![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribSo, over at Simberg's Flying Circus, they are arguing that adjustments applied to the raw temperature data at Darwin, Australia, prove that Soylent Green is People! climate change is a hoax. To say that their are a number of problems with this logic is somewhat of an understatement.
First, finding one "bad" record out of thousands doesn't really invalidate anything. Second, as discussed here, the analysis of the data is flawed at best. Third, as discussed here by an actual climatologist, the history of the Darwin station in particular is problematic. Fourth, the lack of data points in general for northern Australia is a problem - as it happens the only legitimate one.
But here's the real issue. To restate the original rule: The problem with stupid people is that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to refute their stupidity. Therefore, most people don't bother - so the stupidity just keeps getting repeated with no response from any smart people. And therefore the semi-smart people believe it.
So now, instead of discussing what to do about a warming climate, time and effort must be diverted to arguing about one data point in a sea of data points. You wonder why climatologists get snippy with and about their critics?
ETA Do climatologists falsify their data? No.
First, finding one "bad" record out of thousands doesn't really invalidate anything. Second, as discussed here, the analysis of the data is flawed at best. Third, as discussed here by an actual climatologist, the history of the Darwin station in particular is problematic. Fourth, the lack of data points in general for northern Australia is a problem - as it happens the only legitimate one.
But here's the real issue. To restate the original rule: The problem with stupid people is that it takes an enormous amount of time and effort to refute their stupidity. Therefore, most people don't bother - so the stupidity just keeps getting repeated with no response from any smart people. And therefore the semi-smart people believe it.
So now, instead of discussing what to do about a warming climate, time and effort must be diverted to arguing about one data point in a sea of data points. You wonder why climatologists get snippy with and about their critics?
ETA Do climatologists falsify their data? No.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-12-17 11:55 pm (UTC)This is one of the reasons that I've been going to Rand's site less and less over the years. After more than a decade of butting heads with Rand and his peanut gallery, both there and on sci.space.policy - I realised I couldn't be arsed anymore.
Rand himself has become a charactature too. His default position is a snide comment or a silly statement he thinks is witty or pithy, but is, in fact neither and doesn't say what he thinks it does. When you point this out he'll launch straight into an attack about your logic or comprehension abilities.
Then one of the other loons will chime in either defending Rand from my "rude behaviour" or one of the real tossers there like Carl Pham or Karl H will say something so objectionable, stupid and/or just plain wrong that there's no way you can respond.
Arguing the merits of anarcho-libertarian theory with David Friedman is even worse - to the extent that I can't help but feel there's a personality disorder of some kind lurking in there because I have trouble believing that anybody with a proper sense of emotional affect can hold some of these opinions.
It's depressing, it _feels_ like your arguing with a teenager a lot of the time who doesn't like the idea that they can't always do exactly what they like and that other people don't automatically always agree with them.