On Weathermen In America Free To Believe That Global Warming Is A Scam
Much appreciated, kneetoe! I'm looking forward to checking this out.
0
On Weathermen In America Free To Believe That Global Warming Is A Scam
Thanks for your reply. Here's my question: when the "sample size" is largely based on proxies and not actual data, doesn't that introduce potential error into the final analysis that can potentially counterbalance the added accuracy of studying sweeping trends? My skepticism of models is based on the lack of accuracy of some of them so far: take Al Gore's "hockey stick" graph of rapidly accelerating warming that was later debunked for cherry-picking climate proxy data (I know this is a favorite talking point of the right, but it IS relevant). While "Climategate" was wildly overblown, it also raised some of the same concerns about the validity of proxy data underlying climate models.
I would love to get my hands on some layman-geared information that shows why climate models ARE accurate. In essence, this is the heart of my beef with the CJR article and so many reactions to it: instead of saying, "No, weathermen, climate models ARE accurate and here's why," the response is just ad hominem attacks and armchair psychoanalysis.
In short, I wish more of this response was like what you have offered, Doctor Disaster. I am NOT a global warming skeptic, but I do like to be personally convinced of scientific concepts before I buy into them.
0
On Weathermen In America Free To Believe That Global Warming Is A Scam
I agree with you, actually -- but don't variations in the extent and severity of climate change make a huge difference in determining the extent of our societal response?
I'm not a disbeliever in climate change, but I thought this CJR article was lazy, focusing on some weatherman schmo who thinks global warming is a hoax, instead of addressing a far more relevant issue: how accurate are climate models?
0
On Weathermen In America Free To Believe That Global Warming Is A Scam
Aren't you all delightfully smug. Not all meteorologists are weathermen, and in fact it IS a scientific discipline concerned with matters not dissimilar to those studied by climatologists. Meteorologists (whether they be TV weathermen, government scientists, or private consultants) have expertise that is somewhat applicable to the science of climate modeling, as opposed to, say, the scientific wisdom of journalists, bloggers, or anonymous commenters.
YES, the weather predicted on the TV is often incorrect. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT. Weathermen are skeptical of climate models because they know that meteorological models are often incorrect, despite the fact that they are based on far more solid inputs and can be constantly adjusted based on new data. Compare that to climate models that are based on proxies like tree rings and ice cores (nobody has thermometer data for 1000 AD). Taking all that into account, do you really believe that climate models are unimpeachably more accurate than meteorological models?
Meteorologists have every reason to be skeptical of largely unproven climate models, and the CJR article, this blog post and other takes around the internet completely fail to address the specifics of their criticism. I'm ALL FOR completely transforming the way we produce and consume energy, but denouncing everyone who raises a legit scientific criticism of climate models as an idiot or a creationist is counterproductive and unscientific.
0
On Recapping 'The Wire': Episode 2
"Hi, my name's Thomas...would you like to get a caw-fee?"
0
On Recapping 'The Wire': Episode 2
You've got a boner for Herc! That's hilarious.
I'm really enjoying these recaps, please keep up the good work. And trust me, the show just gets better and better, the first few episodes are crap by comparison to what's coming up.
An aside...Best characters on the show IMO: Bunk, Freamon, Slim Charles, Maurice Levy, Bunny Colvin. (Omar, Stringer and Snoop kind of go without saying.)
0
On One Nation, Under The Roc, With Liberty And Justice For All...
Conspiracy theorists believe that Jay-Z is repping the Freemasons. It's all part of a plan to help the Illuminati "Run This Town". Or maybe said theorists just huffed too much paint thinner in high school.
The deets: http://rumorsontheinternets.org/2009/09/23/jay-zs-in-a-cult/
0
On Mike Bloomberg's Crushing Loss
Great coverage, Awl.
I can't help but think that Bloomberg really hurt himself with that extended presidential flirtation a couple of years back. Remember? When guys like Steve Rattner were calling him "the greatest mayor of New York since Fiorello La Guardia"?
If Bloomberg wants to be a Daley-esque Mayor for Life, he's really going to need to focus on the city itself -- solving its problems, yes, but also creating a political machine that works to entrench his interests every day. Calling up hired guns like Howard Wolfson every three years won't cut it when he actually faces a formidable opponent, as I think he will in 2012.
http://rumorsontheinternets.org/2009/11/04/a-tale-of-two-mayors/
0
On The Ulcer In The Blue Sweatshirt
Just one example of you shaping the facts to fit your argument, or simply ignoring them when inconvenient:
"But the basic strangeness of trading a team's best receiver during the season - and leaving a receiving corps comprised solely of smurfy, underrated-from-day-one types"
I hate to break it to you, but they still have a 6' starting WR (Tate) and two massive TEs (Gronkowski, 6'4, and Hernandez, 6'2). All played for programs in major conferences (UNC, Arizona, Florida). None of them underrated from day 1, but clearly underrated by you today.
Belichick has what few coaches in the NFL have: job security. That means he can make trades that might hurt the team in the short run and help in the long run. That means that he has the balls to go for it on 4th down instead of punting away. Personally, I think these are admirable attributes, even if the guy possessing them is an asshole.
I understand why his press conferences are so irksome to you, but funnily enough he seems all right when interviewed by local radio guys who he trusts.
You make plenty of valid points, but your unified theory of Belichick has a lot of holes in it too. I think you're just taking this shit way, way too seriously. He seems "intent on the assertion and performance of his own dominance"? What the fuck does that even mean -- that he wants to win on his own terms? Yeah, that's why a longtime defensive mastermind turned his team into a shotgun juggernaut that needed offense to win. He's just that stubborn.