Monday, 29 March 2010

Weird science.

A short one today because I'm working again. Have to get all the invoices out so the companies can write off that expenditure in this tax year - but it all comes as cheques so it won't go in my bank until after April 5th.

Fortunately, Velvet Glove, Iron Fist has already done the hard part for me. In my reports, anything that is statistically less than 95% likely to be different is considered the same. Many of those junk scientists are declaring important differences at 10% confidence. If a student had ever tried that, they would have received a zero mark from me. There is no point even doing the experiment at that level of confidence. If you were to simply guess the answer you'd have a 50% chance of being right. As it is, levels of difference that no sane statistician would even contemplate are being used to scare us into compliance.

It's not just in the statistics.

In that last post, the linked story claims that the rats showed an overwhelming preference for 'junk' food over their 'healthy' diet. What it does not mention is that the 'healthy' diet comes as a dry chemical mix that has been formulated by scientists to provide everything a rat metabolism needs. Unfortunately it tastes like eating a powdered, gritty own-brand muesli with no milk. Given the choice of that or a sausage, I'd tolerate a mild electric shock to get the sausage.

If I was fed on the dry powder diet from birth and then experienced bacon, I'd refuse to eat the dry powder again.

The results prove only that rats have a sense of taste and smell, and don't like the crap they are routinely fed. It's junk science.

There is more and more of it, and now it is being defended with 'We know best and you're all stupid' because there really is no other defence these pretend-scientists can apply.

New Scientist recently poured scorn on those who want the teaching of global warming in schools to be balanced with 'It might not really be happening' and 'Not all scientists agree on this', rather than the frankly ridiculous assertion that 'the science is settled'. New Scientist compares that with calls for the teaching of creationism in science class.

The climate heretics are not calling for the introduction of a whole new subject area, a subject that properly belongs in religion class rather than science class. They are calling for a balanced approach to a scientific idea, an unproven one. They are in fact doing the opposite of the creationists - they are calling for the removal of a religious doctrine that should really be in a green-painted classroom taught by someone in a hair shirt and sandals, and built around a fine old oak known as the 'hugging tree'.

Now, James Lovelock complains that we are all too stupid to save the planet. This is the guy who claimed that the whole planet was one living thing (Gaia) and was self-regulating. Now he believes it's not self-regulating at all, and we have to do it.

To that end, he wants to suspend democracy. That's right, an unelected tree-hugger wants to rule us on his say-so and his alone. On the basis of some seriously dodgy science, we are to give up all freedoms and democratic processes.

Harmless? The Climatologists have the ear of the Gorgon. The Gorgon would love to suspend democracy. Permanently.

We are all expecting an election on May 6th. There has been no announcement. Parliament has not been dissolved. Labour are still making up new laws. All it will take is one sunny day and bingo - global warming! Emergency! Postpone the election while we deal with it! It will take centuries!

Would you put it past him?

Don't imagine you can trust the scientific community either. There has been something in the wind for a very long time and it's getting close enough to see now.


Chuckles said...

In fairness to james Lovelock, go back there and read the full transcript of the interview with him, linked from the summary page. There is some jaw-dropping stuff in there.

Stewart Cowan said...

"Don't imagine you can trust the scientific community either."

Why do you think I'm a Creationist? ;-)

Leg-iron said...

Chuckles - he is intelligent but not smart. He doesn't realise who he's playing with here.

Stewart - it goes far deeper than that. Maybe tomorrow...

TheFatBigot said...

I hate to be a wet blanket, Mr Iron, but aren't you liable to income tax from the date you issue the invoice rather than the date you receive the dosh? I know I am.

almighty said...

the best way to deal with income tax is to move to a country with low tax or work for a company which pays your foreign tax for you and become non resident. then you dont have to pay the lab gov.

Tomrat said...

Hi Leg-iron,

Raised a good point; I've commented here on the matter.

Footnote *** relates to what your saying methinks.

Antisthenes said...

I for one believe that the world is self-regulating and what harm is done to it man made or otherwise it will compensate for eventually but that compensation usually involves a lethal solution for something. If climate change is man made and nothing is done to stop and reverse the effects man is making to the environment then the outcome could be catastrophic. However it is obvious that there is no scientific evidence that conclusively proves that climate changing is happen and what is causing it if it is. Also what the effects of climate change will be is even more of an unknown and the effect may not be catastrophic at all it may even be beneficial.

So to me all this bickering about who is right and who is wrong is leading no where. The proper thing to do is for all side to come together to work on answers as our very survival may depend upon it.

Tomrat said...

Also regarding the creationist thing - as a creationist Iand a libertarian I find it hilarious how hostile people are to the idea - in particular DK's earlier pieces; I don't expect people to believe in it if they believe they have a valid, proveable hypothesis to the contrary, but to shut down debate is the tool of the collectivist and anti-science.

Anonymous said...

"Don't imagine you can trust the scientific community either. There has been something in the wind for a very long time and it's getting close enough to see now."

Er .... can you give me a clue on that? You folks in the scientific community might know what's coming, but us lot outside (well, me at least) don't! Tell me more. Tell me more .......

Leg-iron said...

FatBigot - all you need do is make your accounting date March 1st. Then send all invoices after that date. Last year's book closed a month ago.

Leg-iron said...

Tomrat - I've never understood the fight between creation and evolution. They are not incompatible.

Creation - 'God did it'.
Big Bang theory - 'It just happened'.

No difference, as far as I can see.

The only sticking point is the 6000 year issue. Without that, the beginning of the universe is entirely up for grabs.

Leg-iron said...

Anon - I'll do better than a clue. I'll give you an issue and page number you can look up yourself. Coming up...

Tomrat said...


the issue of time is largely irrelevant; a (paid) philosopher and theologian friend once told me a thought experiment as to why: their is a God and the universe is 5 minutes old- prove me wrong.

It is impossible as an omnipotent God with limitless
power and existing in eternity (a timeless dimension by definition would be able to arrange every molecule in existence so to give the impression that things have been occuring for hundreds if thousands of years.

That said from our perspective the time frame is an issue; I've always put it at 10000-100000 years; as a chemist I know that strata sediment readings and various other physical phenomena can easily be duplicated in the lab, as can other types of rock formation with the correct condition.

Heck if there is any proof that there is no discernable way of knowing the exact time the universe was created it is provided by half-life disparities of various elements - when they take carbon, oxygen or flourine half-life measurements there is a tendency to do one but not the others- why? Because differences stretch into the million of years!

Leg-iron said...

Tomrat - valid point. A friend of mine once theorised that the whole of creation popped into existence at the moment of his birth, complete with history and implanted memories in all the people, and that this was all done just to annoy him.

Even though I was born before he was, it was not possible to prove him wrong. As you say, the whole lot could have been built and set in motion five minutes ago and we couldn't ever know.

Another good reason not to get into arguments about it.

Tomrat said...


Quite; I prefer to think of the application of new discoveries, rather than the implications, which seem to be the favourite of today's crop of "scientists"; if climate scientists were more
concerned about the former over the latter they would favour an entirely different means of dealing with climate change, such as improving energy technologies and the economic freedoms which enable people to live cleaner, more environment-friendly lives; their current solution is little more than proselytisation.

Same with Richard bloody Dawkins; it's ironic that attempts to "prove" evolution are in effect disproving it by having third party involvement in something which was supposed to happen spontaneously over millions of years. However, directed evolution, PCR and many of the other chemical biological methods in use today which rely on the suppositions of evolution are altogether more useful.

opinions powered by