Regarder Mille mots (2012) [vf] gratuit de qualité hd en ligne, [voir hd] A
Thousand Words (2012) streaming vf (film complet) putlocker, (regarder)
Mille m...
5 years ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
I have some big news to share: Today is officially my last day teaching at Smith College. My partner and I have accepted positions at UC Riverside. As of J...8 years ago
-
-
I’ve noticed now for the last few months and years that I am getting and feeling older. And I am not even talking about the fact that my little baby is mo...10 years ago
-
champion 141 points: Cindy 120: Lorena 119: Tabitha, and Aaron 118: Yang 116: Otto, and Jason C. 111: Sumet 110: TDo 101: Gwen 100: Russ KU 91: Russ Chicago ...14 years ago
-
On Being Notorious...: Via CFA: http://californiaeducationalreform.blogspot.com/15 years ago
-
The data we've seen allow us to say several things with certainty. First, autism today is not the same as autism ten or twenty years ago. The definition of...16 years ago
-
Originally preached at Northminster Presbyterian Church - Roswell, GA, on December 24, 2002. It was the Christmas Eve 11:30pm Candlelight Service, and we ...16 years ago
-
by Heather If I had to be a female superhero for one day who would I pick? I can tell you right off the bat that it wouldn’t be Wonder Woman. Sure she look...16 years ago
-
Wow, that was easy. Setting up a blog on blogspot.com was pretty easy. Well, i guess i'm going to be blogging about some random stuff as the days go by. Mo...17 years ago
-
-
4 comments:
From the article:
"In discussing global warming, Lawson happily takes the road less traveled in making the basic point about the science of global warming being "far from settled," not to mention that scientific truth "is not established by counting heads," as so many advocates of all manner of popular causes would likely prefer. "
His two arguments are mutually exclusive. The vast majority of the scientists believe that global warming is real.
Either global warming is a settled but consensus shouldn't matter or consensus does matter and but his definition of "consensus" is so high that a small minority dissention in the scientific community renders it from being unsettled. This is intellectually sloppy on either the author or the Forbes reviewer's part.
But the more egregious problem the book has as related by the review is the his facts are a) basically wrong and/or b) he is intellectually dishonest.
From the review:
"When Lawson checked U.S. temperature records, records thought to be most reliable, he found that only three of the last 12 years are among the warmest on record; 1934 being the warmest year of all."
The first part: his claim that "only 3 of the last 12 years are among the warmest on record" is materially false. 6 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the past 12 years.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2008-01-09-us-temperatures_N.htm
The only way you can get "only 3 of the last 12 years" is if you restrict your definition of "warmest years" down to top 5, but that's still a 60% representation rate for the past 12 years! The author here is basically lying with statistics.
The other problem with the author's selective use of exclusive US climate data on the basis of this supposed "reliability". How is data kept in 1895 Great Britain and less "reliable" than 1895 US when Great Britain (or Western Europe for that matter) was just as economically developed as the US? What, did the folks in 1895 Liverpool deliberately estimated the temperature downward just to spite the author? Or could it be because global data showed that that the 14 warmest years all occurred after 1990, and such fact seems somewhat inconvenient to the author?
There should be honest and intelligent dissent debate over the existence and severity of global warming, and if there is a legitimate and scientific rebuttal to all the findings so far, it should be published for public consumption. Base on the review, this book does not qualify as such. It appears to engage in shoddy use of statistics, half-truths and intellectually lazy rhetoric.
Either this manifestation of intellectual decrepitude lies at the incompetence of the Forbes reviewer, in which case the author should sue the said reviewer for brand name destruction, or that such decrepitude emanated from the author himself, in which case he is duly advised to apply for a fellowship grant at a rightwing "think" tank such as CEI or the National Review.
To reiterate, I'm not against the position that there is no global warming or that it is overblown, but I do think it should be well-thought out and researched.
Bjorn Lomborg, whose book "Cool It" who does cost-benefit analysis of global warming, argues that amount used for fighting global warming would be better off for fighting malaria or securing fresh water supply. I'm not sure if I completely agree with him- global temperature will drive marial incidence so you can't deal with one without the other. However I can respect his methodolgies and approach.
Hmmm, now I wonder if the $14 price tag is worth it! =)
Post a Comment