Consensus Science: the Al Gore Truth-process
Just as a show of hands in a high-school classroom (how many think Answer A is right??) will not necessarily establish the right answer to an algebra problem, the truth of Global warming will not be decided by a poll. Science is NOT done via consensus: it’s a matter of confirming a given hypothesis via experimental proof. (No shit, perhaps you are thinking--say it to Big Al).
Einstein himself wrote on this topic when his first papers on the experimental confirmation of relativity were not accepted by "peer reviewed" scientific journals. Obviously, that a majority of experts might mostly agree on the global warming hypothesis does not itself confirm the hypothesis (except maybe to Al Jr., who managed a D+ in "Physics for Dixiecrats" at Haw-vard).
Contrarian views do quite often prevail in science: most victorians held to Screeptural views and considered Darwinian evolution the most horrid, blasphemous idea in the world, and Darwin's theory was not accepted for many years, either among society or scientists (and still is not with many biblethumpers--or koran-thumpers). Newtonian mechanics, accepted as truth for 2+ centuries, was substantially modified by special and general relativity, though Einstein's theories were considered odd at the time (contrarian or "fringe" in blogspeak).
Of course GW is not close to Newtonian mechanics: the theory has not really been established (i.e. the basic claim that increases in anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere leads to global warming has not been conclusively established--that is, assuming that present and historical temperature data itself is accurate! Gore of course doesn't know margin of error from the margin on his NASDAQ stock). A consensus does not even exist among global warming "experts" to the degree that Gore suggested, and a consensus of climate modellers does not equal a consensus of atmospheric scientists. GW experts merely offer probabilities and estimations, not certainties or truths (though YES, the IPCC research should be seriously considered): though that did not prevent Al Jr. from presenting GW as established, and "true" theory. See this site for some effective debunking of Gore/AIT (which is not the same as the IPCC report anyway):
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
- ► 2011 (249)
- ► 2010 (266)
- ► 2009 (184)
- ► 2008 (146)
- GehryvilleDisneyMuzakHall (Gehry)Whoa.
- Snitch Trek""""Born in El Paso, Texas to Eugene Ed...
- Narcissists-on-Drugs"Progressive rhetoric has the ...
- What is a lie to a pragmatist? (Cont. retrofit)....
- Fear ye the Pandybat..............."""""The soutan...
- Consensus Science: the Al Gore Truth-process Just ...
- How to lie and be PC: the New Worlds way. Nearly a...
- Al ain’t exactly EinsteinBig Al, peacemaker, manag...
- Alex C. on Al G."Al Gore's Peace Prize"By ALEXANDE...
- Teddy A. in da House.Adorno: old-school marxist wh...
- Nietzsche reflects on his one time pal, Wagner.".....
- No title
- The case for mocking religion/HitchensThis is an o...
- Movin' like a shadow above "How then do you become...
- Johnny the Recanter.Edwards said, about 2 years ag...
- He is risenSt. BZ.
- ▼ October (16)
- ► 2006 (69)
- ► 2005 (57)
- ► 2004 (28)
BTW- I removed the comment you found so offensive.
Alright. I suspect someone (er, someonius) fed dudemotya a line of BS about me: rightist, impoverished, violent, hick etc. That's BS, and typical ID politics. I am simply calling it as I see it. I never denied the GW/IPCC claims, and don't claim to be an expert: just don't care for Gore's hypocrisy. And question the data, etc. etc.
B-motya's hysterical insulting rants are the sort of shit that will end blogging and turn the net into some zone of pure stalinist-paranoia. Seriously. I don't know the freak, haven't said hardly anything (except to say Sy Hersh was a liar) and he doesn't know jack about me. In fact he sounds like a racist, as well as some whining, emotional basketcase.
It's really just a matter of establishing whether the data is reliable. Those people who insist it's all correct are as obnoxious as the rightist morons who dismiss it with a wave of their hands.
That you allowed the debate was surprising. Really, I am about finished with blogging. Burnt out.
BTW- I removed the comment you found so offensive.
Another lie. You caved into demands from one of your cronies, and reposted. Now chiming in with another charlatan--Demonweed. DW's another pompous preacher-rhetorician doing a PC act. He made some obvious glaring errors in his elementary logic rant. His scientific writings are even more lightweight than the eco-fluff of New Worlds.
Edelman ripped him completely
Alright McMax. We can pretend to be civil a bit, even though you let most of your palskis insult us now at will.
Lot's of Wopera fans on NW too! Apart from "Vlad" I doubt your few NW cronies have ever made it through one Wagner overture, or Mozart's Zauberflote, Verdi, even your fave Blackshirt musico Putacinni (one of Il Duce's faves too, from reports).
I read a bit about Glass in LA times. Not too into his new operatic stuff, though I enjoy some of the earlier instrumental music, but I think Steve Reich (his partner-in-crime for a while) quite a more talented composer, but I don't worship minimalism. That's sort of the antithesis of Wagnerian Sturm und Drang, or Mozartian complexity, or even say Zappa, good jazz, or rock. It's generally pretty dull, though Reich's best stuff rocks. I simply cannot take the operatic singing usually, even at best: and the women are typically worse than men. I like some of Verdi because he is usually melodically interesting: or the magic flute as well. Listening to Glass one hardly notes a melody--just sort of redundant, fairly simple themes.
Now here's an opera you should listen to: Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle. Musically wild, difficult, atonal but sometimes quite beautiful and strange. The singing interesting as well.
Post a Comment