Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal proving that the journals are not genuinely peer reviewed? Edward K. Ream wrote: No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that the threat of global warming is significantly over-stated. But the question in dispute is whether reviewed journals are actually peer reviewed on politically sensitive topics, rather than theologically reviewed for comformity with the holy doctrines of state sponsored religion. Recent events prove that on certain topics, they do not carry science, but are mere megaphones for the holy ranting of the priesthood. Science is not that which the state decrees to be science. It is that which follows the rules of science, which unwritten rules correspond, more or less, to the written rules of the older and more prestigious journals. If these journals are reluctant to apply these written rules on certain sensitive topics, then what appears on those sensitive topics will not be science, and hence what appears or fails to appear in such journals is not an indication of truth, but of religion. In particular if the replacement hockey stick had been genuinely peer reviewed, then, in accordance with the unwritten rules of science, and the written rules of the older and more prestigious science journals, the data and calculations supporting the graph would have been made available. Had the data and graphs been made available, people would have objected nine years ago that ten trees are not enough. Since not genuinely peer reviewed, since not in conformity with Journal rules, therefore not genuine science, therefore mere theology. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 4:08 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal proving that the journals are not genuinely peer reviewed? Edward K. Ream wrote: No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that the threat of global warming is significantly over-stated. But the question in dispute is whether reviewed journals are actually peer reviewed on politically sensitive topics, rather than theologically reviewed for comformity with the holy doctrines of state sponsored religion. It may be that there are biases in one journal. But I would expect those biases to be revealed in other journal. Imo, there is *no* evidence of bias. There is simply wild accusations that have clear political motivations. You have been warned repeated to back up your rants or be banned. You have ignored those warnings. You have been banned from this group. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Edward K. Ream wrote: Your language gives you away. There is nothing fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past climate data. It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed past climate data when ones results depend entirely on a group of ten trees, and to refrain for nine years from revealing how few trees were involved You've made this point before. Apparently the scientific community does not agree. It is a gross violation of the scientific method, and rules of the journals involved, to present the results of one's calculations and for nine years to refuse to reveal how the calculations were done and what they were calculated from. Not necessarily. And btw, without investigation, I have no particular reasons to believe these assertions. Without peer review, such claims could have been made up. Those with axes to grind often do so. Witness the outright lies routinely spouted by creationists. Had he originally revealed how he calculated it, or what he calculated it from, everyone in the world would have asked: TEN trees! Of which only one grew unusually fast! If I was to pick another ten trees, would the result be similar? The question of whether statistically significant is a technical one, which I, and presumably you, are not qualified to evaluate. What is certain, is that the data were accepted as reasonable by the unnamed referees. But let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the article you is entirely incorrect. Does that invalidate the global warming hypothesis? Not at all. The problem with your assertions is that they are far too sweeping, backed up by nothing by unscientific rants (ten trees, ten trees, ten trees). Apparently you can not cite any articles in peer-reviewed journals to back up your claim that global warming is a hoax. Let us be clear. The claim that global warming is a hoax has serious implications. It is, in effect, a claim that thousands of scientists do not know how to do science. It is a small step from there to some wild conspiracy theory that scientists want to believe something that is not true. I do not intend to waste any more time on this discussion. Continue it without citing a peer-reviewed article and you will be banned immediately. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 10, 7:39 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: I do not intend to waste any more time on this discussion. Continue it without citing a peer-reviewed article and you will be banned immediately. Here is a recent article: Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling Science 4 September 2009: Vol. 325. no. 5945, pp. 1236 - 1239 If you subscribe to Science, you can see the full article here: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5945/1236 You can also get it in Leo's file section, 1236.pdf. Given the relevance of this article to this discussion, I thought it was worth posting. It will give all interested readers (I'm not sure there are any :-) the chance to see for themselves whether this article is fraudulent in some way. Here is the summary: QQQ Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling Darrell S. Kaufman,1,* David P. Schneider,2 Nicholas P. McKay,3 Caspar M. Ammann,2 Raymond S. Bradley,4 Keith R. Briffa,5 Gifford H. Miller,6 Bette L. Otto-Bliesner,2 Jonathan T. Overpeck,3 Bo M. Vinther,7 Arctic Lakes 2k Project Members{dagger} The temperature history of the first millennium C.E. is sparsely documented, especially in the Arctic. We present a synthesis of decadally resolved proxy temperature records from poleward of 60°N covering the past 2000 years, which indicates that a pervasive cooling in progress 2000 years ago continued through the Middle Ages and into the Little Ice Age. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with the Community Climate System Model shows the same temperature sensitivity to changes in insolation as does our proxy reconstruction, supporting the inference that this long-term trend was caused by the steady orbitally driven reduction in summer insolation. The cooling trend was reversed during the 20th century, with four of the five warmest decades of our 2000-year-long reconstruction occurring between 1950 and 2000. QQQ Please note that tree ring records are only one kind of proxy for temperature. If you have some technical reason for believe this very recent article is false or misleading in some way, then you have the right to raise objections to the editors of Science. But unless you are technically qualified to raise those objections, your objections will be (properly!) ignored. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 10, 8:32 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: If you have some technical reason for believe this very recent article is false or misleading in some way, then you have the right to raise objections to the editors of Science. But unless you are technically qualified to raise those objections, your objections will be (properly!) ignored. Note in particular the following quote: QQQ We compiled available proxy climate records that (i) were located north of 60°N latitude, (ii) extended back at least 1000 years, (iii) were resolved at an annual to decadal level, and (iv) were published with publicly available data (8) (table S1) (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/kaufman2009). We focused on terrestrial records because the dating resolution for most marine cores is too low to reconstruct decadal-scale variability. Our compilation includes 23 sites where lake sediment, glacier ice, and tree rings have been used as paleoclimatic archives (Fig. 1). The observed summer [June, July, and August (JJA)] temperature in the grids represented by the 23 proxy sites (Fig. 1) closely tracks the temperature for all of the land area north of 60° latitude, indicating that our proxy network accurately represents the Arctic-widemean (8) (fig. S1). QQQ On the face, this refutes the claim that the proxies were arbitrarily chosen, and hidden from view. Unless you want to be banned, do not reply to this except with a referenced to a refereed article. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
James A. Donald This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded, we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science. Kent Tenney wrote: Do you think oil and coal companies have political power? Sure they do, hence the carbon credits, which is a carbon tax in which some large part of the tax receipts is paid back to those who have in the past produced carbon. Carbon credits is a tax on petrol and electricity to be paid by you and me, and received by various greeny groups, and by people who produced carbon in the past. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo science appears all the time in Science and Nature Edward K. Ream wrote: If you want me to believe it, you must cite a reputable source. And the only reputable sources are Science and Nature? The proof of what I say is that we only *now* know that Bricca's results depended on a mere ten trees, which unsurprisingly give results quite different from other trees that might equally well have been used. If Bricca had nine years ago explained how he was reconstructing temperatures, the criticism that his twentieth century data sample was far too small would have been made nine years ago. Since the criticism was not made nine years ago, he did not make the data from which he supposedly calculated past climate available nine years ago. Therefore, until a few days ago, his results were unsupported and unexplained, for only now are we able to criticize the support and explanation. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed articles. You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal proving that the journals are not genuinely peer reviewed? You are, however, happy to rely on assertions by peer reviewed journals that they are in fact peer reviewed? That only now are we complaining that the blade of the replacement hockey stick is based on a mere ten trees proves that for the past nine years we did not know what the blade of the replacement hockey stick was based on. Obviously, people would have complained as soon as they knew. Therefore Science was violating its policy, and the basic principles of science, that the calculations and data supporting any result must be made available. That the calculations and data supporting the replacement hockey stick graph was not made available, proves that there was and is no real peer review for politically correct science. That basis for the replacement hockey stick blade was ludicrously weak, proves that there was and is no real peer review, for peer review is supposed to catch such things. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 8, 4:28 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch Science is full of schools which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather accelerate than impede a scientific career. I suppose you are familiar with Kuhn's scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science must compensate for our human failings. I don't think there's a contradiction. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:16 AM, derwisch johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote: Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science must compensate for our human failings. I don't think there's a contradiction. True, but irrelevant. Kuhn was talking about changing world views, not fraud. One negative aspect of Kuhn's work is the proliferation of bozos trumpeting paradigm shifts. The great ones tend to understatement. For example Watson Crick's paper (Nature, April 25 1953) starts with, We wish to suggest a structure for the salt of deoxyribose nucleic acid (D.N.A.). This structure has novel features which are of considerable biological interest. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 9, 9:14 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: You want an article appearing a peer reviewed journal proving that the journals are not genuinely peer reviewed? No. I want an article appearing in a peer reviewed journal indicating that the threat of global warming is significantly over-stated. There is, in fact, plenty of real debate among climate scientists. Opinions do get revised. For example: Science 17 November 2006: Vol. 314. no. 5802, p. 1064 QQQ News of the Week GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE: False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All Richard A. Kerr A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean's currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There's no sign that the ocean's heat-laden conveyor is slowing. The lag reported late last year was a mere flicker in a system prone to natural slowdowns and speedups. Furthermore, researchers are finding that even if global warming were slowing the conveyor and reducing the supply of warmth to high latitudes, it would be decades before the change would be noticeable above the noise. The full realization of the Atlantic's capriciousness comes with the first continuous monitoring of the ocean's north-south flows. In March 2004, researchers of the Rapid Climate Change (RAPID) program moored 19 buoyant, instrument-laden cables along 26.5°N from West Africa to the Bahamas. A few months later, they steamed along the same latitude, lowering instruments periodically to take an instantaneous snapshot of north-south flows. While waiting for the moored array to produce long-term observations, physical oceanographer Harry Bryden and his team at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., compared the 2004 snapshot with four earlier instantaneous surveys dating back to 1957. They found a 30% decline in the northward flow of the conveyor (Science, 2 December 2005, p. 1403), sparking headlines warning of Europe's coming ice age. The first year of RAPID array observations has now been analyzed, and the next European ice age looks to be a ways off. At a RAPID conference late last month in Birmingham, U.K., Bryden reported on the first continuous gauging of conveyor flow. Variations up and down within 1 year are as large as the changes seen from one snapshot to the next during the past few decades, he found. He observed a lot of variability, says oceanographer Martin Visbeck of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science at the University of Kiel in Germany, who attended the meeting; so much variability that more than 95% of the scientists at the workshop concluded that we have not seen any significant change of the Atlantic circulation to date, wrote Visbeck in a letter to the British newspaper the Guardian. Although the immediate threat has evaporated, a difficult challenge has taken its place. Scientific honesty would require records for decades in order to pick out a greenhouse-induced slowing, says physical oceanographer Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. How do you go about doing science when you need decades of record? For their part, RAPID researchers will be asking for funding to extend array operations to a decade, says Bryden. Then some combination of government agencies would have to take on the burden of decades of watchful waiting. QQQ Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: Your language gives you away. There is nothing fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past climate data. It is entirely fraudulent to claim to have reconstructed past climate data when ones results depend entirely on a group of ten trees, and to refrain for nine years from revealing how few trees were involved It is a gross violation of the scientific method, and rules of the journals involved, to present the results of one's calculations and for nine years to refuse to reveal how the calculations were done and what they were calculated from. Had he originally revealed how he calculated it, or what he calculated it from, everyone in the world would have asked: TEN trees! Of which only one grew unusually fast! If I was to pick another ten trees, would the result be similar? And of course, the result for the next few trees was completely different - as Bricca well knew, but some how neglected to mention for nine years. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Genuine science is replicable. And replicable does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, it means they explain what they did in such a fashion that anyone else could do it also. If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, but priests of Gaea. Edward K. Ream wrote: You can't be published in journals like Nature or Science (or any other reputable scientific journal) if you can't explain your work. Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo science appears all the time in Science and Nature For example: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx : : Despite the fact that these papers appeared : : in top journals like Nature and Science, none : : of the journal reviewers or editors ever : : required Briffa to release his Yamal data. : : Steve McIntyre’s repeated requests for them : : to uphold their own data disclosure rules : : were ignored. This sort of thing (that PC science is in practice exempted from data disclosure, and proudly proclaims results on the basis of secret evidence) has been an ongoing scientific scandal from the very beginning of the global warming movement, and everyone aware of this unscientific practice should have realized that global warming science is not science, but politics and religion, and that global warming scientists are not scientists, but priests of Gaea. Environmentalism, and several other isms, are state sponsored religions, which because of state backing have the privilege of publishing their holy texts in scientific journals despite conspicuous and infamous failure to comply with the standards and rules of those journals. Nine years later, Briffa's Yamal data for twentieth century temperatures turned out to be that one tree of ten selected trees grew unusually rapidly during the twentieth century as compared to fossil trees of the same type from the same area. These ten trees were selected by Bricca after a great many other trees in the same area were measured, but the rest of the measurements were not included. The larger population of trees, taken as a whole, shows much the same growth pattern as the fossil trees. Take out one tree from those ten, Yamal06, and most of the evidence for climate change vanishes. Restore the much larger set of tree measurements from which the ten trees were selected, and all of the evidence for climate change vanishes - the population as a whole is has the same growth rates as the fossil tree. Take out one tree from half a dozen graphs of global warming in near a dozen papers, and suddenly they do not show global warming any more. Bricca has, at this time, not yet explained why those ten trees, and not other trees in the same area measured in the same survey. And whatever his explanation, ten trees is not enough. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact: One of the most disheartening things about such debates is that many people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no specific agenda, except discovery. There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering them. While I am with you in general, I think your confidence in science weakens your point rather than stresses it. Science is full of schools which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather accelerate than impede a scientific career. I suppose you are familiar with Kuhn's scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Personally, I would place the anthropogenic global warming denial on the same scale as the 9/11 was an inside job theory, rather outlandish but not completely impossible, in contrast to ID and Holocaust denial. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 5:59 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Genuine science is replicable. And replicable does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, it means they explain what they did in such a fashion that anyone else could do it also. If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, but priests of Gaea. Edward K. Ream wrote: You can't be published in journals like Nature or Science (or any other reputable scientific journal) if you can't explain your work. Unsupported and unexplained politically correct pseudo science appears all the time in Science and Nature Repeating a false claim does not make it true. If you want me to believe it, you must cite a reputable source. If you continue to pollute this group with nonsense you will be banned. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 6:15 AM, derwisch johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote: On Oct 7, 3:35 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: One of the most disheartening things about such debates is that many people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no specific agenda, except discovery. There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering them. While I am with you in general, I think your confidence in science weakens your point rather than stresses it. There is no way directly to refute such claims. Instead, I shall start another OT thread that will contain nothing but references to spectacular scientific articles. Science is full of schools which rather resemble competing tribes than people presenting contradicting facts, and agreeing to a common mindset might rather accelerate than impede a scientific career. I suppose you are familiar with Kuhn's scientific theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions. Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science must compensate for our human failings. Personally, I would place the anthropogenic global warming denial on the same scale as the 9/11 was an inside job theory, rather outlandish but not completely impossible, in contrast to ID and Holocaust denial. 9/11 was an inside job is the quintessential nut theory. Indeed, it is absolutely clear why the towers collapsed: steel loses its strength when heated, and the trusses that support the floors depend on their shape for them to work. The architect for the world trade center gave a talk shortly thereafter in which he explained that the collapse of the towers was a due to this common failure mode. To believe this swill is to demonstrate one's utter lack of critical facilities. But I digress. I'll respond to nonsense as it arises, but I do not intend to dwell in the mud. It's time to focus on the great scientific work that is being reported every day. To see this work, month after month, year after year, as I have done, is the best antidote for hogwash. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science must compensate for our human failings. A great audio series which involves this theme is How To Think About Science, http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html. It has changed my views in several significant ways that I find hard to articulate. I come out of it continuing to appreciate the great value the scientific tradition has brought to world civilization, perhaps even more deeply, with a simultaneous sharpening awareness of the blind spots the scientist culture has -- as does all human endeavour. Replied here instead of the OT Great Science thread as although it is both great and science* I don't think it can be called primary research or peer reviewed. * in the etymological sense of to know by study, http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=Science in the true spirit of sharing knowledge, -- -matt PS: To the discussion theme which spawned this byway: Climate change is real, it's happening. We'd better start paying attention if for there to be any hope of lessening the impending suffering. Debating whether it is induced or influenced by human endeavour is almost beside the point. Though in my mind there is no debate, we're doing it. Oh, and climate change isn't the only thing to pay attention to. Environmental contamination from human-created substances is at least as big. Not to mention changes to ecosystems; when my great-great-something-or-other uncle came to north america as navy lieutenant there were so many fish in the harbour the ship's passage was actually slowed. They caught their dinner by lowering a bucket over the side. Now our boats have to travel hundreds of miles to get their catch. Failure to recognize our impact on the planet and it's many systems is the most significant delusion we have to overcome, I think. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Matt Wilkie map...@gmail.com wrote: Of course I am. Kuhn's work in no way implies that science is full of hoaxes. It acknowledges that science is done by human beings, and science must compensate for our human failings. A great audio series which involves this theme is How To Think About Science, http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/science/index.html. Thanks for this. It looks like an interesting mixed bag. Plenty of controversy in the scientific world. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering them. This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded, we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science. The government likes data that supports more government power, rewards those that tell it what it wants to hear, and punishes those that tell it what it does not want to hear. Environmentalism is a state sponsored religion, for it is perfectly visible to anyone that wants to look that it is not subject to the same standards as normal science, the story of Briffa and the Yamal data being one example of a great many. People have lost their jobs for reporting that glaciers are advancing in a particular area, even though they fully agreed that most glaciers are retreating. This makes it hard to tell whether most glaciers are indeed retreating, though they probably are. Environmentalism generally, and the Global Warming movement in particular, acts like a holy and sectarian religious movement, a religious movement backed by state power, not like science. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own views. Your view is that Global Warming Science is science Well then, you should go and look at the evidence that disconfirms that view, the evidence as to whether Global Warming Science is subject to the normal restraints, rules, and requirements of science: Here is the tale of his correspondence with the journal Science http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=597 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=643 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=668 Which concludes: This the 39th email in my correspondence with Science and I still don't have a complete record on either Esper et al 2002 or Osborn and Briffa 2006 Here http://www.climateaudit.org/correspondence/cru.correspondence.pdf is some more correspondence on two other bodies of secret data and mystery calculations, where Steve unsuccessfully attempts to get journals to follow their own policies that scientists who publish must make the data and calculations supporting their results available. There is plenty more where that came from - I just googled and skimmed the first few links. We now know that the reason he did not get the complete record for Briffa is that the crucial part of the record, the data that supposedly shows the twentieth century is substantially warmer than the last thousand years, was one cherry picked tree of ten cherry picked trees, which one remarkable tree has been revealed to have been much used in a wide variety of papers. The Esper data are still not available. If Global Warming Scientists can publish bare assertions and get away with it, as that correspondence proves, then, by the standards you have set forth, by the rules of what science is and how it should be conducted, by the unwritten rules accepted by all scientists, and the written rules set forth as journal policies, Global Warming is not science, but Gaean theology, Global Warming Scientists are not scientists, but Priests of Gaea, and the fact that they can publish in science journals is state sponsored and state enforced religion. A) Science, which imposes harsh penalties for those who misstate the truth, and rewards those who discover new kinds of valid evidence, or Yet again and again, Global Warmers have mistated the truth, most recently with the Yamal data. Far from being penalized, they have been rewarded with wealth, power, fame, the defunding and dismissal of their enemies, and state enforcement of their theology. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:31 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Edward K. Ream wrote: There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering them. This works in those fields where there is a lot of private funding, but in fields that are politically sensitive, and wholly government funded, we unsurprisingly get politics rather than science. Do you think oil and coal companies have political power? If so, do you think they exercise their power? Thanks, Kent The government likes data that supports more government power, rewards those that tell it what it wants to hear, and punishes those that tell it what it does not want to hear. Environmentalism is a state sponsored religion, for it is perfectly visible to anyone that wants to look that it is not subject to the same standards as normal science, the story of Briffa and the Yamal data being one example of a great many. People have lost their jobs for reporting that glaciers are advancing in a particular area, even though they fully agreed that most glaciers are retreating. This makes it hard to tell whether most glaciers are indeed retreating, though they probably are. Environmentalism generally, and the Global Warming movement in particular, acts like a holy and sectarian religious movement, a religious movement backed by state power, not like science. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 8, 3:29 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Here is the tale of his correspondence with the journal Science I am asking for reliable data, from peer-reviewed articles. Your guy is free to make as many wild accusations as he likes, as he is responsible to no one. Submit a reference to an article in a peer reviewed journal, or hold your tongue. This is the last warning. Any more garbage and you will be banned. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 3:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Jesse Aldridge wrote: The connection to global warming is that there are situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because people don't understand the situation, but because circumstances compel them to take harmful (though logically sound) actions. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. The direct, scientifically established effects of CO2 will warm the planet about 0.5 degrees centigrade by 2100, which is small compared to the random century to century drift of climate. The sky is falling effects are the result of pseudo science, junk science. [] Climate change is indeed real, in that the climate is usually changing. Bur climate change right now is not real, or at least not real enough to be measurable, in that it is not clear whether over the last few decades the world has been getting cooler or warmer, or, as the sea ice would suggest, staying quite unusually constant. In another hundred years or so, it will be easier to say whether things were getting cooler or warmer in our time. so what's your spin on the anti junk science view of glaciers receding? or continuing to depend on the internal combustion engine? overreacting to climate change will hardly make the top 100 major follies of the human race in the last 20 years even if it proves to be an overreaction. of course, if we were to wait for confirmation, by then it may be too late to change in any organized manner. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
ne1uno wrote: so what's your spin on the anti junk science view of glaciers receding? As Climate skeptic sarcastically observed: Somehow, man’s burning of fossil fuels in the late 20th century has caused glaciers to begin melting … starting in the 18th century. glacier change is evidence of climate change, but not, however, anthropogenic climate change. Glaciers have been retreating at a roughly steady rate from 1850 to the present, but substantial increases in CO2 only set in after 1950 or so Glaciers are a lagging indicator of climate change, because the current position of the glacier front reflects snowfall centuries ago - glaciers are retreating today because of seventeenth century global warming. Sea ice is as more responsive indicator, and since 1978, there has been no trend in global sea ice, resulting in ever escalating prophecies of sea ice melting real soon now, and orgasms whenever the arctic melts more than usual in the summer. Glaciers have yet to retreat to the positions they were in shortly after the Medieval Climatic optimum - telling us that climate changes from time to time, but that it is today not as warm as it has been, nor as cold as it has been. or continuing to depend on the internal combustion engine? overreacting to climate change will hardly make the top 100 major follies of the human race in the last 20 years As the communists intended to annihilate the bourgeoisie, and the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews, the greenies intend to destroy industrial civilization and reduce the earth's population to sustainable levels. If they actually believed it was important to reduce CO2 production, they would support building nukes and building solar thermal hot salt power stations in the desert. That they oppose solar thermal hot salt power stations shows they want the lights out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: As the communists intended to annihilate the bourgeoisie, and the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews, the greenies intend to destroy industrial civilization and reduce the earth's population to sustainable levels. If they actually believed it was Never thought I would be mentioning Pentti Linkola on leo-editor, but since we are disturbingly OT already: http://old.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id382/pg1/ -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
The current glacier melt is not about snowfall, it's about feedback loops. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY about the failure of past experience to deal with exponential changes. Characterizing those who want to mitigate climate change as interested primarily in population reduction is like characterizing the U.S. Republican party as secessionist: there are a few such extremists, but they do not constitute the serious majority. Thermal hot salt plants sound like a prima facie good idea to me, and I'd be happy to entertain any controlled nuclear solution that dealt sustainably with spent fuel disposal. The key is sustainability. As the technology improves, the sustainable population capacity improves. - Stephen On Oct 7, 6:56 am, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: ne1uno wrote: so what's your spin on the anti junk science view of glaciers receding? As Climate skeptic sarcastically observed: Somehow, man’s burning of fossil fuels in the late 20th century has caused glaciers to begin melting … starting in the 18th century. glacier change is evidence of climate change, but not, however, anthropogenic climate change. Glaciers have been retreating at a roughly steady rate from 1850 to the present, but substantial increases in CO2 only set in after 1950 or so Glaciers are a lagging indicator of climate change, because the current position of the glacier front reflects snowfall centuries ago - glaciers are retreating today because of seventeenth century global warming. Sea ice is as more responsive indicator, and since 1978, there has been no trend in global sea ice, resulting in ever escalating prophecies of sea ice melting real soon now, and orgasms whenever the arctic melts more than usual in the summer. Glaciers have yet to retreat to the positions they were in shortly after the Medieval Climatic optimum - telling us that climate changes from time to time, but that it is today not as warm as it has been, nor as cold as it has been. or continuing to depend on the internal combustion engine? overreacting to climate change will hardly make the top 100 major follies of the human race in the last 20 years As the communists intended to annihilate the bourgeoisie, and the Nazis intended to exterminate the Jews, the greenies intend to destroy industrial civilization and reduce the earth's population to sustainable levels. If they actually believed it was important to reduce CO2 production, they would support building nukes and building solar thermal hot salt power stations in the desert. That they oppose solar thermal hot salt power stations shows they want the lights out. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Jesse Aldridge wrote: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Not a supportable proposition. Try reading a year's worth of Science Magazine (as I do) or Nature. You will not find anything at all to support it. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 5:19 AM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Kent Tenney wrote: The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of 100's of climate scientists from many countries over several decades over an economist who says what people want to hear. Genuine science is replicable. And replicable does not mean two priests recite the same doctrine, it means they explain what they did in such a fashion that anyone else could do it also. Exactly. There has been an explosion in climate-oriented research in the past decade or so. None of it is friendly to global warming deniers, despite the deniers claim that somehow it isn't real research. If they refuse to explain, they are not scientists, but priests of Gaea. You can't be published in journals like Nature or Science (or any other reputable scientific journal) if you can't explain you work. This misrepresentation of what Science is all about is a bad faith attempt to explain away facts that happen to contradict one's unscientific opinions. In contrast, the climate deniers cite each others non-scientific works as proof that science is a grand conspiracy among scientists. We see this most forcefully in the debate over evolution. In fact, the general facts *and* the theory are extremely well established. There is no disagreement over the essentials among scientists. This is not at all a conspiracy. There *are* a huge number of remaining questions to be asked. These questions are what make evolutions the most *successful* scientific theory of all time. Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf Why Evolution is True, By Jerry A. Coyne http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532 The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, by Stephen Jay Gould http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Evolutionary-Theory-Stephen-Gould/dp/0674006135 What we see in all these works is the dishonesty, pure and simple, of the opponents of evolution. In particular, the judge in the Kitzmiller case accused some of the witnesses for the defense (intelligent design) of lying under oath. I highly recommend a thorough reading of the Kitzmiller decision. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Imo, it is impossible to read any of the following and go away with the conclusion that evolutionary theory is anything but plain fact: One of the most disheartening things about such debates is that many people fail to realize that science as a social enterprise has no specific agenda, except discovery. There are *huge* disincentives for scientists to mislead themselves or others. If there were real data contradicting global warming or evolution, people would instantly make their career by uncovering them. In contrast, the deniers have obvious personal agendas that underlies their doubt. In the case of evolution, the religious (rightly!) feel threatened by the mountain of evidence that we were created by a simple process acting over billions of years, rather than a complex supreme being. In the case of climate change, the deniers would prefer not to face the implications that human beings might be having an extremely negative impact on the world. The two views may be related. If the supreme being were, in fact, supreme, it might create a world in which those created in its image would have more benign impacts. Another disheartening aspect about such debates is that it obscures the real excitement that is inevitable when one reads scientific discoveries without an agenda. This is, truly, the golden age of science, regardless of the rear-guard attacks on it. For example, we are on the brink of learning in detail, exactly how life arose. The work of Gerald F. Joyce is particularly exciting: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci%3B1167856v1?maxtoshow=HITS=10hits=10RESULTFORMAT=fulltext=lincoln+joycesearchid=1FIRSTINDEX=0resourcetype=HWCIT Imo, this work is the stuff of Nobel Prizes. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:35 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: For example, we are on the brink of learning in detail, exactly how life arose. The work of Gerald F. Joyce is particularly exciting: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/sci%3B1167856v1?maxtoshow=HITS=10hits=10RESULTFORMAT=fulltext=lincoln+joycesearchid=1FIRSTINDEX=0resourcetype=HWCIT Imo, this work is the stuff of Nobel Prizes. The abstract doesn't convey the excitement :-) Here is a summary that does: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-in-a-bottle EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf BTW, one of my hobbies is reading interesting judicial cases. I was surprised at first by how easy they are to read. It's hard to become a federal judge and not write well :-) EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.comwrote: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/04cv2688-111.pdf BTW, one of my hobbies is reading interesting judicial cases. I was surprised at first by how easy they are to read. It's hard to become a federal judge and not write well :-) Ops. Got the wrong pdf. Here is the full text of the decision. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: What we see in all these works is the dishonesty, pure and simple, of the opponents of evolution. In particular, the judge in the Kitzmiller case accused some of the witnesses for the defense (intelligent design) of lying under oath. I highly recommend a thorough reading of the Kitzmiller decision. The judge in the Kitzmiller case said: The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 8:35 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: In contrast, the deniers have obvious personal agendas that underlies their doubt. In the case of evolution, the religious (rightly!) feel threatened by the mountain of evidence that we were created by a simple process acting over billions of years, rather than a complex supreme being. In the case of climate change, the deniers would prefer not to face the implications that human beings might be having an extremely negative impact on the world. The two views may be related. The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for evidence. Repeating something endlessly does *not* constitute evidence, no matter how many people repeat it, and no matter how fervently they believe it. This point is made brilliantly in other ways in the book, The End of Faith, by Sam Harris. http://www.amazon.com/End-Faith-Religion-Terror-Future/dp/0393035158 What strikes me most about the various deniers and conspiracy theorists is how boring their views are. They say the same things, over and over again, as if repetition constitutes evidence. To make this project work, they must somehow convince themselves that the *mountain* of disconfirming evidence does not exist. It's sad because the contents of the actual evidence is the most exciting and pleasurable intellectual news in the world today. I am often thrilled at how clever people can be in deducing what is hidden. For example, a recent article in Science uses the size of stomata in leaves as an indication (proxy) for CO2 levels going back millions of years. A major project in science is determining the strength and applicability of such proxies. Nothing in the creationist/denier literature matches this project. As another example, the book Collapse, by Jared Diamond http://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Succeed/dp/0670033375 abounds in inferences that can be (plausibly, but not certainly) be made about pre-historical events. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 9:37 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for evidence. My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own views. See, for example, The Black Swan, by Nassim Taleb, http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Impact-Highly-Improbable/dp/1400063515 In my view, the discovery and critical evaluation of new kinds of evidence is close to the heart of science. Evidence, or our evaluation of it, does depend on human interaction. Scientists are often given the scientific death penalty for misstating or falsifying results. They are barred from further grants and given other harsh sanctions. It's hard to imagine anyone at the Discovery Institute being disciplined for misstating facts, which happens regularly. For example, Stephen Jay Gould was often portrayed by creationists as someone having doubts about evolution! A more recent example: http://www.badscience.net/2009/09/house-of-numbers/ This is pure dishonesty, which will never be punished by the Discovery Institute or any other creationist organization. So which culture is the more reliable? A) Science, which imposes harsh penalties for those who misstate the truth, and rewards those who discover new kinds of valid evidence, or B) Creationism, which rewards those who find ever more devious ways of misstating the truth, and which recognizes only the Bible as the ultimate authority on everything. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 7, 9:37 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: The two views are more strongly related by their utter contempt for evidence. My wish is that we, individually and collectively, become connoisseurs of evidence. And especially evidence that *disconfirms* our own views. I like to pepper these kinds of posts with references to high-class books and articles. It's a way of avoiding just discussing my personal opinions. To practice what I preach, I must actively seek high quality books and articles that tend to *refute* my opinions. This is the only honest way. So if you think that evolution or global warming are dubious propositions, I invite you to correct me by referencing high-class books or scholarly articles that refute my views. But be warned, feeble sound bites will not suffice. OTOH, I have already reference three books that disconfirm *your* notion that evolution is bogus. If you are intellectually honest, you must treat these disconfirming data very seriously. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Edward K. Ream wrote: Ops. Got the wrong pdf. Here is the full text of the decision. http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf Thanks. Skimming the first 50 pp. was a really good read! The backflips described in getting ID promoted in classes such as saying a disclaimer that the biology teachers at a school called Dover wouldn't read, and that was read by admin types shows how salesy the attempt was. The cross references are hard though... John G --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical problem. Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of production (in the short term). That means countries that don't cut emissions will have an economic advantage over countries that do cut emissions. In Game Theory, they'd call this a sub-optimal Nash equilibrium -- no matter what your opponent does, you'll be comparatively better off by not cutting emissions. So little gets done. Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrnFGP4zks It had quite an effect on me the first time I watched it. Here is a new web site dealing with the social aspects (including denial) of various big problems: http://mahb.stanford.edu/ From http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5948/r-samples.dtl QQQ Paul Ehrlich is still out to save the world. A generation after sounding the alarm about overpopulation, the Stanford University biologist and colleagues have launched an effort called MAHB (pronounced mob)—the Millennium Assessment of Human Behavior. Its aim is to penetrate public apathy and denial and prod social scientists to look into the behavioral aspects of Earth's problems. I'm trying to ... get a global discussion going, says Ehrlich. Science has laid out the problems—climate change, food and water crises, loss of biodiversity, and toxins in the environment—in great detail, the group argues on a new Web site, mahb.stanford.edu, yet society stubbornly refuses to take comprehensive steps to deal with them and their drivers, the first of which is population growth. When Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution, died last week, the blogs were full of ‘This is the person who proved Ehrlich wrong’ in his dire prophecies, says Ehrlich. What we need is a total change in the way we think about these problems. ... We need to start talking very frankly about what people want and what they can have. Ehrlich, 77, says that at present MAHB's core group, including atmospheric scientist Stephen Schneider and Donald Kennedy, former editor-in-chief of Science, is focusing on getting the word out. A world megaconference is planned for 2011. QQQ Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 4:18 pm, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can tell you I would not have invested :-) I would have invested. I would have felt it was the morally imperative thing to do. And I would have gotten shafted. I found it shocking and outrageous that so many could take an action that made the group as a whole worse off. Interesting. I would have done the expected value calculation: Payoff = 10 * p -10 * (1-p) where p is the probability that 90% or more of the class would invest. I'm not sure there is a should in this calculation, though I think understand what you mean. The prohibition against communication seems to bias the odds away from investing, but actually, imo, the possibility of real communication with strangers (in the everyday world) seems to be remote enough to make the toy experiment fairly realistic. Anyway, it's an interesting experiment. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Or not. Here is a quote from the 25 September 2009 issue of Science Magazine. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol325/issue5948/index.dtl#twis Steven Chu is the U.S. Secretary of Energy and a Nobel Laureate in physics. Here is the opening sentence of his editorial: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/325/5948/1599 Overwhelming scientific evidence shows that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels have caused the climate to change, and a dramatic reduction of these emissions is essential to reduce the risk of future devastating effects. Of course, you are entitled to your beliefs. You are not, however, entitled to be respected for those beliefs, or to be taken seriously for repeating nonsense. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 2:48 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Here is another view: http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf From the abstract: QQQ The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. QQQ In other words, this is a bathtub problem. Humans are notoriously poor at estimating the changes when sources (inputs) and sinks (outputs) are involved, and even worse at estimating the effects of changes to complex dynamical systems such as the earth's environment. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 3:06 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. Here is another view: http://dougcarmichael.com/mahb/2009_solomonirreversible.pdf Here is the entire abstract: QQQ The severity of damaging human-induced climate change depends not only on the magnitude of the change but also on the potential for irreversibility. This paper shows that the climate change that takes place due to increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop. Following cessation of emissions, removal of atmospheric carbon dioxide decreases radiative forcing, but is largely compensated by slower loss of heat to the ocean, so that atmospheric temperatures do not drop significantly for at least 1,000 years. Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450–600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ‘‘dust bowl’’ era and inexorable sea level rise. Thermal expansion of the warming ocean provides a conservative lower limit to irreversible global average sea level rise of at least 0.4 –1.0 m if 21st century CO2 concentrations exceed 600 ppmv and 0.6 –1.9 m for peak CO2 concentrations exceeding [approx] 1,000 ppmv. Additional contributions from glaciers and ice sheet contributions to future sea level rise are uncertain but may equal or exceed several meters over the next millennium or longer. QQQ Care to modify your views? Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be exposed, see http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/... one of many such discoveries of junk science.' Your language gives you away. There is nothing fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past climate data. It may be a difficult problem, but that's another matter. The so-called hockey-stick controversy is yet another example of magnifying the doubts while ignore the fundamental basis for worry about CO2 emissions. The problems are discussed in detail in the wikipedia articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years#The_Hockey_stick_controversy It's old news, and does not in any way invalidate, for instance, the conclusions of the ippc: http://www.ipcc.ch/ You are going to have to do a lot better than this. In effect, you are accusing the entire scientific community of not knowing how to do science. This is a truly bizarre debate. On the one side, are people who actually do science. On the other side, are people who don't do science, know very little science, who are not interested in science, and yet have large vested interests in disputing the claims of science because those claims are inconvenient for business or religion. Such people seize on the minutia, and ignore the mountain of evidence disconfirming their beliefs. I don't know what to do about this situation, but it looks like the tide of pure hogwash is becoming a tsunami. We ignore this tide at our peril. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: On Oct 6, 5:56 pm, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be exposed, see http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/.. . one of many such discoveries of junk science.' Your language gives you away. There is nothing fraudulent about attempting to reconstruct past climate data. It may be a difficult problem, but that's another matter. The article you cite appears in a political journal. We see articles like why people like Palin. If you want to be taken seriously, cite articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For example, a search for the phrase global warming yields 485 original research articles in Science magazine. I would bet quite a bit of money that exactly none of these articles supports the notion that global warming is a hoax. If you find one, please let me know :-) Similar remarks no doubt apply to Nature magazine and dozens of other peer-reviewed journals. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 8:56 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: This whole affair has the ring of a bad joke. So in the spirit of the jokester, here are two links: Glen Beck tries to kill parody web site:http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/10/beck_tries_to_kill_parody_... and the actual parody web site:http://glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com/ And another. We're on his case like white on rice: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9gccy/did_glenn_beck_murder_a_young_girl_in_1990/ EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 7, 9:04 pm, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: And another. We're on his case like white on rice: http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/9gccy/did_glenn_beck_murder... And another. Glenn Beck the scientist http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909020033 EKR --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Yes. I love this problem. I refused to believe the explanation the first time I heard it. I ended up writing a script to prove it's validity to myself: import random def monty_hall(): doors = ['car', 'goat', 'goat'] random.shuffle(doors) # Assume we guess the first door (doors[0]) # Open one of the doors that doesn't have a car if doors[1] == goat: del doors[1] else: del doors[2] # Stay with the same door #return doors[0] == car # Switch to the other door return doors[1] == car # num_wins = 0 num_trials = 1 for i in range(num_trials): if monty_hall(): num_wins += 1 print win percentage: , float(num_wins) * 100 / num_trials --- For fun, try dropping num_trials to a low number like 10 and then raise it back up to see the variance drop out. At 100,000 trials, it's 66 point something percent *every time*. Probability is amazing. For me the key insight of the Monty Hall problem is that humans, due to having limited working memory, collapse a sequence of events down to just the current state. Our brains are wired to disregard the initial door and just see the two doors standing in front of us. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: For me the key insight of the Monty Hall problem is that humans, due to having limited working memory, collapse a sequence of events down to just the current state. Our brains are wired to disregard the initial door and just see the two doors standing in front of us. To be fair, this is what they teach about statistic problems in high school. You should not think of what happened before, and only consider the situation *right now*. The key insight for me, again was that Monty Hall cannot open the door you selected. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
I see global warming as more of an economic, game-theoretical problem. Assume that cutting emissions means increasing costs of production (in the short term). That means countries that don't cut emissions will have an economic advantage over countries that do cut emissions. In Game Theory, they'd call this a sub-optimal Nash equilibrium -- no matter what your opponent does, you'll be comparatively better off by not cutting emissions. So little gets done. Check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrnFGP4zks It had quite an effect on me the first time I watched it. I think problems like global warming ultimately stem from the fact that individual entities, when forced into competition, will inevitably behave selfishly in the absence of any overarching authority. I think the best solution to this problem is some sort of global government with the ability to enforce cooperation. Of course there are enormous challenges and grave dangers along this path, but it does seem to be the logical conclusion. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
To be fair, this is what they teach about statistic problems in high school. You should not think of what happened before, and only consider the situation *right now*. Ah, yes, that's a good point. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 6, 4:38 am, Jesse Aldridge jessealdri...@gmail.com wrote: Check out this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhrnFGP4zks It had quite an effect on me the first time I watched it. At first glance, I don't see how the video relates exactly, but I can tell you I would not have invested :-) Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 5, 4:55 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: And in contrast, the worst article ever published in Scientific American:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil Just ran across this site:http://www.badscience.net/ If I were a conspiracy buff, I would say there is a conspiracy to denigrate everything that is scientifically known that is the least bit inconvenient for various folk :-) There certainly seems to be an epidemic of bad-faith efforts to misrepresent the strength of what is actually known scientifically. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
Jesse Aldridge wrote: The connection to global warming is that there are situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because people don't understand the situation, but because circumstances compel them to take harmful (though logically sound) actions. For example, China and India don't want to cut emissions, because they want to become the new US. And the US doesn't want to cut emissions because we want to retain our status as #1. I can easily see the industrialized world continuing to make half-assed efforts that fail to effectively address the underlying sources of greenhouse gases. Instead we will come up with ad-hoc, expensive adaptations to a hotter planet. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. The direct, scientifically established effects of CO2 will warm the planet about 0.5 degrees centigrade by 2100, which is small compared to the random century to century drift of climate. The sky is falling effects are the result of pseudo science, junk science. For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be exposed, see http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx one of many such discoveries of junk science. The short of the above story is that the evidence that the twentieth century has been warmer than the past turns out to be an average taken over TEN TREE growing in a cold climate, whose growth therefore should reflect the length of the warm season, ten trees selected from a large population of trees by Briffa, ten trees that have appeared again and again in a variety of supposedly independent graphs of temperature that supposed confirm each other. Of these ten trees, ONE TREE, Yamal06, showed remarkable and unusual growth as compared with fossil trees. However, it turns out these were ten *selected* trees, selected without explanation from a much larger set of measured trees. When we average over whole set of similar nearby trees their growth patterns are similar to those of fossil trees from the same area. And similarly, if do our own selection, by averaging over nine of the ten trees that Briffa selected, and exclude Yamal06 as an outlier, again the growth patterns of the nine we select of the ten Briffa selected are similar to that of the fossil tree population. There is no evidence that temperatures have risen during the twentieth century. http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/faking-global-warmin g.html http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-warming-trend-in- raw-surface-temperature-data.html Sea ice remains the same as it has been since 1978, when satellites first gave us accurate observations of total ice area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.d aily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg There is no persuasive theoretical reason to expect unreasonably strong warming from CO2 emissions, and we have not in fact actually observed such warming in recent times. In 2006 the arctic had unusual melting, but not as much as it melted in 1959, and every arctic summer since 2006, the ice has been greater than the last, despite regular loudly announced predictions of the opposite. In any given year, there is always an unusual weather event somewhere, some time, but truly global averages, such as world sea ice, world tropical storm energy, etc, show no long term pattern, the show some warm years and some cold years, some warm decades and some cold decades - the tropical storm energy shows pretty much the same non pattern as global sea ice. Twentieth century temperatures are warmer than most of the last two thousand years, cooler than the Medieval climatic optimum, and cooler than most of the last ten thousand years. The climate gets cooler, it gets warmer, it gets cooler again. In recent decades, when most of the CO2 was released, there has not been much change. Climate change is indeed real, in that the climate is usually changing. Bur climate change right now is not real, or at least not real enough to be measurable, in that it is not clear whether over the last few decades the world has been getting cooler or warmer, or, as the sea ice would suggest, staying quite unusually constant. In another hundred years or so, it will be easier to say whether things were getting cooler or warmer in our time. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:56 PM, James A. Donald jam...@echeque.com wrote: Jesse Aldridge wrote: The connection to global warming is that there are situations where cooperation breaks down. Not because people don't understand the situation, but because circumstances compel them to take harmful (though logically sound) actions. For example, China and India don't want to cut emissions, because they want to become the new US. And the US doesn't want to cut emissions because we want to retain our status as #1. I can easily see the industrialized world continuing to make half-assed efforts that fail to effectively address the underlying sources of greenhouse gases. Instead we will come up with ad-hoc, expensive adaptations to a hotter planet. Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global warming is a scam. The science is beyond me, but I'll take the word of 100's of climate scientists from many countries over several decades over an economist who says what people want to hear. see http://tinyurl.com/yag8tpn The direct, scientifically established effects of CO2 will warm the planet about 0.5 degrees centigrade by 2100, which is small compared to the random century to century drift of climate. The sky is falling effects are the result of pseudo science, junk science. For a relatively easy to understand summary of the latest fraud to be exposed, see http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/01/ross-mckitrick-defects-in-key-climate-data-are-uncovered.aspx one of many such discoveries of junk science. The short of the above story is that the evidence that the twentieth century has been warmer than the past turns out to be an average taken over TEN TREE growing in a cold climate, whose growth therefore should reflect the length of the warm season, ten trees selected from a large population of trees by Briffa, ten trees that have appeared again and again in a variety of supposedly independent graphs of temperature that supposed confirm each other. Of these ten trees, ONE TREE, Yamal06, showed remarkable and unusual growth as compared with fossil trees. However, it turns out these were ten *selected* trees, selected without explanation from a much larger set of measured trees. When we average over whole set of similar nearby trees their growth patterns are similar to those of fossil trees from the same area. And similarly, if do our own selection, by averaging over nine of the ten trees that Briffa selected, and exclude Yamal06 as an outlier, again the growth patterns of the nine we select of the ten Briffa selected are similar to that of the fossil tree population. There is no evidence that temperatures have risen during the twentieth century. http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/faking-global-warmin g.html http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-warming-trend-in- raw-surface-temperature-data.html Sea ice remains the same as it has been since 1978, when satellites first gave us accurate observations of total ice area http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.d aily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg There is no persuasive theoretical reason to expect unreasonably strong warming from CO2 emissions, and we have not in fact actually observed such warming in recent times. In 2006 the arctic had unusual melting, but not as much as it melted in 1959, and every arctic summer since 2006, the ice has been greater than the last, despite regular loudly announced predictions of the opposite. In any given year, there is always an unusual weather event somewhere, some time, but truly global averages, such as world sea ice, world tropical storm energy, etc, show no long term pattern, the show some warm years and some cold years, some warm decades and some cold decades - the tropical storm energy shows pretty much the same non pattern as global sea ice. Twentieth century temperatures are warmer than most of the last two thousand years, cooler than the Medieval climatic optimum, and cooler than most of the last ten thousand years. The climate gets cooler, it gets warmer, it gets cooler again. In recent decades, when most of the CO2 was released, there has not been much change. Climate change is indeed real, in that the climate is usually changing. Bur climate change right now is not real, or at least not real enough to be measurable, in that it is not clear whether over the last few decades the world has been getting cooler or warmer, or, as the sea ice would suggest, staying quite unusually constant. In another hundred years or so, it will be easier to say whether things were getting cooler or warmer in our time. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Take a look at this: http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967 This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it. (Unless the game has a rule where Monty Hall would open both doors if car was not behind any of them). The whole thing seems like a mathematical prank to me. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 5, 4:34 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. And in contrast, the worst article ever published in Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=squeezing-more-oil This article has no basis in either science, mathematics or economics. At root, it is enumerate and unscientific. It ignores the essence of the peak oil claim, that no matter how much oil is in the ground, the *rate* at which oil can be extracted must reach a peak and then decline. For a much better treatment, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil In particular, the peak oil deniers must ignore that production has **already peaked** in the United States and many other countries, **despite** the increasing ability to extract oil from oil fields: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil#Peak_oil_for_individual_nations The article abounds in nonsense. It claims, correctly, that much of the world has not been explored, implying, incorrectly, that this somehow invalidates the peak oil theory. This is absurd. There are economic reasons why much of the world has remained unexplored, and those reasons imply that it would be difficult to extract oil if it were ever found. To pretend otherwise is to implicitly assert that oil companies have ignored easily gained profits. It **doesn't matter** how much oil is in the ground. What matters is **how fast** it can be extracted and **at what cost**. The article simply ignores this basic fact. Indeed, economists are strictly correct when they say that the world will never run out of oil. The irony is that the reason is that eventually it will cost too much to extract the remaining oil. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem. On Oct 5, 11:49 am, Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it. (Unless the game has a rule where Monty Hall would open both doors if car was not behind any of them). You pick a door. Two possibilities: 1. (p = 2/3) You picked a goat door. Monty Hall opens the other goat door. By switching, you pick the third door, which is the car door. 2. (p = 1/3) You picked the car door. Monty Hall opens one of the two goat doors. By switching, you pick the third door, which is the other goat door. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
I may be autistic or something, but I still don't get it. If you don't switch, the only way you can *win* is if the car is behind your door. If you switch, the only way you can *lose* is if the car is behind your door. There is a 1/3 probability that the car is behind any particular door, so switching *doubles* your odds of winning. This is a plain fact. Monty knows where the car is. His showing you an empty door in no way alters the odds. The analogy with picking a card is exact. If you switch, your odds of winning are 51/52. That is, the only way you can lose is if you *correctly picked* the ace of spades originally. The person showing you 50 cards **can not change this fact**. If you don't switch, your odds of winning are 1/52. If yo switch, the probability *must* be 51/52. Similarly, Monty can not change the fact that if you switch the only way you can lose is if you initially picked the right door. The probability of that is 1/3, so the probability of winning is 2/3 if you switch. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:58 PM, derwisch johannes.hues...@med.uni-heidelberg.de wrote: I heard it so often that I can't really get it how one could not get it, although it took me myself a while to appreciate the problem. Hah! I was writing an explanation of why I think this is a prank, and immediately got it. It seems writing is much, much more efficient than just thinking :-). I think I have a much simpler explanation why it's not 1/2. The twist is that by choosing a door, you BLOCK monty from opening that door. I.e. the situation is different from monty just opening one door and you choosing one of the 2 doors. Just mentioning this game-changer would have made it much clearer. -- Ville M. Vainio http://tinyurl.com/vainio --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 5, 4:34 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: Take a look at this:http://www.philipbrocoum.com/?p=967 This is the best explanation of this problem I've ever seen. The conclusion: by switching doors, you increase the probability of winning from 1/3 to 2/3, **not** to 1/2. By the way, I remember seeing a variation of this on Let's make a deal. Monty said that behind one of the doors was a car. The contestant picked a door. Monty showed another door that contained a car, thereby inducing (I don't remember exactly how) the contestant to abandon the game and take a consolation prize. In fact, there was a car behind all three doors! This was the most brilliant moment I have ever seen on TV. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: OT: The Monty Hall Problem
On Oct 5, 4:55 am, Edward K. Ream edream...@gmail.com wrote: This article has no basis in either science, mathematics or economics. At root, it is enumerate and unscientific. I should have said, innumerate. Edward --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups leo-editor group. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---