Sunday, November 29, 2009
Best article
This article by David Evans is the best and most straightforward article on the Carbon myth I've seen.
Most of the facts and logic have been well-known by rational people (i.e. not crimatologists or politicians or journalists) for a good 30 years. Evans starts from those facts and adds the newly verified intentional deception in the crimatology syndicate. Result is a clear readable package that totally destroys the basic CO2 fraud.
= = = = =
Evans hits the most important point for ordinary people: You don't need a degree in any sort of science, let alone a PhD in Crimatology, to understand why this is completely false. You do, however, need a basic scientific mindset: a grasp of arithmetic and logic and an ability to look at information objectively. This prerequisite unfortunately disqualifies all modern journalists from participating in the question.
A reformation of science has been proceeding quietly for a while, with net-based forums gradually displacing corrupt and incestuous peer-review in many fields. But freshening within disciplines isn't nearly as important as the basic Protestant idea:
You don't need to rely on the Apostolic authority of mysterious Latin-speaking priests. You can read nature for yourself and reach your own conclusions, provided you follow the rules of honesty, logic and transparency.
And this idea has taken center stage in the CRU scandal, with people like Steve McIntyre and David Evans doing the job of a Luther or a Hus.
= = = = =
Later thought: the analogy isn't quite right. When medieval Rome hid the data, it wasn't disobeying basic principles of Christianity. I suppose the ideal of direct personal revelation is sort of implicit in the New Testament, but nothing in Scripture orders the priest to make Scripture available to the people. By contrast, the priests of modern science are directly disobeying a basic and explicit law of Science: if you want anyone to listen to your findings, you must supply the data and methods in full so any reader with sufficient skill and equipment can replicate the analysis or the experiment. And this applies especially to an unfriendly or "skeptical" reader, because he's more likely to find your errors and thus advance knowledge. ¶ 5:39 AM
Most of the facts and logic have been well-known by rational people (i.e. not crimatologists or politicians or journalists) for a good 30 years. Evans starts from those facts and adds the newly verified intentional deception in the crimatology syndicate. Result is a clear readable package that totally destroys the basic CO2 fraud.
= = = = =
Evans hits the most important point for ordinary people: You don't need a degree in any sort of science, let alone a PhD in Crimatology, to understand why this is completely false. You do, however, need a basic scientific mindset: a grasp of arithmetic and logic and an ability to look at information objectively. This prerequisite unfortunately disqualifies all modern journalists from participating in the question.
A reformation of science has been proceeding quietly for a while, with net-based forums gradually displacing corrupt and incestuous peer-review in many fields. But freshening within disciplines isn't nearly as important as the basic Protestant idea:
You don't need to rely on the Apostolic authority of mysterious Latin-speaking priests. You can read nature for yourself and reach your own conclusions, provided you follow the rules of honesty, logic and transparency.
And this idea has taken center stage in the CRU scandal, with people like Steve McIntyre and David Evans doing the job of a Luther or a Hus.
= = = = =
Later thought: the analogy isn't quite right. When medieval Rome hid the data, it wasn't disobeying basic principles of Christianity. I suppose the ideal of direct personal revelation is sort of implicit in the New Testament, but nothing in Scripture orders the priest to make Scripture available to the people. By contrast, the priests of modern science are directly disobeying a basic and explicit law of Science: if you want anyone to listen to your findings, you must supply the data and methods in full so any reader with sufficient skill and equipment can replicate the analysis or the experiment. And this applies especially to an unfriendly or "skeptical" reader, because he's more likely to find your errors and thus advance knowledge. ¶ 5:39 AM
