Scientific Fraud

[bcollins]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?

This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.

That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.

Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.

Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.

But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.

Hmm.

Seems legit.

[walrus]

It doesn't matter half of everything is fake and all of what you see is false. It's all moot

[El Kabong]

Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? : NPR


SCIENCE!

What do you call a person who doesn't have the first inkling about science, yet disputes claims made by professional scientists using "facts" mostly gleaned from non-scientific media sources (who also know little about science, in general), quotes from politicians (and we all know the average intelligence level of that crew, now don't we?), and anti-science propaganda sources?

This may or may not be a rhetorical question. It's been over a year (close to two? I've been busy...) since I challenged Lyle to do a basic, high school level regression analysis based on publicly available data. I don't think he understand linear regression (which is not hard), yet he certainly has a greater understanding of something as complex as climatology than world experts in the field.

That's like me getting on here and claiming that I know more about boxing than everyone in the Hall of Fame. It's a joke.

Yep, complex dynamical systems and the numerical and computational methods needed to analyze them are no problem for Lyle, especially since he avoids anything even vaguely resembling something of substance. Instead the response we typically get is a flood of questionable, clearly biased links to the types of sources mentioned earlier along with copious amounts of eye-rolling at the ignorance of everyone who doesn't agree with him. Not once has he provided anything even resembling a scientific counter-argument - that I would respect, and pay attention to. Instead, we get more propaganda and posturing.

Simple linear regression. The freshman in my college algebra classes can roll into class so hungover they don't know their name and still do a linear regression. My 2-year old can probably do one. My wife, who hates math, can do one. I can teach a freaking monkey to do one.

But Lyle, who understands climate science (and the systems of stochastic partial differential equations used in the models) better than Ph.D.s in the field, can't.

Hmm.

Seems legit.

Honey...if Anthropogenic Climate Change was real the data wouldn't have to be fudged. Again it's been uncovered that the data IS fudged and here you are "you don't understand science!" How many times must that happen in order for you to understand?

But nah, ooooh hey WE humans made Hurricane Matthew ooooh scary, let's all bow to the great Climate God and repent for our sins.

Fuck right off