8 Replies to “Hot for Teacher”

1. J.M. Heinrichs says:

   July 1, 2002 at 11:22 pm

   You should note that the problem cited began with the original models, which were not ‘conformable’. So the blame can be laid to the originators: it’s the fault of Canada and the United Kingdom. Whew!

   Cheers

2. Andrew Northrup says:

   July 2, 2002 at 12:16 am

   Soooooooo.  Let me see if I’ve got this straight: global warming is a fraud because… they changed the false color scheme on a graph (which does not appear in the report at all, or at least the free web one, as near as I can tell.)

   Wow.

   That is literally <b>the</b> weakest, least thought-provoking, least substantive article on any subject I have ever read.  I’m really, completely, absolutely stunned that you can publish such unbelievable, vacuous nonsense, even on the internet.  I’ve seen MacGyver fanfic that is more deserving of publication and study.  I’ve seen cow shit that took more thought and effort to create, and were more convincing refutations of global warming.

   Dude, what the fuck is wrong with American Enterprise Institute?  <b>This</b> is the best propaganda money can buy?  Jeez – the science behind global warming is stronger than I thought.

3. Jeff G says:

   July 2, 2002 at 1:17 am

   Did I say “fraud”?  I meant to say “skeptical.”

   Oh, wait.  I <i>did</i> say “skeptical.” Thank goodness—I’d hate to come across as hysterical. 

   Now, why skeptical?  Because somebody had so little faith in what their evidence showed (or, so little faith in what they thought their evidence would be seen to show) that they changed the color scheme.

4. Toren says:

   July 2, 2002 at 2:38 am

   I’ve been commenting on this sort of thing for some time.  I originally planned to just post once on how shoddy the whole mess is, but David Appell at Quark Soup decided to “prove me wrong” and got me pissed with his fancy dancing and ad hominum attacks.  So I ended up doing more than a few GW posts.
   
   Fee free to check them out if you wish:
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_sproteus_archive.html#85130598
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_sproteus_archive.html#85133715
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_05_26_sproteus_archive.html#85135231
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_02_sproteus_archive.html#85149754
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_sproteus_archive.html#85151520
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_sproteus_archive.html#85156549
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_09_sproteus_archive.html#85170760
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_sproteus_archive.html#85175338
   
   http://sproteus.blogspot.com/2002_06_16_sproteus_archive.html#85189033
   
   Good lord, look at all those.  He really DID piss me off, didn’t he?

5. mobius1 says:

   July 2, 2002 at 1:13 pm

   regardless of all this tweaking, that does not change the fact that it is DEATH outside right now and that there is a LAKE in the middle of the polar ice cap.  if there’s no global warming, why is my skin melting off?

6. Jeff G says:

   July 2, 2002 at 2:01 pm

   That’s the same reasoning the Church used to employ:  “we are God’s special creations, so therefore the sun—an orb in our service—revolves around us.”

   We could be witnessing natural warming trends.  100 years of weather data is but a blip on the timeline, after all (Imagine drawing detailed interpretations of Moby Dick by pulling out a single phrase).  Yet we convince ourselves that we control larger weather patterns.  We may, we may not.  The question is, how much are we willing to sacrifice for a hunch?  Or better—what’s the best way to proceed in making changes.

7. Jim Muchow says:

   July 2, 2002 at 2:21 pm

   So let me get this straight… two models “are quite different and give different results”. The original graphics that clearly show the different results are muddled by a new set of graphics and Schulz proposes that this is intentional.

   So rather than deal with the discrepancies in results, Northrup complains that the idea of intentionally muddling the results is “unbelievable, vacuous nonsense”. On top of that, that someone even proposes a explanantion for this muddling is an apparent proof that “the science behind global warming is stronger than I thought”.

   Skeptical? You bet I am.

8. Toren says:

   July 2, 2002 at 7:18 pm

   Having read the article, and having also read Horthrup’s comment here and his silly post on the subject, I am led to only three possible conclusions:
   
   1.  He did not read the article.
   
   2.  He read it, but did not understand it.
   
   3.  He’s just an idiot.
   
   I was leaning towards 2 but having read his post, I think 3 is more likely.
   
   So which is it?
   
   Inquiring minds want to know.

Comments are closed.