Greg Krehbiel
I guess an administration’s “war on science” depends on which researchers are told to sit down and shut up
by Greg Krehbiel on 28 August 2009
The “anti-science” Bush administration allegedly tried to quiet NASA’s Jim Hansen. Or that’s what we were told.
Now the liberals are trying to suppress the views of Dr. Allen Carlin.
Like always, the story depends on whose ox is being gored.
2009-08-28 » Greg Krehbiel
28 August 2009 @ 12:28 pm
1. He’s an economist
2. He doesn’t seem to quite understand the importance of the “ocean cycles.” The cyclic change is a change in tidal mixing, driven by the well-known Milancovich cycles. Of course past climate change is best explained by natural cycles. If I could go to the distant past, I would, but it’s the future we have to live in.
3. He’s wrong about Greenland
4. “glaciers the size of Tennessee roaming the North Atlantic.”????? Glaciers don’t roam the oceans, morons. Those are icebergs.
28 August 2009 @ 12:42 pm
If you think only scientists can review the state of the evidence, we’d better disband the EPA right now. They have lots of non-scientists reviewing these things. And for that matter we’d better tell Al Gore to sit down and shut up. Which we should in any event.
Remember that the article is a journalist’s take on this guys research, not the research itself.
One article in science daily doesn’t prove Carlin wrong. Other articles support what he’s saying. Like this one.
29 August 2009 @ 9:51 am
(1) I don’t understand your argument, JK: if I can’t listen to a nonscientist on global warming, then why should I listen to what a teacher has to say about it?
If you can’t independently evaluate the arguments yourself, then whenever you discuss the issue you’re not doing anything but pointing and saying “I like this because it agrees with my prejudices”. Why bother simply being a fanboy? OTOH, if you can evaluate them, then what’s the problem with other people doing it?
(2) Milankovi? / ??????????. Or maybe Milankovitch or something similar if you can’t get the accent right. But it’s definitely not “Milancovich” in any romanization I’m familiar with.
Unimportant? Sure. But then so in a popular piece are the distinctions between “ice sheet” or “glacier” when on land, “ice shelf” when it extends over the water, and “iceberg” after it’s purely floating. I might easily write ‘roaming glacier’ when talking about, well, a glacier which was roaming, even if it were over water, as something’s composition is usually more fundamental than its spatial relationships. I definitely might call it a glacier if it were far larger than the typical iceberg and I thought that more relevant for my point. I’m probably a moron too.
(Heh. The author of the NASA press release you linked to doesn’t know the difference between “principle” and “principal”. He must be as much of a moron as the IBD writer!)