Heads We Win, Tails You Lose

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

We took very precise, very careful climate temperature measurements that did not show the result we wanted, then ran them through a black box that nobody understands and we cannot replicate.  And what do you know, now the results DO show the result we wanted.  You can’t deny science.  

 Joe Doakes

When you politicize science, you don’t get scientific politics;  you get politicized science.

321 Total Views 1 Views Today

10 thoughts on “Heads We Win, Tails You Lose

  1. It’s always fun to engage a sky is falling global warming zealot. Whenever I ask one the question, “Tell me how throwing millions of dollars at the problem, will change anything”. Pause. Stammering. Head explodes. Storms off muttering.

  2. In nature, you have a “murder” of crows, a “congress” of baboons and a “consensus” of climate scientists.

  3. I continue to be astonished at the guileless, or more correctly, witless, thought processes of reprobate leftists. They pour out hatred and discontent upon fundamentalist Christians; they mock them for flat Earth believing buffoons.

    But then, if the ever increasing face of incontrovertible proof to the contrary, they virulently support a failed pseudo-science, clinging to nothing more than their faith.

  4. Correction; when you politicize science, you do not get either scientific politics or politicized science. You get politics, because bad money pushes out good.

    #Time_To_Defund_Climatology

  5. Love the humor and the piling on is tempting, but the reality is just as funny though not in the ha-ha way. That is, not only did they torture all meaning out of the numbers while working behind the curtain, they promptly destroyed the magic machine AND the original data! Somebody should be looking at a few really hilarious years in jail for doing this on the public dime.

  6. “‘I learned that the computer used to process the software had suffered a complete failure.’ The reason for the failure is unknown, but it means the Pausebuster paper can never be replicated or verified by other scientists.”

    The dog ate my homework!

    GIGO

  7. Trump is looking to downsize the Federal bureaucracy.

    I can tell him some “scientists” with whom he should start.

    Seriously guys, when you have to “adjust” the data to match the theory you’re doing science all wrong.

  8. If only they’d been doing something harmless….like watching midget porn or something instead of doing their jobs. Definitely a place to start cutting budgets.

  9. I ran across this paper on serious problems with the methodology used in some branches of macro economics: https://paulromer.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/WP-Trouble.pdf
    The guy basically says that they are making up it up as they go along, and ‘they’ are very important, highly regarded academic economists. A section of the paper seemed germane to this discussion, a quote describing the seven characteristics of string theorists (string theory being a branch of physics sometimes attacked for not being subject to experiment):

    1. Tremendous self-confidence
    2. An unusually monolithic community
    3. A sense of identification with the group akin to identification with a religious
    faith or political platform
    4. A strong sense of the boundary between the group and other experts
    5. A disregard for and disinterest in ideas, opinions, and work of experts who are
    not part of the group
    6. A tendency to interpret evidence optimistically, to believe exaggerated or
    incomplete statements of results, and to disregard the possibility that the theory
    might be wrong
    7. A lack of appreciation for the extent to which a research program ought to
    involve risk

    The risk in #7 seems to be that the researcher is wrong, e.g., he is doing research to find answers, but he has a strong preference or belief that certain answers result from the research.

  10. Today’s headline:

    A massive lake of molten carbon the size of Mexico is discovered under the US, and it could cause climate CHAOS
    Situated under western US, 217 miles (350km) beneath the Earth’s surface
    Scientists used world’s largest array of seismic sensors to map area
    Melting carbon covers an area of 700,000 sq miles (1.8 million sq km)
    Upper mantle could contain up to 100 trillion metric tonnes of melted carbon
    Its discovery challenges what researchers have assumed about how much carbon is trapped inside the planet

    My, my, my… Can we now officially call the “consensus AGW scientists” members of the flat-earth society?

Leave a Reply