Chicken Little Is Either Right ... Or A Complete Moron

Seriously, I enjoy opinions that are in disagreement with my own.  I don't hold myself to the impossible standard of being right all the time, unlike some.  But I cannot, will not, abide those who confuse their opinion for wisdom, and celebrate their own stupidity.

As is usual when I make such a statement, it leads right back to 'Andy Hammond'.  Andy thinks that science must bow before his opinion driven will, and blames the media because it won't.  It seems the media reported on a story that makes Andy uncomfortable, and such disagreeable verbiage cannot stand in AndyWorld.

The Billings Gazette reports on a study that claims that much of the West's climate related water trends are human caused and, of course, the AP falls right in line with the report.

This right here should give a clue of just how dumb Andy can be.  The job of the media is to report, precisely as the Billings Gazette did.  But in less than one sentence, Andy separates the Gazette from the AP (a wire service from which the Gazette got the report) and labels the AP 'collaborators' against what Andy knows is the truth.  Really, could Andy's thinking, such as passes for said, be more muddled?  In this case, The Gazette = the AP.  The Gazette reports a story, which is their goddamned job.  Therefore, the AP reports a story which is their goddamned job.  BUT, to Andy, the AP didn't ???, therefore they are falling in line ... with what?  Their job?

Notice, Andy hasn't the chops to actually take issue with the science of the study reported, so he's taking issue with the fact that it got reported.   The real  dumb takes place when he confuses the two.

The report (that would be a scientific study, Andrew  - W) used statistical models and claim to compare «changes that would have happened with natural fluctuations over time» to human caused activity. That's a very powerful statement. How do they know what would have happened naturally over time?

Uhhm, Science?

From the article:

The researchers used statistical modeling to compare climate changes that would have happened with natural fluctuations over time, to climate changes with the addition of human-caused greenhouse gases and other emissions from vehicles, power plants and other sources.

That sounds like accepted practice of study to me.  But not to Andy.

Then they go on to make the claim that 60% of the problem is human caused. I guess when one plugs into the statistical model the assumption of what the climate would have been like with natural fluctuations over time, one can make the claim that humans do cause climate change.

This is the point where I laughed out loud.  This is the same 'Andy Hammond' who has argued so vociferously that the global warming we are seeing is precisely not human caused because we see such fluctuations naturally.   In other words, Andy claims the power to see, have faith in, and predict these natural fluctuations, but scientists trained in that very field are only assuming they know what is happening.  I'd call Andy a "dumbshit" at this point, but the word really doesn't carry enough weight to describe the idiocy that Andy just foisted onto the world  at large.

It's nothing but pure BS. It's an attempt to curtail growth and capitalism.

Yes, Andy, I'm certain that that Ad Hominem argument explains precisely why these scientists have come to the scientific conclusions that they have. 

Comments

[Lars Leelander]

“Really, could Andy's thinking, such as passes for said, be more muddled? In this case, The Gazette = the AP.”

Sorry, clueless kitten, but the Gazette does in fact equal the AP and vice versa. Do your homework before you blow your mouth off. (Here’s a hint: AP = “The Associated Press”)

Of course in this case, the article in the Gazette came directly from the AP. Gosh, maybe you are right, Wulfgar. I've no idea why I just commented. Sorry. Please continue.

[Mark Tokarski]

Forget climate change, whether it's happening, whether it's human caused if it is happening, whether we can do anything about it anyway. That's not the point of this post. It is this: Hammond is a dumbass.

I concur. Worthy post.

[Jeff]

Honestly, that post is absolutely brilliant when compared to the 2nd comment on it. Statistical modeling caused the sub-prime mortgage crisis? Where do these people come from?