Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

use Perl Log In

Log In

[ Create a new account ]

n1vux (1492)

n1vux
  (email not shown publicly)
http://boston.pm ... x.cgi?BillRicker
AOL IM: n1vux (Add Buddy, Send Message)
Yahoo! ID: n1vux (Add User, Send Message)

Only started with Perl4 and Perl5 in 1995. I was doing AWK etc for 12 years before that, and resisted switching. I've been doing OO since before C++ hit bigtime, with Objective-C and SmallTalk, so I really like the (no longer new) Perl5 OO style; and the Lispish Map style is also an old friend. What do I hack with Perl? All data that passes my way; systems monitoring scripts at $DayJob, weather data at night, and I cheat on NPR word puzzles. Member: Boston.pm.org [pm.org] BLU.org [blu.org] /. LinkedIn [linkedin.com]

N1VUX is my FCC-issued ham radio callsign.

Journal of n1vux (1492)

Thursday February 24, 2005
10:42 PM

Science News in WSJ !? Global Warming yes, Hockey Stick no

[ #23371 ]
Monday, Feb 14 WSJ had Real Science on Page 1, Column #1!

Finally seeing some Main-stream media ("MSM" in blogspeak) attention to McIntyre & McKitrick's critique of the politicaly correct but scientificly suspect MBH hockeystick paper.

Science requires reproducibility. Not disclosing all the data and not disclosing your algorithm makes the political hockeystick graphics just that, political graphics. Science must have higher standards. Failure to hold climate science to the standards of science plays into the hands of the professional ostriches (and their chorus of not proved).

Polictical correctness has no place in science. Knee-jerk support for Mann et al is endangers the entire environmentalist agenda. We need a competent analysis that demonstrates the real trends, but includes medeival warm period and litlte ice age, and doesn't produce hockey-sticks from random input.

Moberg's recent study and borehole series are more plausible and in agreement; and the Scripps study (Note that M+M acknowledge Moberg looks interesting and independent.)

Both sides are engaged in whacking straw dogs (with hockey sticks) This WSJ article is mostly good news, the folks speaking out have finally been meard by the Main Stream Media. The fair-and-balanced tone of course results in their being too fair to the "we're on the side of right so it doesn't matter if the math is bad" folks. Argument Ad Hominem has no place in science ... didn't in Galileo's time either, of course ...

Pollution *is* bad, but MBH was bad "science" and Kyoto was bad policy. Assuming China won't increase pollution even faster than their internal consumption growth and improved standard of living to absorb even more manufaturing to offset Western Kyoto cuts is absurd, the laws of Economy can be outlawed by treaty no more effectively than the law of gravity could be repealed.

Putting policy ahead of evidence is the death of science, and may set back the policy when discovered.

References

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • See http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp Basically this guy has a working model to predict weather. He points out that most people overlook that the moon is the giant gravitic stirrer of the thick soup we call the atmosphere, and so it's swirling can be predicted by looking at the interference patterns of its various cycles (primarily phase and apogee/perigee, but also declination). His model also explains and predicts larger effects like El Niño.