A long read but good.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf (http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf)
Supports my main beef with computerized climate models which is that they're necessarily based on an incomplete understanding of the climate. Since the models are faulty the results they produce are worthless.
Quote from: arpad on August 02, 2011, 06:40:01 AM
Supports my main beef with computerized climate models which is that they're necessarily based on an incomplete understanding of the climate. Since the models are faulty the results they produce are worthless.
See, the modern approach (as you can see documented on WUWT and ClimateAudit - both skeptic sites) is that when a warming climate model and observational data conflict, the model is assumed correct.
When theory and reality disagree, you must accept the theory.
About as far down the "room 101" metaphor as you can get - theory must trump reality for otherwise the theory must be wrong, and that simply cannot be!
Quote from: Shanghai Dan on August 02, 2011, 04:15:44 PM
See, the modern approach (as you can see documented on WUWT and ClimateAudit - both skeptic sites) is that when a warming climate model and observational data conflict, the model is assumed correct.
When theory and reality disagree, you must accept the theory.
About as far down the "room 101" metaphor as you can get - theory must trump reality for otherwise the theory must be wrong, and that simply cannot be!
The funny thing is that this sort of trying to twist the facts to fit the narrative starts to become a phenomenon worthy of scientific investigation in itself; why would intelligent, rational people relentlessly promote a hypothesis that's been repeatedly and thoroughly disproven?
Quote from: arpad on August 03, 2011, 09:01:19 AM
The funny thing is that this sort of trying to twist the facts to fit the narrative starts to become a phenomenon worthy of scientific psychiatric evaluation and case study in itself; why would intelligent, rational people relentlessly promote a hypothesis that's been repeatedly and thoroughly disproven?
Fixed it for ya. ;)
Whats that saying about repeating the same mistake over and over? ;D
Nope.
I'll stick with my original sentence. I've known enough in the way of utterly doctrinaire lefties who are accomplished adults by any reasonable measure - professionally well though of, raised families, intelligent, capable even personable as long as politics didn't raise its head. And I've seen people in need of psychiatric intervention. The difference is pretty clear.
All that "liberalism is a mental disorder" crap is just name-calling accomplishing no more and meaning no more then a chimp flinging scats.
Since knowing is almost always better then not knowing a clear understanding of what motivates liberals, and how liberals differ from conservatives, can't help but be an advantage in dealing with liberals.