dennislmay

APS and the Global Warming Scam

856 posts in this topic

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office". D.H.

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". D.H.

 

"Now Hume has shown that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism". (not known)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T

10 hours ago, anthony said:

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office". D.H.

"It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". D.H.

 

"Now Hume has shown that empiricism inevitably leads to an utter and total skepticism". (not known)

The first is not a denial of knowledge.  It places passion before reason in the hierarchy of motives.  

Preferring the destruction of the world to the injury to one's finger is NOT a logical contradiction,  but it is perverse

Scientists are motivated (so that tell us) by curiosity  which  is a passion.  Any problem with that?

Whoever said empiricism leads to a denial of knowledge or the capability of knowing  is just plain wrong.  Empiricism puts greater weight or reliance on what is perceived  as compared to what is assumed  as self evident.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Preferring the destruction of the world to the injury to one's finger is NOT a logical contradiction,  but it is perverse

You can't prove it's perverse. That's just your opinion.

Greg would tell us we need God to tell us it's perverse.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jts said:

You can't prove it's perverse. That's just your opinion.

Greg would tell us we need God to tell us it's perverse.

 

That is true.  I think such a wish is perverse.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2017 at 1:46 PM, william.scherk said:

I think that Objectivist epistemology is as good as any for approaching a scientific discipline. One does have to understand the hierarchies of science and some of its production facilities.   For example, I might call Person X a climate scientist,  correctly, but that doesn't tell anyone what Person X actually studies -- she might be rooted in geology, he might be rooted in atmospheric physics, he might be in the field of radiative transfer, she might be (like Curry) a specialist in one region or other -- an expert in the subfield of Arctic sea-air circulation. Where do they publish, when do they give public talks, under what conditions do they testify to 'the state of knowledge' in fields slightly beyond their focus?

Add to this ... where might Curry's (or any researcher on Arctic climate) research data be made available to the public, and to other inquirers (cf the 'open data movement)?

It depends ...

Quote

As an Arctic researcher, I’m used to gaps in data. Just over 1% of US Arctic waters have been surveyed to modern standards. In truth, some of the maps we use today haven’t been updated since the second world war. Navigating uncharted waters can prove difficult, but it comes with the territory of working in such a remote part of the world.

Over the past two months though, I’ve been navigating a different type of uncharted territory: the deleting of what little data we have by the Trump administration.

At first, the distress flare of lost data came as a surge of defunct links on 21 January. The US National Strategy for the Arctic, the Implementation Plan for the Strategy, and the report on our progress all gone within a matter of minutes. As I watched more and more links turned red, I frantically combed the internet for archived versions of our country’s most important polar policies. 

Since January, the surge has transformed into a slow, incessant march of deleting datasets, webpages and policies about the Arctic. I now come to expect a weekly email request to replace invalid citations, hoping that someone had the foresight to download statistics about Arctic permafrost thaw or renewable energy in advance of the purge. [...]

We’ve seen this type of data strangling before.

Just three years ago, Arctic researchers witnessed another world leader remove thousands of scientific documents from the public domain. In 2014, then Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper closed 11 department of fisheries and oceans regional libraries, including the only Arctic center. Hundreds of reports and studies containing well over a century of research were destroyed in that process – a historic loss from which we still have not recovered. 

These back-to-back data deletions come at a time when the Arctic is warming twice as fast as the global average. Just this week, it was reported that the Arctic’s winter sea ice dropped to its lowest level in recorded history. The impacts of a warming, ice-free Arctic are already clear: a decline in habitat for polar bears and other Arctic animals; increases in coastal erosion that force Alaskans to abandon their homes; and the opening up of shipping routes with unpredictable conditions and hazardous icebergs. 

In a remote region where data is already scarce, we need publicly available government guidance and records now more than ever before. It is hard enough for modern Arctic researchers to perform experiments and collect data to fill the gaps left by historic scientific expeditions. While working in one of the most physically demanding environments on the planet, we don’t have time to fill new data gaps created by political malice. 

So please, President Trump, stop deleting my citations.

144f9df2b0a14cbbfe85e3dd91d42ee8.jpg

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snatched from the jaws of the House Science Committee. 

Quote

Full Committee Hearing- Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

Date: 
Wednesday, March 29, 2017 - 10:00am
Location: 
2318 Rayburn House Office Building

Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method

Hearing Charter

Witnesses

Dr. Judith Curry

President, Climate Forecast Applications Network; Professor Emeritus, Georgia Institute of Technology

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. John Christy

Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center, NSSTC, University of Alabama at Huntsville; State Climatologist, Alabama

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Michael Mann

Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Pennsylvania State University; Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University

[Truth in Testimony]

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

Professor, Environmental Studies Department, University of Colorado

[Truth in Testimony]

 

115th Congress

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now