Still Yet Another Batch of Climate-Change Links
Noteworthy stuff I’ve been reading over the last few days:
- Peter Gleick and the Heartland Institute Expose – Ann Carlson at the Legal Planet blog.
- Climate “skepticism,” ideology, and sincerity – Sean Hecht in the same Legal Planet blog.
- Cigarettes’ lessons for climate change – Auden Schendler’s op-ed in the LA Times.
- A Hawk Goes Off Message – Keith Kloor at Collide-a-Scape.
- Adapt, Non-negotiable – Barbara Tomlinson at Spasms of Accommodation, which she’s temporarily renamed to “The Small Year”.
No time for more commentary at the moment; I’m focusing my available time on the ridiculous imaginary trial of Peter Gleick.
March 7th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
I’ve asked this before but why does Dunning have to only apply to skeptics only? I know your answer is going to be, the experts are on your side only so unskilled must be the skeptics. The fault with this logic is is only considers two sets, skeptics and alarmists. Now we don’t have to get into the three dimensional model, not the two dimensional, not even a single dimension line to understand the fallacy of this logic. We can leave it an us against them two distinct sets model if we understand there are more than one set of sets.
When you simplify a complex issue to only two possibilities there will be a certain percentage of experts that need to agree for there to be a consensus considered. In the case of the Dunning study they tossed out one of the experts in the comedy portion because he or she was so far out of the mainstream he or she was going to disrupt the baseline.otherwise they were all of the same opinion of what constituted a funny joke (I thought the jokes on both sides of the spectrum sucked, but humor is so subjective)(so much so I didn’t think it belonged in this study). The fallacy in your logic is there is more to this than just climate scientists. So let’s say 90% of climate scientists agree with the alarmists but a majority of computer model experts, and/or statistician’s or scientists in other fields agree with skeptics where does that leave us? That leaves us with the basis of the climate scientists theory on shaky ground, it doesn’t matter if they all agree if the data they are all agreeing on is corrupt.
This brings us back to Dunning, that would mean the unskilled alarmists are going against the experts in the areas that for the base of the climate scientists making the alarmists just as susceptible to Dunning as the skeptics.
As a side note, I agree with Dunning Kruger’s conclusions but didn’t agree with their methodology mush on several different levels. I will say though that it was refreshing to see a little humor in a scientific study, I really liked the golf ball hitting the ’93 Taurus.
March 8th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
This all part of what appears to be a coordinated right-wing attack on women:
http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/0305womenstimeline_big2.gif
Again, the reason I care so much is because a) I love women, especially strong and healthy ones and b) I don’t want this right-wing ooze spreading North.
Although if the right-wing tried that shit up here I’m pretty sure I’d know what would happen. But still.
March 9th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I read an article on Huffington that said Fluke cried in the hallway when Issa wouldn’t let her testify that her friend might go through early menopause and may not be able to bear children because no one would pay for her birth control medication. It seems like Issa made the right call. It wouldn’t be the Republican way to listen to someone whine that they couldn’t have children because they didn’t want to spend $80 dollars a month, let her go blubber to the Democrats. Good lord is this what the greatest country in the world has come to? You know what, if she can’t find $80 a month to have the kid she probably shouldn’t have them. We find that true with our dogs, if people can’t afford $1,200 for a puppy, they probably can’t afford to take them to the vet when needed.
I wonder how long this poor law student act can hold up as long as she has high priced PR people like Anita Dunn in her entourage.
March 12th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
Actually NL, rush has been in quite a bit of trouble here and there what with his having prescriptions filled out to other people for viagra and oxycontin. I’m pretty sure he bought the hill billy heroin off his maid and anyone else he could get to falsify a scrip to feed his junky habit. But this is the leader of the GOP, the guiding light of conservatism, the big fat douchebag of liberty! huzzah
‘religious freedom vs greed or lazy socialism’
riiiiight
Mal-informed is being kind. Right wing nut jobs stuff so much bullshit nonsense in their Dunning-Kruger processor there simply isn’t any room for reality any more. But of course everyone else is the problem, see? Stoopid libs! Morans!
March 12th, 2012 at 2:02 pm
The catholic church is paying the premiums therfore they should be able to determine the coverage
March 12th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
hey lil ricky
say we’ve known each other for quite a while now. You have a pet name for me and all. In the grand spirit of comity that seems to be the order of the day around here, would it be OK if we had a pet name for you ol wrong wing nut job? Instead of ricky, I bet everyone (for obvious reasons) calls you Dick.
Or DK, for Dunning/Kruger (pronounced “Dick”)
Sounds like a fitting nick for you ol chap.
March 12th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
What does a church paying taxes have to do with this subject? If they paid taxes would this situation be any different? I’m just trying to get you to understand there is more than one party with “rights” here.
March 12th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
I’ve never gone by Dick, I have a big biker friend that does, I could introduce you. I’ve gone by Rick, Ricky, Richard, Boss, Cuz, Mister Mayer,but never Dick. But you’ll call me whatever you will.
March 12th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
I’ve also been called The Wizard, you can call me that if you like.
March 12th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I think Dick is perfect.
Fitting.