"The meaning of the world is the separation of wish and fact." - KURT GÖDEL
"According to Peirce's doctrine of fallibilism, the conclusions of science are always tentative. The rationality of the scientific method does not depend on the certainty of its conclusions, but on its self-corrective character: by continued application of the method science can detect and correct its own mistakes, and thus eventually lead to the discovery of truth".
A guiding principle for accepting claims of catastrophic global events, miracles, incredible healing, invisible friends, or fill in the blank is:
“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” - Carl Sagan
"Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable." - H. L. Mencken
I would add irrational and highly delusional to the mix when faith requires one to accept magical violations of the well known, well tested or easily demonstrated laws of Nature. - PWL
"Science is Progress and the Future. Faith is regression to the Dark Ages." - PWL
“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.” - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
"Two important characteristics of maps should be noticed. A map is not the territory it represents, but, if correct, it has a similar structure to the territory, which accounts for its usefulness." - Alfred Korzybski
"Science is a search for basic truths about the Universe, a search which develops statements that appear to describe how the Universe works, but which are subject to correction, revision, adjustment, or even outright rejection, upon the presentation of better or conflicting evidence." - James Randi
"Hypotheses are nets: only he who casts will catch." - Novalis
"Nullius in verba. Take no one's word for it." - Motto of the Royal Society
"I'm trying to find out NOT how Nature could be, but how Nature IS." - Richard Feynman
"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin." - Thomas Henry Huxley
“A foolish faith in authority is the worst enemy of truth.” Albert Einstein
"Science is empirical. Knowing the answer means nothing. Testing your knowledge means everything." - Lawrence Krauss
"Skepticism is the agent of reason against organized irrationalism - and is therefore one of the keys to human social and civic decency." - Stephen Jay Gould
"Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. What's left is magic. And it doesn't work." - James Randi
Isn’t it very strange that Bill Nye is supposed to be such a science educator yet he makes vast generalized statements that violate the spirit and substance of the scientific method with his almost every appearance on the news or in print.
Bill Nye, Anti-Science Doomsday Soothsayer; Prognosticator of Climate Raptures; Purveyor
of Personal Political Attacks Against Skeptical Scientists; Violently Opposed to the Scientific Method and the Right of Every Scientist to be Skeptical of any and all Science Claims.
To claim as Bill Nye does that “skeptics of a science claim” are not scientists is absurd as the very heart of science is skepticism of all claims made by anyone including and specifically those claims of other scientists. Read the rest of this entry »
It is important to understand the bad ideas floating about out there. After interacting online with a number of “followers” of The Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project they insisted that I “do more research” so I did; I watched more videos, searched using the google machine, and interacted with more Zeitgeistians; I found their glorious leader, Jacque Fresco, worshiping communism in a video of his in Cuba.
I’ve asked a number of prominent Zeitgeistians about it and they had absolutely nothing to say. I’ve tossed this article and information graphic memes together to let people know that the founder of these groups believes communism was good and not radical enough.
Peter Gleick’s actions are shocking and atrocious, a sad event for standards in science where we see otherwise dedicated scientists violate their own integrity in furtherance of their belief stricken cause to save the Earth at all costs. It’s an unfortunate pattern of behavior that the end justifies the means.
By using fraud and deception Peter Gleick compromised himself. This is all too familiar in climate scientists dedicated to their cause above their commitment to the scientific method. Peter Gleick likely fancied himself, absurdly, as a whistle-blower of sorts, as DeSmog climate doomsday rapture cultists have characterized him justifying his criminal actions, but the facts now show that there was nothing of substance to the climate issues to be “blown”, just private information stolen in a crime against a think tank who disagrees with Gleick’s world view of CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture aka CAGW. Nothing to blow the whistle on thus Gleick’s acts are wholly criminal acts not qualifying for whistle-blower status.
The two Climate Gate incidents also fit this pattern but on a much larger scale where an entire clutch of climate scientists, Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, Dr, Jones, Dr. Briffa, Dr. Threnbreth, et al., as is evident by the two sets of Climate Gate Emails, had a similar ongoing conspiracy to fudge their numbers, defraud the public, violate the scientific method using secret political actions to block publication of papers, coordinating their actions to the benefit of their pet hypothesis, CAGW, to the benefit of their careers, to the benefit of their funding, to the benefit of their “cause” rather than to the benefit of science or to the benefit of the public paying their bills.
It is obvious that an insider having observed these suspect activities of scientific fraud and cronyism and the resulting gaming of the data to bias towards CAGW plus the fact that funding monies where clearly involved as motivation to career and person adds in the suspect activities of potential criminal fraud not only across state lines but across international borders as well.
The role of the whistle-blower is typically reserved for insiders who observe highly unethical and or criminal behavior going on in an organization who then reports such events and crimes to the public for action by those with the legal obligation to act accordingly and responsibly. Some countries even provide legal protections for such “honest” whistle-blowers who side on the side of doing the right thing rather than letting the crimes continue.
The direct comparison of these two events, ClimateGate and Gleick Fake Gate, leaves one with the bitter taste that, unfortunately, there are many climate scientists willing to engage in unethical actions even crossing the line into scientific fraud (fabrication of data is a no no Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann) and advancing their own careers using deception (hiding the decline is a big no no Dr. Mann) and, now evidently clearly criminal acts of identity theft, social hacking misrepresentation deception passing oneself as a board member of an organization one is not a member of nor a board member of, receiving stolen documents across state lines for wire fraud, and likely many more charges will be identified as this story develops and unfolds, not to mention the loss of scientific integrity and violating ones commitment to the scientific method and nuking one’s own career with a Tsar Bomba in the process.
So two major cases, Climate Gate I & II (with III in the wind) and Gleick Fake Gate have shown the criminal aniled minds of climate science are active and willing to break the laws that help to keep civilization civil and worse they routinely break the rules of the scientific method claiming they are under attack. Well dah! If you can’t stand the heat get out of the lab!
Science is about testing all claims of hypotheses put forward, it’s the science that is being “attacked” since it’s not hard science of the order of f=ma or e=mc^2. If these two equations had the lack of “predictive value” of the climate science statistical virtual models we’d not be able to build sky scrapers safely let alone have humans visit the moon and robotic probes explore the solar system and beyond!
There is a serious quantitative failure of the field of climate science to keep it self rooted in hard science, sure they put up space satellites and take observations, but it’s the climate scientists methods of analysis that are the key problems (when the frauds and blatant politics are removed that is) they have an over reliance on statistical games and statistical models that disconnect many if not most of their results from the Actual Real Atmosphere and Climate of this Small Blue Marble known as Earth.
“If your experiment needs statistics, you ought to have done a better experiment.” – Ernest Rutherford
Rutherford’s Rule of Experiments is a very concise and elegant filter that separates true hard science from pseudo sciences such as Climate Science.
Judith Curry hits the head on the nail with Gleick’s [lack of] Integrity: when one “perceives with passion” that the Earth is at risk one’s emotions lead one to compromise ones values and self; and in the case of scientists it seems that shows up as a Passion Bias or a Dedication Bias or as commonly known, Confirmation Bias, but to that we can now add Compromise Bias: these are all the blatant ignoring of the counter evidence that has a damn good habit of falsifying the many claims of CAGW.
What makes a Bad Scientist? What makes a Good Scientist? What makes a Great Scientist? How well they adhere to the scientific method and how well they can shift their point of view to consider what others are telling them. Also being honest and not using deception or fraud is a baseline essential commitment. Read the rest of this entry »
These climate scientists bust a move violating the scientific method and the philosophy of science with their CO2 Climate Doomsday Rapture Prophetic rhetoric.
The amazing thing is that they seem to be utterly oblivious to the ethical violations of the scientific method they are committing against the philosophy of science. Their smug arrogance isn’t even he worst part.
Looking back in time at the Mean Sea Level graphs from the University of Colorado I noticed some things that bother me about their graphs and the manner of their presentation. Some serious questions where raised.
I made this slow 2 second blink comparison movie (it speeds up at the end) of two graphs from sealevel.colorado.edu to visually compare a noticeable change in plotting and data from 20041119 and about a month later on 20041223. The graph format changed and possibly the data points where changed or deleted.
The Facebook user “Ecological Internet” makes some rather alarming statements:
“Earth poised to ecologically collapse bringing down biosphere, humanity & most if not all creatures. Avoidable but requires increase in knowledge & immediate biocentric action. – Ecological Internet on Facebook”
“We know Earth dying and being for all creatures coming to an end – deal with it and commit to reversing – or you are the problem.” – Ecological Internet on Facebook
OK, stop the presses, there is an article about study done by NCAR on the simulation of winds and how that might move water in dramatic ways. That is all fine and good except for the connection to the following religious notions and the fact that US Government Funds were used in this obviously religious study in violation of the strict Separation of Church and State in the USA.
“The parting of the waters described in the book of Exodus that enabled Moses and the Israelites to escape the pharaoh’s army is possible, computer simulations run by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Colorado at Boulder show.
To test the theory that the biblical account may have depicted actual events, the researchers studied maps of the region, archaeological records and satellite measurements to find a topographical feature where such an event might have been possible. They settled on an area south of the Mediterranean Sea where some oceanographers say a branch of the Nile River drained into what was called the Lake of Tanis, a coastal lagoon 3,000 years ago. Read the rest of this entry »
Actual Science vs Faith in Anthropomorphic Global Warming Climate Change (click to enlarge).
“One of the key features of Hansen’s global warming theory is that the polar regions are supposed to warm much faster than the rest of the planet. The image below is from his classic 1984 paper, and shows that Antarctica is supposed to warm up 6C after a doubling of CO2. If the cooling trend which UAH shows continues, it will take Antarctica a very long time to warm up six degrees.” – 
There is very little difference between what Hansen is doing and the old time soothsayers. Sure Hansen has computers with which to ply his magical tricks of math and dead tree entrails are at the core of his “dire doomsday” climate predictions. It’s the same old confidence game just different means of deception.
The 16 January 2010 issue of New Scientist is really interesting as New Scientist admit that they published “non peer reviewed speculations” as if it was science (rather than soothsaying) and that those speculations were treated as if they were peer reviewed science by the politicians who run the IPCC panel and produce the Alarmist Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change Hypothesis (that has now been falsified in so many ways). Now let’s get into it.
[Update 20100119: It’s fine if a science magazine publishes “speculation” AS LONG AS it is so labeled! If it’s not labeled as a “speculative possibility” without any evidence then the readers might be inclined to “blindly accept it on faith or trust” or to accept it “on authority” as seems to have happened with the Himalayan Glaciers are Melting Doom and Gloom. New Scientist does have cache as an allegedly authoritative (to some degree) science publication, at least in some circles. As such it is their responsibility to indicate accurately as possible the evidence available for any particular hypothesis. One way science rags such as New Scientist, Nature, Scientific American, Discover, Popular Science, et. al. fall down is in not presenting opposing hypotheses or contrary evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. By only presenting the one side a rosy picture is transmitted into the minds of many of their readers not all of whom have the time nor inclination nor skills to dig deeper. That failure is on the shoulders of the editors and policy makers of those rags. – pwl]
New Scientist magazine’s unnamed Editors write:
Sifting climate facts from speculation
IT WAS a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist [Syed Hasnain], we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report – and it turns out that our article is the primary published source. The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review – and most of his peers strongly dispute it. ” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
In the article Fred Pearce writes:
A decade ago, New Scientist reported (5 June 1999, p 18) a comment by the leading Indian glaciologist Syed Hasnain, who said in an email interview with this author that all the glaciers in the central and eastern Himalayas could disappear by 2035. Hasnain, of Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, has never repeated the prediction in a peer reviewed journal, and now says it was ” speculative”. – Fred Pearce, New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 11
So the glaciologist who made the comments and New Scientist are both backpedaling their claims which amount to nothing more than the equivalent of soothsaying the future. Shame, shame, shame. When scientists peddle “predictions” without sufficient hard evidence what really is the difference between what they are doing and soothsaying from dead tree entrails? Nothing really.
“So how could such speculation have become an IPCC “finding” which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel’s chairman [Rajendra Pachauri]?” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
You’re kidding right? Rajendra Pachauri is a politician and will attempt to use anything regardless of how verified it is to support his political agenda and personal wealth accumulation agenda as his recently revealed conflicts of interest demonstrate! This shows that the Editors of New Scientist clearly fail to see the highly political nature of the alleged AGW Hypothesis. Are the editors still under the delusion that climate science is a pure science without being driven by a hard core polarized political movement? I can’t believe they are that naive, can you?
“We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked “climategate” emails.” – New Scientist magazine, 16 January 2010, page 3
This is a very strange item. Still attempting to unpack it’s full meaning. Thought I’d share it and see what others had to say about it.
It seems that New Scientist, unnamed author, is backpedaling a published claim that was being propagandized by the chief politician of the IPCC to support the political non-science based AGW hypothesis agenda.
British Columbia already had laws to deal with irresponsible bad drivers with cell phones being reckless or dangerous.
“MOTOR VEHICLE ACT
Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer,
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 318
Careless driving prohibited
144 (1) A person must not drive a motor vehicle on a highway
(a) without due care and attention,
(b) without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway, or
(c) at a speed that is excessive relative to the road, traffic, visibility or weather conditions.
(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) (a) or (b) is liable on conviction to a fine of not less than $100 and, subject to this minimum fine, section 4 of the Offence Act applies.”
“… it’s already against the law to drive without due care and attention OR with undue care and attention.” – RS
The new anti cell phone and device laws were only made to make the life of law enforcement and ICBC biased prosecutors easier.
The problem with the new anti cell phone and device law is that it alters the burden of proof from the prosecutors having to prove that a person was distracted by the use of a phone or other device and assumes that the person is guilty. This is in direct violation of the Canadian Constitution which guarantees every person in Canada the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty (“11(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty …”).
This cell phone ban attempts to bypass this important constitutional protection and place the burden upon us saying that we are guilty of diminished capacity just because we were using a cell phone.
It assumes that we are guilty without proving it and thus this law is nullified and void.
The CULT of the Police State deepens in a disturbing way in British Columbia, Canada as of 1 Jan 2010.
It’s going to take a pretty creative excuse to get out of a ticket for violating B.C.’s new distracted driver law.
Effective Jan. 1, anyone caught holding a cell phone, PDA, portable music player or other electronic device while operating a motor vehicle is eligible for a $167 ticket. If the cop can prove you were actually using it, expect three demerit points, too.
That means simply fidgeting with a portable music player while stopped at a light is now against the law, according to RCMP Staff Sgt. Al Dengis, head of Central Okanagan Traffic Services.
“All the police are required to establish is that the individual was holding onto an electronic device,” he said.
Cops don’t have to prove that the device was in use or even on at the time of the offence.
“We simply have to show that you were driving the vehicle and holding the device,” Dengis explained.
This anti-cell phone law is unconstitutional, plain and simple for it assumes that one had diminished capacity when one is using a cell phone or other device in the car while driving. I’d like them to prove that I had diminished capacity even once while using a cell phone at any time for the past two decades.
Sure if a person is in an accident and it can be shown that a cell phone or a distraction was occurring and that that caused the accident that is one thing and the proper burden of proof of a contributing factor.
Failing an actual problem, such as an accident, it is well neigh impossible for them to prove that a driver has “diminished capacity” just because they were using a cell phone. It’s not like the case of alcohol.
However, to assume we are all guilty of diminished capacity just for holding a device or using a cell phone while driving is insanity and fails the burden of proof of guilt [that is required for the government to prove].
Yeah, the planet is either cooling, staying the same or warming. Dah.
What amazes me is that they think they can find the causes in such a complex system and assign with any accuracy the percentage warming from each of their selected causes of warming or cooling or staying the same.
December 7th, 2009, a day that will go down in infamy! Not allowed to exhale anymore. You can inhale but no exhaling anymore. No running. No exercise. No mice that roar! Nope, can’t have CO2. Grrr… Arrrgg…
Scientific hypotheses are supposed to fall when they fail to make predictions and another hypothesis comes along that can predict better.
The AGW Hypothesis has failed to predict the cooling trend and now they are looking to explain it after their hypothesis was falsified by Mother Nature.
The Solar Weather Technique gets better results! Sometimes as accurate as 85% a year or so into the future! Now that’s impressive. What’s even more impressive is that he tracks his successes and failures to learn from them! Wait? A scientist learning from his failures? Seriously wow, epic!
As it stands the Solar Weather Technique is doing better than AGW!
The fact that the AGW Hypothesis Alarmist crowd keeps having varying explanations indicates that they hypothesis has once again failed as it shows little if any predictive powers beyond soothsaying with dead tree entrails!
It’s “manN made ” since Michael Mann, one of the primary Climategate alleged scientists, invented the hockey stick graph used in Al Gore’s science fiction film used to cry wolf and fire in crowded theaters everywhere. When we say he “invented” the graph that is saying he “made it up” as in faked the data with his fellow alleged climate scientists, Phil Jones, et. al.. They cooked the data books! They falsified the data which also happens to falsifies their hypothesis as well.
An amazing editorial by the CBC’s Rex Murphy. Stunning in it’s clarity. Absolutely stunning. Breathtaking in it’s scope. A video that everyone interested in their planet must see.
Here is the Rex Murphy transcript interspersed with memorable quotes including an expanded quote from Clive Crook.
“When Jon Stewart the bantum rooster of conventional wisdom makes jokes about it you know Climategate has reached critical mass. Said Stewart: ‘Poor Al Gore, Global Warming completely debunked via the very internet he [you] invented.‘.
The Alleged Science Journal Nature wrote an editorial in response to the recent Climategate.
The science journal Nature reveals a pernicious “elitism” that is pervasive in science, that of being in the “in” group. One such “in” group is having the “proper scientific qualifications”.
Einstein’s was a “patent clerk” when he did his work on Relativity. Had an “in” group doing what the Climategate alleged scientists (Jones, Mann, et. al. ) or Nature keep his work from being reviewed, published and accepted we’d be much worse off as a society.
Another example is from the Climategate alleged scientists who’s “in” group meant anyone who “agreed with their hypothesis”.
The science journal Nature seems to have adopted both “in” group requirements. In groups form “cliques” or “cults” when the rules of membership get too constrained. The Climategate emails are rife with examples of this “in” group behaviors.
Unfortunately for science to work ANYONE must be allowed to access the data from ANY publicly funded science regardless of their “in” or “out” of group status.
We have seen Noam Chomsky’s principle of “Manufacturing Consent” working with the Climategate criminals Jones, Mann, et. al.. A conspiracy of “values and beliefs”, an elitist clique that thought that they were above the rest of the people they worked for, us. Other scientists have this “academic” elitist bias or shared value, that says that you need not just the “qualifications” but the “right attitude” otherwise you’re “outside the group”. Einstein broke the mold as have McIntyre and others, Einstein was a “patent clerk” when he worked on his famous breakthroughs.
Now we see it with Jon Stewart. While making light of the Climategate in a really funny way he reveals his bias in that he “believes” in “global warming” when he says “does it [Climategate] disprove global warming, no”. Unfortunately it’s much more complex than Jon Stewart realizes and that his shared values and beliefs in “global warming” blind him from deeper inquiry. OR, as a masterful media perception shaper he’s doing his job of making people laugh with short segments and the Climategate is way too much to get into and his demographic also shares his values in “global warming”.
In any event the science will clearly demonstrate what’s going on as time unfolds and Nature does what she does.
What’s interesting in Jon Stewart’s masterful media play is really how good he is at it.
Phil Jones, Michael Mann, et. al. put the “manN made” into global warming climate change.
“Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious [not so much anymore] Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.” Associated Press
A summary of the crimes of the alleged scientists Phil Jones, Mann, et. al.
“The interior of the earth is extremely hot, several millions of degrees.” – Al Gore!!! on The Tonight Show, 12th November 2009!
After all these years claiming to know the facts Al Gore get’s it SO EMBARRASSINGLY WRONG! This “mistake” of Gore’s is likely the result of Al Gore’s stated strategic tactic to exaggerate the facts regardless of how much he distorts them! The amazing thing is that he gets away with it even when it’s pointed out that he is blatantly exaggerating beyond any reasonable scale and thus lying.
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.
“This is mind blowing ignorance on the part of Al Gore. … Watching Gore make a complete scientific idiot of himself on national TV: priceless.” – Anthony Watts
Al Gore proves that he can’t be trusted on Scientific Information! We knew that but now it’s abundantly clear, he can’t even get the facts straight!
“There is no way to measure the temperature at the Earth’s core directly. We know from mines and drill holes that, near the surface of the Earth, the temperature increases by about 1 degree Fahrenheit for every 60 feet in depth. If this temperature increase continued to the center of the Earth, the Earth’s core would be 100,000 degrees Celsius!
But nobody believes the Earth is that hot [except evidently Al Gore]; the temperature increase must slow down with depth and the core is probably about 3000 to 5000 degrees Celsius.
This estimate of the temperature is derived from theoretical modeling and laboratory experiments. This work is very difficult (and speculative) since nobody can reproduce in a laboratory the high temperatures and pressures that exist in the core. Also it is not known exactly what the core is made of.” Ask A Scientist
Either Al Gore is a priceless idiot or he’s warning us about 2012!!!! This is what would happen if the Earth’s Core was “several million degrees! Get to your airplanes fast folks!”
The belief that the ends justifies the means may be the true root of all evil. – Troy Brumley
A prime example of how science is distorted by – likely well meaning – scientists or science educators. Deliberately or not this video is a masterful piece of propaganda pretending to be science. Credits are due to Greg Craven, the master propagandist who appears in the video.
Greg Craven: falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus?
Greg Craven: false in one thing, false in everything?
Neither risk presented in the video is acceptable because they are a false choice and Greg Craven knows it [or he should know it as a science teacher]! His logic is flawed since he presents a “binary choice” and that is his mistake, black and white thinking. His second mistake is presenting a false dilemma when he knows the facts much better [or should know them better as a science teacher]! There are so many other choices one can choose that it’s not funny. It’s typical of many people trained in the sciences and technology, as well as the general public, to think in black and white binary terms. The universe is fuzzy people. It’s about time we realized that.
The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix “di” in “dilemma” means “two”. When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.
False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (“If you are not with us, you are against us.”) But the fallacy can arise simply by accidental omission—possibly through a form of wishful thinking or ignorance—rather than by deliberate deception (“I thought we were friends, but all my friends were at my apartment last night and you weren’t there.”)
When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic.
Furthermore the dark vision of doom and gloom presented by the human caused global warming alarmists is exaggerated! Even Al Gore admits that he exaggerates – lies outright – just to get people to act! It’s clear that the alarmist views are not on the same footing as a rational scientific view that can be audited and examined fully in the public eyes.
Al Gore admits that he deliberately lies to and scares people for political gain on the topic of human caused global warming climate change. His lying is so blatant that he arrogantly brags about it! Wow, mastery of propaganda is certainly a strong suit for Al Gore.
“In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.” — Al Gore in an interview.
Steven Schneider [now deceased], [was] an alleged climate scientist who also advocates [advocated] lying to people and scaring them with outright lies for political gain. Wow what a one man propaganda machine.
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Steven Schneider, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), (Quoted in Discover, pp. 45–48, Oct. 1989; for the original, together with Schneider’s commentary on it misrepresentation see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.
Schneider has been publicly criticized by fellow atmospheric scientist, Craig Bohren, for his history of self-promotion using contradictory climate scares:
“…some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We’d get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others [such as Al Gore] it has been a godsend.“
More scare mongers with a deliberate lying bent where the end justifies the means, scientists, politicians and eco-warriors alike admitting they are willing to lie through their teeth to get the job done even if it’s global warming is false! Wow.
“What we’ve got to do in energy conservation is try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, to have approached global warming as if it is real means energy conservation, so we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
— Timothy Wirth, former U.S. Senator (D-Colorado)
“Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.” (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland’s glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing”
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect”
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)
“We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion — guilt-free at last!”
— Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)
Taking action can cause much worse problems for humans by rushing and taking the wrong actions. It’s very possible that the huge economic upheaval that is being caused by the rush to judgment by the alarmists will actually cause more harm than any real amount of actual warming.
Will Greg Craven, the guy in the video, take personal responsibility for all those that die in the economic turmoil of the implementation of useless “carbon solutions” for his role in presenting false dilemmas? Will he be responsible for those that die as the planet it terrorformed by his advocacy? I doubt it.
Besides the facts now show that the last ten years have been getting colder. Cold is the new warming. What? Yup. It’s getting colder which means the planet is warming. Weird, but that is what the alarmists claim.
Having an accurate assessment of the risks is crucial for any decision making process. This guy presents the situation in binary thinking and aims you towards his forgone conclusion revealing his bias. More propaganda based upon false reasoning steps and a very crude method of risk management. Since we already know that the alarmists claims are false (even they admit it) this guy is presenting a false choice on the alarmist side of the ledger.
Overall Greg Craven fails as a scientist to present the full set of known facts but passes as an effective and craven propagandist. As such Greg Craven gets a failing grade.
One Richard Feynman has this to say about falsification and full disclosure and it should be a lesson to Greg Craven and the others quoted above as Greg and the others are being schooled by Feynman indeed:
“But this long history of learning how not to fool ourselves–of having utter scientific integrity–is, I’m sorry to say, something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course that I know of. We just hope you’ve caught on by osmosis.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself–and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you’ve not fooled yourself, it’s easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.
I would like to add something that’s not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the layman when you’re talking as a scientist. I am not trying to tell you what to do about cheating on your wife, or fooling your girlfriend, or something like that, when you’re not trying to be a scientist, but just trying to be an ordinary human being. We’ll leave those problems up to you and your rabbi. I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you are maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.
For example, I was a little surprised when I was talking to a friend who was going to go on the radio. He does work on cosmology and astronomy, and he wondered how he would explain what the applications of this work were. “Well,” I said, “there aren’t any.” He said, “Yes, but then we won’t get support for more research of this kind.” I think that’s kind of dishonest. If you’re representing yourself as a scientist, then you should explain to the layman what you’re doing–and if they don’t want to support you under those circumstances, then that’s their decision.
One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.
I say that’s also important in giving certain types of government advice. Supposing a senator asked you for advice about whether drilling a hole should be done in his state; and you decide it would be better in some other state. If you don’t publish such a result, it seems to me you’re not giving scientific advice. You’re being used. If your answer happens to come out in the direction the government or the politicians like, they can use it as an argument in their favor; if it comes out the other way, they don’t publish it at all. That’s not giving scientific advice.
But not paying attention to experiments like that is a characteristic of cargo cult science.
… And now you find a man saying that it is an irrelevant demand to expect a repeatable experiment. This is science?
So I have just one wish for you–the good luck to be somewhere where you are free to maintain the kind of integrity I have described, and where you do not feel forced by a need to maintain your position in the organization, or financial support, or so on, to lose your integrity. May you have that freedom. ” – Richard Feynman, Cargo Cult Science, A Lesson From Richard Feynman For Scientists of Today to Learn
Sounds like Greg Craven needs to go back to grade ten science class and relearn the basics as long as his science teacher is someone like Richard Feynman and very unlike Greg Craven.
A detailed analysis of Greg Craven’s video “How the World Ends” (which have the same false dilemma argument) is illuminating of Greg Craven’s craven attitude towards factual science presentations.
Now a more rational video presentation on climate science.
What is Normal Climate?
“All we can do is adapt, it is the sun that does it, not man.”
All belief is religion as belief isn’t based upon verifiable knowledge.
“A United Kingdom court has ruled that a man can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change. …
Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.
In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.” Beliefs on climate like Religion, court rules
The word “belief” is a problematic word with so many definitions that you have to pretty much define what you mean either by the context or by direction definition.
Generally when I’m down on the word belief I specifically mean “religious belief” or “supernatural belief” and not a belief that my car is still parked where it is.
I don’t think it’s responsible to say that “I believe in Newton’s Gravity Theory” as to use the word belief to talk about facts mis-communicates to the masses of people out there without scientific training. It’s better to use other words. Your “belief” that letting go of a stone has nothing to do with whether or not the stone falls.
Common uses of belief basically mean that you don’t know or don’t have evidence and that you assume it is true anyway. Since you do have evidence that dropping a stone on earth will have it fall (unless it’s otherwise supported or blocked) using the word belief is a mistake. One instead should say “I know that when I let go of a stone at chest level, it will fall (assuming that it’s not supported or blocked in some other manner).” This has clarity.
It is a big mistake for Richard Dawkins to be using the word belief the way he does with regards to scientific knowledge. He should be more careful and define his terms more precisely when talking about scientific knowledge and what is know and what isn’t since the religious masses use the word belief differently.
Sure people have a “belief” that X person will be a good political leader, but that is an entirely different category and meaning of belief than “belief that god exists” which is a statement that has no evidence and will never have any evidence in all probability not even mentioning all the evidence against the possibility of any gods existing.
As for climate change caused by man the science isn’t settled and if you think it is that is your “belief” and not a valid scientific statement. The more I learn the more I learn that we don’t yet have conclusive answers and that politics of extreme environmentalism started it and now that mainstream politicians have gotten into the act it’s now even more highly suspect. So I’d say show the evidence in a context where it can be audited by anyone which means showing all the data, raw and manipulated, detailed and comprehensive explanations for the manipulations, the statistics methods involved and why they were chosen, the software and the data used to create the graphs, all the scientists notes, photographs, and other materials used in the preparation of all the science papers. It’s clear that climate scientists (and others) have not been up to the standards of other fields and that all publically funded science needs to have it’s standards of openness and auditability raised.
I’m a very strong show me the hard evidence guy. Belief has no place in science nor in the communication of science nor in the science education process unless it specifically means “we think it could be true or false but we don’t just know yet”.
Believing that murder is wrong is a statement of one’s moral values and the word belief is often used although I’d question it’s use there. I’d not say it that way. I’d rather be more specific and say that “Murder is wrong because human life is valuable.”
Is saying “gravity sucks” a statement of “belief” or is it a succinct statement of the known laws of Gravity? I pick the latter.
“The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. … Later epistemologists have questioned the “justified true belief” definition, and some philosophers have questioned whether “belief” is a useful notion at all.” – wikipedia
So “belief” is shaky ground at best, and as such it’s best to avoid using it when speaking generally about science or anything that is a statement of objective reality or it’s nature. I also use it carefully. My main use is in talking about the belief and faith stricken members of society.
Is that my belief? No, it’s a precautionary guidance principle based on knowledge gained from far too many conversations with the belief stricken who set well placed linguistic and philosophical traps.
An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.
Facts do not matter anymore as belief in global warming is now officially recognized as a nutter religion!
(All religions are anti-scientific since they require faith above facts of Nature and Nature always wins thus the supernatural religions are false).
The Religion of Climate Change
He’s close “belief in human caused climate change is a religion” but it’s not that they’ll believe in anything its’ that they put “belief” above reason and facts and they’ve been convinced by the likes of Al Gore. It is not the lack of a belief in god that is the problem it is belief itself that is the problem, belief in god, belief in climate change caused by man (aka Mann) that is the real problem. When you are willing to “believe” rather that use reason to examine the facts of Nature that is when you take the irresponsible “leap of faith” into the land of being belief stricken with something that is more likely simply wrong than even having a hint of being right. Critical thinking and reason and the scientific method and open science with peer review by anyone are the tools we need to move forward as a society. Not belief in something. Belief and faith are the great mind killers and possibly the death of civilization as well.
The Religion of Climate Change, UN Ki Moon Cult
Yes indeed, sober scientific based discussion still has it’s place. No science is ever settled. If you think climate science is settled then you don’t know about the facts of climate science as much as you think you do. Not only that, but you also don’t understand the scientific method nor science eduction. Questions are essential of all science at all stages. To suppress discussion is anti-scientific.
To make scientific questions such as “mann made climate change” into a religion based upon belief is the height of insanity and irresponsible governance by the court and anyone else.
This documentary is a good companion to the latest documentary,”The Great Global Warming Swindle” recently shown on CH 4 UK and is available on Google video. The hoax of Global Warming / Green House was exposed 19 years ago by CH 4 UK in this documentary entitled Green House Conspiracy. Those who subscribe to the rubbish trotted out by Al Gore and his mindless followers are not new they were the same arse clowns who were telling us we were all going to freeze to death 30 years ago.
What The FUCK? Almost every aspect of this video from 19 years ago is exactly the same as it is today!!!! Wow, nothing has changed. The warmies are still crying wolf. I wonder who let them out of the asylum?
“Sometimes we forget that not all numbers are the same. This becomes very apparent in dealing with floating point numbers in parallel computing. … Floating numbers are not associative or distributive. … The more cores programmers run their parallelized code on, the more ways operations can be interleaved and the more challenges programmers face.” – Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg, Intel
As if it’s climate science is not bad enough with intentionally corrupt or incompetently done statistics it turns out that climate models may be based upon computer programs with serious math flaws: the limits of the floating point and double precision floating point data types can produce incorrect results since “Floating Point Numbers Aren’t Real Numbers!” they are data types with limited precision. It gets even worse than that, when supposedly good programs are transformed into massively parallel programs with N threads of execution the results can vary with the number of threads chosen to run the program! Of course in climate science N can be 2 or 4 threads on a single multi-core machine but it can also be 1,000+ using GPGPUs or server compute farms.
Have the climate model programs been vetted to ensure mathematical accuracy? Is there a set of test cases that validate it after new changes have been made to the climate models? Do the test cases cover all the calculations in the climate model software? How do we know the answers are even accurate mathematically? (Of course that’s not even asking how do we know the model is relevant but this inquiry is not into relevancy it’s into accuracy of the calculations, whatever they happen to be, in climate models).
“The more cores programmers run their parallelized code on, the more ways operations can be interleaved and the more challenges programmers face. Parallel programmers must deal with a host of issues peculiar to parallel programs such as synchronization, protecting shared variables, and finding thread safe versions of common math routines (such as random number generation). One of the most subtle problems faced by the parallel programmer, however, arises from the properties of floating point numbers. Floating point numbers are the same in serial and parallel computations, of course, but when a program executes in parallel, special features of these numbers are more likely to impact your results.” – Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg, Intel, in “Parallelization and Floating Point Numbers“
One aspect of models in science and engineering that involve calculations using the “floating point number format” is that Floating Point numbers are NOT REAL NUMBERS they are limited precision approximations of Real Numbers and as such they have their limits often caused by rounding which results in Floating Point numbers not being associative, in other words the order matters!!! What happens in science and engineering calculations on computers using Float 32 or Double floats (64 bits) especially when scaling massive numbers of computations to multiple threads on your multiple cores or on thousands of processor nodes in super computers or on GPGPU (general purpose graphics processing units) is that you get the wrong answers due to the miss use of these floating point data types.
You can easily generate numbers that don’t fit into the floating point format, and thus you produce answers from the basic arithmetic operations that don’t fit into a floating point format. In other words, the floating point numbers when operated on by the basic arithmetic operations do not constitute a closed set.
The impact of this is significant. Floating numbers are not associative or distributive. So,
A * (C * B) ≠ (A * C) * B and
A * (B + C) ≠ A * B + A * C
[Obviously the sentence is missing something here, most likely the two equations do not produce the same answers! -pwl]
This means that as you change the order of a long sequence of arithmetic operations, you can generate different answers. Mathematically with real numbers, the answers can’t depend on the order of the operations (for commutative operations) or the way they are grouped together (associatively). But with floating point numbers, if you interleave the operations in different ways, you get different results.
Here’s a good test to demonstrate the implications of this behavior by floating point numbers:
1. Fill 2 arrays each with 10000 random values between 0.0 and 1.0.
2. Shift one up by 100 and shift the other down by 0.001.
3. Mix the arrays together, sum them, and subtract a large number (500000).
Here are the results run on 1, 2, and 4 threads.
1 thread computes 170.968750
2 threads computes 171.968750
4 threads computes 172.750000
Which one of these numbers is correct, the 1-thread, 2-thread, or 4-thread value? Are any of these the true value? Would you consider that with 4 threads, the answer is correct and the others wrong? Or with 1 thread?
This is not a trick question, nor is its goal to make programmers look silly. Developers are smart people. But, many programmers steeped in sequential programming for so many years make the assumption that there is only one right answer for their algorithm. After all, their code has always delivered the same answer every time it was run. When you consider the above example, however, all the answers are equally correct. To pick one arbitrarily and call it right and the others wrong is completely unjustified.
Wait there is more! This is quite shocking isn’t it? What you were taught in math class isn’t the way that computers do math! Yikes. Most computer scientists are not aware of this problem as most never encounter it in their careers, or don’t know that it’s a problem that is happening right under their noses. Scary.
By mixing the numbers as this example does, it creates a pathological situation designed to maximize problems due to round off error. The test mixes very large and very small numbers together. The arithmetic unit aligns the numbers before adding them, which, given the large difference in their absolute magnitudes, all but guarantees that we’ll loose bits of precision in the process.
As the number of threads changes, the combinations of numbers being added also changes. With all the roundoff errors, as the way these numbers are combined changes, the way roundoff error is accumulated also keeps changing. Thus, the answers change.
So which answer is correct? The algorithm for adding them together is unstable. If you carefully add the numbers together so large numbers add with large numbers and small numbers add with small numbers, and then add the “large_set_sum” to the “small_set_sum”, you get a numerically stable result. The answer in this case is 177.750. Note that the test answers in every case considerably vary from the stable method of obtaining the answer.
Note also that, with a serial algorithm, you’d never know there was a problem. Only as the thread count grows and the answers change, does the instability of the algorithm become obvious. It’s apparent the problem is not in the compiler or even the program. The problem is with the numerical instability of the algorithm. And it’s only revealed by going to multiple threads.
In the engineering applications that I’ve worked on for civil engineering of bridges we found that Double Precision Floating Point Numbers at 64 bits was simply not enough accuracy. We were able to use 80bit Extended Double Precision Floating Point numbers supported by the 8087 math coprocessor in the Intel line of chips. Even though the extended precision covered most of the cases that Double Precision didn’t there were a few cases where we had to adjust the order of our computations to ensure that we didn’t overflow the precision limits of the computation of the extended 80bit math! As you can imagine errors in bridge calculations are rather critical to life and limb.
The same is true in the Climate Models, lives and treasure both depend on correct math. The science fails when the math is wrong. Have they been vetted for numeric accuracy? How do we know that? Have test cases been written that test these limits in the climate model programs?
The same applies to random numbers in computers, they are not real random numbers either. As Tim Mattson says “We now know that god does play dice but that computers can’t!” (paraphrased). Random numbers are important in climate models since the climate is in inherently a system with randomness being generated from within. See Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science.
Computers cannot make truly random numbers. For statistical algorithms requiring random numbers, developers need to be careful in parallel code to avoid overlapping sequences from random number generators. Tim discusses different methods to use random number generators – including using independent generators for each thread and the “leap frog method” – to produce “pseudo random numbers” for statistical algorithms that work in parallel code.
Very interesting and important topic to any system that depends upon parallel computations being correct to protect limb, life and treasure.
Thanks to Intel, Tim Mattson and Ken Strandberg for this important information.
Yeah, it’s great that Obama is a “Secular” USA President. His dad was raised in Islam and became an atheist in a Muslim country, not an easy thing to do. Nice to have someone who comprehends the distinction of a Secular State and how important Separation of Crutch and State is.
As for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) the jury is still out and it’s not looking good for the theory that humans have caused it. The evidence and counter evidence is mounting that it’s just part of a Natural Cycle and we’ve not had much if anything to do with it.
Of course, let’s clean up real pollution on a global scale instead of playing political games with poor and premature science. All the main claims of Al Gore’s in his movie have since been proven wrong.
Check out these articles on climate science here or over at Whats Up With That for lots of interesting true facts about climate science.
Oh, belief has no place in science, so when someone says they “believe in global warming” (or they don’t) it means that they ARE treating it like a religion and don’t know what they are talking about since they don’t know the actual science, they just “believe”. Asking someone if they “believe” in global warming is also asking them their religion.
Science over belief and propaganda, that’s what will ensure a healthy environment on Earth. It is important that we don’t mess up the planet worse with the wrong diagnosis!
Al Gore has Crossed the Rubicon with his latest statements comparing Anthropogenic Global Warming (aka Human Caused Climate Change) to the battle against Nazi’s.
Godwin’s Law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation coined by Mike Godwin in 1990, and which has become an … adage. It states: “As a … discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.
Al Gore has now achieved this critical turning point fully committed forever and can no longer retreat back across his own river Rubicon.
the “Last Page” columnist in The Smithsonian stated that when an adversary uses an inappropriate Hitler or Nazi comparison, “you have only to say ‘Godwin’s Law’ and a trapdoor falls open, plunging your rival into a pool of hungry crocodiles.
When one stoops to using a Nazi comparison in a serious debate one is basically admitting that one no longer has any serious arguments left in one’s quiver. Al Gore committed a serious error in the ways of debate, he admitted that he has no serious arguments by stooping so low.
If you don’t believe in global warming aka climate change aka we humans did it then your a Nazi and since you’re a Nazi you are a criminal and since it’s a war you can be shot. That is the implication of Gore’s thinking taken to the extremes that some might want.
So duck, the real climate wars are coming. Being armed with the facts doesn’t seem to matter any more. Now they’ll seek out and destroy Nazi Climate Deniers!
It’s really interesting to me that so many people blindly follow people like Al Gore without even looking into whether or not what he is saying has any basis in the actual reality we live in rather than the imagined reality in their heads.
Maybe Al Gore and his Nazi’s are doing us all all favor by showing how radical and radically stupid he is being? Could this be a turning point in the debate? Could Al Gore have crossed the Rubicon, the point of no return? Yes. This is a critical turning point in the debate about climate. Fear mongering from the likes of Al Gore verse actual science grounded in objective reality!
Indeed, while 1998 was the warmest or second-warmest year on record, no year since has been as warm. And while there have been more warm years than cool ones in the past decade-and-a-half, the trend, since at least 2003, has been downward.
And — this is the one I really like — according to climatedepot.com,since Al Gore released his movie An Inconvenient Truth in October 2006, the Earth’s temperature has lost 0.74F, almost exactly the amount the UN’s climate panel claims was gained in the entire 20th century. The latter stat is apropos of nothing. As a correlation of Al Gore’s bombast vs. worldwide temperature averages, it is pure fluke. But you can bet that if there had been a similar rise in the past 33 months, the headlines would be blaring that the end of the world was near.
CAUTION THIS ARTICLE HAS VIDEOS THAT SHOW POLAR BEARS KILLING ANIMALS AND ATTACKING HUMAN BEINGS FOR FOOD WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE TO BEARS!
Just saw a blatant rip off ad on a US TV cable channel for (WARNING MONEY SCAM WEB SITE LINK FOLLOWS) http://helpWWFusa.org which redirects immediately to a money grab web page. The TV ad represented that the only way to save polar bears, which are going extinct according to the ad, is to send money. Just like a good old time religion scam tv ad/infomercial.
“Rising global temperatures are threatening wildlife all around the world and putting polar bears at risk of extinction. WWF is working to save polar bears and other species, and to preserve the habitats they need to survive. We need your help to put our solutions into action. With help from supporters like you, we can continue to protect endangered animals from climate change and other global threats. Your gift of just $16 a month could mean the difference between survival and extinction for polar bears, orangutans, tigers and other wildlife.”
Who will protect the bears from the WWF?
Who will protect your wallet from the WWF?
They also have a video with their false claims that misrepresent the facts.
What a repugnant scammer preying on people’s good nature to see their world improve conning them out of their money based upon false claims.
The funny thing is that they don’t need to make false claims if they had actual viable projects and spoke honestly about them rather than pushing their [hard] soft sell scam. The bears will die without your money! What hokum. What will go out of business without your money are the WWF scammers.
Polar Bears have survived for a very long time through multiple ice ages and the warm periods MUCH warmer than now in between. Leave them alone.
The Canadian and American governments (Greenland and Russia too?) take effective steps to protect the polar bears.
Reports are that their population is rising not falling!
The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
As recently as three years ago, a less official count placed the number at 1,400.
The Inuit have always insisted the bears’ demise was greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, “the Inuit were right. There aren’t just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.”
I’m sure that if humans actually try too hard to help the polar bears we might actually drive them extinct!
Polar Bears have survived for a very long time through multiple ice ages and the warm periods MUCH warmer than now in between. Leave them alone. Move them don’t shoot them when they dig into garbage and they’ll be fine.
Also, when you see one up close it’s likely too late – kiss your ass good bye WWF scammers.
Bears of all kinds are LAND SHARKS.
Shouldn’t the zoo officials have taken precautions to prevent their flesh eating monster from attacking someone in the first place? These are not your cute stuffed animals that you fell asleep with at night, these are flesh eating machines designed to survive and kill anything that they can to feed including YOU!
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus) is a bear native to the Arctic Ocean and its surrounding seas. It is the world’s largest carnivore species found on land. It’s also the largest bear, together with the omnivore Kodiak bear which is approximately the same size, but which is a subspecies of the brown bear that is normally smaller than the polar bear. An adult male weighs around 400–680 kg (880–1,500 lb), while an adult female is about half that size. Although it is closely related to the brown bear, it has evolved to occupy a narrow ecological niche, with many body characteristics adapted for cold temperatures, for moving across snow, ice, and open water, and for hunting the seals which make up most of its diet. Although most polar bears are born on land, it spends most of its time at sea, hence its name meaning “maritime bear”, and can hunt consistently only from sea ice, spending much of the year on the frozen sea.
Binky (1974–1995) was a polar bear who lived at the Alaska Zoo in Anchorage, Alaska, and was famous for mauling zoo visitors. He was found orphaned on the coast of the Beaufort Sea in 1974 and was taken to the Alaska Zoo the next year.
In July 1994, an Australian tourist named Kathryn Warburton climbed over the second of two safety rails to get a close-up photograph and was bitten as the bear stuck his head through the bars and grabbed her; she received a broken leg and bite wounds. Another tourist caught the event on tape. Binky kept the woman’s shoe for three days before it could be retrieved by zoo officials, and the day after the attack a news photographer took the iconic image of Binky with a shoe in his mouth that was printed in almost every press account of the incident.
You’ve got to be kidding me, naming a killing machine “binky”? WTF? Anthropomorphizing these killing machines as if they are cuddly toys or harmless as dogs is insanity. Also putting them into zoos is entirely irresponsible. Sure I like anyone have appreciated seeing them but they are evolved by Nature to be out in the wild and that’s where we should leave them. A better name for binky would be “bone crushing flesh eating machine”!
Another nutso human thinking that bears should have cute names. Anyone who gives a killing machine a cute name is guilty of any crimes that that killing machine commits as a result of it’s cute name. Give these animals accurate names: bone crusher, flesh eater, blood drinker, human taster, …, maybe then idiots will stay away. Actually don’t keep them in zoos at all. Videos are effective. Put a giant screen into the polar bear exhibits!
Unlike grizzly bears, polar bears are not territorial. Although stereotyped as being voraciously aggressive, they are normally cautious in confrontations, and often choose to escape rather than fight. Fat polar bears rarely attack humans unless severely provoked, whereas hungry polar bears are extremely unpredictable and are known to kill and sometimes eat humans. Polar bears are stealth hunters, and the victim is often unaware of the bear’s presence until the attack is underway. Whereas brown bears often maul a person and then leave, polar bear attacks are more likely to be predatory and are almost always fatal. However, due to the very small human population around the Arctic, such attacks are rare.
Protect these animals from those who exploit them! Zoos and wildlife organizations like WWF!!!
CAUTION GRUESOME: Take a quick look at the gruesome way polar bears treat humans: as food! Gruesome photos of what’s left after an attack from those lucky to get away!
I hope that you now know that these aren’t cute things to cuddle with and that they are built for survival in one of the most inhospitable zones on Earth!
Respect Nature or it’ll be resting with you in it’s belly satisfied with a tasty meal.
What? The AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hypothesis says that the radiation is being kept IN by the C02 in the atmosphere… thus it matters not that it’s reflected back into space by white surfaces on the SURFACE of the Earth SINCE they ARE well within and UNDER the green house gas layers of the atmosphere (not counting the painting of mount everest et. al.)! Dah!
What kind of bizarro world is this where the radiation can be reflected back and NOT be stopped by the VERY C02 (and other) GREEN HOUSE GASES that are the problem?
I guess we’re going to use magic white paint to tell the photons that hit the magic white roofs that they are special photons and that they have a pass to magically not be blocked by the green house gases in the atmosphere on their way out.
Now that’s a good business to be in, selling magic white paint.
It is the height of nonsense coming out of Chu’s brain as you can’t have it both ways there Steve and Al, either the green house gasses keep the radiation trapped in OR they don’t! Which will it be?
If the green house gasses can’t keep the heat radiation in then it follows that AWG is now proven false by Chu’s statement.
If the green house gases do keep in the heat radiation then AWG might have some tiny probability of being true AND Steven Chu’s been proven an idiot for wanting to paint the world a 1984 gray.
I don’t know about you but in Canada we like it toasty thus darker colors for buildings are better to keep it warm in the winter and use less energy for heating.
White buildings in the southern regions closer to the equator make sense to keep the buildings cooler in the heat that is there most of the time.
Saving the use of energy makes a lot of sense but why confuse the issue with bad science and terrible environmental notions that this somehow has to do with the sketchy AWG hypothesis?
It’s also nice to Chu to finally acknowledge that the Sun does in fact play a role in heating the earth.
Interesting how mind numbingly stupid this notion as presented by Chu is.
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on.” – Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
Standing near the edge of the Northwest Passage, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a pair of measures yesterday to boost Canada’s ability to prevent pollution and monitor shipping in its Arctic waters.
The Harper government plans to introduce legislation that will extend the enforcement zone of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which prohibits ships from dumping waste.
If the facts show that the Catlin Survey or their support teams left these oil drums in the Arctic on Ellesmere Island THEN THEY HAVE POLLUTED the Canadian Arctic and Canadian Law Ought to be brought to bear upon them for such egregious acts of anti-environmental pollution.
Here is one law in Canada that might apply. What other environmental laws would apply and for which charges against the Catlin Arctic Survey can be brought (should they be guilty of the accusation of polluting the arctic)?
An Act to prevent pollution of areas of the arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian arctic
WHEREAS Parliament recognizes that recent developments in relation to the exploitation of the natural resources of arctic areas, including the natural resources of the Canadian arctic, and the transportation of those resources to the markets of the world are of potentially great significance to international trade and commerce and to the economy of Canada in particular;
AND WHEREAS Parliament at the same time recognizes and is determined to fulfil its obligation to see that the natural resources of the Canadian arctic are developed and exploited and the arctic waters adjacent to the mainland and islands of the Canadian arctic are navigated only in a manner that takes cognizance of Canada’s responsibility for the welfare of the Inuit and other inhabitants of the Canadian arctic and the preservation of the peculiar ecological balance that now exists in the water, ice and land areas of the Canadian arctic;
NOW THEREFORE, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows: Read the rest of this entry »
Caring about the earth to their deaths? Wouldn’t the earth be better served without their sacrifice of toes, limbs, and lives (should it come to that)? They are supposedly highly trained scientists after all, aren’t they? No point throwing away their lives for an unproven belief, is there?
Isn’t fear mongering fun? Let’s have at their fear mongering then… here we go.
Oops… it’s getting cold again, how inconvenient…
Oh, there is the latest satellite phone interview with the Survey from Earth Day.
Graphic pictures of almost lost toes follow… ick… very gorey… really ick… plus more videos…
At the end they entrancingly have a couple of sentences about how this dim sun won’t cool the Earth enough to compensate for their imagined global warming. It’s just a disappointing brush off and not a serious treatment.
Who can slice and dice this news report? Please do. What is correct and what is just false? Why?
Sunspot maximum on left, sunspot minimum on right.
Warp drives have been the focus of science fiction writers for decades. But scientists kept them at arms length until 1994 when the idea was put on a firm (ish) theoretical footing by the Mexican physicist, Michael Alcubierre. His thinking is that while relativity prevents faster-than-light travel relative to the fabric of space time, it places no restriction on the speed at which regions of spacetime may move relative to each other.
Yes, imagination is wonderful. Nature is beautifully harsh though.
… Physicists have long wondered what would happen if you threw quantum mechanics into the mix? … They … studied a property of a quantum field called the renormalised stress-energy tensor which should be well-behaved under normal circumstances. But in the front wall of Alcubierre’s bubble travelling at superluminal speeds, the renormalised stress-energy tensor grows exponentially.
That strongly implies that such a bubble would be unstable. So it looks increasingly likely that, after a brief few years of excitement, Alcubierre’s warp drive is impossible.
To this someone replied:
When the word “impossibility” appears in discussions re science, I am always reminded of Arthur C. Clarke’s quote:
“When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.“
When “impossibility” is ignored and Arthur C. Clarke’s quotes start flying I’m always reminded of The Sagan Principle which states that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” which certainly applies to here and in general to FTL.
Do you object that Newton proves that it’s impossible given the Earth Moon System for a human being al natural to jump from the Earth to the Moon (without the aid of technology, aka space ships)? I gather that you’ll bring out Author’s old men quote for this case too. Gravity Sucks in so many ways, and one of those ways is in keeping you firmly within the Earth’s gravity well (unless you are one of the few to reach escape velocity doing the rest of us a favor).
The Fabric of Objective Reality sucks in so many ways. Not traveling faster than light is one of them.
Optimism or pessimism are both irrelevant to the Nature of Objective Reality. The Universe doesn’t care about us, as it doesn’t care at all about anything.
Each aspect of Nature, each Law of Nature that we learn is what is actually going on gives us insights into what is actually possible and what is impossible. Nature is the limiter not our imaginations. Clearly our imaginations run amok all the time (see Amok Time episode of Star Trek for an example of this).
When you willfully ignore hard earned scientific knowledge that can be tested, that has been tested, you might find yourself crossing into that no man’s land of fantasy and delusion. You are not alone as many if not most humans live their lives in the land of delusional fantasies that simply can’t be true given the harsh Laws of Nature, which are the very Laws of Nature that enable you to exist!
So be optimistic or pessimistic all you want. Nature is the final judge of what is possible and what is impossible. Not that Nature is an is. I choose to embrace Nature in all of it’s beauty and horror rather than have delusional fantasies about it. I save my fantasies for entertainment (like the upcoming FTL fantasy Star Trek movie out in about a month) and private relationships.
So enjoy your invisible friend of FTL all you want, just know that no matter how much you enjoy it your enjoyment won’t alter the Fabric of Nature one iota.
C02 as THE cause of Global Warming is nothing more than a lame correlation, there are a number of other correlations that are much better. Also C02 levels can be much higher without harm as it was in the many millions of years of Earth’s history when the levels where 10 times higher than now!!! Life lived and evolved just fine under ~4,000 ppm of C02 in the atmosphere.
And if you think that the science is settled then you are NOT a scientist and you DO NOT support the scientific method or the process of science education where people who are ignorant of the science ask questions to learn: see Richard Feynman on Scientific Investigation here.
Besides almost all Canadians that I ask want it to be 5c to 10c warmer up here as that will open up the Northern areas, which are a plenty, for development and farming opportunities! We’re tired of 90% of us living within 200 miles of the USA border! We’re tired of our igloos, we want actual homes!
A really great series of videos that hit back slicing and dicing the silly inane beliefs of creationists with hard hitting science. As someone with a sister and brother in law who are young earth rapture creationist preachers this series of videos is excellent potential deprogramming materials for the creationist delusional insanity. Enjoy.
These videos were made for the communal and greater good. All these videos are copyright free for educational purposes, feel free to mirror these videos with or without accreditation. Part of a series of videos exposing the funny stupidity of creationists and why they deserve to be laughed at. In each case the creationist statements are shown to be outrageously stupid by even the most rudimentary knowledge of science. Creationist are tackled at every level from the scientific illiterates like venomfangx who want to play in the scientific arena but don’t even understand the words they use, to convicted fraudsters like Kent Hovind who abuse the scientifical illiteracy of people like venomfangx to dupe them out of money. An enterprise which is clearly very successful as merely the tax Hovind didn’t pay was about a million dollars. Hovind himself has no discernible academic education, and gets by solely on using his confident delivery of scientific terms to convince his audiences that he knows what hes talking about. Then of course there are the professional such as the Discovery Institute, the hub and founders of the Intelligent design movement. After the humiliating rout of ID in court where it was found that ‘ID is not science’, and that ‘ID is only a relabelling of creationism’ the Discovery Institute do not utter the word once in their latest promotional video. Instead they now have decided to ‘teach the controversy’ which is an irony as they are the only people who disagree with evolution. What they are really asking is not to teach the controversy, but to teach their views, which are supported by neither research or evidence, in schools.
Any video with nuclear explosions gets headlined on the first page and has my blessing!
The film Knowing pretends that it’s Science Fiction yet is a full on brain injection of the biblical story of the Garden of Eden, Noah’s Arc and the Rapture with a twist which is that “aliens” aka “angels” steal away, well invite away, a small number of human children in a Noah’s Arc and take them to a new planet to start humanity again, a lush Eden with a giant white Tree of Life. Rabbits are along for the ride to show the kiddies how it’s done. Yes, that’s it.
Yes, science can prove there is no god, and in fact has done so. Follow the evidence. e=mc^2 means that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, which means that gods can’t be omnipresent, omnipotent, nor omniscient since those properties would require faster than light travel for the disparate parts of an invisible being to communicate. Thus there is no god. This proof is provide by science.
This is as true as saying that Newton proves that a human being can’t fly or jump to the Earth’s moon without the aid of a spaceship.
Science not just proves facts it can equally disprove things that just can’t possibly be DUE to the very Nature of Nature. Newton, Einstein and others have uncovered hard laws of Nature that PROVE aspects of Nature and at the same time these laws disprove anything that contradicts these laws. This hold true for every hard law of Nature.
As a demonstration of how experiment and laws of Nature “EXCLUDE” possibilities as well as prove them here is a tidbit from a recent discovery quoted verbatim.
The territory where the Higgs boson may be found continues to shrink.The latest analysis of data from the CDF and DZero collider experiments at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermilab now excludes a significant fraction of the allowed Higgs mass range established by earlier measurements. Those experiments predict that the Higgs particle should have a mass between 114 and 185 GeV/c2. Now the CDF and DZero results carve out a section in the middle of this range and establish that it cannot have a mass in between 160 and 170 GeV/c2.
This demonstrates the use of science to PROVE that something can’t be via the use of EXCLUSION FROM POSSIBILITY in OBJECTIVE REALITY.
So many atheists are incorrect in their logic – including Dawkins – when they falsely assert that science can’t disprove anything. It does disprove things all the time! Logic must be connected to objective reality to be viable.
It’s a common mistake in thinking caused by a disconnect of logic from objective reality. All logic must be verified and validated and tested against the actual objective reality. Many philosophies of thinking, most in fact, fail to provide any need to connect with objective reality. Science is one philosophical method that attempts to do just that with a high degree of success. You just have to get that e=mc^2 not only proves things about matter and energy it also disproves by exclusion a LOT MORE by far – in fact it disproves an infinite amount of mind garbage. However, e=mc^2 doesn’t disprove everything which is an even larger infinity, but it goes a long way.
So sorry to those of you with invisible friends your friend is just a chemical drug your brain feeds you to make you feel good.
So sorry to you misguided atheists who think that you can’t prove by exclusion that things can’t be in the actual reality we exist in. We can and science and scientists do all the time! In fact science could not progress if it only could prove positives – now let that twist your brain!
Unlike Pi, this is not circular reasoning and in fact is a key essential aspect of scientific reasoning!
It was like a breath of clean, fresh air to analyze the statements of Vaclav Klaus, and just the opposite to be exposed again to the toxic fumes of Al Gore (“No Debate: Czech President Vaclav Klaus on why the discussion about global warming is a monologue” and “Faster, Faster: Al Gore on how change must, and can, come quickly,” The Journal Report on Environment, March 9).
The science of global warming is by no means settled, as claimed by Mr. Gore, who disdainfully dismissed the substance of a question from Bjorn Lomborg, stating that “the scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we as a civilization . . . should pretend that this is an on-the-one-hand/on-the-other-hand kind of situation.”
Mr. Gore needs to be challenged on his repetitive claims of scientific consensus.
Vernon O. Cook
Salt Lake City
Vaclav Klaus has it exactly right. Global warming is bandwagon science adopted by the political elites who have the same mindset that led to communism or socialism.
– Wall Street Journal letters
I concur Vernon and Robert. Science rules not propaganda – even if there might be some tiny amount of truth in the propaganda.