PDA

View Full Version : Manufactured Doubt "Science"



Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 02:11 PM
Good recap here:

Published on Monday, December 7, 2009 by Weather Underground

The Manufactured Doubt Industry and the Hacked Email Controversy

by Jeff Masters

In 1954, the tobacco industry realized it had a serious problem. Thirteen scientific studies had been published over the preceding five years linking smoking to lung cancer. With the public growing increasingly alarmed about the health effects of smoking, the tobacco industry had to move quickly to protect profits and stem the tide of increasingly worrisome scientific news. Big Tobacco turned to one the world's five largest public relations firms, Hill and Knowlton, to help out. Hill and Knowlton designed a brilliant Public Relations (PR) campaign to convince the public that smoking is not dangerous. They encouraged the tobacco industry to set up their own research organization, the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), which would produce science favorable to the industry, emphasize doubt in all the science linking smoking to lung cancer, and question all independent research unfavorable to the tobacco industry. The CTR did a masterful job at this for decades, significantly delaying and reducing regulation of tobacco products. George Washington University epidemiologist David Michaels, who is President Obama's nominee to head the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), wrote a meticulously researched 2008 book called, Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. In the book, he wrote: "the industry understood that the public is in no position to distinguish good science from bad. Create doubt, uncertainty, and confusion. Throw mud at the anti-smoking research under the assumption that some of it is bound to stick. And buy time, lots of it, in the bargain". The title of Michaels' book comes from a 1969 memo from a tobacco company executive: "Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy". Hill and Knowlton, on behalf of the tobacco industry, had founded the "Manufactured Doubt" industry.



The Manufactured Doubt industry grows up

As the success of Hill and Knowlton's brilliant Manufactured Doubt campaign became apparent, other industries manufacturing dangerous products hired the firm to design similar PR campaigns. In 1967, Hill and Knowlton helped asbestos industry giant Johns-Manville set up the Asbestos Information Association (AIA). The official-sounding AIA produced "sound science" that questioned the link between asbestos and lung diseases (asbestos currently kills 90,000 people per year, according to the World Health Organization ). Manufacturers of lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium, and dioxin products also hired Hill and Knowlton to devise product defense strategies to combat the numerous scientific studies showing that their products were harmful to human health.

By the 1980s, the Manufactured Doubt industry gradually began to be dominated by more specialized "product defense" firms and free enterprise "think tanks". Michaels wrote in Doubt is Their Product about the specialized "product defense" firms: "Having cut their teeth manufacturing uncertainty for Big Tobacco, scientists at ChemRisk, the Weinberg Group, Exponent, Inc., and other consulting firms now battle the regulatory agencies on behalf of the manufacturers of benzene, beryllium, chromium, MTBE, perchlorates, phthalates, and virtually every other toxic chemical in the news today....Public health interests are beside the point. This is science for hire, period, and it is extremely lucrative".

Joining the specialized "product defense" firms were the so-called "think tanks". These front groups received funding from manufacturers of dangerous products and produced "sound science" in support of their funders' products, in the name of free enterprise and free markets. Think tanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been active for decades in the Manufactured Doubt business, generating misleading science and false controversy to protect the profits of their clients who manufacture dangerous products.

The ozone hole battle

In 1975, the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) industry realized it had a serious problem. The previous year, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, had published a scientific paper warning that human-generated CFCs could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. The CFC industry hired Hill and Knowlton to fight back. As is essential in any Manufactured Doubt campaign, Hill and Knowlton found a respected scientist to lead the effort--noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. In 1975, Scorer went on a month-long PR tour, blasting Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." To complement Scorer's efforts, Hill and Knowlton unleashed their standard package of tricks learned from decades of serving the tobacco industry:

Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.
Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.
Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.
Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.
Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.
Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.
Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.
Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.
Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the world.
Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.
Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.
The campaign worked, and CFC regulations were delayed many years, as Hill and Knowlton boasted in internal documents. The PR firm also took credit for keeping public opinion against buying CFC aerosols to a minimum, and helping change the editorial positions of many newspapers.

In the end, Hill and Knowlton's PR campaign casting doubt on the science of ozone depletion by CFCs turned out to have no merit. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

---more---

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 02:15 PM
The battle over global warming

In 1988, the fossil fuel industry realized it had a serious problem. The summer of 1988 had shattered century-old records for heat and drought in the U.S., and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, one of the foremost climate scientists in the world, testified before Congress that human-caused global warming was partially to blame. A swelling number of scientific studies were warning of the threat posed by human-cause climate change, and that consumption of fossil fuels needed to slow down. Naturally, the fossil fuel industry fought back. They launched a massive PR campaign that continues to this day, led by the same think tanks that worked to discredit the ozone depletion theory. The George C. Marshall Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Heartland Institute, and Dr. Fred Singer's SEPP (Science and Environmental Policy Project) have all been key players in both fights, and there are numerous other think tanks involved. Many of the same experts who had worked hard to discredit the science of the well-established link between cigarette smoke and cancer, the danger the CFCs posed to the ozone layer, and the dangers to health posed by a whole host of toxic chemicals, were now hard at work to discredit the peer-reviewed science supporting human-caused climate change.

As is the case with any Manufactured Doubt campaign, a respected scientist was needed to lead the battle. One such scientist was Dr. Frederick Seitz , a physicist who in the 1960s chaired the organization many feel to be the most prestigious science organization in the world--the National Academy of Sciences. Seitz took a position as a paid consultant for R.J. Reynolds tobacco company beginning in 1978, so was well-versed in the art of Manufactured Doubt. According to the excellent new book, Climate Cover-up, written by desmogblog.com co-founder James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore, over a 10-year period Seitz was responsible for handing out $45 million in tobacco company money to researchers who overwhelmingly failed to link tobacco to anything the least bit negative. Seitz received over $900,000 in compensation for his efforts. He later became a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute, and used his old National Academy of Sciences affiliation to lend credibility to his attacks on global warming science until his death in 2008 at the age of ninety-six. It was Seitz who launched the "Oregon Petition", which contains the signatures of more than 34,000 scientists saying global warming is probably natural and not a crisis. The petition is a regular feature of the Manufactured Doubt campaign against human-caused global warming. The petition lists the "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine" as its parent organization. According to Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly homeschooler curriculums books on surviving nuclear war. The petition was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page review printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A letter from Seitz, who is prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review. Naturally, many recipients took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. In its August 2006 issue, Scientific American presented its attempt to verify the petition. They found that the scientists were almost all people with undergraduate degrees, with no record of research and no expertise in climatology. Scientific American contacted a random sample of 26 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to have a Ph.D. in a climate related science. Eleven said they agreed with the petition, six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember the petition, one had died, and five did not respond.

I could say much more about the Manufactured Doubt campaign being waged against the science of climate change and global warming, but it would fill an entire book. In fact, it has, and I recommend reading Climate Cover-up to learn more. The main author, James Hoggan, owns a Canadian public relations firm, and is intimately familiar with how public relations campaigns work. Suffice to say, the Manufactured Doubt campaign against global warming--funded by the richest corporations in world history--is probably the most extensive and expensive such effort ever. We don't really know how much money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into its Manufactured Doubt campaign, since they don't have to tell us. The website exxonsecrets.org estimates that ExxonMobil alone spent $20 million between 1998 - 2007 on the effort. An analysis done by Desmogblog's Kevin Grandia done in January 2009 found that skeptical global warming content on the web had doubled over the past year. Someone is paying for all that content.

Lobbyists, not skeptical scientists

The history of the Manufactured Doubt industry provides clear lessons in evaluating the validity of their attacks on the published peer-reviewed climate change science. One should trust that the think tanks and allied "skeptic" bloggers such as Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry. Yes, there are respected scientists with impressive credentials that these think tanks use to voice their views, but these scientists have given up their objectivity and are now working as lobbyists. I don't like to call them skeptics, because all good scientists should be skeptics. Rather, the think tanks scientists are contrarians, bent on discrediting an accepted body of published scientific research for the benefit of the richest and most powerful corporations in history. Virtually none of the "sound science" they are pushing would ever get published in a serious peer-reviewed scientific journal, and indeed the contrarians are not scientific researchers. They are lobbyists. Many of them seem to believe their tactics are justified, since they are fighting a righteous war against eco-freaks determined to trash the economy.

I will give a small amount of credit to some of their work, however. I have at times picked up some useful information from the contrarians, and have used it to temper my blogs to make them more balanced. For example, I no longer rely just on the National Climatic Data Center for my monthly climate summaries, but instead look at data from NASA and the UK HADCRU source as well. When the Hurricane Season of 2005 brought unfounded claims that global warming was to blame for Hurricane Katrina, and a rather flawed paper by researchers at Georgia Tech showing a large increase in global Category 4 and 5 hurricanes, I found myself agreeing with the contrarians' analysis of the matter, and my blogs at the time reflected this.

---more---

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 02:17 PM
The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails

A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and posted ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading scientists who've published research linking humans to climate change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.

Exaggerated claims by environmentalists

Climate change contrarians regularly complain about false and misleading claims made by ideologically-driven environmental groups regarding climate change, and the heavy lobbying these groups do to influence public opinion. Such efforts confuse the real science and make climate change seem more dangerous than it really is, the contrarians argue. To some extent, these concerns are valid. In particular, environmentalists are too quick to blame any perceived increase in hurricane activity on climate change, when such a link has yet to be proven. While Al Gore's movie mostly had good science, I thought he botched the treatment of hurricanes as well, and the movie looked too much like a campaign ad. In general, environmental groups present better science than the think tanks do, but you're still better off getting your climate information directly from the scientists doing the research, via the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. Another good source is Bob Henson's Rough Guide to Climate Change , aimed at people with high-school level science backgrounds.

Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence. According to Center for Public Integrity , there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries outnumber those working for environmental, health, and alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):

Chevron $6,485,000
Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
BP America $4,270,000
ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
Shell Oil Company $950,000
Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
Williams Companies $920,000
Flint Hills Resources $820,000
Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
National Mining Association $770,000
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
Devon Energy $695,000 Sunoco $585,000
Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
Peabody Energy $420,000
Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
El Paso Corporation $261,000 Spectra Energy $279,000
National Propane Gas Association $242,000
National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
Nexen, Inc $230,000
Denbury Resources $200,000
Nisource, Inc $180,000
Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
Tesoro Companies $119,000

Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:

Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
Nature Conservancy $650,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
Sierra Club $120,000
Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
Environmental Defense Fund $100,000

If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying money from other industries lobbying against climate change, such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.

Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility

I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have little choice under the law but to protect their profits by pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds, "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, the public safety, the communities in which the corporation operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued companies for being overly socially responsible, and not paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR) can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.

So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns. Legislation has been introduced in Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible) corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for drugs and hazardous chemicals--Doubt is Their Product has some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle being, "use the best science available; do not demand certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I think such legislation would be difficult to implement for environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're stuck with the current system, forced to make critical decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation campaign against science ever conducted.

Copyright © 2009 Weather Underground, Inc.
Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Phillip Allen
12-07-2009, 02:23 PM
sounds like a "trust me" pitch for...ah...someone

Bruce Hooke
12-07-2009, 02:34 PM
Thanks Ian. That is an excellent and very timely piece. So many people do not seem to realize that when it comes to global warming, the real origins of much of the doubt out there is people being paid NOT to be skeptics but instead being paid to basically do their best to pull the wool over the eyes of the public.

Bruce Hooke
12-07-2009, 02:37 PM
sounds like a "trust me" pitch for...ah...someone

When it comes to complex science most of us have no choice but to accept what someone tells us. The question is who are we going to trust? At the least, I am certainly not that inclined to trust someone who is being paid to present a particular perspective.

Peerie Maa
12-07-2009, 02:40 PM
The courts declared that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees were nice, his business existed to make profits for its stockholders.
There lies a problem with pure capitalism.
When a Trades Union General Secretary was being shown the new robots in a car plant, robots that had replaced tens of workers, he was reported to have asked "Can they be trained to buy cars?"
Industry's purpose is to provide a living for workers by producing what the economy needs. It won't survive without both sides prospering.

Phillip Allen
12-07-2009, 02:42 PM
When it comes to complex science most of us have no choice but to accept what someone tells us. The question is who are we going to trust? At the least, I am certainly not that inclined to trust someone who is being paid to present a particular perspective.

I'll go along with that...

(complicated, ain't it)

shamus
12-07-2009, 02:44 PM
Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That will give information designed to protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry.
Watts up with that publishes a lot of articles that are dubious and seem intended to provide comfort to people who think they have a God given right to drive a hummer, in my opinion, but his surface station inspection project has shown up some pretty awful stuff. Like instruments sited in asphalt carparks, beside airconditioning outlets, on top of buildings, and at the end of airport runways copping jet exhausts.
Last I checked they had inspected about 75% of US stations and about 60% of what they had inspected rated at low accuracy when appraised under the appropriate international system.
This seems to me to be useful, and the problem ought to be fixed.

Steve McIntyre more or less restricts himself to checking other people's use of statistics. This seems entirely within the realm of proper scientific endeavour. He has found some good 'uns too.

George Ray
12-07-2009, 02:46 PM
Thanks Ian ...

Kaa
12-07-2009, 02:48 PM
I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists...

Well, I can see "clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research." Perhaps he needs a vision check?


There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history.

LOL. Let me correct this -- first he needs to stop drinking the Kool-Aid, wait some time for it to flush out of his system, and only then to go for a vision check.


Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental groups to see their relative influence.
...
If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1.

$37m? That's peanuts! Shall we count the billions spent on global warming already?

By now global warming is a business -- BIG business -- and lots of people (and corporations) make big bucks from it.

Kaa

Kaa
12-07-2009, 02:56 PM
When it comes to complex science most of us have no choice but to accept what someone tells us.

Being an arrogant bastard that I'm, I consider most of the current climate science to be within my range of complexity.

That's why I'm not going to accept what someone tells me. I much prefer to go and look at the data and the methodology myself. The Climategate documents offer a very useful inside look at the global warming sausage factory. I consider myself sufficiently competent to understand what was happening there. And I don't like it at all. I don't think it's good science or good data. And I see lots of evidence for sloppy, politicized, let's-just-pretend-this-is-so-and-hope-nobody-notices "results".

Hell, just the bitter fight to prevent people from seeing their raw data and methodology should be a giant clue that there are serious problems. That's not the way science is done and not the way it should be done.

In my opinion these people and others like them manufactured certainty where none exists.

Kaa

Kaa
12-07-2009, 03:10 PM
Then again, the country is safe: you'd never be hired by ANY reputable scientific research organization, with an attitude like that.

LOL. So "reputable scientific research organization[s]" only hire people who admit that the problems are too complex for their understanding? :D


If you're not too busy, can you also manage my investments, fix my old VCR, replace the tranny in my car, represent me in a civil suit, and do my annual physical?

Well, I managed investments, fixed VCRs, replaced a tranny :D With a slight bit of stretching I can claim to have represented myself in the courtroom and I do my own annual physical :-P

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert Heinlein


All of those things are probably a LOT simpler than global warming science. If you figure you're so smart that you can do GW science, then I guess you can do all the rest, as well?

So, um, you think that only certified geniuses do climate science? Or they are regular people who put their pants on one leg at a time?

We're back to science as high priesthood. It ain't.

Kaa

John of Phoenix
12-07-2009, 03:18 PM
When I flew in the Gulf of Mexico, I used to go up on the heli-deck at night. There were hundreds of production platforms venting natural gas and flaring it into the atmosphere. That's trillions of cubic feet of gas burned off over the years. I don't know how many millions of years it took to store that energy, but it's being released a helluva lot faster than it took to store it. Add to that 85 million barrels of oil consumed every day and you'd probably reach the conclusion that there's a tremendous potential to affect the climate. If we screw it up, can we unscrew it?

To the topic - Manufactured Doubt. Without a doubt, it's there and it's very effective. We're a gullible society. Dreadfully so.

salty87
12-07-2009, 03:20 PM
how much would you pay a mechanic to fix your car when he admits he doesn't understand how it works but he knows it needs to be fixed?

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 03:24 PM
Doubt is important. Manufactured doubt is a deliberate con.

For the actual doubters, are you doubting:

That there's climate change at all;

That human activity has a causal (full or partial) relation to climate change; or

That climate change cannot be ameliorated by human actions ??

Bruce Hooke
12-07-2009, 03:33 PM
how much would you pay a mechanic to fix your car when he admits he doesn't understand how it works but he knows it needs to be fixed?

That's the wrong analogy for the climate change situation. A more proper analogy would be:

Let's say your mechanic can tell you that it is very likely that if you do not make changes to your car it will fail in a way that is likely injure or kill you or others. He cannot explain every detail of the problem but he can tell you that if you wait until he can it will be too late and he can explain more than enough details about the problem to make it clear what the potential range of solutions is that should be seriously considered.

switters
12-07-2009, 03:34 PM
Doubt is important. Manufactured doubt is a deliberate con.

For the actual doubters, are you doubting:

That there's climate change at all;

That human activity has a causal (full or partial) relation to climate change; or

That climate change cannot be ameliorated by human actions ??

Ian, I'm doubting the amount that humans are causing, the temps have been on an upward trend for some time. I cite the vostock ice samples. I also doubt that if the problem is anthropogenic that any government is going to do what is necessary in time to make difference. I think instead of going after one greenhouse gas that the governments should be making plans to move populated centers inland, develop alternative energy sources anyway, new transportation schemes and most important of all, flexibility long term for agriculture in terms of water and land available. The war on carbon is like the war on terrorism. IMHO. I see it as a problem that we cant cure no matter the cause but in stead of mitigating the effects too much is spent focusing on mitigating the causes, possibly the wrong ones.
Construction starts this spring in Bourne, we'll solve it all over a few beers.

cheers,

salty87
12-07-2009, 03:40 PM
That's the wrong analogy for the climate change situation. A more proper analogy would be:

Let's say your mechanic can tell you that it is very likely that if you do not make changes to your car it will fail in a way that is likely injure or kill you or others. He cannot explain every detail of the problem but he can tell you that if you wait until he can it will be too late and he can explain more than enough details about the problem to make it clear what the potential range of solutions is that should be seriously considered.

was he holding an envelope to his head?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Carnac.jpg/180px-Carnac.jpg

Kaa
12-07-2009, 03:42 PM
Doubt is important. Manufactured doubt is a deliberate con.

So is manufactured certainty.


For the actual doubters, are you doubting:

That there's climate change at all;

That human activity has a causal (full or partial) relation to climate change; or

That climate change cannot be ameliorated by human actions ??

I've been over this many times. SparkNotes version:

* Yes, there is climate change. There is always climate change.

* Yes, the planet's been warming up during the last 150 years. Especially fast during the last years of the XX century.

* Yes, human activity through the emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is contributing to the global warming we observe.

* Yes, climate change can be affected by human actions.


Now, for the interesting questions that you DIDN'T ask.

* No, we don't know whether the current warming is "unprecedented". The "hockey stick" was a lie. The temperature reconstructions of the past are too crude and uncertain, and, post-Climategate, are suspect. Specifically, we have no idea to which degree the observed warming is due to "natural" causes, and to which degree -- to anthropogenic causes.

* No, we can't construct reliable forecasts of the climate change. The models aren't good enough and so far have shown no forecasting capability. Yes, we can produce *some* forecasts but so can an augur. There is no evidence these forecasts are any good.

* No, the precautionary principle does NOT dictate we try to cool down the planet if we don't understand what's happening.

* No, there is no particular reason to consider the climate of the mid-XX century to be optimal for human civilization.

* No, clamping down on CO2 emissions is not the only way to deal with global warming. Even assuming the AGW predictions will play out, the basic choice in response is to prevent or to adapt. At the moment adaptation looks like a much better choice. As a sidenote, climate scientists have no particular competence in deciding which reaction choices are appropriate and which are not.

Kaa

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 03:45 PM
OK, one doubter agrees that climate change is happening but:

Not anthropogenic; and

Not anthropofixit.

Any others care to help focus what we're actually debating here?

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 03:46 PM
Kaa's post happened while I was writing. May come back when I've lit the lights on Marmalade.

Bruce Hooke
12-07-2009, 03:51 PM
Oh God Lord Kaa,

You are either deliberately acting like an idiot or you are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met.

The idea that a well educated gentlemen could make reasonably contributions (or even understand well enough to pass judgement on) pretty much any branch of human endeavors may have made sense during the Renaissance (even then I would argue it was a stretch). Now, anyone who claims that a well educated person but a person without specialized training can understand the details of any number of highly technical fields from climate science to nuclear physics to glacial mechanics sufficiently to pass judgment on the scientific work being done in those fields is simply revealing themselves to be a fool.

Of course climate climate science is not done only certified geniuses. It is done by people who have the intelligence to realize that before they can do that sort of science they need to spend a number of years getting a focused education in that field.

Bruce Hooke
12-07-2009, 03:53 PM
was he holding an envelope to his head?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/21/Carnac.jpg/180px-Carnac.jpg

Nice try at distracting people from the real issue at hand.

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 04:01 PM
That's why I'm not going to accept what someone tells me. I much prefer to go and look at the data and the methodology myself. The Climategate documents offer a very useful inside look at the global warming sausage factory. I consider myself sufficiently competent to understand what was happening there. And I don't like it at all. I don't think it's good science or good data. And I see lots of evidence for sloppy, politicized, let's-just-pretend-this-is-so-and-hope-nobody-notices "results".

Hell, just the bitter fight to prevent people from seeing their raw data and methodology should be a giant clue that there are serious problems. That's not the way science is done and not the way it should be done.


KAA I do tend to agree with you.

I personally believe That none of us should debate something as serious as global climate change without researching both sides of the coin, the layers in it and the strength of the side and their depth. when I did that and came up with 20 some odd top IPCC scientists peer reviewing each other and all using the same data sets which were never reviewed I got a bit suspiscious. It seems when turned sideways the IPCC claims are not coins but thin worn out playing cards. Theirs is literally a "house of cards". :eek:Then I found McIntyre, many of whom's claims and concerns are scientifically justified. Then I found DR. Spenser.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

His site and the many you tube vids and interviews along with the published transcripts of his presentations to congress and to the scientific community make more sense to me than 90% of what is out there.

It is not part of the news selling viewership and readership hysteeria about AGM so he is never mentioned in the media nor are the other top scientists who agree with him. Scientists, who if you eliminate the mere attendees at conferences from IPCC's claimed scientists in agreement with them, you will find vastly outnumber the IPCC scientists in agreement.

Even if the IPCC sceintists are right which they cold be but not likely if one examines their statistical methods, the very Fact that the used attendee list and more lists to claim all those agreed with them makes their claims the biggest scientific Hoax ever perpetrated.

If they felt the need to inflate their "in agreement" numbers by such means multiplying the real numbers by HUNDREDS, how scientifically undeniable could their "Proof" of
AGW be?


Just a few thoughts to add to your take on the matter.

Chase:)

Kaa
12-07-2009, 04:02 PM
Oh God Lord Kaa,

You are either deliberately acting like an idiot or you are one of the most arrogant people I have ever met.

I did warn you, didn't I? :-P

But I see you are, at least, addressing me appropriately :D


The idea that a well educated gentlemen could make reasonably contributions (or even understand well enough to pass judgement on) pretty much any branch of human endeavors may have made sense during the Renaissance (even then I would argue it was a stretch). Now, anyone who claims that a well educated person but a person without specialized training can understand the details of any number of highly technical fields from climate science to nuclear physics to glacial mechanics sufficiently to pass judgment on the scientific work being done in those fields is simply revealing themselves to be a fool.

I haven't claimed I'm a well-educated gentlemen. I claimed I am an arrogant bastard :D While there are certain similarities, there are important differences as well :D :D

What you're missing is that you don't know my education, profession, or specialization. And while I'm not going to tell you, it is conceivable -- is it not? -- that I know what I'm talking about. Or maybe it's just a giant bluff :D Oh, the joys of the Internet...

But in any case, I'm not asking you to trust me just because I say so. I'm asking you to get off your ass and go look at the data, go read papers, go read their critiques. Some stuff is esoteric, some is not. Some stuff is universally accepted, some is controversial. Look, learn -- and don't forget that critical thinking is the necessary component of any good science.

What I'm not going to accept is the idea is that science is so far removed from "normal" people that no one outside of the ivory tower has any chance of even understanding, never mind critiquing the arcane stuff produced by the gnostics inside. If you want to, you can give up and worry about whom to trust. As to me, show me the data!

Kaa

Big Woody
12-07-2009, 04:05 PM
I drive an SUV in a desperate attempt to stave off the coming Ice Age. :D

When they can't predict tomorrow's weather accurately their predictions for the next millennium are doubted for good reason.

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 04:16 PM
* No, clamping down on CO2 emissions is not the only way to deal with global warming. Even assuming the AGW predictions will play out, the basic choice in response is to prevent or to adapt. At the moment adaptation looks like a much better choice. As a sidenote, climate scientists have no particular competence in deciding which reaction choices are appropriate and which are not.


Kaa I guess I must be an arrogant bastard too. Mostly I have been referred to as grossly self over educated. Whatever my PHD in theoretical chemical engineering buddy means by that. LOL

I am very upset by the continual concept of CO2 produced by man being the major source of AGW thereby requiring the international trading in carbon credits which all trade goes through the hands of Al Gore and company and their holdings.

It has been historically proven over and over that CO2 increases lag global temperature increases.

Of all the gases and particulates and other flocculants for water vapor (the single most causative greenhouse gas) CO2's effect is so insignificant chemically and atmospherically that it is not worth the trouble to make more than minor notations about.

on the other hand, CO2? Oh boy if that were the bad guy we could create a whole new kind of stock market trading in carbon emissions.....................

Look at the chemistry think of my smog chamber or build one yourself and think about the politics and the money to be made off of carbon credit trading.

CHase

PeterSibley
12-07-2009, 04:17 PM
I drive an SUV in a desperate attempt to stave off the coming Ice Age. :D

When they can't predict tomorrow's weather accurately their predictions for the next millennium are doubted for good reason.

Amazing how many people can't tell weather from climate :rolleyes:.

Kaa
12-07-2009, 04:31 PM
... not amateur 'hackers' who think that global climate science is akin to replacing a tranny....

Now, now, Norman, don't be so hard on yourself :D


But, don't let ME stop you. Arrogance is it's own reward... and punishment!

Well, people are already addressing me as God Lord Kaa! :D

Kaa

McMike
12-07-2009, 04:40 PM
Now, now, Norman, don't be so hard on yourself :D



Well, people are already addressing me as God Lord Kaa! :D

Kaa


I prefer "The Great and Powerful Kaa-sturbater"!!!:D

I am curious about your profession.

John of Phoenix
12-07-2009, 04:44 PM
They're still going strong too.


Have you heard of the "E-Cigarette" (http://www.sybtrck.com/click.track?CID=109330&AFID=107708&ADID=247637&SID=image)? If you haven't and you're a smoker or even a non-smoker, you're seriously missing out! It looks like a cigarette, feels like a cigarette, taste like a cigarette, but isn't! It's so much more! The E-Cigarette (http://www.sybtrck.com/click.track?CID=109330&AFID=107708&ADID=247637&SID=image) is really the better future of smoking. This high-tech electronic smoking device provides the nicotine you crave, in a completely non harmful manner! Non-harmful to yourself and to others around you!

http://news8news.com/2_files/ecig.jpg

http://news8news.com/index-p2o3.php?subid=image

Kaa
12-07-2009, 04:55 PM
At the least, I am certainly not that inclined to trust someone who is being paid to present a particular perspective.

Like, err.. Al Gore..? :D

Kaa

Sam F
12-07-2009, 04:55 PM
12 trees?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168

Kaa
12-07-2009, 05:00 PM
12 trees?

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7168


Hush! It's science!

<waves his hands in the air>

It's SCIENCE! SCI-ENCE!

You feel relaxed... It's too complex for you to understand...

Your eyelids are getting heavier... Think of the children...

You feel sleepy... There is consensus....

:D

Kaa

Kaa
12-07-2009, 05:03 PM
Yup, Gore is the fraud...

I didn't say anything about fraud. All I pointed out was that Al Gore has a huge personal financial stake in the AGW theory.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

And Norman -- what's up with your persistent interest in Cinderella's digestive processes? :-)

Kaa

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 05:12 PM
SamF you may not believe this but most of those who disagree with you have taken on AGW as the new PC "religeon". THey will NOT Take the trouble to follow the link and check out Fig 2.

Now I am going to fight the same problem by bringing some C&P here.

From Dr. Spenser's site. One of the, if not, the most respected climate scientists in NASA history. Some one with a history of research in the field that goes back to when many of the IPCC modelers were not even a gleam in dadda's eyes.


ClimateGate and the Elitist Roots of Global Warming Alarmism (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/climategate-and-the-elitist-roots-of-global-warming-alarmism/)

November 21st, 2009 The hundreds of e-mails being made public after someone hacked into Phil Jones’ Climatic Research Unit (CRU) computer system offer a revealing peek inside the IPCC machine. It will take some time before we know whether any illegal activity has been uncovered (e.g. hiding or destruction of data to avoid Freedom of Information Act inquiries).
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/) from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.
At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government.
Even if this language does not survive in the treaty’s final form, it illustrates the kind of people we are dealing with. The IPCC folks jet around the world to all kinds of exotic locations for their UN-organized meetings where they eat the finest food. Their gigantic carbon footprints stomp around the planet as they deride poor Brazilian farmers who convert jungle into farmland simply to survive.
Even mainstream journalists, who are usually on board with the latest environmental craze, have commented on this blatant display of hypocrisy. It seems like those participating – possibly the best example being Al Gore — are not even aware of how it looks to the rest of us.
The elitist attitudes exist elsewhere, too. While the skeptics’ blogs allow those who disagree to post opinions as long as they remain civil about it, RealClimate.org routinely ignores or deletes posts that might cast doubt on their tidy worldview. The same thing happens at Wikipedia, where a gatekeeper deletes newly posted content that departs from the IPCC party line.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/

L.W. Baxter
12-07-2009, 05:12 PM
There is no doubt that highly specialized knowledge is required to understand and manipulate the data and formulas of some kinds of science. Also, even many highly educated people are largely ignorant of the workings of technology, even of old technology such as electricity, for instance.

But no highly specialized education or technical training is required to think deeply about the nature of science itself. Any reasonably intelligent person can understand the basic principles of scientific thinking and see when science is being twisted to serve something other than objective truth.

I don't know who linked it here recently, but I found this 2003 essay by Michael Crichton (deceased) to be particularly interesting. He says nothing about the actual status of earth's climate, the mechanics of climate change, or the validity of any particular bit of gathered data or theorizing. His essay is founded on history, observation, and independent, critical thought. And I think he cuts to the quick of very serious problems in modern science.

Crichton on S.E.T.I., nuclear winter, the historical failure of consensus, second-hand smoke, population crises, the workings of power and conformity in science...and global warming (http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html)

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 05:15 PM
In the wake of Climategate, I fully expect a renewed IPCC assault on our common sense using the climate models as their ultimate climate ‘truth’. It will be claimed that the observations involved in Climategate aren’t important anyway…it’s the computer models that are telling us what the future will be.
Yeah, right.




Like Kaa said use a little common sense.

Kaa
12-07-2009, 05:17 PM
How does it match up to the economic stake of the GW deniers?

Anyone in particular?

But, in general, are you going by the "bigger stake -- bigger lie" metric? :D

Kaa

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 05:25 PM
If he's 'one of the most respected climate scientists', then it stands to reason that most climatologists would be agreeing with him.

Do they?

Actually Norman it is starting to look like more agree with Dr. Spenser than agree with IPCC. However because of the politics and the money control exercised by those who are set up to make billions off of carbon trading, the media are not covering them. Nor are they being publish in the majority of the Trade Journals who depend on their PC/IPCC invested advertisers/"sponsors" for existence.

One would think the media would give coverage to the results of two NASA space satellites THe only two earth temperature measuring from space devices both of which Dr. Spenser is involved with. No they ignore actual empirical results from that and instead cover and promote un-proven Undergraduate computer models with flawed and incomplete data sets as the new "TRUTH". In our world at this time, the PC folks have taken control of this and the society in general is willing to believe the IPCC and Al Gore and company that the ouput of those models with no available checkable data sets are "truth" and the results from empirical studies are "denier fabrications"

Chase

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 05:29 PM
P.S. Al has already lost credibility for Facts that have no basis in truth in his movie in the UK court system. So at the very least those things and the IPCCs promotion of them is already logically suspect.

P.P.S. Just for the record:

I am a bit of a liberal having landed on top of the DAli Lama when I took the Political Comfort Zone quiz on the web a few years back.
I am an environmentalist and have been since 1968 or so.
Have been involved with converting MercBenzes to run on waste veggie for over 12 years.
Have worked on The big wind farm generators for Hawaii back in 1978
built experimental solar cells back in 79

So don't think I or Dr. Spenser or many of the others disagreeing with the IPCC are automatically GW Bush ExonMobile dupes.

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 05:42 PM
MOre from Dr. Spenser


What If Climategate was Cancergate? (http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/12/what-if-climategate-was-cancergate/)

December 6th, 2009 Senator Barbara Boxer has said that the e-mails supposedly stolen from a computer at the Climatic Research Unit in the UK should lead to prosecution of the hacker who did it. This rather obvious attempt to divert attention from the content of the emails, to the manner in which the e-mails were obtained, led my wife to make an interesting observation.
What if the intercepted emails uncovered medical researchers discussing the fudging and hiding of cancer research data, and trying to interfere with the peer review process to prevent other medical researchers from getting published? There would be outrage from all across the political spectrum. Scientists behaving badly while the health of people was at stake would not be defended by anyone.
So why should it be any different with Climategate? Unnecessary restrictions on (or price increases for) energy use could needlessly kill millions of people who are already poverty stricken. Cancer research affects many of us, but energy costs affect ALL of us.

Big Woody
12-07-2009, 06:30 PM
Oh, and he also believes in Intelligent Design.:rolleyes:
He can't be a credible scientist if he doesn't believe in Darwin's theory. Don't cha know.
He's not keeping the faith, so we must burn this heretic.

You must believe in an imminent Man Made climate apocalypse or you'll be sent to our reeducation camps until you do. :eek:

The sky is falling! and modern civilization is the cause of it.

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 06:45 PM
THanks lwb for the Crichton link



I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

The Bigfella
12-07-2009, 07:06 PM
Yes, that was an excellent link, thank you Mr Baxter.

Still stoking the fires at the stake, rather than dealing with the issue, I see Tony.

ChaseKenyon
12-07-2009, 08:29 PM
Tony


On the subject of Intelligent design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design), Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#cite_note-TCS-2) He further states "I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world... Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer."[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#cite_note-21)

I don't think I'd arbitrarily condemn the man's life work for this statement of his.

PeterSibley
12-07-2009, 11:44 PM
He breeds 'em ,a big cage under the house .

Ian McColgin
12-07-2009, 11:44 PM
One marvelous feature of business funded manufactured doubt is that it always stays with its current fad and whisks its past lies under the carpet of corporate greed. On this thread, that manifests itself by no one defending the "science" behind denial of cigarettes' health hazards.

On climate change - reasonable people note the change in the polar ice caps. There is no more rational argument about the fact of change than there is argument for a flat earth. Such argument as there is revolves around whether the change we observe is anthropogenic and/or anthropofixit.

The geologic evidence of past radical changes includes evidence of pretty massive geological events. Those explanations don't hold a candle to our recent experience. The absence of other culprits for the current climate change is not a final proof that it's anthropogenic, but the deniers have thus far failed to find anything else.

The anthropofixit bit is indeed more problematic. Our life form may indeed have pushed the ecosystem past the tipping point where human life remains viable. Personally I am not like Sarah Palin, not a quitter. Spiro spirito and all that. I'll do what I can so long as I've breath.

C. Ross
12-08-2009, 12:22 AM
The idea that a well educated gentlemen could make reasonably contributions (or even understand well enough to pass judgement on) pretty much any branch of human endeavors may have made sense during the Renaissance (even then I would argue it was a stretch). Now, anyone who claims that a well educated person but a person without specialized training can understand the details of any number of highly technical fields from climate science to nuclear physics to glacial mechanics sufficiently to pass judgment on the scientific work being done in those fields is simply revealing themselves to be a fool.

One possible exception ... most published research can be understood independent of domain knowledge if one has sufficiently strong understanding of statistical methods and enough math to translate english into algebra.

I read Kaa pretty closely, and I'd put even money on a bet that Kaa is or was a statistician or perhaps mathematician. I'd place a bigger bet that he won't say either way.

The Bigfella
12-08-2009, 12:39 AM
One marvelous feature of business funded manufactured doubt is that it always stays with its current fad and whisks its past lies under the carpet of corporate greed. On this thread, that manifests itself by no one defending the "science" behind denial of cigarettes' health hazards.

On climate change - reasonable people note the change in the polar ice caps. There is no more rational argument about the fact of change than there is argument for a flat earth. Such argument as there is revolves around whether the change we observe is anthropogenic and/or anthropofixit.

The geologic evidence of past radical changes includes evidence of pretty massive geological events. Those explanations don't hold a candle to our recent experience. The absence of other culprits for the current climate change is not a final proof that it's anthropogenic, but the deniers have thus far failed to find anything else.

The anthropofixit bit is indeed more problematic. Our life form may indeed have pushed the ecosystem past the tipping point where human life remains viable. Personally I am not like Sarah Palin, not a quitter. Spiro spirito and all that. I'll do what I can so long as I've breath.

.... but Ian, that's no different to the scientists. The Baxter-linked article has that pegged pretty well. We had a similar instance in this country just a few years ago.

The following from the 2005 Nobel Prize award citation for medicine...



This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine goes to Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, who with tenacity and a prepared mind challenged prevailing dogmas. By using technologies generally available (fibre endoscopy, silver staining of histological sections and culture techniques for microaerophilic bacteria), they made an irrefutable case that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori is causing disease. By culturing the bacteria they made them amenable to scientific study.

In 1982, when this bacterium was discovered by Marshall and Warren, stress and lifestyle were considered the major causes of peptic ulcer disease. It is now firmly established that Helicobacter pylori causes more than 90% of duodenal ulcers and up to 80% of gastric ulcers. The link between Helicobacter pylori infection and subsequent gastritis and peptic ulcer disease has been established through studies of human volunteers, antibiotic treatment studies and epidemiological studies.


Guess what? All those consensus scientists were wrong. Two people found something that was the real cause. Science is like that.

The other point I'd take exception with is your use of the derogatory term "deniers". It is derived from the term Holocaust Deniers and a case could be made that it is anti-semetic. I won't go down that path, beyond stating that it is derogatory. I've been labelled a denier IIRC, but I'm not. I fully concur that the climate is changing.

My concern with the IPCC and its output is that I don't believe the science is right when it comes to the AGW component. I've said ever since discussion started on this topic, some years ago on the WBF, that the scientists have not made a convincing case. You slag business in this regard... so what about the science cabals that have developed this religious fervour, that don't provide open access to methodologies and data? What about the conflict between funding and results? What about.... and the list goes on.

ChaseKenyon
12-08-2009, 03:18 AM
My concern with the IPCC and its output is that I don't believe the science is right when it comes to the AGW component. I've said ever since discussion started on this topic, some years ago on the WBF, that the scientists have not made a convincing case. You slag business in this regard... so what about the science cabals that have developed this religious fervour, that don't provide open access to methodologies and data? What about the conflict between funding and results? What about.... and the list goes on.

Well said Ian my friend.


I want to have scientific discourse and discussion with AGW and NaturalCC, and NoCC and all those in the middle.

I only have a problem with IPCC, the fact that they are politically motivated, They have tied up and keep anyone not in their club from getting even a couple of percent of the billions spent on redundant research, and the fact that they operate to reach their goals like the Dartmouth fraternity used as the "Model" for "Animal House" .

I admit that I still get upset about all the world wide Abstracts I used to get for conference research symposium that I had to refuse because of REDUNDANT research. Even to repeats of only four year old pubs from the same conference. It has only gotten worse. True scientific research always starts at the library every library every publication even remotely related.:eek:

I have some real questions about the current climate changes. My late Neighbor(two years ago passed) co-invented the first cruise ship vacation excursions to Antarctica. He even had Antarctica license tags on a few of his cars. He was the organizer and created the rubber boat fleet and protocalls to take "tourists" to the hard. We often talked about the changes in the Ice shelf down there. He was concerned about the Global Warming, very concerned. On the other hand he told me to not get too upset as it seemed more that the weather patterns and ocean currents were changing. He said some Ice shelfs were melting away while others were actually increasing mass as they were becoming significantly deeper and even in some cases extending their reach.

So If the Arctic ice is melting and has hit the point where for the first time since 39 and 40 the NWP is open, why do we seem to have less winter rain storms and more Ice storms and snow in the temperate zone? They have had more NH weather at tribal base (for me) in Burnside KY the last four or five years than since 60 70 or more years ago.

are the poles really getting warmer?

Are the temperate zones getting colder?

Are the sub tropic zones getting colder?
( on the last bear in mind Taht as of this weekend when I last checked Houston TX has had more snowfall than Chicago)

A neural net done in AI autonomous robotic fashion, that is self linking as needed could be re-designed to look at the possible patterns of global sensors built to a set standard planted all over the globe.

By using this type of data linking and then applying some current cryptographical math analyses ,

we might actually for the first time have a realistic model, from empirical, not imagined, data of a single global climate point in time and then for a whole year.

With that we could actually go take a look at history and apply the same methods using the current year as a starting point.

All the IPCC AGW folks (read not all AGW folks just the ones with the money and political connections) have done is take un-proven or substantiated data and created less than 20 computer models all using the same data set to create the same final output.

That is not real science. It is an undergraduate computer model design class where the teacher has given all 20 participants the same data set and the crib sheet of the needed final product.

I wonder if the teacher Graded like my first programming proff, head of the whole computer department at my CT regional College did, 1000 lines of code that's a C, 2000 lines of code is a B and over 3000 is an A. I not only gave him all the requested data for his HS teachers automated grading system as required but added the appropriate statistical output for the teachers and the schools submissions to district and state on school performance. I did that and made it a check-point-able program (CPP) running on a real time system in less than 600 lines of Fortran and op system codes. He told me there was no such thing as CPP and real time computers. Gave me a C-. two days later, I got passed through by UCONN head of CE with A+ . Later when I taught, The most efficient with memory and cpu and runtime code got the grades.

AT IPCC the sharing of output and data changes to get teacher's goal amongst these modelers all trying to impress teach with their models better graphics and so on would have gotten them booted for cheating in my classes.


Sorry to run on :o but have spent quite a few hours tonight thinking about this.

Chase :D

I'm gone to Bed now.

ChaseKenyon
12-08-2009, 03:26 AM
P.S. Just ask Norman and some of the other old salts that worked with the early DEC computers, nobody, nobody, believed us. They could not believe our jobs were running computer systems in real time with real world control interfaces of manufacturing, waste treatment, power generation, and so on. This was back in 1974 to 80. Some of us changed tubes daily and then sent the change outs to the bench for individual testing before they could go back in the lineup for use again.

Kaa
12-08-2009, 12:50 PM
On climate change - reasonable people note the change in the polar ice caps. There is no more rational argument about the fact of change than there is argument for a flat earth.

True.


Such argument as there is revolves around whether the change we observe is anthropogenic and/or anthropofixit.

Not true. The argument revolves around whether the trend will continue or reverse itself, and around whether it makes sense to do something about it regardless of whether it's natural or anthropogenic.

My backyard lawn in entirely anthropogenic. I feel no desire at all to anthropofix it and return it to the blissfully natural state of tangled bushes and brambles.


The geologic evidence of past radical changes includes evidence of pretty massive geological events. Those explanations don't hold a candle to our recent experience.

Really! So, like, ice ages and glaciations were small fry, really minor compared to what's happening now?


Our life form may indeed have pushed the ecosystem past the tipping point where human life remains viable.

:D

http://blog.jonolan.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/science-and-religion.jpg

Kaa

Kaa
12-08-2009, 12:51 PM
I'd place a bigger bet that he won't say either way.

I think that demonstrates a solid grasp of the probabilities involved :D

Kaa

Kaa
12-08-2009, 01:01 PM
I would still strongly disagree. It's easy to deceive one's self into believing that one understands all of the complexity and subtlety of a sophisticated technical/scientific problem from reading a journal or report, but I think it is most often NOT true.

Again I would like to point out the difference between producing solid original research and critiquing somebody else's work. The latter is MUCH easier.

For example if a climate scientist makes a mistake in his math, you don't need to be another climate scientist to correct him. All you need to be able to do is to understand the math and figure out the mistake. The paper might be mindbogglingly sophisticated and far beyond understanding otherwise, but if you understand one small piece and that piece is wrong -- well, it's wrong and the paper falls down.


Nonetheless, he hasn't fessed up to his technical/scientific background... and until he does, he's just another one of us... and we're all bozos on THIS bus! :)

LOL. Norman, you have a weird aversion to admitting that other people -- specifically those who havent's shown you large pretty pieces of paper that institutions of higher learning like to hand out -- can understand things that you can't.

I find it very strange that you equate competency with credentials. In my experience they are not necessarily a good match.

I have no problems with you feeling you're a bozo on a bus. But I kinda wonder what makes you generalize the feeling to everyone around you.

Kaa

Art Read
12-08-2009, 02:05 PM
Well... I'll just stick to C&Ping for now...

__________________________________________________ __

The Totalities of Copenhagen
Global warming and the psychology of true belief.
By BRET STEPHENS

'I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last." Is it not obvious that the vision of apocalypse as it was revealed to Saint John of Patmos was, in fact, global warming?

Here's a partial rundown of some of the ills seriously attributed to climate change: prostitution in the Philippines (along with greater rates of HIV infection); higher suicide rates in Italy; the 1993 "Black Hawk Down" battle in Somalia; an increase in strokes and heart disease in China; wars in the Middle East; a larger pool of potential recruits to terrorism; harm to indigenous peoples and "biocultural diversity."

All this, of course, on top of the Maldives sinking under the waves, millions of climate refugees, a half-dozen Katrina-type events every year and so on and on—a long parade of horrors animating the policy ambitions of the politicians, scientists, climate mandarins and entrepreneurs now gathered at a U.N. summit in Copenhagen. Never mind that none of these scenarios has any basis in some kind of observable reality (sea levels around the Maldives have been stable for decades), or that the chain of causation linking climate change to sundry disasters is usually of a meaningless six-degrees-of-separation variety.

Still, the really interesting question is less about the facts than it is about the psychology. Last week, I suggested that funding flows had much to do with climate alarmism. But deeper things are at work as well.

One of those things, I suspect, is what I would call the totalitarian impulse. This is not to say that global warming true believers are closet Stalinists. But their intellectual methods are instructively similar. Consider:

• Revolutionary fervor: There's a distinct tendency among climate alarmists toward uncompromising radicalism, a hatred of "bourgeois" values, a disgust with democratic practices. So President Obama wants to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 83% from current levels by 2050, levels not seen since the 1870s—in effect, the Industrial Revolution in reverse. Rajendra Pachauri, head of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, insists that "our lifestyles are unsustainable." Al Gore gets crowds going by insisting that "civil disobedience has a role to play" in strong-arming governments to do his bidding. (This from the man who once sought to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.)

• Utopianism: In the world as it is, climate alarmists see humanity hurtling toward certain doom. In the world as it might be, humanity has seen the light and changed its patterns of behavior, becoming the green equivalent of the Soviet "new man." At his disposal are technologies that defy the laws of thermodynamics. The problems now attributed to global warming abate or disappear.

• Anti-humanism: In his 2007 best seller "The World Without Us," environmentalist Alan Weisman considers what the planet would be like without mankind, and finds it's no bad thing. The U.N. Population Fund complains in a recent report that "no human is genuinely 'carbon neutral'"—its latest argument against children. John Holdren, President Obama's science adviser, cut his teeth in the policy world as an overpopulation obsessive worried about global cooling. But whether warming or cooling, the problem for the climate alarmists, as for other totalitarians, always seems to boil down to the human race itself.

• Intolerance: Why did the scientists at the heart of Climategate go to such lengths to hide or massage the data if truth needs no defense? Why launch campaigns of obstruction and vilification against gadfly Canadian researchers Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick if they were such intellectual laughingstocks? It is the unvarying habit of the totalitarian mind to treat any manner of disagreement as prima facie evidence of bad faith and treason.

• Monocausalism: For the anti-Semite, the problems of the world can invariably be ascribed to the Jews; for the Communist, to the capitalists. And as the list above suggests, global warming has become the fill-in-the-blank explanation for whatever happens to be the problem.

• Indifference to evidence: Climate alarmists have become brilliantly adept at changing their terms to suit their convenience. So it's "global warming" when there's a heat wave, but it's "climate change" when there's a cold snap. The earth has registered no discernable warming in the past 10 years: Very well then, they say, natural variability must be the cause. But as for the warming that did occur in the 1980s and 1990s, that plainly was evidence of man-made warming. Am I missing something here?

• Grandiosity: In "SuperFreakonomics," Steve Levitt and Stephen Dubner give favorable treatment to an idea to cool the earth by pumping sulfur dioxide into the upper atmosphere, something that could be done cheaply and quickly. Maybe it would work, or maybe it wouldn't. But one suspects that the main reason the chapter was the subject of hysterical criticism is that it didn't propose to deal with global warming by re-engineering the world economy. The penchant for monumentalism is yet another constant feature of the totalitarian mind.

Today, of course, the very idea of totalitarianism is considered passé. Yet the course of the 20th century was defined by totalitarian regimes, and it would be dangerous to assume that the habits of mind that sustained them have vanished into the mists. In Copenhagen, they are once again at play—and that, comrades, is no accident.

Write to bstephens@wsj.com

Peerie Maa
12-08-2009, 05:06 PM
*lol* That article was a hoot. I was waiting to see if the author was going to attribute acne, bad breath, and farting in public to the list of ills generated by global warming interests!

Really, now... GW accolytes are guilty of 'revolutionary fervor', 'anti-humanism', 'utopianism', and so on?

Here's a clue, Art: there are probably MANY articles you could cite, and C&P, in opposition to global warming believers, that would cast credible doubt on the idea.

This, however, wasn't one of them!

Farting in public CAUSES GW

The Bigfella
12-08-2009, 05:11 PM
I was promised an email by a politician the other day, but it hasn't come through yet... he said he'd received it about 10,000 emails ago, so he has some sort of excuse. It's titled "Going Blue to be Green" - does anyone have it?

In the meantime... here's a nice bit of news from our local media...

NOT everone believes in human-caused climate change. Here, some of Australia's most respected scientists have their say on this very divisive debate.

Weather balloons disprove a theory based on a guess
By Dr David Evans

ALARMIST climate theory depends in part on a plausible guess made in the early 1980s when there was insufficient data, but disproved by 1999.

Otherwise, alarmist and sceptic scientists mostly agree about how much global warming is caused by extra carbon dioxide.

The guess is that "water feedbacks" strongly amplify the warming due to extra carbon dioxide. We can calculate how much global temperature will rise if carbon dioxide levels rise by a certain amount, if the Earth does not respond in any way to being warmer.

Alarmists and sceptics agree on these calculations. But the Earth responds to being warmer by increasing rainfall and evaporation and so on. This in turn affects the temperature further, called "feeding back".

Particularly important are the feedbacks due to water in all its forms - clouds, rain, water vapour, humidity, snow, ice, and so on. Alarmists say the feedbacks triple the warming due to carbon dioxide, sceptics say they halve them.

The theoretical amplifying assumed by alarmists would, according to them, be nearly all due to extra water vapour in the atmosphere, from extra evaporation. Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, so this would further warm the planet. That extra water vapour would expand the warm, moist, lower troposphere into the cooler, dry air above it.

If that happened it would create a "hotspot" in the atmospheric warming pattern, mainly about 10km up over the tropics. All the climate models predict a prominent hotspot. But radiosonde (weather balloon) observations from 1979 to 1999, the last period of global warming, show beyond reasonable doubt that there is no hotspot. None at all.

So the alarmist climate theory is wrong: there is no extra water vapour, so the feedbacks do not amplify. The radiosonde data shocked the alarmists, who expected a hotspot to confirm their theory.

Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/climate-sceptics-speak-out/story-e6freuy9-1225808398590

Kaa
12-08-2009, 05:16 PM
Oh, and Aussies -- this is specifically about your temperatures:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

All of it is just plain common sense and a bit of logic. No statistics or math beyond addition or subtraction :D

That does look a wee bit suspicious, doesn't it..?

Kaa

P.S. And just so the Kiwis don't feel left out, here's something for them as well:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/25/uh-oh-raw-data-in-new-zealand-tells-a-different-story-than-the-official-one/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/27/more-on-the-niwa-new-zealand-data-adjustment-story/

The Bigfella
12-08-2009, 05:32 PM
Gee that's an interesting one. Don't worry, there will be an Aussie along soon to tell us the author loves chooks, or some other similar comment... but no rebuttal of the issue.

ChaseKenyon
12-08-2009, 09:30 PM
Oh, and Aussies -- this is specifically about your temperatures:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...t-darwin-zero/ (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/)



very interesting

Thanks Kaa

Want to help modify the neural net decision engines used for the NYC autonomous DARPA vehicle competition to look at Global temp averages and trends?

C. Ross
12-08-2009, 09:38 PM
I think that demonstrates a solid grasp of the probabilities involved :D

Kaa

..and one post later...


For example if a climate scientist makes a mistake in his math, you don't need to be another climate scientist to correct him. All you need to be able to do is to understand the math and figure out the mistake. The paper might be mindbogglingly sophisticated and far beyond understanding otherwise, but if you understand one small piece and that piece is wrong -- well, it's wrong and the paper falls down.

Busted. Kaa's a mathematician, possibly species h. economicus or h. statisticio.

The patterns in the scales are a dead giveaway, too.

2MeterTroll
12-08-2009, 10:16 PM
http://www.wunderground.com/climate/

lots of stuff to look at. much of it relevant and these guys are all into climate stuff.
the blogs are interesting cause they deal with the data diffrent.

ChaseKenyon
12-09-2009, 01:18 AM
That might work for me, in isolation.... but the problem is that the world of climatology and GW research is VASTLY larger than just the one research center or one paper that is getting critiqued. If the errors attributed to the paper are real, then many other climatologists will join your chorus... but they may not believe that the error changes the overall outlook. How many climatalogical researchers are there? Thousands, probably.... and unless you believe that all of them are willing to countenance fraud because they all want to keep thier government grants, it just doesn't make a lot of sense.I spent much of my personal time while working in industry hanging with these very people for 30 or more hours a week for over 20 years on to of working a 50 to 60 hour week ( was a busy driven person on a neveerending adrenalin high about AI Robots Sensor technology and involved in neural network concepts as far back as 1977) (back then The best discussions on that NN topic were not with with technical peers but ad the ad hoc Mensa EBS gatherings in Hartford CT) . Grad students and un-tenured only published once research asst. professor PHDs. Figuring out what to present their classes and grading them and such is about 10% of their brain time . The research consumes about 20% of their brain time. 50% is spent on keeping the grant money that pays the rent and utilities and getting the next grant. The remaining 20% is the single most distracting, taking care of and feeding their wife and new child.

Lie a little forget to mention you disagree and 70% of your worries are gone.

most of us have regrettably been in similar circumstances one time or more.

What did you do to take care of your wife and newborn child?

Researchers are just human and in a field that often pays less than starting wage at McDonalds.

Think about it.

Chase

Over and over just to be able to go 200 miles to a conference I had to provide corporate sponsors for these guys from TI Intel and others just so they could afford attend. I have loaned and even given away sport coats to some so they could present as featured session researchers. The best that deserved thant recognition most often were the poorest who had really found new things while letting their personal finances and situation go down the tubes in their singlemindedness. Read history. DaVinci is a good start. Always in debt and court for it.

The Bigfella
12-09-2009, 01:35 AM
I had pretty much that discussion with a Physics Professor and his researcher wife a couple of months ago. He was part of a Nobel-prize winning team a few years back (not one of the prime awardees though) - but yes, funding is a BIG part of what he has to do.

BrianW
12-09-2009, 01:57 AM
So Al Gore can understand it, but mere mortals can't begin to fathom the science. :)

PeterSibley
12-09-2009, 03:38 AM
So Al Gore can understand it, but mere mortals can't begin to fathom the science. :)

Well some mortals are smarter than others ,some just think they're smarter .I have no trouble recognisig the limitations to my ability to understand .;)

The Bigfella
12-09-2009, 03:40 AM
I'm working on my understanding all the time....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/fig_7-ghcn-averages.jpg

ChaseKenyon
12-09-2009, 03:52 AM
Peter


Well some mortals are smarter than others ,some just think they're smarter .I have no trouble recognisig the limitations to my ability to understand .;)

I am still working on trying not to miss any of the intelligent questions I should be asking. About everything. Science, life, love , music, art, sprituality, and it never ends.

The more you learn,

the more you realize,

how much you still have to learn.

Don't know the original author.......

The more I learn the more questions I have.

and

early in my professional life I learned " beware the self declared expert, a person who knows not yet what he still has to learn"

I ' d extend that to those who while not self declared let others who know even less than they do declare for them. Those sideways egotists scare me even more, as they ar already playing politics with people's minds.

PeterSibley
12-09-2009, 03:54 AM
Good luck ,I think you're out of your dicipline .....oh ! That was bad of me , everyone can understand everything in these democratic times .

shamus
12-09-2009, 04:08 AM
The Darwin temperature story does seem very odd to me. I'd really like to hear TonyH comment on this. I think he said once he analyses time series for a living.

The Bigfella
12-09-2009, 04:10 AM
The Darwin temperature story does seem very odd to me. I'd really like to hear TonyH comment on this. I think he said once he analyses time series for a living.

Tony did comment on it, over on Oz Politics



I just finished reading it. It shows that wotsisname who wrote it doesn't know how the corrections were made (neither do I:p) and from that immediately concludes that it's is inescapable evidence of blatant fraud.

Good one.:rolleyes:

shamus
12-09-2009, 04:17 AM
OK I'll go and look.

2MeterTroll
12-09-2009, 04:17 AM
its called a local effect. local effects seem to be the most beaten straw man around these days.

ChaseKenyon
12-09-2009, 04:17 AM
Peter ,

Which one

My life has been one of doing something at the 200% level, Then doing the next thing at the 200% level,

Then the next thing at the 250% level

So ..... I have generous free subscriptions for life ranging from electronic research to silicone state of art chips to architecture(multi million trophy houses gechhh) and of course robotics and environmental stuff. I read over 50 of these a month so

which of my disciplines am I out of peter?

Some really good stuff on communications in the last two bi-wekly editions of EDN. It will change the way we communicate within a few years or less.

You have made a final type of statement my good friend.........

Wow never expected you to leave an opening like this one..


I think you're out of your dicipline .....oh ! HOWA = OK in Tsalagi

I'll accept the challenge.........

Pick subjects if I am a neophyte I'll just start with questions.

If I have expertise that goes back ... I'll bank on good knowledge and ak even more questions to get current in crash course.

If I am up to date beyond the regular press at the level of current engineering and scientific publications that most here have never heard of ....

I got so many questions it would create a 22 volume encyclopedia of just questions wit no answers.

LIke 2MT says I am the original natural driven absolute researcher of al topics.

Just following the links and sub links and sub sub links and then googling and vista ing and lycos ing key things for them on just five threads in the bilge of WBF can take up to ten hours a day for me. and I run two dual 64 bit 4200+ pc's at the same time on DSl.

So in the spirit of fellow seekers of knowledge .

for our personal erudition and the entertainment of others ...
bring it on.....LOL

Really let's have fun

knowledge may be power, but to the addicted who are without malice and ruling ego, it is just plain fun to learn things that lead you to learn things that lead you to .....


Chase

JimD
12-09-2009, 10:23 AM
Some interesting reading from the Met Office. My appology if its already been linked:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/news/latest/tackling-temps.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/policymakers/policy/2degrees-map.pdf

Kaa
12-09-2009, 11:24 AM
Busted. Kaa's a mathematician, possibly species h. economicus or h. statisticio.

The patterns in the scales are a dead giveaway, too.

LOL. First, mathematicians and statisticians are very different people. They think differently, they approach problems differently -- in many ways they are opposites.

Second,




MAN IN BLACK

All right: where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right and who is dead. VIZZINI
But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would put the poison into his own goblet, or his enemy's?
He studies the Man In Black now.
VIZZINI
Now, a clever man would put the poison into his own goblet, because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.MAN IN BLACK (And now there's a trace of nervousness beginning)
You've made your decision then?VIZZINI
Not remotely. Because iocane comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you.MAN IN BLACK
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.VIZZINI
Wait till I get going! Where was I?MAN IN BLACK
Australia.VIZZINI
Yes -- Australia, and you must have suspected I would have known the powder's origin, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.MAN IN BLACK (very nervous)
You're just stalling now.VIZZINI (cackling)
You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? (stares at the Man in Black)
You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong. So, you could have put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you. So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard which means you must have studied. And in studying, you must have learned that man is mortal so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.
As Vizzini's pleasure has been growing throughout, the Man In Black's has been fast disappearing.
MAN IN BLACK
You're trying to trick me into giving away something -- it won't work --VIZZINI (triumphant)
It has worked -- you've given everything away -- I know where the poison is.MAN IN BLACK (fool's courage)
Then make your choice.VIZZINI
I will. And I choose --
And suddenly he stops, points at something behind the Man In Black.
VIZZINI
-- what in the world can that be?
As to patterns in scales, you forget that I shed my skin from time to time :D

Kaa

Kaa
12-09-2009, 11:29 AM
Thanks Kaa

Want to help modify the neural net decision engines used for the NYC autonomous DARPA vehicle competition to look at Global temp averages and trends?

Oh, I think people already build more models than could be justified :-)

To do this thing properly first you need decent data -- and the existing "adjusted" datasets do not fill me with confidence.

Second, you need to think carefully about the right questions to ask.

And third, you need to be well aware of necessary uncertainties and not pretend that just because you got an estimate that estimate is the truth.

Throwing a NN at the problem is easy but not necessarily useful :-)

Kaa

BrianW
12-09-2009, 01:35 PM
My wife loves that movie...

I liked Buttercup. ;)

High C
12-09-2009, 02:11 PM
My wife loves that movie...

I liked Buttercup. ;)

It's a GREAT movie!