Anecdotal Evidence Is Still Evidence; Or, She Didn’t Blind Me With Science

John Derbyshire recently reiterated his belief that global warming is indeed occurring. Derbyshire is more than a curmudgeon, he’s sort of a contrarian. One of his great joys is throwing cold water on conservatives, or what passes for conservatives, as of course the title of his book “We Are Doomed” tells you.

The real thing about Derbyshire though is that he replaces his lost faith in God with a pretty strong faith in science. He writes a lot about math, is quite intelligent, and yet needing to believe in something, as people do, he needs to believe in science a little too much.

Well, you say, we know the soft sciences, the social sciences, are unreliable, but the hard sciences- physics, chemistry, and in this case meteorology, which is simply physics applied to the gases of the atmosphere, are all pretty solid right? Physics as typically understood is solid, but the theoretical and experimental physics that excites journalists like Derbyshire is mostly just that, theoretical and experimental. They need theories to explain the theories, and theories to explain the results of the experiments, then more theories and more experiments, apparently without end. Physics has been working on a unified theory of things for about a hundred years, and they are still working on it.

Still that’s better than the statistical base of meteorology. Statistics in meteorology are no safer from corruption than statistics in sociology. The “credentialed experts” of which Derbyshire speaks want to keep their jobs and not get their tires slashed, so they will subconsciously or consciously come up with the right answer.

Notice how a few years ago they switched the terminology from “global warming” to “climate change”. People began noticing severe winter storms, which didn’t seem to match with the global warming hysteria. The explanation became that global warming caused changed in the weather so that the climate was more severe, so that the fact it was colder was proof, solid scientific proof, that it was getting warmer, and if you didn’t believe that it was just proof you are a COMPLETE MORON.

Last winter in the upper Midwest was bad, and this one is brutal. The one before that was fairly warm, so the obvious trend for anybody actually observing is that it is getting colder. No statistics from a leftist source can be trusted- in fact they must assumed to be false- so I have more faith in my own personal observations than what Michael Mann is saying. Even when caught lying, he tells you to shut up, which is the true sign of a bully and a Stalinist scumbag.

If you are a modestly intelligent person and your personal observations contradict what “science” tells you, you can safely assume the science to be contrived.

Advertisements

About thrasymachus33308

I like fast cars, fast women and southern-fried rock. I have an ongoing beef with George Orwell. I take my name from a character in Plato's "Republic" who was exasperated with the kind of turgid BS that passed for deep thought and political discourse in that time and place, just as I am today. The character, whose name means "fierce fighter" was based on a real person but nobody knows for sure what his actual political beliefs were. I take my pseudonym from a character in an Adam Sandler song who was a obnoxious jerk who pissed off everybody.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Anecdotal Evidence Is Still Evidence; Or, She Didn’t Blind Me With Science

  1. Hizzle says:

    To further apply religious thinking to science with regard to Global Warming, Pascal’s wager should come into play past a certain point. Even if you disagree with anthropogenic warming, doing the things that would improve the atmosphere ( lowering Co2 emissions, etc.) would improve the quality of atmosphere, and cut down on the non-debatable, scientifically proven costs of pollution like lung cancer and emphysema. I don’t know whether or not you come down on the side of the “peak oilers” like James Kunstler (I think Mindweapon is one of them), but our present arrangement probably isn’t sustainable anyway, and while I’m no prepper, I think we’re in the waning years of our techno-heavy civilization, and that we’re probably not going to have an endless stream of cars going down Ike Eisenhower’s autobahn for much longer, anyway.

  2. Ryu says:

    Do you read Tex Arcane Thrashy?

    He’s one of the strongest bloggers you aren’t yet reading. He’s looking for a cooling.

  3. RS says:

    I’ll agree that future climatology is pretty soft science, as far as I can tell. But the idea that it can get warmer globally, while cooling in some places, is not paradoxical. If there were no oceans, and more especially no atmosphere, then it would clearly be paradoxical.

    What I’ve vaguely garnered is that the warming is supposedly much stronger in the arctic, and that relative warmth up there can possibly weaken the dynamics that usually keep fresh-from-the-arctic air out of the USA. I don’t know if that’s true, but it is intelligible.

    I’ll also agree with your larger point that science has plenty of groupthink. It always has, and there can be little doubt that it’s gotten worse. The only stance I find absurd is the one that says there is almost no real science at all anymore.

  4. alfin2101 says:

    Applying Pascal’s wager to the climate question requires more than a little “begging the question,” in the classical logic sense. You have to assume that CO2 is bad for the atmosphere, which is really what still remains to be proven. Hence, “begging the question.”

    Derbyshire is just too lazy to learn enough about the genuine science that affects climate. He has gone “beyond the pale” on so many issues and been attacked for it, that he wants to find at least one belief haven where he feels safe from attack. Maybe he’s dating a low-rent pro who believes in global warming catastrophe? Domestic bliss through meaningless accommodation, and all that. Simple hypocritical going along to get along.

    Unless you make your living on climate grants or other ways of milking the climate establishment, you have to be total nuts to believe strongly in anthropogenic hothouse catastrophe. What little genuine science that still remains attached to the climate enterprise is keeping its head down, pulling its punches, and hoping to get a few more grants before the bottom falls out.

  5. Pingback: I am NOT a Lab Rat! | ADD . . . and-so-much-more

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s