I was well trained in the Scientific Method — hypothesis testing, awareness of EB (Experimenter Bias) etc. Through the years I’ve read thousands of journal articles in dozens of research fields — Cognition, Learning, Neurology, Earth Sciences, Biology, and Behavioral Sciences. In comparison to these journal articles, the “stuff” published by the Montserrat SAC is more science fiction than real science.

Errors of using probability numbers without DATA are found in the UN Climate Report — that bit about 90% probability that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035 (or 2050). This the same sort of “science” found in the Montserrat Scientific Advisory Committee’s reports. Why bother with data when “scientists” can come up with Wild a** guesses (SWAG) and present that as “science”.

How can a massive population NOT have an effect on the climate — history of humans shows that we do impact the environment — Easter Island was a lab of sorts.

When the truth should be enough — why have some Climate scientists chosen the SCARE science route? This sort of garbage makes scientists look bad.

The problem with yelling Wolf — when creature is only a perhaps a mouse — means that fewer people will believe the ones calling the alert. So that when a real scientist comes along, with a real warning about impending disaster — that person might not be believed.

Although I thank God I left science for business, I am applaud those who attempt to collect such lofty and tedious data.

If prediction markets are so awesome, then there should be opportunities to use them all around the place. Get yourself a clever idea and do it.

It’s not embarassment you need to cultivate, it’s jealousy and greed.

Your moonlighting gig counts for this I suppose.