Y’know, this worries

Worstall T (2015) Rio Tinto and Vale killed the commodities “super cycle” not China or the Fed, Forbes 29th November 2015

OK, so, how proud, I’m used as a reference in a scientific paper.

Mining’s contribution to national economies between 1996 and 2016

And of course I’m the Big Wahoonie as a result, right?

Except that’s just a little bit of journalism, bashed out in perhaps 20 minutes when I was looking for something to write about. On a site where I got paid by the number of pages views I got (1 cent per). Hey, it might even be right but it’s scribbles for money, not careful and considered opinions.

And yet this is the sort of rock that modern science is based upon? Knowing me as I do that worries.

10 thoughts on “Y’know, this worries”

  1. If your article is correct and the assertion is fair, then what’s the issue? You are one of the few people out there who both has this knowledge and actually writes about it so it’s good to see it out there being used.

  2. Well, yes, take the point. Intellectually I know that I do indeed know certain things that others don’t. And yet, the idea that I am an input to science scares the shit out of me. I know what I’m like, d’ye see?

  3. The Other Bloke in Italy

    Tim, I suspect that your throwaway remarks contribute more to the science than most “scientists” do.

    There are, currently, crises in Cosmology, Climatology, and now in Virology. The second two owe much to government. Dunno about the first.

  4. It’s only if/when what you stated becomes controversial that there would be an issue. At that point you would be comprehensively cancelled. But then you are not really a stranger to that anyway.

    I don’t really see that credentials in science necessarily say anything about the veracity or utility of what one says/writes.

  5. The crisis in Cosmology is caused by very clever people, who are not used to being wrong, being very wrong indeed.

    At least it isn’t Education or Nutrion, where most academics hold beliefs that are not even wrong.

  6. Cosmologists all know and agree that current models are incomplete (just as all physicists realise that the fundamental conflicts between QM and relativity mean neither can be a complete answer). They lack the data to ‘complete’ them, but are striving to remedy this.

    Compare and contrast this with Climate ‘Science’* and epidemiology, where there seems to be universal and absolute belief in their various models.

    * “The effect of prefixing the word ‘science’ by ‘climate’ is similar to that of prefixing the word ‘doctor’ by ‘witch’.”

  7. Hmm.. I don’t think the fact that it’s a “quickie” matters.
    From what I read, the article uses the reference as a limiter, pointing out that there may be causes beyond the scope of the published research that may be of influence on the result. Which in my eyes is a healthy attitude to have when it comes to Science.

    And at least in this article you’ve been attributed… I’ve a feeling there’s a fair bit around where your observations in an article somewhere simply has been used without proper attribution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *