Search
TEN SECOND BUZZ
- Sam Bankman-Fried Gets 25 Year Prison SentenceMarch 28, 2024No Comments
- Vote for Show, Earmarks For DoughMarch 28, 2024No Comments
- Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore Struck By Container Ship, CollapsesMarch 26, 202451 Comments
- Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024March 25, 2024211 Comments
- From CNBC: Trump Fraud Bond Cut to $175 Million in Appeal RulingMarch 25, 20242 Comments
Features
Hot Posts
A Message From Devcat
We have been experiencing some system resource issues. We believe the problem may be resolved, but if it is not please bear with us.
Recent Comments
- Jaybird in reply to Jaybird on Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024The NYPD has tweeted that they've arrested the guy again. pic.twitter.com/0oBRaqSZv0— NYPD NEW…
- North in reply to J_A on Bridge Derangement SyndromeThank you J_A, I suspected something along those lines would be the case just the same way most home…
- J_A in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement SyndromeYou are for sure at least partially right. I’ve only been involved in one such claim, and we the con…
- Chip Daniels on Bridge Derangement SyndromeI'm going to go way out on a limb here and suggest it was a cascading series of failures because thi…
- J_A in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement SyndromeAll vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk…
- J_A in reply to North on Bridge Derangement SyndromeAll vessels that I know are owned by companies that ONLY own that vessel, so any liability and risk…
- Pinky in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement SyndromeOf course I wouldn't be stunned to find out that someone made mistakes.
- Jaybird in reply to Pinky on Bridge Derangement SyndromeEh, here's from The Daily Mail talking about a CNN interview with someone there: The Dali cargo ship…
- Jaybird in reply to North on Bridge Derangement SyndromeFrom what I've read, according to Maritime Law, the people shipping stuff are on the hook. The owner…
- Koz in reply to InMD on Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024Hell, Israeli security isn’t relevant to American security or any other interest. They’re a proxy no…
Comics
-
March 29, 2024
-
March 28, 2024
-
March 27, 2024
-
March 26, 2024
More Comments
- Michael Cain in reply to J_A on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- North in reply to J_A on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- J_A in reply to CJColucci on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- CJColucci in reply to J_A on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- InMD in reply to Koz on Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024
- Koz in reply to InMD on Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024
- Andrew Donaldson in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- Pinky in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- J_A on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- Burt Likko on Sports Betting Opponents Try Mopping Water Off Legalized Gambling Beachhead
- Burt Likko on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- Jaybird on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- North in reply to Chris on Open Mic for the week of 3/25/2024
- Michael Cain in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
- Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird on Bridge Derangement Syndrome
there’s a huge legion of scientists who are not Al Gore, are not politicans, and are not media whores — who are genuinely concerned about the data they’re collecting that continually solidify the fact that we’re warming the planet at an unnatural rate. Mocking Gore is fine but it doesn’t change the facts.Report
Changing the facts requires a little more co-ordination.Report
I have been pretty agnostic about climate change for a long time. I know, that’s a cop out. But I could never get a handle on the actual science, and the messengers all seemed to have an agenda. So I guess I would come down against any radical changes to the economy, etc. Ron Bailey almost had me convinced, and I guess I was leaning in his direction.
So while I guess that makes me kind of a denialist, if that’s the word, this stuff all makes me even more skeptical. In the comments, Brian points out that tons of scientists still worry about global warming. OK. But my understanding is that this concern is based on a pretty small set of data, the veracity of which appears to be in question. Worse, that data doesn’t really say anything. It’s the computer modeling used to manipulate the data that seems even more tainted now.
And from what I can tell, a very, very small subset of scientists was engaged in collecting the data and formulating these models. And then peer-reviewed each other to prominence. And peer-reviewed others into oblivion.
The thousands of scientists who we see worrying now are REACTING to this data and modeling, which up until now was seen as so sancrosanct, people who doubted it were considered so lowly as to be compared to holocaust deniers.
But honestly, I don’t ask this as someone with a huge ax to grind in this debate–but doesn’t this current debacle call that data and that modeling into question? And if it does, doesn’t this cast doubt on the consensus that emerged as the fruit of that data and modeling?
Perhaps not. But if this turns out to be really bad… that wholce consensus thing doesn’t amount to a pile of rubbish. None of it.
For now… buy stock in Consul.Report
There’s really a very large set of data, though the significance of the CRU hack is more that it was the dataset/modelset used by the IPCC, rather than because its dataset was vital to the overall field of climate science. Real Climate’s done a pretty good job of listing datasets and models, there’s a lot of them. One of the things that happens generally in science (social or natural) is that people generally try to build their own datasets, either because it’s more convenient for their own thesis (very common) or because their models require certain types of data conversion from raw observations to account for observed variable problems.Report
Well, here we have yet another dispute that seems to be “resolvable” with regard to the facts. I honestly don’t know the answer, but here is what Ron Bailey wrote yesterday regarding the data:
“It is reassuring to think that even if the CRU data are shown to be distorted (either wittingly or unwittingly) other independent sources of data are at hand. But that belief may not be entirely accurate. Besides the CRU temperature data, there are two other leading sources used by the IPCC, one created by the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), and the other by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC).
While it is true that the scientific groups are independent, as University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. (father of Pielke Jr.) observes, the temperature data sets are not all that independent. Pielke cites the 2006 U.S. Climate Change Science Program report, which noted, “Since the three chosen data sets utilize many of the same raw observations, there is a degree of interdependence.” The report further observed, “While there are fundamental differences in the methodology used to create the surface data sets, the differing techniques with the same data produce almost the same results.” In 2007, Pielke and his colleagues reported, “The raw surface temperature data from which all of the different global surface temperature trend analyses are derived are essentially the same. The best estimate that has been reported is that 90–95 percent of the raw data in each of the analyses is the same (P. Jones, personal communication, 2003). That the analyses produce similar trends should therefore come as no surprise.” ”
Granted, Bailey writes for reason. And he used to call warming an “ecom-myth.” But he has changed his tune in recent years.
So either there is a wide variety of data that has been collected and used, which means that if this data is tainted, we still have recourse to others.
Or not.
I wonder if it’s possible to get an answer even to this kind of question. seems pretty provable, either way.Report