- Podcasts
- On Air Program Guide
- A Blue View
- Brain Talk
- Cellar Notes
- Choral Arts Classics
- The Environment in Focus
- Gil Sandler’s Baltimore Stories
- Humanities Connection
- Maryland Morning with Sheilah Kast
- Midday with Dan Rodricks
- The Morning Economic Report
- Radio Kitchen
- The Signal
- Take Five
- Your Maryland
- Public Commentary
- War of 1812 Stories
Midday with Dan Rodricks 5-3-11 Hour 1 Power Ahead: Oil
You are missing some Flash content that should appear here! Perhaps your browser cannot display it, or maybe it did not initialize correctly.
Day two of Midday's special series Power Ahead focuses on fossil fuels. During the first hour we look at coal with Robert Bryce, author of Power Hungry: The Myths of Green Energy and The Real Fuels of the Future, Bill McKibben, leading environmentalist and award-winning author of The End of Nature and Richard Heinberg, peak-oil expert, author and senior fellow, Post Carbon Institute.
Tags:
    Producer: Nikki Gamer Producer: Sean Yoes To call into the show: 410-662-8780 locally, or toll-free at 1-866-661-9309 Watch the live video from Studio A during Midday with Dan Rodricks |
CAR DONATION PROGRAM
Comments
The Sloppy Science of the hypothesis
...we are discussing solutions to a problem which has not been shown to exist … after the null hypothesis is falsified, that’s the time to talk about possible solutions. Until then, it’s just auto-computeroticism...
...One by one, the majority of the “individual arguments” have all been dismantled and dismissed. The accuracy of the models, the Himalayan glaciers, the underlying climate math, the Hockeystick, the “Jesus Paper”, the IPCC itself, the claimed temperature changes in Antarctica, they have been weighed and found very wanting. What “cumulative weight” is there of discredited arguments? If there is any “cumulative weight”, it is the cumulative weight of unsuccessful attempts to establish the AGW hypothesis. People have been trying unsuccessfully to falsify the null hypothesis for a quarter century now … I find the cumulative weight of that quite persuasive...
...people have been trying for a quarter century to disprove the null hypothesis. Read up on that, as your comments seem to indicate that you don’t understand it. You keep claiming that GHGs are causing all kinds of strange weather … but whenever we examine the weather, it’s the same as it’s always been. Yes, there’s less ice in the Arctic … and there’s more ice in the Antarctic, and the global total is unchanged. Where is the evidence that GHGs are a problem, much less a catastrophe?...
...The problem, you see, is that there is very, very little evidence that man is warming the planet. There’s plenty of evidence that the planet has been slightly warming, overall, for a long time. But no evidence of unusual weather. No evidence of a human effect. So please, bring out the evidence. (Remember that computer model output, while interesting and possibly useful, is not evidence. For example, the fact that a computer program says your stock portfolio will make lots of money, while it is encouraging, is not evidence that you will soon be rich, you probably shouldn’t buy the new BMW quite yet.)