While Dr. Richard Feynman famously said:
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Josh notes that climatologists do it with crystal balls…
Click image for full size to see what’s inside the ball. www.cartoonsbyjosh.com
How does one do climate predictions these days with a crystal ball, especially when most all is in a computer model? Add a USB port of course!
Here’s one for modeling the oceans:
They found Nemo!
Very appropriate given the recent influx of trolls telling us we need to publish stuff in “peer reviewed” journals or SHUT-UP.
Don’t you realize that you have a rare, protected Vinyl Clownfish there? It’s unlikely to get its minimum daily requirement of phthalates from the Ramen Coral.
My father used to say that a professional was a person who made a living doing something and who sometimes made mistakes, whereas an expert (in farming at least) was a farmer from the next county.
The modern definition of an expert is a man in a suit from the next town, carrying a laptop.
(And maybe wearing a floppy hat and handcuffs.)
I think the scarf on the snowman should read “Hide the decline”
HA! Astrology and Climatology… both solid sciences[!]
Not bad Josh, not bad. But the astrologist looks nothing like Rajandra Pachauri.
Furthermore, if you want your funny cartoons to be taken seriously, you should have them published in a peer reviewed cartoon journal, otherwise they’re just belly laughs on the blogosphere.
Good heavens! Is that coral already bleached?!? The humanity!!!
So that’s what happened to my snowman. He’s been missing for lots of decades.
With all the posts about Shakum et al., I don’t know if someone has commented on this already. Yesterday, I received my copy of the April 6, 2012 (Vol. 336) issue of Science. On page 18, under the heading: “Case Closed: CO2 Helped End Last Ice Age,” is this comment: “’All in all, a solid study,’ says climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University.” “Nature” isn’t the only journal that’s drunk the climate Kool-Aid.
Jim
In the forward of T. Morris Longstreth’s book Understanding the weather he mentions his first book written in 1914 Reading the Weather and that WWI stimulated research, improved communication and brought the Norwegian’s air mass theories so he wrote a stepping up title Knowing the Weather. He states WWII gave meteorology further improvements and the influential American Meteorological Society came of age.
In Knowing the Weather he wrote, “Nobody can regulate the weather nor charge admission to it, and weather lovers are happy that it is forever beyond the reach of politicians.
you realize you can’t take one of those in carry on luggage on a commercal flight?
So I’m scrolling down the page, and when I get to the Pat Michaels post, the whole page insists on reloading.
It’s amazing the computing power we have in such tiny spaces. It would help if you label the USB ports of your Global Ocean Modeler. The left port is “GI”, and the right one is “GO”.
Another Feynman quote that fits:
“Death Trains” come to mind.
The definition of Hansenkoism:
1. Imagine there’s is a phenomenon called ‘back radiation’ which increases IR energy absorbed in the atmosphere by a factor of 15.5.
2. Calculate equally imaginary dangerous warming but because we can’t actually measure it, claim it’s offset exactly by imaginary cooling by polluted clouds plus some bare aerosol cooling.
3. The only part that isn’t imaginary is the cost.
Very appropriate given the recent influx of trolls telling us we need to publish stuff in “peer reviewed” journals or SHUT-UP.
Based on some of the studies I’ve seen published lately, I’m not so sure I would do that. Somebody might see me.
To Josh: Great stuff! I suggest a revision that includes a opinion based upon alchemy.
As interest wanes in global warming etc we see a drop off in most proagw and antiagw websites. No wonder global temps have been flat for 15 years! This will continue till all the ol soldiers just fade away LOL
From Stan Kelly-Bootle – a description that might be apt for climate studies – ‘A study akin to numerology and astrology, but lacking the precision of the former and the success of the latter.’
Anthony, while the USB port is good, I prefer this approach, seems closer to the team approach –
🙂
Even cooler…
http://www.amazon.com/NEEWER%C2%AE-USB-Powered-Plasma-Ball/dp/B004HFKZAY/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1334336792&sr=8-2
I’ve come up with something I’ve tentatively named “The Progressive
Certainty Principle.” To wit, “The less a person knows about a subject,
the more certain they are about it.”
It is all too prevalent in the pro-AGW crowd and many modern progressive
politicians today
When you follow the fish USB ball,, you get a message saying, “product discontinued or does not exist”. Seems highly appropriate somehow…..
HILARIOUS !
Forgot the link!!!
Science is the study of questions, not of answers. When Newton was aked, “Just what is this gravitational force you speak of?” he replied, “I don’t know, and I feign no hypotheses [hypotheses non fingo]”– but his equation described gravitational action definitively, and forever.
Einstein reported that at about age twelve he asked himself, “If I were riding a light-beam and looked back, what would I see?” The answer of course entailed Special Relativity… and likewise, about 1908 he asked again, “Does a falling body feel its own weight?” The answer there involved 4-D geodesics in Riemannian hyperspace, ie. General Relativity.
Lubos Motl is convinced that equations, numbers, precede such insights. But no… the greatest minds think geometrically, translating curves and whorls to Cartesian coordinates for computation purposes. So do AGW catastrophists think geometrically or numerically?– alas, we conjecture that, quite frankly, they think superficially or not at all.
Gail Combs says:
April 13, 2012 at 8:35 am
Very appropriate given the recent influx of trolls telling us we need to publish stuff in “peer reviewed” journals or SHUT-UP.
Yep. If you have doubts concerning the memory of water for example, you should publish it in Homeopathy, where else?
Nasty aquatic panmnesia deniers…
I may have given the wrong impression of Longstreth’s statement in his book.
After his statement that weather lovers are happy that it is forever beyond the reach of politicians he follows on with “But that comforting statement is no longer wholly true. Although nobody yet is charging admission to the weather, I say this with fingers crossed . Attempts to regulate rainfall are common, and legislation toward controlling the attempts is being put on the books. Thus the voter has a hand, however slight, in the weather.
He continues, It is not too soon for him or her to understand the complex arrangements of the atmosphere. By knowing what can or cannot be done, a hasty and unwise treatment of both the weather and the public pocketbook may be avoided.
His book is copyright 1943 and 1953
Hi Ms. Combs
I must admit I know next to nothing about homeopathy, despite partly feeling responsible for some of the current comments in relation to it (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/unforced-variations-jan-2012/comment-page-3 )
I found this lecture on water’s properties fascinating
(with thanks to the Malaga View’s post at tallbloke’s blog).
I hope you find time to see it.
here is the best usb product ever Mike Mann might need one of these when the people who pay his salary wake up
http://www.thinkgeek.com/geektoys/cubegoodies/c208/?srp=3
Very funny! Perhaps the snowman should have a bubble saying: “no, it’s getting colder”
That’s similar to the ball that Senna the Soothsayer uses at the UK Met Office
I am currently reading a book by Ben Goldacre called Bad Science. So far it is mostly about homeopathy and psuedo medicine but the take on the scientific method definitely applies to climate as well. As he has a column in the Guardian it’ll be interesting to see if he agrees with the rest of the journos from that organ.
Really great Josh! Thanks for the laugh!
Definition of an expert: ‘X’ is an unknown quantity, and ‘spert’ is a drip under pressure.
>>
UK Marcus says:
April 14, 2012 at 5:35 am
Definition of an expert: ‘X’ is an unknown quantity, and ‘spert’ is a drip under pressure.
<<
I heard it slightly different For example, the prefix “ex” as in ex-scientist means former. So “expert” is a former drip under pressure.
Jim
Bloke down the pub says: April 14, 2012 at 3:34 am: I am currently reading a book by Ben Goldacre called Bad Science. So far it is mostly about homeopathy and psuedo medicine but the take on the scientific method definitely applies to climate as well. As he has a column in the Guardian it’ll be interesting to see if he agrees with the rest of the journos from that organ.
Yes, when it comes to CAGW, Ben completely forgets all he wrote in that book.
Attributed to Wernher Von Braun, his take on consensus, this gem has often been bantered about within our research labs:
“One test result is worth one thousand expert opinions.”
This famous quote by Dr. Carl Sagan raises the bar for pro-AGW Climatologists:
“Extraordinary claims [that global warming / climate change are anthropogenic] require extraordinary proof.”
Text within brackets [ ] inserted by yours truly.
Climatologists are a great boon to science, as they make “belief in the ignorance of experts” easy.
What do you suppose RF would have made of Climatology in light of this:- http://neurotheory.columbia.edu/~ken/cargo_cult.html ?
EXPERT : X= has been spert= a high pressure drip
Therefore
an EXPERT = a has been high pressure drip