From the belly of the junk science academic beast comes an inane essay

Dr. Noe–I assume Dr. Noe or he wouldn’t be a UC Berkeley faculty–writes an essay that ignores what is all around him, politically motivated and funded junk science and intellectual inquiry.

First, he doesn’t know that proper scientific inquiry may require work, but it’s not obscure, it’s not an artistic or creative thing as he implies, and when science goes wrong it’s because of political and social influences that are best seen in places like UC Berkeley, where Dr. Noe struts his stuff.

Note he doesn’t even touch on the post modernist approach to intellectual inquiry that is soaked with politically correct leftist/collectivist delusional and deceptive pseudo science and inquiry, derivative of the academic culture that now is doevoted to cargo cult inquiries is the services of socialist/collectivist utopian conformist censorious emptyheadedness.

Eric Hoffer said that emptyhdeadedness doesn’t mean the head is empty, it means it is full of trash.

Dr. Noe properly condemns junk science while approving of junk science is the service of the leftist causes he loves so much.

Why no use a litle science to support your favorite causes and to impress the ignorant?

http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/12/413607947/should-we-trust-science

Advertisements

3 responses to “From the belly of the junk science academic beast comes an inane essay

  1. “Should we trust science?”

    NO. Not after Oct 24, 1945.

    My research mentor, the late Professor Paul Kazuo Kuroda, risked his life by taking personal possession of Japan’s atomic bomb design for fifty-seven years to . . .

    block efforts by frightened world leaders to unite nations (UN) and national academies of science (NAS) into a worldwide “Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific Truths” on 24 OCT 1945 . . .

    to help Stalin “save the world from nuclear annihilation” by forbidding public knowledge of the energy that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki – NEUTRON REPULSION.

    The US National Academy of Sciences betrayed the trust of the American people and sold sold them into slavery because they did not understand Eric Hoffer’s message:

    You cannot build utopia without terror, and before long terror is all that’s left.

  2. Analysis which shows the cause of climate change:
    1. Establish a least-biased assessment of all reported measured average global temperatures (AGT).
    2. From examination of historical AGT and historical solar cycles, form the hypothesis that a relation exists between sunspot numbers and the planet warming and cooling.
    3. From examination of historical AGT and other information, determine that ocean cycles contribute to AGT and the effect of ALL ocean cycles on AGT can be approximated by a saw-tooth function with period 64 years and amplitude of approximately ±1//5 K (to be determined more precisely later).
    4. Apply the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) to obtain an equation relating the historical measurements. Incorporate coefficients on each term in the equation to facilitate optimizing the equation to best match the calculated temperature anomalies to the measured temperature anomalies.
    5. Apply the mathematics of coefficient of determination, R2, to compare the calculated temperature anomalies to historical measured temperature anomalies.
    6. Adjust the coefficients in the equation alternately and repeatedly to obtain the absolute maximum R2. This results in R2 greater than 0.90 irrespective of whether the influence of CO2 is included or not and an equation which predicts a future down trend in average global temperatures.
    7. After Schwartz (2007) and other considerations, rapid (year-to-year) variations in reported average temperatures contain substantial random uncertainty as to the true energy content of the planet. This uncertainty is substantially removed by taking a running average of reported measurements. A 5-year running average increases R2 to greater than 0.97 leaving less than 3% to explain all factors not explicitly considered such as volcanos, aerosols, measurement errors, noncondensing greenhouse gases (the average sunspot number is a proxy accounting for average water vapor, the sunspot number anomaly is a proxy which accounts for cloud variations), difference from assumed wave form of ocean cycles, ice change, etc.

  3. I was a graduate student and post doc at UC-Berkeley in 1962-1964, but NPR refuses to post my reply to the question, “Should we trust science?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s