Monthly Archives: May 2010

Okay, so one of the common retorts to the various nitpicking of models of Anthropogenic Global Warming is, “you can’t just tell us we’re wrong, YOU need to come up with a better model!” Â This is often followed by pithy statements about how much they look forward to your decades of peer reviewed research and publication. Â This fails the bullshit test.

Science does not require us to offer up a superior explanation for our observations in order for us to know that your explanation is bullshit. Â All we need to do is show you that you made a mistake, and that your idea is wrong. Â Similar to a murder trial, we don’t expect the defendant to find the real murderer before we are able to declare him “not guilty” – all the defendant must do is show that it was impossible for them to have been the killer.

So if someone finds out that your surface temperature record is flawed, or your computer model has unjustified fudge factors built into it, or that your basic logic of cause and effect is refuted by historical evidence, “But where’s YOUR model?” is not a useful response. Â This may seem like an unfair advantage to the skeptic, but it’s critical to the advancement of knowledge and understanding. Â The burden of proof lies with the affirmative, and if someone is trying to say that CO2 generated by human activity is causing any particular change to average global temperature, they’re the ones on the hook.

Of course, some clever fool might try to rephrase the affirmative, stating, “your hypothesis is that all warming is natural, so you prove it!”, but this is a misunderstanding about what the null hypothesis should be in this case, and whether or not the affirmative hypothesis of “natural warming” or the affirmative hypothesis of “human caused warming” intersect with each other in any useful way. Â For example, even if we couldn’t prove that all warming is natural, the world isn’t simply split into “natural” and “human” – it could be due to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and not having definitive proof that it is simply natural does not mean that any far fetched hypothesis (be it humans or spaghetti) is true.

Science is supposed to be about filling in the gaps, and it may seem like proving someone else’s model is wrong without providing a better model for them to follow only increases ignorance, but this simply isn’t so. Â Knowing what is NOT true is knowledge, and understanding the bounds of our ignorance by that measure does help us move forward. Â What increases ignorance is the insistence that a model, known to be false in any number of ways, should still be considered true in the absence of a better idea. Â It is an abrogation of the need to go any further, since a ready explanation is there for the taking.

So for all you happy-dappy AGW folks, give me your falsifiable hypothesis, and then you’re doing real science. Â Insist that you win by default because I have no detailed alternative, and you’re just another creationist arguing over gaps in the fossil record.

05May 2010

Random rants

by jere ⋅ Leave a Comment

Science is the rigorous application of skepticism. Until the high priests of the Church of Global Warming put up a falsifiable hypothesis, they’re simply religious zealots, not scientists.

Lincoln was an ass. Far from being the “Great Emancipator”, this guy did things that would make Hitler blush. I’m all happy that slavery ended, and that after a period of only about 100 years after the fall of the CSA that we finally got around to a Civil Rights movement, but as patriotic as I am, I simply have a difficult time condoning the actions of a war mongering despot. My current dilemma is that I like centralized government when it does stuff like enforce equal rights (rights, not outcomes mind you – affirmative action is racism), but I definitely don’t like centralized government when it does stuff like force every man, woman and child to gamble on health insurance. I’ve yet to imagine a system that allows for a strong central government to protect rights, without also giving it the power to destroy rights, but maybe it’s out there somewhere.

Speaking of which, ObamaCare sucks. One can only hope the fast track to the SCOTUS will quickly bring it to an abrupt end, but in the meantime, welcome to higher costs, less care, and Mrs. Obama screwing yet another generation of children by telling them to avoid eating fat, and enjoy eating lots of carby whole grains and veggies. Please, think about the children!

Last note, 24 has seriously started chasing the pigeon. Haven’t watched the latest episode, but if they don’t kill Starbuck with a blender or something soon, I’m going to throw up in my mouth. Seriously, guys, the super soviet agent got conned by a small town hick violating parole? Continuity people, it’s worth it.