“Stephen Hayward at the University of Colorado”
——————
With reference to the passage headed above, this is an extraordinary book documenting the implementation of a full-on code of political correctness at Stanford Uni at the end of the 80s. It’s horrifying.
The Diversity Myth: Multiculturalism and the Politics of Intolerance at Stanford
Fox-Genovese, Elizabeth
Eric pulls a Mosher. If you settle down a little, Eric, I think you actually know the difference between how the word “faith” is used vs “science.”
It can’t be Easter or Google would have their logo all decorated with spiffy eggs and bunnies and stuff. I think it must be next Sunday.
People easily forget that attempts to control speech spill over into other areas as well. They go along with arrests of people for bad thoughts (communism, radical islam, etc). It can go farther, in the Ming dynasty in china, every aspect of life was regimented, from clothing styles to housing, all in the name of “order” and “harmony”. Current progressive ideas include rigid dictating of what food can be served in schools, moves toward racial/gender quotas in hiring, regimented national school curricula, an attempt to put observers in newspaper editorial offices to check on “balance”, and on and on. The police vigorously object to being photographed and often arrest people who photograph them even in states where it is not illegal. Politicians and campus admins want to stop people who criticize them or make fun of them, and have sent the police after bloggers or twitterers who put out satire or criticism. It isn’t just about speech.
The guy who puts up the theme logos must be off today because of the holiday. ;)
Andrew
phatboy, I see that as a growing trend regardless of other factors. It doesn’t take large sections of glacier sliding into the sea to make this a serious problem. If the trend continues to double every 5 years, like it has for the last 10, that is a problem enough. However, that doubling rate would be unsustainable because Greenland would be all melted in 50 years if it persisted, with a 10 meter sea-level rise. That’s just where the current downward curve points by exponential extrapolation. No one has said this can happen, which may be reassuring.
Pekka,
As I pointed out here on a blog some months ago, an idealogue like Gov Jerry Brown doesn’t care about the consequences only enforcement of the rules in his self interest. His Air Resources Board is enforcing the rules for air quality and it capped the cement industry from further production. Most of the cement has to be imported from China or other states. Brown wants to build a super train that will require, more than anything else, a lot of cement. Even though it will require much greater harm to air quaulity due to importation he insists on the policy just to maintain control. The cement company doesn’ t care as it has a vested interest in Chinese cement as well.This is all about control not about the public interest.
RobertInAz | April 18, 2014 at 10:16 pm |
“Similarly, you have no basis for your conviction this all happens in decades rather than centuries. ”
See, there’s the difference between me and thee, between Science and Fingoism: I say what inference from observation shows most simply, parsimoniously and universally to be accurate or very nearly true; you make crap up out of your hat.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/03/01/biosci.biu016.full
http://envirolaw.com/climate-change-gardens/
In nature, the assumption of equipartition is invariably wrong. We must admit that some sigmoid effect is likely, and thus that the shifts we have seen to date may be prelude to an exponential rise at some unknowable date for some unknowable duration. There is far more ample evidence for this than I could possibly cite, as this is the inference one may draw from all available evidence.
Timescale is a thing. It is not the only thing.
In a parallel universe to our own, there is a special Nobel Prize for admitting you got it wrong.
There the climate scientists are also worried about CO2 and global warming but their ambition to be a Nobel laureate means they are scrupulously honest about what they know, what they don’t know, what is fact and what is theory. The result? They get the money they need. Science gets the respect it needs.
If the price of solar becomes competitive with fossil fuels, it will start replacing fossil fuels (that pesky law of supply and demand). However since it is not competitive now, building now is not cost competitive regardless of when it does become competitive.
George Turner | April 20, 2014 at 4:58 pm |
IR bands in CO2 are noted for their broadening power, in particular in air. http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/p72-353#.U1VEej9OXcs discusses this phenomenon. In effect, CO2 bands are nonperishing, and while there is a logarithmic relationship it is a very low logarithmic effect at present concentrations.
You’re simply exaggerating a real effect not likely to have any impact. Which sounds familiar.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033589497919189
The evidence suggests 15-26 thousand years for the duration of interglacial periods. Maybe you have a source you can cite with observations and inference that shortens this range by 50% to 90%?
Handel,
One word response is all that’s required – feedback.
Scottish skeptic, you write “what I should have added is that they don’t say anything when there aren’t any facts (i.e. data, tests. etc).”
I agree, and I also agree we are not really in disagreement.
WebHubTelescope asks “A common theme is … iconoclastic scientists that produced good research early in their careers, then wigged out later.”
LOL … Nobelist Brian Josephson!
Josephson has repeatedly criticized the practice of “science by consensus,” arguing that the scientific community is too quick to reject certain kinds of ideas.Among the fringe-science ideas that Brian Josephson has embraced: parapsychology, telepathy, levitation, remote viewing, psychokinesis, transcendental meditation, cold fusion, homeopathy.
Conclusion Most commonly, consensus-science has proven to be just plain right, and fringe-science has proven to be just plain wrong.
Guess your sense of humor just escapes me Bart.
Was Fred Hoyle a maverick?
Rejected scientific consensus. Check. Shot from the hip while visiting another branch of science while on a bus tour. Check.
Sounds sort of like Freeman Dyson.
Well, guess we’ll agree to disagree then Antonio. Requiring participants meet requirements to participate is, well, dumb IMO.
climatereason | April 21, 2014 at 11:36 am |
Oh. I get it. You meant to misstate your probabilities by orders of magnitude as a joke. No, really, officer, I was only swerving all over the road to kid with my passengers, who get my sense of humor.
You cherry picked with your tongue firmly in cheek, but only for RGates, and not for the rest of us, who you now readily agree your figures were not just framed differently but completely wrongly?
No, you don’t. You’re rationalizing, and not particularly well.
I don’t for a second suggest your politicians are spending your tax dollars terribly well. Perhaps it’s lead in the pipes or too much socialism, or an upbringing in an inferior educational system, that makes your politicians such terrible money managers. I don’t know, and as I’m not living in your country, don’t care to become embroiled in debates that should happen in your democracy among your people, without foreign interjection.
But to blame bad money decisions by politicians on scientific fact, while presenting some of the most overblown innumeracy I’ve ever seen outside of Star Trek, just does not inspire much confidence that democracy will soon fix what’s wrong with your government, if you are representative of the logic brought to political debate on your side of the Atlantic.
Science has always been personalized.
OT, but this may be interesting to read
http://www.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/en/news/features/feature7
“The controversy surrounding the theory of relativity was exceptionally heated. In many pamphlets one finds what might be described as a martial rhetoric of damnation; his opponents also staged acts of protest that sought to inflame public opinion against Einstein’s work. A complex process of marginalization and protest helps to account for the heated responses to Einstein’s theory.
Non-academic researchers like Patschke announced public lectures, submitted essays, and tried to establish contact with Einstein and other leading scholars in order to warn them—as well-intentioned colleagues—of the falsehood of the theory of relativity and to convince them of the veracity of their own scientific worldviews. Patschke and others like him were often simply ignored; in other instances, it was patiently explained how their criticisms of the theory of relativity had completely missed the mark. But because their observations were anchored in specific worldviews, Patschke and his associates were immune to this type of criticism. Einstein’s opponents were simply not prepared to question their own worldviews and instead sought alternative explanations for why their objections were disregarded by the academics. With time, many turned to conspiracy to account for their marginal status: plots favoring Einstein, so they imagined, explained his success and their marginalization. Having reached this point, any sort of resolution of the controversy had become impossible.”
“Fact: The rate of warming form 1900 to 1945 was higher than the rate of warming from 1945 to 2014″
———
Your numbers are very close to AR5. Box 2.2. Table1 shows
1901-1950 0.107C/decade
1951-2012 0.106C/decade
![\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}](http://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=%5Cscriptstyle%5Crule%5B2.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D%5C%2C%5Cboldsymbol%7B%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%7B%5Cdisplaystyle%5Ctext%7B%5Cbfseries%21%21%21%7D%7D%5C%2C%5Cheartsuit%5C%2C%5Coverset%7B%5Cscriptstyle%5Ccirc%5Cwedge%5Ccirc%7D%7B%5Csmile%7D%7D%5C+%5Crule%5B-0.25ex%5D%7B0.01pt%7D%7B0.01pt%7D&bg=ccffdd&fg=0055ff&s=2 "\scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}")
