perfidy

Over the last decade, our knowledge of comets has greatly increased - several probes sent out to meet these frostily glowing harbingers of doom have returned vast quantities of data.  But curiously, our understanding has not similarly increased.  Often, we read that scientists are saying that new data will require a back to the drawing board approach.  Yet what we get is stale retreads of the same old, same old.  When I was a boy, scientists were men, and would tear apart old theories and construct a new paradigm every morning before breakfast.  Not so much these days, it seems.

Here with the details is James Hogan, sf author.

I've posted about the Electric Universe ideas previously, here.  While I am fully aware of the dangers of heresy - not so much burning at the stake, but the near certainty of being wrong - I become more and more convinced that modern science has gotten a little off track.  The way research is funded almost guarantees that much study is devoted to adding ever more intricate filigree to existing theories - because those theories were proposed by the people who are now controlling grants and degrees.  A lot of our advances come not from young punks speaking truth to scientific power, but from established scientists with tenure commenting on another field altogether.  Alvarez, the physicist, and his dinosaur killer is merely the most famous episode.

While I was putting together some information for a gloating post on the collapse of the the whole Anthropomorphic Global Warming thingy, I found this calm and well organized bit that neatly outlines the whole thing in a sane and even tone.  Especially in light of the fact that the central figure in the AGW movement has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming in the last fifteen years (a period that has seen ever more crazed claims of mounting disaster unless. we. act. right. now!) - this just lays it out:

On what grounds do we defer to scientists?

We defer to scientists on the grounds that their information is true.  They are using verifiable data.  They are using clear, repeatable processes.  Their theory/model predicts experimentally verifiable results.  They are using solidly agreed upon theory.  The proxy for solidly agreed upon theory is publication of (and citation count of) articles in science journals.  Finally, science is assumed to be done in a disinterested fashion.  Truth is more important than specific conclusions.  All of those things, we don't generally have time to check for ourselves, and it would take a lot of training to do so.  In AGW, all 5 reasons to defer to the scientists have broken down.

A.  On AGW, the data was not verifiable.  It was hidden data, that was not being released.  In the face of FOIA the data was not released.  Furthermore, ClimateGate emails say conclusively that there was a conspiracy to not release the data (which indicates fear of skeptics poking at it).  Furthermore, both Indian and Russian scientists/instrument techs have said that the data that the instruments gave have been manipulated in such a way as to provide the right conclusions.  Most recently, the line is that the dog ate the original data.  Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you cannot rely on the scientists for data.

B. On AGW, the processes were opaque.  First, the software was not released to the world.  And it was modeling software of the kind that we know (from experience with Macro) just doesn't work well in general.  When the software was released through the ClimateGate hack, we discovered that there was a very good reason that the software wasn't released: it sucks.  Feed in any data you like (the price of rice in china in the 15th century), and you'll get a hockey stick. Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you cannot rely on the scientists for process.

C.  On AGW, the theory and data don't line up ("Hide the decline").  Further, most predictions are effectively non-Popperian.  We can't verify.  Some of us would say that makes it not science.  Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you can't rely on the scientists for experimental verification.

D.  On AGW, the peer review process has been corrupted, as per the ClimateGate emails.  There was an active conspiracy to keep skeptical voices out of peer review process, and then active claims that "it's not peer reviewed science" against skeptics.  The peer review process for climate science is all the way broken.  Hence, there can be no supposition that peer-reviewed means good. Conclusion: in the case of AGW, you can' rely on the peer review process to converge upon true theory.

E.  On AGW, with all government grants going to climate alarmists, and 4 Trillion(!!!) Euros of green investment funds trying to find ways to make "green" investments more profitable, there is very little chance of disinterested science.  Furthermore, those of us who are suspicious of alarmism as per Mencken.

If you can't get funding for your current studies (or future studies) without coming to pro-AGW conclusions, somehow the AGW conclusions can be teased out of your data.

I'd like to hear what Al Gore was saying when the BBC interview with Phil Jones was released.  The entire global warming fiasco has been a perfect example of why science and government shouldn't sleep together, let alone get married.  They do not make a good couple, and their children are certain to be retarded.

But while you're waiting for me to get off my ass and write my own climate post, go and read the whole thing.  It's worth it.

I was listening to that new song that all the kids like, "Handlebars." And I dig it. It's groovy. Swell, even. But it also occurred to me that the one line,

I can split the atom of a molecule/of a molecule

That just doesn't play for me. I could go into the chemistry and physics of it all, but that would be pedantic and rude.

So, how about we just fix it, mkay?

I can split an atom of uranium/of uranium

Or, my favorite,

I can fuse atoms at room temperature/at room temperature

That's better, isn't it?

[wik] Another thing, when I first heard that song on the radio in the car I thought it was a parody. Mocking megalomania and whatnot. Saw the video later and was stunned by the disconnect between my perception of the tone of the song and the apparent intent of the artist.

Posted without further comment.

Texas, long known as a stronghold of Republican might, oil, presidents and ex-presidents, and conspicuous consumption (Texans are the only visitors to Colorado who exceed Californians in sheer obnoxiousness) could possibly be the starting point for the long-sought Green Revolution.

Algae-based biodiesel. This is pretty cool stuff.

Ha ha that title ought to pull in some perv traffic from Google.

But no really, I saw a big snake today. I'm out with the Li'lest Lethal who, while strictly speaking is no longer sick, he can't go back to school until he's 24 hours fever-free. Since he's feeling himself and it's a gorgeous day out, and he's been up since 5 waiting to do something, around 10 I took him to a nearby conservation area a coupla towns over.

Now Johno and Mrs. Johno suffered one portion of that property, a largish hill (elev ~1250 ft) that we made them ascend one hot and stuffy summer day. You might have thought that when we got to the top, where a chill rain was feeding the blustery wind tearing at the bald top of the hill it might have been a little relief from the relentless sun and heat, but no not really. Just cold. And wet. Oh, and I made Johno pull a Radio Flyer about halfway up too, over the rockiest, most jagged bits.

Where was I going with this?

Oh right, I said that next time we'll do a circuit of the pond about a mile away from the hill. It's easy, no surprisingly miserable local weather patterns, and it's all very Thoreau-ly pleasant. Ha. Ha. Ha.

'Cept for the snakes.

To be fair, it didn't try to bite myself or my boy. We were well off the trail, skirting the edge of the pond. We were gently and cautiously squelching our way along the moss and plants where the water just starts to creep up the fairly steep and rocky slope that describes the whole southern end of the pond.

We had already spooked a few big frogs who had hurled themselves into the water with a screeching "meep!" at our approach, but the Lesser Lethal hadn't actually seen them. I wanted him to see some though, so we kept going. It didn't help that, being not yet 3 years old, my boy finds it impossible to stay silent for more than 3 or 4 consecutive seconds.

When there was a burst of motion from the clump of fern immediately to my right; a bit of black lightning shot from it, straight across where I was about to step, and into the water: thrush rush splash.

From what I could see it was black all down its length, roughly 30", and probably no thicker than half my wrist. And that's about all I got from the encounter. Oh, and that it was frigging fast. Made no effort to warn or fight; went straight into escape mode, and apparently safety to this snake means getting in the water.

I'm thinking it was a Black Racer:

or a Black Rat Snake:

[wik] And I think it goes without saying that, had that been a zombie, we'd'a both been dead. Eh, undead. I'm trying to treat it as a lesson learned, but am still feeling like I failed. Gotta be way more alert and aware than that when the zombies come.

From today's Onion:

Beer Production Threatened By Climate Change According to New Zealand climatologist Jim Salinger, climate change may result in reduced malted barley, which would limit beer production. What do you think?

Fake responses included:

Heidi Marsico, Systems Analyst "Very clever, ‘Dr. Salinger,’ or should I say, Al Gore!"

and my personal favorite (no offense, Johno, wherever you are):

Hans Weinburger, Secretary "Could this limit the ability of my neighbor to brew his own beer, discuss brewing his own beer, boast about his talent for brewing beer, and browbeat his neighbors into trying his beer? Because in that case this could be a good thing."

Maybe it WON'T be the robots that do us in...

"Investment Strategies in a World Where Time Travel is Possible"

It's got aliens, it's got time travel, it's got the possibility of end of days. What's not to like?

NASA screws pooch, hottest year in the thirties

Patton has accused me of being overly concerned about wasting a scarce natural resource. The category tag. In this, of course, he is completely wrong. Naturally, I could have argued that over-categorizing a post dilutes the utility of tags. And I would have been right. But that wasn't the point. I was attacking him on aesthetic grounds, and just to stick a stick in his eye.

Just to prove that I am not some sort of homo-tree-hugging-enviro-commie, this post, which really is about everything, is tagged with every category we have. And, when I have a free moment, I'll add some new categories, and add them to this post.

So there.

With my first kid's arrival growing ever more imminent, I have like any responsible father been looking forward to the day when my young son (for a son it is) gets his first chemistry set. More even then that, I have been looking forward to the day when the boy successfully blows something up using ingredients found in said chemistry set.

But apparently, that makes me a terrorist. Wired has a spectacular and detailed article about the difficulties facing home science enthusiasts these days - to buy a couple Erlenmeyer flasks is to be flagged as a producer of crystal meth, and to go so far as to purchase sulfur, potassium perchlorate, and powdered aluminum in one go is to presumptively contravene the Federal Hazardous Substances Act. We are living in strange days if the Feds are raiding private homes and carting off science stuff in the name of national security, but it's undeniably happening. As a consequence, the chilling effects are making it harder and harder (in this age where the drumbeat goes "America is losing its edge in science!") to do nifty stuff at home that kids can take with them to MIT, CalTech, or, hell, even little Hiram College, the Harvard of the Midwest.

American society in general has taken some great steps forward in ensuring the safety of young children. Many of the laws enacted to protect kids more or less do that job. But for my dollar, just as I oughta be able to smoke a fat doob in the comfort of my own living room and watch Blazing Saddles, and just as I oughta be able to procure Vioxx for myself if that's what takes care of the chronic pain that keeps me from any kind of rewarding life and I'm fully aware of the risks of heart attack that I am taking on, I oughta be able to spend some time with my kid making stinks, crystals, and small scale bangs in the garage.

Glenn Reynolds has been posting recently about a few books that I'm surely going to keep around the house: the recently published The Dangerous Book for Boys and 211 Things a Bright Boy Can Do, and The American Boy's Handy Book, originally published in 1888 and featuring all manner of entertainingly dated knowledge like how to make a blowgun, and the rudiments of home taxidermy.

I can't in good conscience raise children who can't use a screwdriver, can't light a fire with two matches, have never made a home volcano, and have never had the oh-shit thrill of packing a D size rocket engine inside a B-rated model rocket and watching that sonofabitch fly high and drift at least a half-mile off course into the housing development three treelines away. It wouldn't be American.

In a fascinating breakthrough, scientists have determined that the lowly fruit fly, subject of the predations of generations of high school geneticists, has a tiny sliver of free will. Remarkable!

And proof that at least some in the scientist community are aware of the possible threats of continued research in this area, one said,

Future research delving further into free will could lead to more advanced robots, scientists added. The result, joked neurobiologist Björn Brembs from the Free University Berlin, could be "world robot domination."

Naturally, the reporter assumed that the Brembs was joking. We know different.

Despite the lingering threat of robot domination of our species, this research does poke at some interesting corners of the human condition. Ironically, though, the researchers noted that the behavior that caused them to suppose that the flies’ behavior was less than completely random followed another mathematical pattern, that of Levy’s distribution:

Flies use this procedure to find meals, as do albatrosses, monkeys and deer. Scientists have found similar patterns in the flow of e-mails, letters and money, and in the paintings of Jackson Pollock

Now, there must be some sort of biological process at work to create this activity, and if there is a biological basis, then it is hard to make the argument that free will is at work. The particular results might vary from fly to fly, but the process is determined. Just like a random process will be different each time, but the process is entirely random.

And comparing a fly’s behavior to that of Jackson Pollock is not a particularly strong argument for free will, either.

Predicting weather is a strong science in the 10 day window, with that being slowly pushed upwards by distributed supercomputing and better algorithms. It's being held back by the current stall in Moore's law, which may be with us for a little while.

Of course not all scientists say the same thing! But you have to look at the overall picture here, and do the tough thing -- place numbers on it. If only one out of every thousand scientists working in this area has a serious, contrary view supported by what they've written...

It's not about who's right and who's wrong, because science is what it is -- and nothing is certain. But we have to look at the probabilities involved here...and right now the probabilities are showing that climate change is happening and that the basis is human. The most recent report from a few months back significantly tightened up the causative network that underlies all the science.

So we have a river of probability running forward and the center path goes through very scary territory. At this point the science can't say _exactly_ what's happening, but the distribution curve on the likely events is fairly well known.

Engaging on this requires more than an assertion that there are contrary views. Bring them forward! The web is a beautiful thing. But watch out for the Heartland institute!

It looks like Cold Fusion is returning from the outer darkness of fringe science, where it had been condemned by legions of right thinking scientists from 1989 on. Some pointy-heads at the Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) in San Diego have achieved a reproducible sort of room temperature fusion:

Cold fusion has gotten the cold shoulder from serious nuclear physicists since 1989, when Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann were unable to substantiate their sensational claims that deuterium nuclei could be forced to fuse and release excess energy at room temperature. Spawar researchers apparently kept the faith, however, and continued to refine the procedure by experimenting with new fusionable materials.

Szpak and Boss now claim to have succeeded at last by coating a thin wire with palladium and deuterium, then subjected it to magnetic and electric fields. The researchers have offered plastic films called CR-39 detectors as evidence that charged particles have emerging from their reaction experiments.

The Spawar method shows promise, particularly in terms of being easily reproduced and verified by other institutions. Such verification is essential to widespread acceptance of the apparent breakthrough, an important precursor to scientists receiving the necessary funding to fuel additional research in the field.

Maybe we will have our Mr. Fusion after all.

Just read a fascinating article outlining the way that chlorophyll makes use of quantum processes in photosynthesis. It was known that photosynthesis converts the energy of the sun into sugar, and did it with remarkable efficiency. What wasn't known was exactly how this happened. But some big brains have delved into the matter, and this is what they've come up with:

Through photosynthesis, green plants and cyanobacteria are able to transfer sunlight energy to molecular reaction centers for conversion into chemical energy with nearly 100-percent efficiency. Speed is the key - the transfer of the solar energy takes place almost instantaneously so little energy is wasted as heat. How photosynthesis achieves this near instantaneous energy transfer is a long-standing mystery that may have finally been solved...

"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”

...Electronic spectroscopy measurements made on a femtosecond (millionths of a billionth of a second) time-scale showed these oscillations meeting and interfering constructively, forming wavelike motions of energy (superposition states) that can explore all potential energy pathways simultaneously and reversibly, meaning they can retreat from wrong pathways with no penalty. This finding contradicts the classical description of the photosynthetic energy transfer process as one in which excitation energy hops from light-capturing pigment molecules to reaction center molecules step-by-step down the molecular energy ladder.

"The classical hopping description of the energy transfer process is both inadequate and inaccurate," said Fleming. "It gives the wrong picture of how the process actually works, and misses a crucial aspect of the reason for the wonderful efficiency."

Now I'm no expert, but the bits I italicized in the quote above seem to be saying that every single damn molecule of chlorophyll in every cell of every plant on earth is a highly sophisticated (if single purpose) quantum computer. That's pretty damn amazing. And if that is the case, I am sure that if we poke around a little more, we might find other examples of this sort of thing. Like in mitochondria, or in neurons. Wow.

Perhaps someday, Sports magazines will report on sports, and not offer fatuous environmental pap.

Researchers atop Mount Washington, New Hampshire's answer to a Dantean vision of frozen Hel (except with a mountain in the middle instead of a giant winged Satan devouring classical villains), discovered that boiling water instantly freezes up there. Dig it.

I expect they will soon also discover that tauntauns don't only smell bad on the outside.

Here's something I find interesting. And by interesting, I mean offensive and retarded. Lately, the category of "Global Warming Skeptics" - nomenclature that affords a degree of dignity to those lumped under its rubric - has seen a subtle but significant change. They are now "Global Warming Deniers." This, I assume, is meant to put those who wonder whether or not we are actually headed toward a local anti-Fimbulwinter, or even whether if we are headed toward that grim fate we have ourselves or nature to blame, into the same mental box as Holocaust deniers. Now, Holocaust denial is offensive and retarded. Anyone who doubts the historical reality of the holocaust is a malevolent delusional fuckwit. Some people would have us feel the same about something that might happen in the future - or, being generous, even if it's certain to happen is not at all certain where to point the unerring finger of blame.

The National Post of Canada has a series of articles up on these Global Warming Deniers. I've read a couple, and the tone of the stories is odd. Go read them, and see if you see what I see. I'll talk more on this later.

[wik] It seems that this sort of thing is in the wind, as BBC 4 is about to run a big documentary on the subject this Thursday. I wonder if we'll be able to see that here in the States.

Or, perhaps more properly, the regular assertions that the debate, she is over!

From James Taranto's column of Feb 9, 2007, discussing a noxiously ill-thought-out op-ed by Ellen Goodman in that same day's Boston Globe. He has much to say about what's offensive in her rhetorical approach, and for that, I recommend reading the entire piece. More generally, however, he explains his take on global warming, and illuminates what's truly wrong about the attempts to stifle all discussion on the matter (Taranto uses "we" and "our" in the self-referential, "royal" sense):

This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman.

Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)

Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?

I remain skeptical (or, if I were British, not that I am, "sceptical"). I have seen nothing that convinces me global warming is a man-made problem, that it has a man-made solution, or, frankly, that it's even a net problem at all. And I, like Taranto, despise bullies, particularly those who bring highly debatable arguments to the table, and then demand my acquiescence.