Climate change consensus

[Leonhard]

Those are just the ones who got caught. And another question, who is actually reviewing these 25,000,000 papers? Who has the time or expertize? How many scientists, who even understand a particular field, are actually peer reviewing this overwhelming mountain of papers in said field. But back to my larger point - scientists are just as human as the rest of us, just as susceptible to fraud, greed or misdirection.

Its not going to be a very fruitful argument if you're trying to argue persuasively that Global Warming is false, by arguing that Science is so corrupt that we can't take its results seriously.

[seer]

Its not going to be a very fruitful argument if you're trying to argue persuasively that Global Warming is false, by arguing that Science is so corrupt that we can't take its results seriously.

I wasn't arguing that GW is false. I'm arguing against the "tyranny of the experts." My goodness, just last week the experts were telling us that New York City was going to get the blizzard of the century. They got a few inches. And the fact is Leonhard a lot of science is corrupt because inherently corrupt men are doing science.

[Leonhard]

My goodness, just last week the experts were telling us that New York City was going to get the blizzard of the century.

Are you sure these were experts and not merely newsreporters, because the latter tend to blow up stories and don't mention the uncertainties that experts include.

[Roy]

Are you sure these were experts and not merely newsreporters, because the latter tend to blow up stories and don't mention the uncertainties that experts include.

You think he can tell the difference?

[seer]

Are you sure these were experts and not merely newsreporters, because the latter tend to blow up stories and don't mention the uncertainties that experts include.

Nope, unless the National Weather Service is populated by reporters.

[Leonhard]

Nope, unless the National Weather Service is populated by reporters.

Would love a reference. Its never good when predictions go overboard, but weather services are a somewhat different affair than the technically rich language of sciencefic reports. Its often the case that false precision and overstatements of the case ends up falling through.

[seer]

Would love a reference. Its never good when predictions go overboard, but weather services are a somewhat different affair than the technically rich language of sciencefic reports. Its often the case that false precision and overstatements of the case ends up falling through.

http://www.providencejournal.com/new...apologizes.ece

While Philadelphia, New York and New Jersey had braced for a foot or two of snow from what forecasters warned could be a storm of potentially historic proportions, they got far less than that. New York City received about 8 inches, Philadelphia a mere inch or so. New Jersey got up to 8 inches. A National Weather Service forecaster in Mount Holly, N.U. apologized on Twitter for the off-target forecast."You made a lot of tough decisions expecting us to get it right, and we didn't. Once again, I'm sorry," Gary Szatkowski tweeted. Jim Bunker at the agency's Mount Holly office said forecasters will take a closer look at how they handled the storm and "see what we can do better next time."

BTW this forecast was the result of "computer modeling." And cost NYC over 200 million in lost commerce.

[shunyadragon]

I wasn't arguing that GW is false. I'm arguing against the "tyranny of the experts." My goodness, just last week the experts were telling us that New York City was going to get the blizzard of the century. They got a few inches. And the fact is Leonhard a lot of science is corrupt because inherently corrupt men are doing science.

Your misinterpreting the weather forecast of the storm. New York City was predicted to get 9" to ~24." As is normal for the range of predictions, Central New York City got 9", thirty miles west got 32", Long Island got variable amounts from 10" to over 30" and over the whole area to the northeast of New York the snow fall levels ranged from 9" to over four feet.

[Leonhard]

http://www.providencejournal.com/new...apologizes.ece

Okay, this is a report, of the afterevents following the initial report. Where's the initial report... and this does look like a news service. Weather services while they employ meteroligists, don't send out a technical pdf file to people. They have a newsman or newswoman read out the expectations in a simple and easily digestible format.

BTW this forecast was the result of "computer modeling." And cost NYC over 200 million in lost commerce.

I'm not sure what the need is for scare quotes. Was it computer modelling, or wasn't it? Short term, local simulations have various limitations Seer. We all know the limitations of a seven day forecast, to say nothing of a month long forecast. Sometimes I wish they'd post percentages to indicate the chance of various events.

[TheLurch]

I'm arguing against the "tyranny of the experts."

Would you rather see a tyranny of the incompetents? Yes, experts are not always right. But they're much more likely to be right than anybody else.

[Leonhard]

Would you rather see a tyranny of the incompetents? Yes, experts are not always right. But they're much more likely to be right than anybody else.

There's a suspicion of the scientific establishment among some conservatives which I really don't get. It was the opposite in the seventies. If you were a scientist or an engineer back then, you were usually a conservative.

[phank]

There's a suspicion of the scientific establishment among some conservatives which I really don't get. It was the opposite in the seventies. If you were a scientist or an engineer back then, you were usually a conservative.

When scientists predict things conservatives don't want to accept, THEN science is a corrupt enterprise.

[Leonhard]

When scientists predict things conservatives don't want to accept, THEN science is a corrupt enterprise.

Hmmm, I think this isn't a charitable take on why conservatives don't like Global Warming. I think it has more to do with how the liberal left has co-opted it as part of their political platform somehow.

[pancreasman]

When scientists predict things conservatives don't want to accept, THEN science is a corrupt enterprise.

It's alarming but I think you're on the right track here. Of course it's just a human trait. I'm sure progressives regard science that conflicts with their world view suspiciously.

[seer]

Your misinterpreting the weather forecast of the storm. New York City was predicted to get 9" to ~24." As is normal for the range of predictions, Central New York City got 9", thirty miles west got 32", Long Island got variable amounts from 10" to over 30" and over the whole area to the northeast of New York the snow fall levels ranged from 9" to over four feet.

Gee Shuny, then why did the National Weather Service forecaster apologize ifthey we on target? And should I begin to point out where computer models got the forecast completely wrong?