Re: Was the ClimateGate Hacker Justified? Join the Debate!

[Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>]

On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 07:11:10PM +0200, Gadi Evron wrote:
> Your rhetoric on this is not relevant and personal. What's up with you? 
> No coffee yet today?

No, I'm simply exasperated at (1) the gross stupidity of
supposedly-intelligent people, and at (2) the unbelievable arrogance of
the unintelligent and/or uneducated who have absolutely no clue, yet
have the audacity to pretend otherwise.

In the former case, we find people who are unable to correctly identify
swiftboating techniques when they are blatantly obvious, who are not
able to think critically about issues (as I've seen it put succinctly
elsewhere, "do you think the email messages are melting the Arctic?"),
and who are sadly far more fixated on style than substance.  This includes,
as we see in this instance, many people who are not trained scientists
and thus who utterly fail to grasp how science actually works in practice.

Hint: science is objective.  Scientists are not.  That's why it works.

In the latter case, we find everyone who does not comprehend science
and mathematics, and is therefore not qualified to speak on this issue...
until they do.  Not that they'll figure out this out, of course;
even though they have failed to master rudimentary calculus or basic
probability theory and would not know Rayleigh scattering or adibiatic
cooling if they were hit over the head with them, these arrogant fools
have the temerity to pretend that they comprehend these topics.  They do
not, and so of course the only sensible choices available to them are
(a) shut up or (b) learn.  Most will not elect either of these but will
instead choose to (c) blab about things they don't even begin to grasp.

        [ You will note, for example, that I do not weigh in on long-term
        trends in Italian poetry.  I don't speak the language, so I don't
        have the slightest clue what anyone involved in that research area
        is saying.  I don't deserve to hold or voice an opinion: I haven't
        earned that right.

        Similarly, anyone who does not, at bare minimum, fully comprehend
        all of the underlying physical phenomena as well as the
        mathematics involved in multi-dimensional stochastic processes,
        should not speak on the subject of the climate change because
        *they do not comprehend the language of the conversation*. ]

Can you -- generic you -- right here, right now, without any help,
state the three laws of thermodynamics, give an example of a perturbation
function, explain the carbon dioxide phase diagram, and solve a partial
differential equation?   If not, then you really should not be trying
to express an opinion on global warming.  You're as clueless about it
as I am about Italian poetry.

Now...you're (still generic you) more than welcome to change that.
I applaud anyone and everyone who tries to learn the language of the
universe (mathematics) and to understand its expressed mechanisms
(physics, chemistry, etc.).  Be prepared to expend significant time
and effort -- note that it's far more intellectually demanding than IT.
But among the payoffs is that you'll be able to read, understand,
and evaluate the original research in disciplines like climatology,
instead of relying on the dumbed-down versions in the popular press --
or worse, the propaganda pieces written to serve corporate and
political goals.

More broadly:

One of the more unfortunate trends that I've noted is a tendency to
presume that there are two sides to every story, that all opinions
are considering, that everyone who speaks on a subject is worthy
of attention, etc.  There are indeed occasions when these things are
true, but this is not one of them.  And I grow tired of seeing endless
and pointless "debate" over "controversies" that are no such thing.

A notable example in the US is the moron-driven meme that educational
institutions should "teach the controversy" about evolution.  The
only "controversy" is why any qualified, professional educator would
give the absurd concept of creationism any more than a backhand slap
in the face -- because that's all it deserves.  Any educator who
actually takes it seriously should be fired on the spot and
blacklisted from teaching for life.

Other similar topic areas include (obviously) global warming and vaccines.
There is a wealth of pseudoscientific babble driven by the superstitious,
the greedy, the ignorant, the exploitive, and the just plain crazy.

Some of the time I actually make the effort to refute this reeking garbage,
even though it quite clearly doesn't deserve that effort.  Other times --
like now -- I just want to quote Enrico Fermi:

        "That is not even good enough to be wrong."

And I will instead point to climatedenial.org, where someone who
at least at the moment has more patience than I do is attempting to
deal gracefully with those who lack the intellect and/or education
to comprehend global warming.

---Rsk

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.