You’ll recall the groundbreaking announcement we made in our post Another Climate Change Science Hockey Stick Graph where we revealed the alarming hockey-stick shaped incline in the number of climate change scientists practising in the world today. In that post we suggested that if the trends continued the numbers were unsustainable.
Yesterday we intercepted, stole, had leaked to us, received the following from a climate change expert specialising in the effects of global warming on the passage and speed of projectiles fired from devices styled in the medieval warming period. Speaking to deniers like Jonny King, Murray Hill writes:
As the author of the graph I can assure all that the methodology was rigorous and pew reviewed by another employee whose job depended on giving the right answer. The so-called “Medieval Learning” was accounted for; however we were able to “adjust” for this by offsetting the aberrant data because of the Medieval “bloody stupid’ period as exemplified by the excommunication of Galileo and the burning of housewives for the excessive use of condiments on the pretext of witchcraft.
In this manner were able to hide the incline of total climatologist numbers.
The learning is settled and 99% of graph makers in the direct employ of the Society for Making Graphs That Show What We Want Them To are in agreement that this graph is accurate. The other 1% is on academic probation for independent thought and may need psychiatric evaluation.
Tags: AGW · Climate Change · Climategate · Global Warming · Hockey Stick Graph · Murray Hill7 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Now, that is truly excellent. Good work, as usual. It reminds me of the excellently written appendix to Michael Crichton’s State of Fear.
At the risk of appearing as obtuse and an harassing prat, I still need to ask you a final question regarding your Critique of Boonin’s sentience criterion:
Boonin’s definition of an ideal desire is as follows:
“ideal desires . . . are simply the content of actual desires corrected to account for the distorting influences of imperfect circumstances.”
You state that once this definition is accepted only sentient beings can have ideal desires. After pondering on the matter for two weeks, I still fail to see how this is so. For we must be clear about what TYPE of ideal desires we are talking here…it is surely not the ideal desire resulting from the ideal functioning of a newborn’s mental capacity…It must surely be the ideal desire of a self-conscious individual. Hence, while it is true that all sentient beings have ideal desires, it does not follow that all sentient being have a morally relevant TYPE of ideal desire. Why is this so? Simply because a desire content is a function of a capacity and one cannot “correct” that desire content to obtain something that this capacity cannnot, even while functioning ideally, produce.
For we must be clearabout what that Boonin’s definition here entails : an ideal desire is the desire content corrected to account for circumstances that linits or distorts one’s mental capacity which otherwise would have produced that ideal desire.
Thus, I cannot see, for the life of me, how Boonin’s definition entails your conclusion: “once this definition is accepted only sentient beings can have ideal desires because they have actual desires.”
Indeed, it seems quite evident that having actual desires resulting from a capacity that cannot produce a morally relevant ideal desire is, well, irrelevant!, since one cannot “correct” such actual desires to produce a morally relevant ideal desire.
Summary:
A has the capacity X to form actual desires X1 that can be corrected to ideal desires X2 by assuming that his capacity operates ideally.
B has the capacity Y to form actual desires Y1 that can be corrected to form an ideal desire Y2 by asuming that his specific capacity operates ideally.
Both A and B are sentient beings. But it does not follow from there that A can be attributed an ideal desire Y2 which is morally relevant.
Once again, we the Teachers, are maliciously attacked by the apparatus of “Big Uni,” and here was I thinking that with the newly educated leader of the Academic free-world, we could really believe his words, as he affirmed that we were in for a time of “Education You Can Believe In.”
We can only hope that with the coming election taking place at the Massachusetts… Institute of Technology, that the right wing arm of the Teachers in the Hard Sciences, will rid us of the filibuster proof majority of the leftist Teachers in the Soft Sciences… and this “Jelly-Wrestling,” which Madeline has the temerity to accuse one of, can take a term break… for good!
Anyway, my fellow educators, what has happened to the falsifiable principle in the “educational method,” and when will Al-gebra Gore come out from behind the Teacher’s desk to answer the examinations of those who refuse to accept his protestations… What is this? Another pay dispute?!
Having my name mentioned in this article is just another example of those who peddle in the ad-and-subtract Hominem, where educated guesses are a poor excuse for an argument. I mean, one’s name is not even mentioned in the “Tags”. This is not hockey, not to mention cricket, but one can perceive their intention to make a “schtick” out of me.
All I can say is bring on the coming “illiterate age” as the Russian educators are expecting, as it may only be this time, when “HittingMentalWithaHammer” will really understand the error of his ways, as “HittingMetal” does not seem to be working!
I know that in the end, in the words of the Supreme Educator… “The Truth Will Give You a Ph.D”… and I am tenured!
Therefore, You Can All Go to Detention!!!
Early climate scientists used ponds to determine if the weather was warming.
Their scientific method involved throwing a witch into the pond.
If the witch sunk to the bottom, then the water was too light and indicated excess greenhouse gasses were evaporating into the atmosphere.
If the witch floated, the water was heavy (heavier) and there were too many nuclear reactors being built near Liverpool.
If the witch bounced off, then that indicated ice on the top of the pond, and that the Royal Met Office had got the prediction of a warm winter wrong again. However, it was widely believed that they were deliberately getting the weather predictions wrong so as to avoid being burned at the stake.
A tradition they have carried forth to this day.
Burn them anyway?
.-= My last blog-post ..Everlasting Torment in Hell and Truth =-.
[…] the rest here: Methodology behind the Real Climate Change Science Hockey Stick … Share and […]
I think Jonny is trying to turn me into a newt.
.-= My last blog-post ..Question for the staff of Silent Running =-.
Looks like you got better!
.-= My last blog-post ..Friday night free for all =-.