A Remarkably Clear Video On Global Warming “Issues”

The start up music is a bit load, so turn the sound down until the speaker shows up.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and GIStemp Issues and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to A Remarkably Clear Video On Global Warming “Issues”

  1. beththeserf says:

    This is a Socrates kinda’ guy, so wise … long view and observation . Thank u chief,
    u r like this guy, – investigative, measuring, sceptical, reminds me of yer ‘Got
    Wood’ post. ..’n Feynman, first yer guess and then yr test.

  2. philjourdan says:

    Bit loud. You said load.

    It is good to see others talk about the religion, and not the science. You cannot talk science to the religious.

  3. E.M.Smith says:



    Well, I try….

    I like the minimalist use of language and the push to simple clarity. Something I strive for. Like showing the temps in K and just saying “remarkable stability.” Not much needed after that.

    Or pointing out proton mass is up for debate, but not global warming? Then that “incontrovertible” claim puts it in bed with Popes & religions, not Science.

    A very tidy mind.


    I guess I’m odd that way, then. I see Science as descriptive of the methods and techniques of creation (whoever did it) and Religion as the attempt to extend understanding into the area of the unknowable and mysteries (knowing it will be flawed and more speculative).

  4. philjourdan says:

    Religion does that. But I was not talking about what it does, but what it is. Religion is a belief without evidence. Science is the non-belief without evidence. They are polar opposites. And hence why they do not mix.

    They can complement. But they cannot occupy the same space. Science of belief without evidence is religion. Religion with belief only with evidence is science.

  5. E.M.Smith says:

    I guess that’s how I do things differently. I use Science as far as it will go, then swap to Religion to try to see further. As soon as Science can prune off some more turf, it takes it…

    Does require a bit of discipline, though…

    I have a fairly strict hierarchy…
    Personal Experience – direct knowing.
    Scientific Method proven.
    Trusted Experience – indirect knowing.
    WAG / Intuition – subconscious directed knowing.
    Scientific Theory – directed speculation.
    Religion – faith and hope, with rules
    Pure Speculation
    Wild Fantasy
    Political speech
    known lies

  6. p.g.sharrow says:

    WAG … Wild Ass Guess, intuition, You just know the answer with no way of knowing how you got to it. Some place between Trusted experience and Religion.
    Psychics and Physics originate from the same root stuff that the Universe is created from…pg WAG

  7. E.M.Smith says:


    I’ve added WAG / intuitive knowing to the hierarchy, just above Scientific Theory, simply because the former is rooted in personal experience just reported by the autonomic part of thought, while Scientific Theory is just some other sots WAG and likely not as good as mine or yours ;-)

    I also added a couple at the the bottom – extending the list into the “negative information” space. So any Political Speech is likely wrong (just because nearly nobody really understands Economics that drives much political opinion; and those that do understand it often lie for effect.) then Politicians as they often lie (but you don’t always known when / which) and finally known lies. Things that you know are absolutely false. Like “we need to raise taxes to keep the parks open”… No, you have other priorities for which you stole the money for the parks, knowing folks will vote for funding the 5% of the budget they actually want…

  8. Another Ian says:


    Maybe it would work better as a SWAG? (Scientific WAG)

  9. p.g.sharrow says:

    Scientific Wild Ass Guess is just another term for Scientific Theory.
    WAG often has nothing to do with Science. Science requires Facts. Scientific Theory is generally made of facts strung together to see if it all fits and works together…pg

Comments are closed.