6 thoughts on “Science And Politics”

1. But but but the science is settled!

2. I suspect that if Dawkins had stated Santa Claus was an impossibility Whittle wouldn’t have invoked string theory to hold the possibility open.

   1. He didn’t have to. I already covered that:

      http://robot_guy.blogspot.ca/2006/12/santas-secrets-revealed.html

3. Here’s a simple rule of thumb: The only time science should affect public policy is if there’s engineering that actually works associated with the science.

4. And in an engineering issue I subscribed to PJTV for a year. They didn’t fix the streaming problems and I left. I contacted several times and was essentially blown off. Based on today’s attempt to watch Afterburner through PJTV they still haven’t fixed the damn thing. Guess I made the right call.

5. Re the “climate change” debate, I recently stumbled on this interesting relationship. This plot shows that the rate of change of CO2 in the air is directly proportional to temperature anomaly with respect to a particular baseline.

   This means that CO2 concentration lags temperature, which means the latter is driving the former. Furthermore, temperature is the only variable you need to predict CO2 level. It is apparent that anthropogenic CO2 is being sequestered far more rapidly than thought, and sensitivity to temperature is high enough to be the dominating influence.

   So, not only is the climate refusing to cooperate with the relentless warming meme, but they have reversed cause and effect. It is a scientific fiasco of epic proportions.

Comments are closed.