Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

[SSDD]

In his book, "A Demon Haunted World" Sagan says that through their training, scientists are equipped with a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods. Here are some of the tools.

• Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
• Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
• Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
• Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
• Quantify, wherever possible.
• If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
• "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
• Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Climate Scientists must have missed the day they handed out the toolkit...or perhaps, mention of the toolkit is not part of the climate science education.

A couple of auxiliary tools are:

• Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
• Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

He also outlines some common fallacies of logic and rhetoric....the climate science cult and their priests are either confused on these or are taught that these are the most effective fallacies to engage in if promoting a hoax.

• • Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
  • Argument from "authority".
  • Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
  • Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
  • Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
  • Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
  • Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
  • Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
  • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
  • Inconsistency
  • Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
  • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
  • Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
  • Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
  • Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
  • Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
  • Confusion of correlation and causation.
  • Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
  • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
  • Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public

In short, climate science, and its useful idiots, far from having possession of a baloney detection kit of any sort goes about setting off the alarm bells of those of us who do on a daily basis.

 

[Crick]

I haven't the slightest problem with Sagan's views here - they are the fundamentals of the scientific method. You should be worried, though, as it is your views that will not pass this muster.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

In his book, "A Demon Haunted World" Sagan says that through their training, scientists are equipped with a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods. Here are some of the tools.

• 
  
  
  • Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
  • Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  • Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
  • Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  • Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
  • Quantify, wherever possible.
  • If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
  • "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
  • Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Climate Scientists must have missed the day they handed out the toolkit...or perhaps, mention of the toolkit is not part of the climate science education.

A couple of auxiliary tools are:

• 
  
  
  • Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
  • Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

He also outlines some common fallacies of logic and rhetoric....the climate science cult and their priests are either confused on these or are taught that these are the most effective fallacies to engage in if promoting a hoax.

• 
  
  
  • • Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
    • Argument from "authority".
    • Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
    • Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
    • Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
    • Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
    • Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
    • Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
    • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
    • Inconsistency
    • Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
    • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
    • Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
    • Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
    • Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
    • Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
    • Confusion of correlation and causation.
    • Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
    • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
    • Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public

In short, climate science, and its useful idiots, far from having possession of a baloney detection kit of any sort goes about setting off the alarm bells of those of us who do on a daily basis.

Post a link to this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I haven't the slightest problem with Sagan's views here - they are the fundamentals of the scientific method. You should be worried, though, as it is your views that will not pass this muster.

• 
  "Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities")."
  
  d'oh!

 

[Crick]

But a genuine consensus of opinion among genuine experts in a field, does.

Logical Fallacies The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

Argument from authority
The basic structure of such arguments is as follows: Professor X believes A, Professor X speaks from authority, therefore A is true. Often this argument is implied by emphasizing the many years of experience, or the formal degrees held by the individual making a specific claim. The converse of this argument is sometimes used, that someone does not possess authority, and therefore their claims must be false. (This may also be considered an ad-hominen logical fallacy – see above.)

In practice this can be a complex logical fallacy to deal with. It is legitimate to consider the training and experience of an individual when examining their assessment of a particular claim. Also, a consensus of scientific opinion does carry some legitimate authority. But it is still possible for highly educated individuals, and a broad consensus to be wrong – speaking from authority does not make a claim true.

This logical fallacy crops up in more subtle ways also. For example, UFO proponents have argued that UFO sightings by airline pilots should be given special weight because pilots are trained observers, are reliable characters, and are trained not to panic in emergencies. In essence, they are arguing that we should trust the pilot’s authority as an eye witness.

There are many subtypes of the argument from authority, essentially referring to the implied source of authority. A common example is the argument ad populum – a belief must be true because it is popular, essentially assuming the authority of the masses. Another example is the argument from antiquity – a belief has been around for a long time and therefore must be true.

 

[mamooth]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

 

[SSDD]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

 

[Impenitent]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

Tell that to Carl Sagan:

 

[jc456]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

Tell that to Carl Sagan:

And as always a far left missed the point!!! it's amazing to me the fun on here. Thanks for the laugh!!!

 

[SSDD]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

Tell that to Carl Sagan:

And as always a far left missed the point!!! it's amazing to me the fun on here. Thanks for the laugh!!!

They avoid the point like vampires avoid sunlight...that is because the point leads to the fact that they have been wrong. Of course they don't want to see that they have been wrong so they avoid the point.

 

[Old Rocks]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

SSo DDumb, this was written in 1981. The Northwest Passage has been open several times in the past decade. We now see the breakup of the West Anarctic ice sheet as inevitable. The sea levels have risen, enough to create known additional damage from storms like Sandy. And yet idiots like you continually lie about the predictions made by the scientists.

The scientists studying the problem are the best in the world. Yet people like you, that have proven repeatedly that you do not even understand the most basic of science, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences, think you know more than any of them. You people are really pathetic in your willfull ignorance.

 

[jc456]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

SSo DDumb, this was written in 1981. The Northwest Passage has been open several times in the past decade. We now see the breakup of the West Anarctic ice sheet as inevitable. The sea levels have risen, enough to create known additional damage from storms like Sandy. And yet idiots like you continually lie about the predictions made by the scientists.

The scientists studying the problem are the best in the world. Yet people like you, that have proven repeatedly that you do not even understand the most basic of science, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences, think you know more than any of them. You people are really pathetic in your willfull ignorance.

what's your point with the northwest passage? From Wikipedia:

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but changes in the pack ice (Arctic shrinkage) has made the waterways more navigable."

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

 

[SSDD]

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

These guys never have a point...their whole objective is to avoid the point...the point being that they are wrong. They seem to always have a ready "prediction" or "calculation" that seems to make their point but are unable to see that when the cult claims that everything is caused by CO2 that somewhere in everything is what actually happened...one right guess out of literally hundreds doesn't impress me.

It is as if they said OK, we are going to roll these dice and the result will be some number between 1 and 12....then the number comes up 5 and they say see...we know all, and don't concern yourself with predictions 1-4 and 6-12....

And now with the finding that sea water is a poor emitter, and therefore absorber of the principle wavelengths that CO2 radiates the hoax has to be reeling.

 

[jc456]

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

These guys never have a point...their whole objective is to avoid the point...the point being that they are wrong. They seem to always have a ready "prediction" or "calculation" that seems to make their point but are unable to see that when the cult claims that everything is caused by CO2 that somewhere in everything is what actually happened...one right guess out of literally hundreds doesn't impress me.

It is as if they said OK, we are going to roll these dice and the result will be some number between 1 and 12....then the number comes up 5 and they say see...we know all, and don't concern yourself with predictions 1-4 and 6-12....

And now with the finding that sea water is a poor emitter, and therefore absorber of the principle wavelengths that CO2 radiates the hoax has to be reeling.

BTW, I just love watching them scramble when things aren't what they state. In this manner, I get more laughs from them and posts by you and others on here that make me glad I back the correct version of science.

 

[Old Rocks]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

SSo DDumb, this was written in 1981. The Northwest Passage has been open several times in the past decade. We now see the breakup of the West Anarctic ice sheet as inevitable. The sea levels have risen, enough to create known additional damage from storms like Sandy. And yet idiots like you continually lie about the predictions made by the scientists.

The scientists studying the problem are the best in the world. Yet people like you, that have proven repeatedly that you do not even understand the most basic of science, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences, think you know more than any of them. You people are really pathetic in your willfull ignorance.

what's your point with the northwest passage? From Wikipedia:

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but changes in the pack ice (Arctic shrinkage) has made the waterways more navigable."

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

You stupid ass. The passage was not ice free in 1903.

Fram Museum - Fram Museum

THE ROUTE OF THE GJØA 1903-06:

16 JUNE 1903	Kristiania (Oslo)
	Godhavn in Greenland
	Dalrymple Rock
	Franklin Strait via Beechey Island
	King William Island
9 SEPTEMBER	Arrival Gjøahavn - stayed here two years
17 AUGUST 1905	Cape Colbourne
SEPTEMBER	Stopped by the ice at King Point near Herschel Island. Amundsen went to Eagle City
31 AUGUST 1906	Nome
1909	The Gjøa was donated to the City of San Francisco.
1948	The Gjøa was restored.
1972	The Gjøa was transported to Bygdøynes in Oslo.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Navigating the Passage
The Gjøa set sail once more on 13 August 1905, passing through Simpson Strait to the south of King William Island and on to the Bering Strait. When Amundsen encountered a whaling ship from San Francisco coming in the opposite direction he knew he would complete the North-West Passage. In his diary, he famously wrote:

The North-West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes.

Due to water as shallow as a metre, a larger ship could never have used Amundsen’s route.

Roald Amundsen s expedition 1903 06 Exploration adventure and tragedy Search for the North-West Passage Maritime history features Sea ships Explore online RMG

 

[Old Rocks]

Just Crazy, you don't even research your posts enough to know what idiocy you post.

 

[jc456]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

SSo DDumb, this was written in 1981. The Northwest Passage has been open several times in the past decade. We now see the breakup of the West Anarctic ice sheet as inevitable. The sea levels have risen, enough to create known additional damage from storms like Sandy. And yet idiots like you continually lie about the predictions made by the scientists.

The scientists studying the problem are the best in the world. Yet people like you, that have proven repeatedly that you do not even understand the most basic of science, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences, think you know more than any of them. You people are really pathetic in your willfull ignorance.

what's your point with the northwest passage? From Wikipedia:

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but changes in the pack ice (Arctic shrinkage) has made the waterways more navigable."

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

You stupid ass. The passage was not ice free in 1903.

Fram Museum - Fram Museum

THE ROUTE OF THE GJØA 1903-06:

16 JUNE 1903	Kristiania (Oslo)
Godhavn in Greenland
Dalrymple Rock
Franklin Strait via Beechey Island
King William Island
9 SEPTEMBER	Arrival Gjøahavn - stayed here two years
17 AUGUST 1905	Cape Colbourne
SEPTEMBER	Stopped by the ice at King Point near Herschel Island. Amundsen went to Eagle City
31 AUGUST 1906	Nome
1909	The Gjøa was donated to the City of San Francisco.
1948	The Gjøa was restored.
1972	The Gjøa was transported to Bygdøynes in Oslo.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Navigating the Passage
The Gjøa set sail once more on 13 August 1905, passing through Simpson Strait to the south of King William Island and on to the Bering Strait. When Amundsen encountered a whaling ship from San Francisco coming in the opposite direction he knew he would complete the North-West Passage. In his diary, he famously wrote:

The North-West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes.

Due to water as shallow as a metre, a larger ship could never have used Amundsen’s route.

Roald Amundsen s expedition 1903 06 Exploration adventure and tragedy Search for the North-West Passage Maritime history features Sea ships Explore online RMG

dude, did you just read this? Really are you that bad?

 

[RollingThunder]

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard Feynman, destroying denialism.

It's in the first minute of this video.

Still living in opposite world I see...climate models are, in fact, the only experiment that climate science has and climate models, which are the AGW and Greenhouse hypotheses incarnate have failed spectacularly...therefore, both the greenhouse hypothesis as described by climate science and the AGW hypothesis are wrong.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and
1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on
climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
fabled Northwest Passage.

SSo DDumb, this was written in 1981. The Northwest Passage has been open several times in the past decade. We now see the breakup of the West Anarctic ice sheet as inevitable. The sea levels have risen, enough to create known additional damage from storms like Sandy. And yet idiots like you continually lie about the predictions made by the scientists.

The scientists studying the problem are the best in the world. Yet people like you, that have proven repeatedly that you do not even understand the most basic of science, physics, chemistry, or any of the sciences, think you know more than any of them. You people are really pathetic in your willfull ignorance.

what's your point with the northwest passage? From Wikipedia:

"Sought by explorers for centuries as a possible trade route, it was first navigated by Roald Amundsen in 1903–1906. Until 2009, the Arctic pack ice prevented regular marine shipping throughout most of the year, but changes in the pack ice (Arctic shrinkage) has made the waterways more navigable."

do you know what the word more means? It means that the passage was ice free back in 1903 and navigable.

You stupid ass. The passage was not ice free in 1903.

Fram Museum - Fram Museum

THE ROUTE OF THE GJØA 1903-06:

16 JUNE 1903	Kristiania (Oslo)
Godhavn in Greenland
Dalrymple Rock
Franklin Strait via Beechey Island
King William Island
9 SEPTEMBER	Arrival Gjøahavn - stayed here two years
17 AUGUST 1905	Cape Colbourne
SEPTEMBER	Stopped by the ice at King Point near Herschel Island. Amundsen went to Eagle City
31 AUGUST 1906	Nome
1909	The Gjøa was donated to the City of San Francisco.
1948	The Gjøa was restored.
1972	The Gjøa was transported to Bygdøynes in Oslo.

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Navigating the Passage
The Gjøa set sail once more on 13 August 1905, passing through Simpson Strait to the south of King William Island and on to the Bering Strait. When Amundsen encountered a whaling ship from San Francisco coming in the opposite direction he knew he would complete the North-West Passage. In his diary, he famously wrote:

The North-West Passage was done. My boyhood dream—at that moment it was accomplished. A strange feeling welled up in my throat; I was somewhat over-strained and worn—it was weakness in me—but I felt tears in my eyes.

Due to water as shallow as a metre, a larger ship could never have used Amundsen’s route.

Roald Amundsen s expedition 1903 06 Exploration adventure and tragedy Search for the North-West Passage Maritime history features Sea ships Explore online RMG

dude, did you just read this? Really are you that bad?

Nope. You are just really that stupid.

 

[boedicca]

In his book, "A Demon Haunted World" Sagan says that through their training, scientists are equipped with a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods. Here are some of the tools.

• 
  
  
  • Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
  • Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of all points of view.
  • Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
  • Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that caught your fancy.
  • Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
  • Quantify, wherever possible.
  • If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
  • "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypothesis that explain the data equally well choose the simpler.
  • Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is is it testable? Can others duplicate the experiment and get the same result?

Climate Scientists must have missed the day they handed out the toolkit...or perhaps, mention of the toolkit is not part of the climate science education.

A couple of auxiliary tools are:

• 
  
  
  • Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
  • Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.

He also outlines some common fallacies of logic and rhetoric....the climate science cult and their priests are either confused on these or are taught that these are the most effective fallacies to engage in if promoting a hoax.

• 
  
  
  • • Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
    • Argument from "authority".
    • Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
    • Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
    • Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
    • Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is phrased).
    • Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
    • Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate sample sizes).
    • Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below average intelligence!)
    • Inconsistency
    • Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
    • Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" - confusion of cause and effect.
    • Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object?).
    • Excluded middle - considering only the two extremes in a range of possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
    • Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
    • Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle - unwarranted extrapolation of the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
    • Confusion of correlation and causation.
    • Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to attack..
    • Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
    • Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the public

In short, climate science, and its useful idiots, far from having possession of a baloney detection kit of any sort goes about setting off the alarm bells of those of us who do on a daily basis.

Post a link to this.

The Demon-Haunted World Science as a Candle in the Dark Carl Sagan Ann Druyan 8601401286790 Amazon.com Books

 

[RollingThunder]

The Demon-Haunted World Science as a Candle in the Dark Carl Sagan Ann Druyan 8601401286790 Amazon.com Books