Humour amongst the grief...

One of the "lighter" (the pune will become clear...) moments in the days following the Christchurch earthquake involved TV3 and John Campbell's "news and views" programe.

He had invited Ken Ring along to talk about the predicition of the Christchurch earthquake. (I hope that picks up the cache copy :) ) I openly confess that I missed the interview but did see Campbell's apology the following night ("...I let my personal feelings get between journalism and the audience..."). I have since heard selected portions of the interview courtesy of Mediawatch last night. To that extent I agree with JC's apology; Not good journalism, John.

Since then, Peter Griffen writing in the NBR, has come up with comparison between Ring and another - more famous - earthquake predictor.

The furore over John Campbell’s interview with earthquake predictor Ken Ring this week really exposed a strong anti-science vein running through New Zealand that even we here at Sciblogs, seasoned from hand to hand combat with the anti-vaccination lobby, homeopaths and evolution deniers were surprised at.

As one commenter on Sciblogs put it, Ken Ring’s predictions and his methods have a “pleasant intuitiveness” to them that makes them sound plausible and offer comfort in the face of hard science, often explained in complex, unemotional or even arrogant terms by scientists.

America's quake prediction panic attack
Well, this week’s turn of events reminded me of a 20 year-old Science article I was sent in the wake of September’s earthquake (hat tip to Lynley Hood) that paints some striking similarities between Ken Ring and another earthquake predictor who has long since passed, Dr Iben Browning.

Dr Browning was a self-taught climatologist with a Ph.D in zoology who in late 1989 predicted the serious likelihood of a major earthquake striking the Mississippi Valley during the first week of December 1990.

The media jumped on the prediction and widely publicised them. Why? According to Science:

Browning’s successful scare was based on classic ingredients: a predictor with apparently solid credentials, a prediction method that sounds scientific, and unsupported claims of previous prediction successes.

Does all of that have a familiar ring to it?

Well, it seems that Ring and his believers have really missed the mark!! Why?

Read here...

There are two dates in there... here, I'll give you a hand with them.

The time line provided by the internet forum contributor has sparked concern and criticism alike over the last week.

Feb 20 Nibiru between Jupiter and Mars orbits. 2.48 AU from Earth.

March 4 Nibiru breaks through ecliptic plane for earth change symptoms to increase dramatically. 2.261 AU from Earth.

March 15 Saturn, Nibiru, Earth, Sun, Mars, Jupiter and Uranus are in alignment creating gravity trench for volcano/earthquake/tidal events to escalate (first shaking of Hopi prophecy). First Conjunction. 2.1 AU from Earth.

So, more news next week.

Oh! "Lighter"? Choose between humour and setting fire...

Climategate - the science is not settled...

The blubberman (well, he calls himself "Whaleoil" so...), and a great range of other right whingers (by my count the first 60 at least of the sites picked up by Google on the topic if you put 'NASA Bounoua "Forrest Hill"' as the search) have picked up on a recent paper from NASA. You can find the NASA summary of the article here.

In the Blubberman's case, he has lighted his confirmation bias on an article from The Register. So, nothing original there, I guess.

But not only is the Blubberman selective in what he has clipped from The Register article, The Register itself has been equally selective in its extract from the NASA synopsis of the Bounoua and Hill paper.

As a direct instance, the following paras have been omitted completely, with the last para quoted below pointing out the limitations of the research to date.

The cooling effect would be -0.3 degrees Celsius (C) (-0.5 Fahrenheit (F)) globally and -0.6 degrees C (-1.1 F) over land, compared to simulations where the feedback was not included, said Lahouari Bounoua, of Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Bounoua is lead author on a paper detailing the results that will be published Dec. 7 in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Without the negative feedback included, the model found a warming of 1.94 degrees C globally when carbon dioxide was doubled.

Bounoua stressed that while the model's results showed a negative feedback, it is not a strong enough response to alter the global warming trend that is expected. In fact, the present work is an example of how, over time, scientists will create more sophisticated models that will chip away at the uncertainty range of climate change and allow more accurate projections of future climate

So, Blubberman, your usual half truths and truthiness huh!

Well, I guess that some questions...

are just too hard to answer.

Those who read TF Stern with any regularity will know his politic, his attitude to global warming. His latest writing centres on an article reporting an incident at a press conference involving one Professor Scneider.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.


He asked Professor Schneider about his opinions on Climategate – where leaked emails have revealed that a senior British professor deleted data and encouraged colleagues to do likewise if it contradicted their belief in Global Warming.
...
Professor Schneider, who is a senior member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said he would not comment on emails that may have been incomplete or edited.

During some testy exchanges with McAleer, UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistants twice tried to cut short McAleer’s question.

However as the press conference drew to a close Professor Schneider’s assistant called armed UN security guards to the room. They held McAleer and aggressively ordered cameraman Ian Foster to stop filming. The guard threatened to take away the camera and expel the film crew from the conference if they did not obey his instructions to stop filming Professor Schneider.

The guard demanded to look at the film crews press credentials and refused to allow them to film until Professor Schneider left the room.
McAleer said he was disappointed by Professor Schneider’s behaviour.

“It was a press conference. Climategate is a major story – it goes to the heart of the Global Warming debate by calling into question the scientific data and the integrity of many scientists involved.”

“These questions should be answered. The attempts by UN officials and Professor Schneider’s assistant to remove my microphone were hamfisted but events took a more sinister turn when they called an armed UN security officer to silence a journalist.”

TF followed this line with a fairly heated line on suppression of the freedom of the press, and leading to the failure of the media to give the fullest publicity that he felt the incident deserves.

(Right so far TF?)

Now there are two parts here as far as I am concerned.

_______________________________________________________

The first is the nature of a press conference; its purpose and the rights of those involved. If one takes the time to watch the process rather than the just letting it flow over there are three things you will note;

1. The process has a purpose, an objective. It is to pass a message to the media. In this instance the professor was publicising the release of his latest book.

2. There are standards of courtesy that are usually observed. Those courtesies generally tend to favour the person presenting the conference. It is little different whether the person is presenting a scientific paper, a political statement or a religious sermon.

3. One of those courtesies relates to the asking of questions, the presentation of responses to those questions, and allowing a range of questions to be asked.

Think for a moment about the normal (usually weekly) press conference held by a very senior politician; I am thinking here President or Prime Minister. The press conference is a very good mechanism for the presentation of current action, flying future kites, and generally making the politician look good. The other side of the rostrum is looking for that vital piece of news that is going to headline the 6 oclock news on tv, or the front page of the next morning's newspaper.

Now think for a moment what might happen if a journalist or media publisher were to not observe the niceties, the courtesies of the press conference. In the extreme, he/she could be banned from the process leaving them without the direct contact with the "news maker". I can think of one instance here, a famous one in NZ, where a Prime Minister refused to attend his own press conference "as long as that charlatan is in there. Get him out!" The clash began with a series of questions at an ealier press conference and a rather inflamatory editorial piece combined with an excellent lampoon of the PM (the journalist was/still is an excellent cartoonist). I can recall "exclusion" being threatened by GWB against one journalist and his network for similar incourtesies. It is not all that uncommon.
____________________________________________

So I arrive at the second part.

How does this apply to the situation that started TF's rant?

The Professor, whose conference was disrupted, was faced with a person whose intentions were (very obviously to my mind) to disrupt the proceedings, to use it to present his own and very contrary views, to suppress as far as possible the publication and dissemination of the proceedings of the true purpose of the conference.

In my mind the Professor's inital response to this un-house-trained puppy was polite and controlled. The repetitive, long-winded, and loud demands from the floor very quickly passed any acceptable limits. No one else in the room could ask a question simply because they were being shouted down.

Another parallel for you, TF. If I were to walk uninvited into your family Christmas celebrations and began preaching atheism through a megaphone with a mate videoing your and your family's reactions for the news I can imagine your reaction. I would be lucky to leave the room intact, if at all with my life.

The professor, rather than taking that extreme himself relied upon the (very tight) security being provided for all of the participants at the Copenhagen shindig.

To summarise -

If that wally, that rude, persistent, totally unwanted, self-appointed, self promoting idiot, that moron wishes to present his personal views he has the right to freedom of speech. He can without fret nor favour hold his own press conference. He might even be allowed to hold it as part of the Copenhagen conference.

What would be really interesting (if he were to do this) would be the attendance at his press conference. I think that if I were a journalist at Copenhagen I might be tempted to go. But the resulting article would be very similar to Tom Scott's views on Rob Muldoon.

On getting heated -

I have until now retained a (hopefully fairly dignified) silence on the subject of global warming, climate change and carbon dioxide levels. That in large part is because I am somewhat undecided on the merits (and otherwise) of the various people involved.

There are two parts to the “problem” –

First, whether the planet is getting warmer or not.

Second, if it is getting warmer, what is causing the change.

I (quite intentionally as it happens) got somewhat passionate about TF’s post that further distributes the idea (that Monckton has put forward) that the Copenhagen agreement on global warming is going to spell the end of the US and freedom as we know it; that the agreement is the first step toward socialist (read communist as well) dominated world government. That “passion” also requires an explanation.

Now I know that TF will protest once more that the “End of the USofA” he wrote of is something other than climate change. We have a disagreement there for a starter; primarily because in the speech advertised by TF, Monckton is actually slating the climate change movements as “just another step” toward socialist world government and domination. I intend not to pursue that line any further than I have already pursued the climate change argument.

I want to introduce a third line of thought at this point.

Over this last weekend (a four day weekend for the lucky ol’ probligo as NZ celebrates the advent of the 40 hour week – a total victory for socialism!!!) there was a discussion on radio about the relative “natures” of talkback hosts and bloggers. One of the questions that started the discussion was why most if not all talkback hosts espoused right-wing political positions rather than liberal, centrist or left-wing. Among the opines given in response to the question was that the liberal/left-wing faction were more given to thoughtful presentation and logic compared with the right-wing penchant for bald, largely specious, statement.

The consequence is (and I “know” this empirically) that the talkback radio audience is largely dominated by people of the “far” right who listen in order to get more of their confirmation bias fix, there are a smaller number of people from the left who still have that misguided ambition and fire in their bellies to try and “save the world from itself”, there is that confused part of humanity who will believe anything said by someone with authority in both voice and stance, irrespective of how specious the statement. Oh, and there is the small proportion of unfortunates, the drunks and the over-tired who call in total confusion because there is no “reality” on their tv and thinking that something is “really happening” on the radio.

I can not say that the blogiverse is dominated in the same way by “liberals”. There are enough right-wingers around the blogiverse to keep me happy for a whiles to come.

Having those thoughts in mind, I want to return to Monckton. Well, no. I want to return to a group which includes Monckton along with the likes of Michael Moore (the American one, not the retired head of WTO), Al Gore (as TF rightly points out), even Michael Laws, Paul Holmes, Phil Hannity, Phil Donahue and even perhaps the ol’ probligo if it comes to that.

The common personality trait with all of these people is not the nature of their politics, their style or their message. The common link is that they have a message which they promote without stint nor favour; a message that they present with a minimum of justification and logical support; the message is in reality no more than the presentation of themselves to people who want to believe them.

So if I were to listen (as I do not) to the likes of Laws or Holmes in the full flight of their “oratory” I could expect to hear statements which can only be politely described as “intending to get the audience in the mood, their breeches around their knees, while bowing to the west”. The whole process is not dissimilar to that of the more charismatic churches – there’s an idea, I should have included Bishop Brian Tamaki in the mix as well. You preach to the converted. You cater to their personal biases. You tell them what they came to hear. Then you add a little more. Then you add a little more. Before long the “truth” that people came to hear has expanded to a new idea. There is as much truth in the new as there was in the old. Then you add a little more. Before you know it you can name yourself "King"; the latest in the line of "King Davids", the chosen ones.

How many times has the “world government” conspiracy been around the traps in my time. Beyond number almost. It ranges from the UN taking over, to climate change, to Islamic extremists, even shady organisations like the Opus Dei (which does apparently exist despite The Da Vinci Code), Scientology, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and even perhaps the High Council of Zion.

There is a point to all of this.

Power, all Power and hence all Government, is reliant upon fear. That fear can be of your next door neighbour (who just has to be a communist or a undercover member of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee depending upon your own politics), the bogeyman under your bed, Islamists, Jews, Russians, anything that has to it an element of power that might intrude (or does intrude) on “your” lifestyle. It works the other way too – in the fear that X will stop or prevent you from attaining the ends that you deserve; be it riches beyond imagining, the right to bear arms, a 42” tv set, or 72 virgins. It can be the fear of the consequences if you fail to observe Rules, whether made through democratic or autocratic processes; the fear of failing to attain the 72 virgins in dying for your god, our burning in hell for failing to observe the right obeisances at the right time, or of being burned at the stake for speaking out against the ruling order.

What we have is the question of motivation. Why do people like Garth George and Paul Holmes write newspaper columns, especially when anyone in their right minds would turn the page before they puke? Why does Michael Laws use talkback radio to spread his particularly strange version of politik real? And why do “hosts” like Hannity and Donohue exist at all?

Each in their own way provide comfort from fears. Each in their own way builds on existing fears as a way of presenting comfort. That comfort is from the “understanding” the fear; you are not alone; together we must defeat this…

There is also the motivation of denial. “Fear not because I am right and ‘they’ (whoever ‘they’ might be) are wrong. Together we will prevail”.



So, where does the ol’ probligo stand on the climate debate?

First up, is the planet getting warmer? There is some evidence - concrete evidence - that climatic changes are occurring. The unproven question is "How fast?"

Second, is the cause human (what do they call it now? "anthropological outputs"? Not proven, either way. That is where the science is at the sharp end of the debate.

The truth is, and the reason why the “debate” is so heated and divisive, we just do not know the causes. All of the positions taken, whether scientific, political or personal, are based upon suppositions and assumptions which are very open to dispute. There is no empirical, scientific, experimental evidence strong enough to constitute “proof” to the point where it is incontrovertible. No one can take a planet like Earth, run an experiment to show "Yay" or "nay" on a repeatable basis - the essence of scientific proof.

On "there being enough to go around..."

This exchange with Fraser Stern follows my exposition on the idea of a probligo utopia (resulting in confirmation of my strong feeling that any utopia is an impossibility because there will always be some idiot turn up to spoil the party)...

TF
...I would like to add a comment to your line, "To reach my dream, I need to face that my standard of living will be lower; that others will benefit in far greater measure than I. Of even greater measure, I have to persuade the richest 20% of the world's population to join me in giving up what they have."

I’d have to disagree on this point. Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther. The false warning which I continue to hear is that the earth is too populated, that its natural resources cannot sustain the quality of life which we would all desire or prefer; that simply isn’t true. I refuse to buy into the idea that in order for me to improve my life’s quality that somebody else must reduce their quality of life.


The probligo said...

So the availability of such resources as arable land, potable water, and quality air are infinite TF?

Not in my book.

You often speak of "God-given rights". Is the right for a person living in Somalia to have sufficient food to sustain life "God-given"? If so, why are so many people living there on the verge of starvation? Do you have a "God-given right" to consume (and don't worry, I am no different) far more food than you actually need?


T. F. Stern said...

Probligo, I didn't say these resources were infinite, only that there was sufficient to go around. I continue to believe that there is enough so that my increase does not mean someone else must decrease.

The idea of God given rights is not the same as consumption of natural resources being spread evenly, I would have thought you understood that concept after the many times we've gone head to head.

Now I started this with the intention of a rather ascerbic scrute at the idea of "god-given rights" but, as TF points out we have traversed that ground before without any consensus ad idem.

No, it is the thought that "there is sufficient to go around" that draws the eye this time. It is a thought that has exercised economists, sociologists and others far more learned than I. It still bugs me though, on a number of levels.

First is the idea of "sufficient". At one level, there is "sufficient" as measured by the fact that both TF and I, along with about 20% of the global population, can "exist" on high carb, high fat, high protein diets compared with the subsistence-and-less diets of perhaps the lower 50%. There is "sufficient" in that we both are able to expend significantly excessive amounts of energy in our daily living, compared with the energy sources available to many who have just sufficient to cook a daily meal. There is "sufficient" in that we are able to live in permanent housing having significant economic value compared with the very large numbers who have no prospect of owning land (a concept that might even be foreign to their culture) let alone erecting permanent structures on it. There is sufficient water that we both can use what might be equivalent to a days supply from the community well for all of the family just to wash the family car.

The counter argument of "effort", "earning", "saving", and "value" mean little to people whose lives are essentially subsistence. For many at this level the idea of "subsistence" can be seen as a reasonably comfortable standard of living if you leave out essentials such as education, functioning health services, effective law enforcement, or the trappings of what TF and I might see as "civilisation". I have in mind those such as Samoans, ni-Vanuatu, and Tongans who because of the climate in which they live have better than adequate food supplies, adequate shelter, and not much more. There is a second generalisation that can be applied here; self-sufficiency. Does that mean that these people are happy to live as they do? No!, for the simple reason that they have the same desires for better and more that we all have. No tv? It becomes a desire, then a want, then a need. Minimal education? The same.

The second is the "what" that "has to go around". I would list as examples land and specifically arable land, water and specifically potable water, and mineral resources.

To that extent TF is quite right when he says -

" Your belief system is based on the premise that there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase; but such limits are burst by innovation and productivity incentives which would make the natural resources more useful and go farther."

This particular line of logic is based upon the same line of thought that gives rise to this -



TF's statement that "...such limits are burst by innovation..." is also "true". However, there are also an increasing number of instances and some within the past year or two which illustrate the first cracks in that argument.

First to come to mind is the "alternative fuels" debate. The conversion and diversion of food-producing land and crops to "fuel-producing" has impacted on (just one instance) global food prices. Suddenly, it was "better business" to produce crops for alternative fuels than it was for food. Prices for cattle-feed grain went through the roof leading to higher beef prices. Why is that? It is the simple, direct application of Economics 102.

On the same line, does it matter if Indonesia or Brazil burns and clears "unproductive" land of the overlying jungle and wild animals? Better to have "productive" land than not, surely? Well truth is that we know as much about the possible impacts of rain forest clearance as we do about the causes of global warming. In other words, not a lot.

Only one example? No.

Go look for a description of the "Sinai Aquifer". This is one of the largest freshwater reservoirs on the globe. It stretches from the north Sinai Peninsula to Cairo and further south. [About 20 years back there was major concern that the water being taken for Cairo was becoming brackish (increasing salt levels). Investigation indicated that the level of the water in the aquifer had dropped to the point where it had gone from "positive pressure" at its outlets under the Mediterranean (giving rise to outflow in the Med) to "negative pressure". The result? Not only was Mediterranean salt water "leaking back into the aquifer, but the salinity of the Mediterranean itself was increasing to the point where fish stocks were potentially under threat.]

Want another example?

Pelargic tuna stocks in the Pacific forty years back were at a level estimated to be equivalent to roughly ten years fishing, "just under sustainable levels" at the rate of fishing in the 1970's. The most recent census (taken by MAF NZ and several Pacific nations) is indicating that the predominant species of bluefin and yellowfin tuna are endangered, and possibly close to extinction. Remember that with the next can of tuna you add to a sandwich or salad.

Want another example, closer to home?

Check out the Newfoundland cod fisheries. That was about 40 years back. It is recovering, slowly, but Britain and Europe will not see cod and chips on the menu for some while for sure.

Or how is about the Lower Colorado irrigation area where the demands on land and water supply are so great that the farms are getting "saltified" as the water evaporates and the river itself is struggling to make the sea.

OK, so "technology" will solve all of these problems? Innovation and production incentives will increase the numbers of bluefin tuna? How much would it cost to provide Cairo with desalinators and then to run them so that that city had "sufficient" (not the amount we use) fresh water.

TF, I suspect that I can explain the difference between your statement that "...my increase does not mean someone else must decrease..." and "... there is only so much to go around, by extension, there can be no increase...".

That difference comes from what best fits with "a different point of view". My up-bringing, my culture, the nature of my community is such that we have very narrow physical boundaries. Nowhere is more than 50 mile from the sea. Beyond that is more than 1000 miles of water to the next major habitations. Those boundaries have, for better or worse, made NZers generally far more conscious of the "outside world".

I had a word in mind when I proposed my challenge. I was reticent to use it at that time as it could be mis-taken as insult rather than descriptive.

"insular a ... 2. of or like islanders, esp. ignorant of or indifferent to other countries and their culture, narrow minded. [Concise Oxford Dictionary]

It started as a suspicion, but these more recent comments confirm, that for so many Americans (observation again, TF, and generalisation) the problems of "the outside world" just do not exist. Well, not at least until they impinge themselves directly upon the US. Hence, until such time as the lack of a resource does impinge upon "my" ability to obtain it, there is no shortage; there is plenty for all; any deficiencies must be the fault of those who can not afford to buy what they need. Of course, at the time that the last tuna is taken it will be the fault of the UN, of "big government", of faceless bureaucrats et al that more was not done to ensure that there would be tuna for dinner next year...

UPDATE -

Sometimes I should read my own advice. I based my commentary on the Sinai Aquifer on memory of a series of articles in SciAm, Nature, and the news of the time. As is so often the case my memory is faulty. Sorry to those who went chasing geese as a result of my error.

Thanks to the guys at Arts and Letters Daily

Here is a resource comprising much of all the to-ing and fro-ing on climate change. You will find both sides of the argument presented as a series of links, and it will continue to grow in the same way as ALD itself.

My first visit there was prompted by TFS's piece on the undersea volcanoes at the North Pole (yeah, TF they feature widely and both sides of the argement are presented) and a small ad on ALD itself.

Highly recommended... especially for those who like to let their confirmation bias roam free.