A Climate Science Challenge

Scott Adams writes another article on Climate Science, and issues a challenge.  I have my own.  I'm deeply distrustful of anything that smacks of "all the cool kids agree with it" logic.  As it stands, the so-called consensus looks to me like no more than a progressive excuse to force social and economic changes that fit a political agenda.  I don't care about any "consensus" on this issue.  Consensus and Science are contradictions in terms. 

To dissuade me from my skepticism, I'd like the following addressed: 

1. Prove your measurements.  Is the Earth actually warming? Be prepared to show your data and defend the methodology used to gather it.  Be able to address any objections to the validity of those measures. Provide a list of factors that could invalidate the measures and list ways in which these factors have been mitigated.  Any data smoothing or manipulation needs to be transparent and defended.  
2. Back up your model.  Explain the mechanism that indicates that any measured change above is caused by atmospheric carbon variation.  Your models must account for solar activity and previous historical (and prehistoric) evidence that the Earth has changed climate many times in the past, prior to any industrialized human activity.  A reason for previous warm periods must be provided along with an explaination of why those factors are not in effect now (assuming you can defend 1 above). 
3. Prove that human activity accounts for the conclusions in your model above.  If carbon emissions account for the warming (assuming 1 and 2 above have been covered), provide proof that natural causes do not account for the carbon increases.  A geologically active planet creates carbon emissions (volcanos, anyone?), and any warming activity, such as a change in solar output, will release captured carbon in the soil.  Be prepared to prove that any increase in atmospheric carbon is the cause, and not the result, of warming activity.  
4. Prove that we can do anything about it, and that the solution is worth the cost.  This argument must accommodate political, economic and engineering factors.  Does crippling Western economies to achieve climate goals accomplish anything when developing economies in China, India and elsewhere show no willingness to sign up for limits?  How many unemployed people, sitting in the dark and cold without sufficient power, balance whatever benefits can be achieved?  How many industries that shut down due to increasing energy prices weigh against an uncertain improvement?  Idealism has no place in this discussion.  Explain how a balance can be achieved here. 
5. Prove that a warmer climate really is a problem.  Historical records show much warmer periods in European history, with evidence of agriculture far further north than today.  History indicates that this was a benefit rather than a problem. Provide a business and social case as to why warmer weather in higher latitudes is a problem. Recall that civilizations and cities built too close to geographically active areas have been destroyed and rebuilt many times in the past.  The Earth is not stable.  
6. Bonus question: if carbon-emitting power is the problem, why are the same people predicting carbon-based gloom and doom also the same people who oppose nuclear power, the only practical non-emitting source of electrical power, to charge the batteries for all these electric cars and stuff.  Research into better nuclear power generation has been crippled for decades because of environmental objections.  If an atmosphere full of carbon is doomsday, shouldn't a little carefully stored radioactive waste and a slight risk from well managed nuclear power plants be a better option? Explain why not. *

I'm open minded here.  I'm an engineer with 30+ years experience in data architecture and analysis, so I can probably follow along.  Make an argument in intelligent layman's terms.  I'm old enough to remember scientists panicking over global COOLING and a new ice age.  

* Note: for a variety of reasons, I prefer natural gas electrical generation from fracking over nuclear, including those discussed here.  Still, the questions are valid for those seeking a zero-emissions electricity source. 

Testing New iPad Blogging Software

Ruby is helping me test new blogging software (BlogTouch Pro).  I have not bitten off her long ears, even though it may appear that way. 

Edit: full name is Rubainus the Heinous, the Interplanitary Space Bunny From Uranus.  

Using Software Programming to Explain Conservatism and Progressivism

I'm writing this on my dormant blog so people not interested won't have it cluttering up their Facebook feed. 

I work in software development, and have spent a lot of my career heads-down in program code.  Most people have a vision of programmers writing new clean programs all the time, but the reality is that professionals spend most of their time READING code and trying to figure out what in the hell their predecessors were thinking.  This you must do before you can extend, enhance, replace or retire the programs of interest.

Frequently, you see code that is mysterious, that appears to serve no purpose, that looks like trash, that violates all coding rules known to mankind. For many programmers, usually new developers or people who have just not matured, the temptation to "fix" this sort of thing gets the better of them, and they forget the old rule (to paraphrase Chesterton) "don't tear down the fence until you understand why someone put it up in the first place".  That code you want to mess with just might be the thing that is keeping it running, and messing with it without a sober understanding of what it IS doing can often lead to disaster - like lives at stake, thousands of dollars lost or a business totally shut down until the change is reversed - kind of disaster.

Mature programmers know this, often having learned it the hard way (raises hand). They are, if you will, conservative in outlook.  If you don't know how it works, don't mess with it. The Law of Unintended Consequences is always in effect.  Murphy is a son of a bitch and won't miss an opening.

What does this have to do with progressives and conservatives in politics?

First, we need some definitions.  I often say that I'm both a liberal AND a conservative, because those things aren't opposites.

The opposite of a liberal is not a conservative; it's an authoritarian.  That's someone who wants to control what you do or say, and spend your money for you, and not the way you'd choose.  I don't like authoritarians, and you probably don't either.

The opposite of a conservative is not a liberal; it's a progressive.  Progressives tend to think they are working towards something better, and by definition, leaving something they think worse behind - and if a few fences need to be torn down in the process, so what? Nobody needs that old stuff cluttering up our modern world anyway.

As a side note, most normal people are hesitant to mess with things that they think aren't broken, so progressives frequently have to force their ideas on the unwilling with a little (or a lot) of authoritarianism.  So if you are looking for the fascists, you know where to start. Just saying.

In programming, the guys who want to fix what's not broken, and ignore Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences are the progressives. When you have "progressive" developers on your team, you come down on them good and hard until they learn to truly think through what they want to do before they dive in.  The stakes are too high.

The people who just lost this election are not liberals and certainly not conservative.  They are authoritarians and progressives, both to a dangerous degree.  Western Civilization, Judeo Christian values and Anglo-American culture are the operating system that keeps this country going, and they are removing and replacing its code left and right (if you'll pardon the expression).  To use a different analogy, they are people who will gleefully pull down the walls, then act indignant when the roof falls down on them.

Thank heavens they are out of power for at least the next four years.  The adults may be able to patch up some of what was messed up.  Perhaps a restore to an earlier build is in order.

Also, read this by Eric Raymond.  It's important: Hey, Democrats! We need you to get your act together!