Sheldon: … ironically, most of Sabine’s blogs are about the poor predictive power in particle theory, but in this blog she feels she has to reverse herself to defend the good name of global warming. My advice to her is to stick with what she has first-hand knowledge of, because 2nd-hand knowledge always suffers from authoritarian bias.
Even if everything is all pristine and honest with climate science today, the settled habit of simply censoring opposing views inevitably corrupts. Over time it corrupts absolutely. Darwinism is paying the price even now for that kind of thing, if we go by the defensive Darwinblather around the current, sublime embarrassment of de novo genes.
We ask on account of this paper on how to talk to people who think that climate change isn’t as bad as many are making out. Rob Sheldon wonders why a science faculty is so much more concerned with psychology than facts.
The claim couldn’t be replicated. But then how likely IS it that haywire fish would actually be attracted to predators instead of just behaving in weird ways, getting themselves eaten?
Anyone who didn’t immediately accept all this new atheist rubbish as Big Insight was a moron, right? But Dr. Egnor goes on to warn that reason will not emerge victorious from a horse laugh at the declining new atheists’ expense.
Here’s almost 40 years of climate models, starting in 1971–when “Global Cooling” was feared, to the Hansen models in the 1980’s, the first in 1981 and the second in 1988, and the last ones by the IPCC, Assessment Reports (AR) from the 1990’s to about 2010. Notice that the decadal rate of temperature increase remains Read More…
Michael Marshall: “What’s clear is that dinosaurs changed drastically. At the start of the Carnian, they were all small and bipedal. But by the end, the two major groups had emerged.” But can rain do all that is needed?
When institutions get this crazy (and Berezow provides a number of further examples of Lancet gone crazy) , it’s usually because their reason for existence has been undermined. Is it Lancet that we don’t need any more or medical journals generally? We’ll be able to find out by seeing whether a number of other journals follow suit and ramp up the crazy.
Maybe BioLogos is more interested in climate change now. National Center for Science Education appears to have gone the same route. A reasonable choice for both, given how Darwinism is faring.
The more sobbing, screaming teens are paraded in front of the public, the more reasonable climate skepticism begins to sound.
Petteri Talalas: “The IPCC reports have been read in a similar way to the Bible: you try to find certain pieces or sections from which you try to justify your extreme views. This resembles religious extremism.”
Here is a model of the top 15 “countries” across the span from the Agricultural Revolution onwards: Food for thought on trends and implications. Notice, the principle that trends (like pie-crusts) are made to be broken. To truly predict, we need dynamics and some reasonable idea of contingencies. Don’t forget to take reconstructions of the Read More…
It sounds like, in their ideal scenario, the rest of us would never know, except for our own experience, if what they are saying is incorrect.
From a PNAS article: The conditions of methane (CH4) formation in olivine-hosted secondary fluid inclusions and their prevalence in peridotite and gabbroic rocks from a wide range of geological settings were assessed using confocal Raman spectroscopy, optical and scanning electron microscopy, electron microprobe analysis, and thermodynamic modeling. Detailed examination of 160 samples from ultraslow- to Read More…
What we need right now is an earnest, just-published study offering convoluted neuroscience theories as to why so many people don’t trust science.