2 thoughts on “Jeff Masters and Kevin Trenberth on Haiyan, Climate, and Storms”
And some other news from around the world: Denier’s get stuck with 90,000 dollars worth of legal fees for trying to sue the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over temperature records in NZ.
I have a ‘un-researched’ opinion/hypothesis as to what’s happening here:
Folks are used to legals systems where during cases, the arguments that offer the strongest perceptions of reality ‘win’, even if such differs radically from reality. The point is not to discover reality as science tries to do. The point is to argue why your ‘perception’ of reality is better, by means of logic, pseudo logic, emotion, or otherwise.
These folks spend so much time trying to argue for perceptions that they are caught off guard when scientific evidence (aka, the best method of minimizing bias error, or quantifying inherent error; aka, prime evidence for reality) is present. When scientific details are scrutinized, the ‘he said, she said’ or ‘yes it is, no its not’ or ‘move them with tears’ doesn’t work.
So if my hypothesis is correct, favor will be found with the sound scientific evidence most of the time in these law cases.
And some other news from around the world: Denier’s get stuck with 90,000 dollars worth of legal fees for trying to sue the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research over temperature records in NZ.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/13/2934861/climate-deniers-pay-80000-court-fees/
I have a ‘un-researched’ opinion/hypothesis as to what’s happening here:
Folks are used to legals systems where during cases, the arguments that offer the strongest perceptions of reality ‘win’, even if such differs radically from reality. The point is not to discover reality as science tries to do. The point is to argue why your ‘perception’ of reality is better, by means of logic, pseudo logic, emotion, or otherwise.
These folks spend so much time trying to argue for perceptions that they are caught off guard when scientific evidence (aka, the best method of minimizing bias error, or quantifying inherent error; aka, prime evidence for reality) is present. When scientific details are scrutinized, the ‘he said, she said’ or ‘yes it is, no its not’ or ‘move them with tears’ doesn’t work.
So if my hypothesis is correct, favor will be found with the sound scientific evidence most of the time in these law cases.