You are currently browsing the daily archive for 28 September 2009.

Here is a cool map Siberian Light found from Russian sources. It shows the trajectory of a Washington-bound Iranian missile, and where the Polish and Czech installations were to be in the original plan. Makes all plain.

What it doesn’t show is the <sneer>replacement</sneer> proposed by Obama. Stick a warship symbol in the area between Britain and Scandinavia, and surround it by smaller circles — the blue circle (range of the radar) is about half what’s shown for the land-based one, and the red missile-range circle would be about a third.

If it makes you feel better, you can put more in the Med and just off Iran in the Indian Ocean. The principle ought to be clear, though.

UPDATE: The BBC shows us a much simpler map of what the missiles Iran has now can hit. Find all the places to put an Aegis cruiser, hmm? Those relieved by the actual vs. possible trajectories are urged to buy a blankie, blue for preference. It’s guaranteed to keep the bogeymen away, although it may not work perfectly on wingnutz.

Advertisements

Anthony at Watt’s Up With That has the obituary.

There’s not much to add regarding the specific matter. What it does bring up is this: science is an elaborate working-out of the adage “everybody’s entitled to their own opinions, but nobody’s entitled to their own facts.” The language of “scholarly discourse” is a set of euphemisms designed to soften the in-your-face nature of the confrontations, and entirely too many people have been seduced into thinking it’s the basic meaning.

A real scientific paper is, in reality, the writer shoving the data and analysis up opponents’ noses, crowing, “See, assholes, I’m right about this!” It doesn’t work worth a damn if the report is incomplete, because what makes it “scientific” is that any damn body with the same data and any brains will reach the same conclusions.

The scientist then sits back, holding his or her breath, waiting for somebody to say “the data don’t support that conclusion” (which is “scholarly discourse” for “you fucked up the analysis, dickweed, and here’s where you went wrong”) or “your dataset is incomplete” (which is science-speak for “pay attention to what’s under your nose, you incompetent twit”). The objector(s) then write their own paper, and shove it under everybody’s nose just as the first one did.

The result of this process is that mistakes get corrected, erroneous data gets purged, and relevant data gets included. That, in the end, results in reliable information — whether or not it’s TRVTH in any sense is irrelevant; if you have reliable information, your space probes go where they should and your heart surgery doesn’t kill people.

So there’s an absolute, totally reliable touchstone for “science”: if the presenter does not include all the data and the entire process used for the analysis, that individual is not a “scientist”, regardless of what it says on the sheepskin on the wall. Most, if not all, of the “climate science” being played in the news doesn’t come close to meeting that standard, and Thomas Mann is so far from it he shouldn’t be hired as a lab assistant.

UPDATE: Watts mirror-posts Steve McIntyre’s original article to ease the load on Climate Audit’s server.

BACKDATE: This isn’t a new story, but the National Review has a good summary. Bottom line: we can’t make an informed decision because all the data got somehow destroyed or lost before anybody but the first lookers got to see it.