Imaginary Lovers Numbers Never Disagree

Benoit Mandelbrot died October 14th 2010. Maybe you've heard of him, maybe not, but he had an incredible force on my life and all our lives.

After reading about his research and chaos theory I was inspired 25 years ago to learn math again. Because math suddenly made sense in the real world. One simple equation, applied over and over to the results of the previous equation, are how simple things grow complicated. Back then I had to go the library, search thru bookstores, to find text books and just do the math. All the math I had learned in school was linear. His non-linear math was, to me, the secret of the universe. It was time well spent.

Mmm, fractals, they're sexy!

What's not to like, imaginary numbers that aren't imaginary but coordinate systems that can be depicted visually. And the sheer beauty of the images! And realizing that it describes everything from snowflakes, rivers and streams, leafs and trees, blood vessels and capillaries, and solar systems to galaxies.

Just like DNA with a small number of components (ACGT) that consists of all life on our planet, this, THIS is how the universe works!

E=mc² seems simple, DNA sequences ACGT seems simple, zn+1 = zn2 seems simple. We know our world is complicated, but it's also simple. It's unpredictable, it contains things that can kill us while observing the beauty, it's unpredictable, but only within ranges.

Please don't upset the ranges.

But I know useless begging won't help me

Scientists beg for climate action

For the first time, more than 200 of the world's leading climate scientists, losing their patience, urged government leaders to take radical action to slow global warming because "there is no time to lose."

A petition from at least 215 climate scientists calls for the world to cut in half greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.
[...]
The appeal from scientists follows a petition last week from more than 150 global business leaders also demanding the 50 percent cut in greenhouse gases.

Umm, how bad does a problem have to be before business leaders agree with scientists!? (e.g. think of the link between cancer and cigarettes.)

There are zero peer reviewed articles that deny climate change is a fact, and that it is caused by man. (Prove me wrong and I'll publish your post and the peer-reviewed article on top for a week.)

But the AssPress* does adhere to journalmalisim 101:

Policy analysts, who weren't part of either petition, split on how meaningful the two petitions are.

What's happening is people are agreeing "that the cost of inaction is on the high side and the cost of action is affordable," said Joseph Romm, a policy analyst at the liberal think-tank Center for American Progress, energy business consultant and trained physicist.

But Jerry Taylor, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute said "scientists are in no position to intelligently guide public policy on climate change." Scientists can lay out scenarios, but it is up to economists [to] weigh the costs and benefits and many of them say the costs of cutting emissions are higher than the benefits, he said.

First, I have a friend who is an economist, (econometrics to be exact), and he'd be very upset that some bozo PolySci major said he wasn't a scientist.

Second, Jerry Tailor-My-Opinion-To-Whoever-Pays-Me didn't disclose that he's a whore for Exxon. No wonder he's the Director of Natural Resource Studies for the sCATOlogical Institute.


* h/t to skippy for the appellation.


Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

Tell it like it is, Don't be ashamed to let your conscience be your guide

Here's a great example of how the memory hole re-writes our history every day. When I started posting about this, the headline said: White House Says Draft Testimony On Climate Change Wasn't Diluted
But now when I access the link to that headline I find CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate Testimony

And there is no mention of the original article. OK, so I'll go with it:

CDC Director Says White House Didn't Dilute Climate Testimony

ATLANTA-- Julie Gerberding, the director of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, defended Wednesday her congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change earlier this week.
[...]
Dr. Gerberding, speaking Wednesday at a luncheon hosted by the Atlanta Press Club, dismissed as "ridiculous" such allegations.

"This is not an issue of cover up related to climate change and health," she said.

Reeeeally!? Given Bush's constant suppression of science, that doesn't seem possible:

The original, unedited testimony presented to Congress by Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and obtained by ABC News was 14 pages long, but the White House Office of Management and Budget edited the final version down to a mere six pages.
[...]
In response to the controversy that followed, White House press secretary Dana Perino stated that the White House Office of Management and Budget redacted the majority of the information on the basis that the science in the testimony did not match the science reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
[...]
"The science that Dr. Gerberding was trying to bring forward was based on the IPCC report," Knowlton said. "It's quite stunning that only weeks after that group received the Nobel prize for their work that the White House is deleting scientific statements based on that work.
[...]
"We talk of the politicization of science," said Dr. Linda Rosenstock, dean of the UCLA School of Public Health. "In the politicization of this topic -- the science wasn't changed, it was deleted."

And what was the White House response? I'm so glad you asked. Direct from the WH press briefing:

Q: Back on the CDC testimony. You said this morning that Dr. Gerberding's testimony was not watered down. Can you tell us why it was altered to leave out any discussion of serious health effects relating to global warming, and to leave out her original comment that, "CDC considers climate change a serious public health concern"?

Perino: [...] And so the decision on behalf of CDC was to focus that testimony on public health benefits -- there are public health benefits to climate change
[...]
And in the meantime, we are working with experts like Julie Gerberding to figure out what are going to be the health benefits and the health concerns of climate change, of which there are many.

Yes, of course, there will be many health benefits from climate change ... there will be a lot fewer people to object to Bush's eviscerating science and stuffing the corpse with his political and big bidness press releases.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak

If I gave you the truth, would it keep you alive?

Editorials in newspapers written by anonomous writers are especially, since the writers hide behind, well, their anonymity. Still, you'd think some Right-winger genius would be happy to own this slam of Gore's Nobel Prize:

Former Vice President Al Gore, who says he "used to be the next president of the United States," has won the Nobel Peace Prize for advancing scary half-truths, flat-out errors and politically inspired schemes about global warming. We congratulate Mr. Gore and hope it's some personal consolation.

Nevertheless, we're uninspired as Mr. Gore takes his place alongside Yasser Arafat and Kofi Annan, similarly honored with credentials of similar substance.

Nice. Note the obligatory dismissal of the award itself, by mentioning Arafat. Don't forget, pal, they also gave one to that paragon of Right-wing ideology Henry Kissinger.

As far as "scary half-truths, flat-out errors", let's just see now. Anonymous editor continues:

The errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of (Mr. Gore's) political thesis," said High Court Judge Michael Burton. He ruled teachers must alert children to the errors.

The judge said Mr. Gore is wrong to claim global warming will cause sea levels to rise 20 feet and that increases in CO2 precede warming when they actually come afterward. Inconvenient truths don't stop there. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank, has compiled point-by-point refutations of Mr. Gore's hype and alarmism.

No, not really. Here is the above quote in context:

18. Mr Chamberlain persuasively pointed out in his skeleton (at paragraph 7(c)):

"Scientific hypotheses (such as the hypothesis that climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of greenhouse gases) do not themselves constitute "political views" within the meaning of s407, even if they are doubted by particular political groups. But, in any event, nothing in the 1996 Act (or elsewhere) obliged teachers to adopt a position of studied neutrality between, on the one hand, scientific views which reflect the great majority of world scientific opinion and, on the other, a minority view held by a few dissentient scientists."

19. Of course that is right, and ss406 and 407 are not concerned with scientific disputes or with the approach of teachers to them. However, as will be seen, some of the errors, or departures from the mainstream, by Mr Gore in AIT in the course of his dynamic exposition, do arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis. It is in that context that the Defendant, in actively distributing the film to all schools, may need to make clear that:

i) some or all of those matters are not supported/promoted by the Defendant [s406].

ii) there is a view to the contrary, i.e. (at least) the mainstream view [s407].

20. Mr Chamberlain also rightly points out, at paragraph 7(a) of his skeleton that:

"The Film is intended to be used by qualified teachers, not as a substitute for, but as a supplement to, other teaching methods and materials. The original Guidance, prepared by a panel of experienced educationalists, identified those parts of the Film's scientific presentation where further context or qualification was required and provided it, with suitable references and links to other reputable sources of information. It encouraged teachers to use the Film as a vehicle for the development of analytic and critical skills. It did not attempt to hide the fact that some scientists do not agree with the mainstream view of climate change and even made reference to The Great Global Warming Swindle (together with a website containing a critique of it)."

21. However, for those same two reasons set out in paragraph 19 above , the teachers must at least be put into a position to appreciate when there are or may be material errors of fact, which they may well not, save for the most informed science teachers.
22. I have no doubt that Dr Stott, the Defendant's expert, is right when he says that:

"Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate."

Yep. Funny how #22 was left out of the editorial.

Here's the punchline:

Global warming alarmism serves those opposing free-market economics and its fossil-fuel reliance and those seeking power and profit by gaming the system once they force rule changes. Neither motive is in most peoples' interests.

Look, idiot. Free-market economics promises to deliver one thing only: PROFIT. No social justice, no righting of wrongs, no scientific breakthroughs, just profit. And the only gaming of the system today is traders, speculators, and wealth pundits who tout stocks and make fortunes for the investor class.

Instead of calmly discussing climate change, and the clear reasons for it, the Conservatarian free-market worshippers will lie and cheat, and produce conflicting research:

Mr. Gore's award will spur more alarmist momentum. To balance the scales, we recommend CEI's A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truthat www.cei.org and the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalismby CEI senior fellow Christopher Horner

That's this CEI:

CEI calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government." The Boston Globe has called it "one of Washington's feistiest think tanks." CEI's commentaries frequently appear in media venues such as ABC's 20/20, American Spectator, Christian Science Monitor, Consumers' Research, Crossfire, Forbes, Good Morning America, Larry King Live, MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour, Moneyline, New York Times, Policy Review, PBS, Reader's Digest, USA Today, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Washington Times. It postures as an advocate of "sound science" in the development of public policy. In fact, it is an ideologically-driven, well-funded front for corporations opposed to safety and environmental regulations that affect the way they do business.

. . . The head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Michael Sanera, sent out an email last March looking for kids who had been "scared" by environmental education:

I have been contacted by ABC News," Sanera wrote..."A producer for John Stossel...needs examples of kids who have been 'scared green' by schools teaching doomsday environmentalism ... (He needs kids and/or parents to appear on camera.) I have some examples, but I need more. Would you send out a notice to your group and ask if they know of some examples.

You get the idea. Ideological hacks, corporatist jerks, and useless tools.

In the end, the criticisms in the Judge's lawsuit are trivial. A complete analysis was done by Tim Lambert at Deltoid. Read the whole thing.


(Title lyric by Seether. They recorded their first major label album at the last studio where I was on staff. Lovely guys, very nice.)