Amazing.
Category Archives: Science And Society
Stem-Cell Treatments
They could cure many diseases, if Washington would let them. I think the FDA probably causes more deaths than it prevents.
“Deniers”
Well, starting off with the 97% Big Lie at the top, this is all pretty damned fascist.
Rain
Finally, after a dry February, it’s coming down (though not a downpour) in the South Bay of Los Angeles. Too bad about the Oscars, but we need it.
Coffee
Yes, it really does seem to be good for you. I don’t consider myself an “addict,” though. I can take it or leave it. I don’t like it that much, and it has no discernible effect on me. I drink it only for health reasons.
But this isn’t really true:
The bad news? Frappuccinos and lattes are not included. You have to drink it black, because added sugar, cream, and milk can pack on the calories.
The experts aren’t very “expert” if they continue to push the calorie myth. The sugar is bad because, well, sugar is bad. Cream and milk are fine though (though I do drink mine black). I do add some sea salt in the filter to take the bite out of the bitterness.
Electric Cars
It’s time to end our “green” worship of them.
Death Valley
It may be a great year for wild flowers. Maybe at the California Poppy Reserve, too.
Oliver Sacks
His thoughts on being diagnosed with terminal cancer.
Freeman Dyson
When I was in high-school in England in the 1930s, we learned that continents had been drifting according to the evidence collected by Wegener. It was a great mystery to understand how this happened, but not much doubt that it happened. So it came as a surprise to me later to learn that there had been a consensus against Wegener. If there was a consensus, it was among a small group of experts rather than among the broader public. I think that the situation today with global warming is similar. Among my friends, I do not find much of a consensus. Most of us are sceptical and do not pretend to be experts. My impression is that the experts are deluded because they have been studying the details of climate models for 30 years and they come to believe the models are real. After 30 years they lose the ability to think outside the models. And it is normal for experts in a narrow area to think alike and develop a settled dogma. The dogma is sometimes right and sometimes wrong. In astronomy this happens all the time, and it is great fun to see new observations that prove the old dogmas wrong.
Unfortunately things are different in climate science because the arguments have become heavily politicised. To say that the dogmas are wrong has become politically incorrect. As a result, the media generally exaggerate the degree of consensus and also exaggerate the importance of the questions.
It’s not a new interview, but if anything, it’s even more true now than then. The “consensus” has broken down considerably in the interim.
Climate Skeptics
How and when did you become one?
A lot of interesting responses.
As some note there, to me the biggest deal with the release of the CRU data five years ago wasn’t (just) the duplicity and unscientific behavior revealed in the emails, but the utter crap that was the source code of the computer models. It was clear that it was not done by anyone familiar with computer science, numerical methods, or modeling, and the notion that we should have any confidence whatsoever in their output was societally insane. In terms of Matthews’ paper, I’d put myself somewhere between “lukewarmer” and “moderate skeptic.”
[Update a couple minutes later]
Starting to read through the comments. Here’s just one horror story:
Most of the claims being made by climate change advocates appear to run contrary to basic meteorology. As I’ve been attacked personally and professionally for offering contrary views, I decided to leave the field. I will defend my Atmospheric Science PhD thesis and walk away. It’s become clear to me that it is not possible to undertake independent research in any area that touches upon climate change if you have to make your living as a professional scientist on government grant money or have to rely on getting tenure at a university. The massive group think that I have encountered on this topic has cost me my career, many colleagues and has damaged my reputation among the few people I know in the field. I’m leaving to work in the financial industry. It’s a sad day when you feel that you have to leave a field that you are passionately interested in because you fear that you won’t be able to find a job once your views become widely known. Until free thought is allowed in the climate sciences, I will consider myself a skeptic of catastrophic human induced global warming.
Yup. Totally, totally politicized. It’s not a science any more. Unless you think that Lysenko was a scientist.