Geek Drivel

It’ll be interesting to see how this fight turns out. And important as well. If North Dakota wins, it’ll put a damper on any attempts to use carbon tariffs.

(Yes, it does “unfairly” give renewable energy an advantage over coal powered energy — that’s the whole point to it. But if I read the law correctly, there’s nothing preventing that; Minnesota is perfectly within its rights. On the other hand, as everyone should know, strange things happen in courtrooms.)

As I’ve long suspected, the scientists sounding the Global Warning alarm have been playing fast and loose with the data. Deliberately.

I understand some of the reasons for it: if they had told the truth, intelligent people would have dismissed the problem, quite reasonably demanding more information before taking the problem seriously. And by the time the science could back up their assertions, it could well be too late to stop or reverse it. But as a long-time fan of science as a path to truth and understanding, I (for one) feel betrayed by the scientists involved.

When “if it bleeds, it leads” falls flat, this is the kind of sensationalist reporting that you get. It’s a good thing that we aren’t paying for content, I’d hate to actually pay for this kind of drivel.

I only know enough about climate science to know that there’s a whole lot we don’t yet know about it. This article just confirms that view.

“Warm ocean, hurricane increases down to clean skies,” according to the subtitle. Hm, I wonder what NASA’s climate experts would say about that?

Global warming? Probably. Man-made global warming? It’s looking increasingly unlikely.

Hm…

I thought the whole point to science was questioning assumptions to find the truth?

I hate to be classed as a Global Warming denialist (there seems to be some decent evidence that it’s happening), but there’s a distinctly over-ripe odor around the subject.

A lesson in Bad Science from NASA (predictably on Global Warming again): if the facts get in the way of your favorite theory, ignore the facts.

More information on NASA’s temperature data, and why it points to a major global warming trend despite the Earth actually being in a twenty-year-long “cooling period.”