Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 03/05/2010 7:48:04 PM PST by EricTheRed_VocalMinority
There’s a 2004 book by Victor Gold called Liberwocky: What Liberals Say and What They Really Mean. It’s a tongue-and-cheek (but not inaccurate) glossary of buzzwords used and abused by the liberati in all walks of life. E.g.,
“Obscene: Liberal pejorative applied to ‘outrageous’ corporate profits; not, however, applicable to pornographic magazines or motion pictures.”
I think it’s time for a sequel. Consider this piece at the Washington Times about certain climate alarmists scientists hitting back at skeptics in light of the past several months AGW scandals and errors:
Climate scientists plot to fight back at skeptics
By Stephen Dinan
Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be “an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach” to gut the credibility of skeptics.
In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of “being treated like political pawns” and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize
(Excerpt) Read more at vocalminority.typepad.com ...
Paul Erlich bombed ;-)
The Navier-Stokes differential equations describe air flow. They are highly non-linear. Nonlinear differential equations show a sensitive dependence on initial conditions. This means that long term prediction is not possible, though short term predictions can be useful. This effect has been widely known since Edward Lorenz, in 1969.
A 40 degree swing in temperature is found in the desert, with 20 degrees common in other places.
Claiming that one can predict climate changes of fractional degrees (complete with error bars) from non-linear differential equations shows that one hasn’t done one’s homework.
I suggest they get their paws of of taxpayer funded grants in which they lobby for, to push a failed agenda.
Ehrlich has a Wikipedia page found here I'm a Moonbat.
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323) This quote has also been attributed to John Holdren, Erlich’s co-author, who now works with Obama in the White House.
You guys are forgetting that the Left honors, reveres and protects failure.
The whole philosophy of the Left is that failure does not exist. That failure (that does not exist) is the fault of the rich oppressors, that those that fail are to be as respected as those that succeed.
In the eyes of the Left Erlich is a great man because he is a failed scientist (as long as he upholds Leftist ideals that is).
Back in ’69 I was hired by an ad agency to write a series of 5-minute radio spots promoting a “green” planned community. It was a blue sky real estate development in an area of essentially godforsaken desert wasteland. As I recall it was the year of the first Earth Day and I confess I was on the doom-and-gloom Eco bandwagon at the time. The coming Earthly disaster caused by human overpopulation and waste of natural resources was the promotional angle the development’s promoters wanted me to emphasize.
Erhlich’s “Population Bomb” had just been released and I’d read it with great interest. I felt that using some episodes from his book in the radio series would be just the thing to dramatize the ecological urgency of planned communities. So I phoned him to ask permission to use various quotes, expecting an easy go-ahead.
Instead of granting permission, his voice became masked and he went into total bargaining mode. We did a little verbal dance and it quickly became clear he wanted money, and a lot of it. So much for the idealistic academic concerned about the fate of humanity and de-development! He was in it for big bucks.
That was my awakening. I didn’t use any Ehrlich quotes and the project eventually fizzled out due to lack of investor interest. But I gained a lasting insight into what really makes the Erhrlichs, Gores and other enviro-zealots tick.
That’s a great story, thanks for telling it. If it’s okay with you I’ll keep it in mind for future anecdotal reference.
thanks EricTheRed_VocalMinority.
Bump....
Unbelievably, a lot of people believe they can.
I don't think their models truly use differential equations. They have fudge factors, adjusting constants, and trend altering factors to "fit" the "historical" cherry picked and falsified data added to the differential equations to steer the results.
How any sane and technically knowledgeable person could believe the future predictions of such a program is beyond me. GIGO
The way to predict short term differential equations is using numerical methods. Runge-Kutta 4th order is one well known method. Adams-Moulton 4th order predictor-correctors are another that has a smaller error, at the cost of needing to run the predictor to get the next point, and the corrector to adjust the point to get the small error term. Long ago we worried about the error term because the number of function evaluations (cost) was inversely related to step size, and a small error let you get equivalent error with a larger (cheaper) step size.
Another approach which they do use is to linearize the nonlinearities. That way your predictions become repeatable, and predictable, but has the minor difficulty that the problem you are solving is not the one you were given. The moral equivalent of multiplying by zero and adding what you hope is the right answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.