Surely, you are familiar with the intellectually-dishonest practice of "cherry-picking." If you're not, Shirley, then take a moment to brush up here. With nearly equal certitude, I will assume you have seen deniers cherry-pick the bits of climate science they like, while sticking their fingers in their ears over the stuff they don't like. Of course, even the stuff that's cherry-picked often turns out to be flat-out wrong and/or incomplete research, because they're ignorant idiots who fall for just about any unscientific nonsense, but that's not important right now (you can find the appropriate, overused Airplane! clip on YouTube yourself this time, so there).
What I'm gonna bet you have not considered is that climate deniers' fascination with climate science alone is in fact a massive cherry pick. Let's call it a meta cherry pick, to coin a term which should indicate a level of abstraction above cherry-picking data from within one field of science.
Think about it. How many scientific fields have humans developed? Hundreds? Thousands? I honestly don't know the true number, but I know it's too many to become fixated on one. If you've become incurably entranced by and critical of one area of research, the problem most likely lies with you and your own childish preconceptions/misconceptions/biases/etc., not the science.
That brings us to modeling the climate using computers. If you pay attention to the idiots, which you shouldn't other than maybe for laughs, you'd think climate science was the only branch of study which uses computer models. Look at all the articles in that keyword/tag search I just linked for you. And that's only one screwball misinformation site out of many. Climate deniers' sheer fascination with climate modeling is matched only by their level of misunderstanding about how the process works. Oh, and maybe their undying love for Grandpa Al, but we've covered that already, haven't we?
How many other scientific fields use computer modeling? Again, I don't know the number, but by now it's probably the majority. Do you ever see these harebrained deniers going ballistic over computer models used to simulate and predict how galactic collisions work? Or screaming and bellyaching that biologists use them? Where are the cries of denier anguish that computer models used to simulate the brain ARE NOT COMPLETELY INERRANT AND EXACT SO THEREFORE THEY ARE USELESS?
Do you ever see climate deniers commenting about models at such a frenzied pace in online articles for astronomy, biology, medical research, etc.? Why is that, hmmmm? Why do they ignore these other fields? Does anyone have a quote for me from one of the idiotic denier Boss Trolls like Anthony Watts which assaults the use of computer models elsewhere in science?
...cricket...cricket...cricket...
Gosh, shucks, and gee willikers, I just can't figure out why dipshit deniers only despair senselessly over computer models used to predict the climate, while completely ignoring their usage in other fields. Oh so stumped here. How about you?
No comments:
Post a Comment