Wednesday, December 02, 2009
...you have a real problem...
And he never even got to the manipulated computer code.
MORE: I might be willing to believe AGW is a crisis when all of these guys start acting as if it were one.
I think we should use a stronger adjective than "manipulated". With the fudge factors built into the program, you could feed it an entire data set consisting of nothing but random static, and you would get a hockey stick out of it.
The whole mess of code is nothing but tweaks applied to data as to come up with a pre-determined outcome. It should be taught in college as a prime example of what not to do, or as one of my instructors once said "If you write a chunk of code as bad as this at your job, I will come to your cubicle and beat you with your own stapler"
I think Jon Stewart pretty much got it right. And that the issue has very little to do with the accuracy of AGW, which is well proven.
Meanwhile, I wonder what TH thinks about the whole chickenhawk issue - rightwingers who thought everything was on the line in Iraq but weren't willing to get their own butts into military service. I think that applies even more clearly than whether some rich people fly in private jets.
Tyler Cowen has a nice post summarizing my views on this. Some good comments as well.
Re the East Anglia matter, he points to the other evidence independently arrived at and says -
'I simply don't think that all those other scientific units are controlled by people who hate capitalism, or SUVs, and wish to conspire to destroy them and succeed in faking and twisting the data.'
I'd be thrilled - literally - to find out AGW is just wrong. That they 'missed' something that offsets the increased CO2 of that natural factors beyond human control are the cause.
But it sure doesn't look like it to me.
TH - pizza lie reported by an inteprid blogger here, including the lefty response:
And I don't see the difference between chickenhawks and enviro-hypocrites. It's all a version of ad hominem.
And I don't see the difference between chickenhawks and enviro-hypocrites It's all a version of ad hominem.
Which is a form of argument you are quite comfortable in using , as shown by your comments on Ann Coulter, instead of dealing with what she said about AGW.
TH, did you watch the whole clip? Including the last couple of minutes of the clip where Stewart says:
"Does this disprove global warming? No, of course not but it does put a fresh set of batteries in the senator's [Inofe] denyer bunny...he thinks GW is debunked everytime he drinks a slushie and gets a brain freeze
But that's the point. If you care about an issue and want to make it your life's work, don't cut corners. It's disheartening to the people inclined to the scientific method, and it's catnip to those guys who are going to end up celebrating tonight drunk, roaming the artic circle trying to @)%$*%@ polar bears...."