in the cult of Climate Alarm. His entire schtick is to take data, press it through the screen of a manipulated computer model which then disgorges his desired outcome. The problem being that if others are allowed to see the data, and the programs necessary to create these conclusions, they will not be persuaded. This was the problem with the Hockey Stick Graph. The graph looked great, the data was laughable. The current data does not support the climate alarm cult's desires, they must manipulate the data to obtain the results they desire, but by doing so they reveal their failings. We appear to be near the end stages of climate alarmism. The public has cooled significantly on the validity of the cults beliefs. The data has not supported their position over the course of the past 60, but they took a brief 20 year period between 1978-1998 and made it into a climate catastrophe. The 30 years prior, of cooling, and the 20 years after, of no warming refute the cult's position, but like the UFO cult in Festinger's, When Prophecy Fails, the cultist are unwilling to recant their beliefs. Opposition to these beliefs, at first, strengthens the believers beliefs, and the cultist redouble their efforts. But with each failure of the prophecy, a small niggling question of the validity of the belief begins to grow, forcing its way into the thoughts of the sycophantic cultists. Eventually this niggling belief will become too large to ignore, and the cultist will turn away from the cult, and it will simply evaporate, like the kettle's steam blowing into warm, dry air . . . poof! The climate alarm cult has had many such failures, Al Gore, the IPCC, and innumerable "scientists" have made ludicrous claims about these "disasters." There have been prophecies of the end of snow in Britain, of the complete loss of the world's glaciers, of the melting of the arctic, or the Greenland icepack, to name only a few. Yet these prophecies routinely fail, and are often diametrically wrong. I have written on the subject pointing out a few of the problems, and tricks the climate alarmist cultists use to confuse: Update on the Holocene and how it undermines climate fear mongering This article and the article it updates are important to understand climate during the Holocene, why the current climactic variations are not something to worry about, and how the climate alarmists have truncated the data to confuse the people, the politicians, the simple minded media, and often other scientists that the alarmist claimed catastrophe is valid. It isn't. The data does not support this conclusion. It can only be supported if one limits the data to a truncated period from about 1860 to present. The fuller data from the entire Holocene does not support the climate alarmist theories, which is why you never see that data.
Comments
|
AuthorMaddog Categories
All
|