Powered by TypePad

« Lies, Damn Lies, And The NY Times | Main | Schismatic On Afghanistan! »

July 09, 2010



I offer two views from different angles of the same phenomena ...

Ridley writes in The Huffington Post:

Not only are human beings wealthier, they are also healthier, wiser, happier, more tolerant, less violent, more equal. Check it out – the data is clear. Yet if anything the pessimists had only grown more certain, shrill and apocalyptic. We were facing the `end of nature’, the `coming anarchy’, a `stolen future’, our `final century’ and a climate catastrophe. Why, I began to wonder did the failure of previous predictions have so little impact on this litany?

I soon found out. Like others who have tried to draw attention to improving living standards – notably Julian Simon and Bjorn Lomborg – I am beginning to be subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification by the pessimists. They distort my argument, impugn my motives and attack me for saying things I never said. They say I think the world is perfect when I could not be clearer that I advocate progress precisely because we should be ambitious to put right so much that is still wrong. They say that I am a conservative, when it is the reactionary mistrust of change that I am attacking. They say that I am defending the rich, when it is the enrichment of the poor that I argue for. They say that I am complacent, when the opposite is true. I knew this would happen, and I take it as a back-handed compliment, but the ferocity is still startling. They are desperate to shut down the debate rather than have it.

And a valuable lecture on the state of science and consensus by the late Michael Crichton

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

John Hudock

You might want to have a look at this paper which makes an even stronger statement claiming that most published research is false (or at least not proven to the statistical accuracy usually claimed)

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.


Oh it gets much stranger than this. The NAS has now issued their own
Index Librorum Prohibitorum

Can autos da fe be far behind?

"Science", or rather, a mixture of Scientism, pseudo science, "Scientific Socialist" propaganda and pure Snake Oil substituted for it has become the clericy of the day. When they are exposed for the voodoo doctors, state clients and rent seekers that they are they will take much of legitimate science with down with them, or at least seriously damage it.

So goes the Left's war against civilization and all the is good, true and beautiful.

Before they have done they will have torn down or severely damaged all of the meaningful and powerful institutions in this nation and civlization.



Some magazine in Northern Canada, called "Up Here" is trying to push its pseudo-science Climate Change agenda by introducing a special "Climate Change Swimsuit Edition."

"The magazine features 10 swimsuit-clad women posing in threatened northern landscapes, from melting icescapes to burnt-out forests. ... "We liked the idea of ... taking this sort of stereotypical 'swimsuit issue' concept that Sports Illustrated has made sort of legendary, and putting a total Arctic twist on it."

I link to ">"> the preview video of the Swimsuit gals, just as an example to folks of how such agenda driven science is pushed, since TM neglected to link any decent photos. (Truly mediocre at best if you ask me, especially since the poor chubby gals obviously can't afford to pay the tanning booth tax.)

Regardless, this craven attempt by that agenda driven environmental rag to use sex to push their pseudo-science agenda meets real resistance from another northern outfit pushing its own enviro pseudo-science agenda, but with extra agenda's to boot:

"Shannon Ripley of Ecology North objects anyway, saying the issue should also have included men in swimsuits."

Anyhow, here's the whole crappy story in ">"> the Anchorage Daily News, but I warn you, if you click on it, you'll never get that 30 seconds of your life back, nor the brain cells you just wasted clicking on the story.

Captain Hate

(Truly mediocre at best if you ask me, especially since the poor chubby gals obviously can't afford to pay the tanning booth tax.)

It's a cold day in Hell when I won't click on a swimsuit issue link but I doubt those glowbull worming babes would be able to stimulate ManBearPig into wanting anything but a straight non-chakra massage, if that. I think I found them less attractive than Andi S would.


"There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. "

Given that an entire political party claims their members are not smart enough to obtain a photo ID for voting purposes, why would anyone expect their members to produce true published research findings?


Doctors didn't expect Congress do give away 100s of billions from their treatment program. PEPFAR turned into a Gates non treatment cash party. Buyi9kding offices for workers US is going to hire a pay on five year entitlement money forever. There is less treatment now than there was when it was 10 billion. Doctors and scientists know how Congress works, so why wouldn't they be in on the agencyfinancing game?

They want to be agencies like the new Congress just came out with like USIPsomithsonian


Daddy, I've maintained for a long time that brown fat looks more appealing than white fat.

Soylent Obamacare

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

I ask you: were Gallileo and Copernicus consensus scientists?

Jane says obamasucks

Hey sorry to go OT but you gotta love this headline from Insty

Obama US Attorney expected to stand behind federal gay marriage ban.

The White house says it is "so totally up to Justice" - like anyone on the planet would believe it.

It's totally about Obamacare, but they can't say that so they have to try and thread the needles.

Come on over gays - we don't bite. this is really going to be fun.



I always figured you as a brown (wild) rice sort of gal instead of a white rice fan (excepting sushi). Your comment seals it. One day I'm definitely coming for dinner!!!


Have these people's brains frozen,daddy, that they would miss the point of a swimsuit edition,


Homo paradox


--I ask you: were Gallileo and Copernicus consensus scientists?--

I can't offhand think of a single great scientist who was a consensus scientist. That's what denotes them as great; breaking down complacent consensus.

JM Hanes

My favorites are the studies confirming that conservative brain function is more primitive than its liberal counterpart. Oddly enough, such testing seems to emanate with some regularity from Berkeley, using classroom sized subject pools of self-identified student volunteers.


You really can't derive any science from consensus, except in certain areas like theoretical physics, you have to observe
these situations and be able to recreate
them. Einstein, the patent clerk, certainly
wasn't thinking of consensus, Pasteur, Finlay
(who discovered the aedes aegypti vector for
yellow fever, Jenner, Curie, et al


whatcha sayin',jmh? Those studies are suspect?


It's a cold day in Hell when I won't click on a swimsuit issue link but I doubt those glowbull worming babes would be able to stimulate ManBearPig into wanting anything but a straight non-chakra massage, if that.



Some times a Parka works just as well, in the LUN



My Berkeley s-i-l with the Phd brings up those studies every Christmas.

Of course,now, the real test is if you watch FOX news.

My husband attended a reunion with some of his liberal friends that worked together for 17+ years last night. They were outwardly hostile when they found out he watched FOX sometimes. Hostile to the point, where he was
embarrassed for them. Of course, it didn't help when he returned fire by telling them that he got chills running up and down his leg when he saw Sarah Palin. HA!


So, did BP kill us all? LUN.


I say we ... nuke the entire site .... It's the only way to be sure.

JM Hanes


Not to worry, we'll have been sucked into the Hadron Collider black hole waaaay before the methane bubble has a chance to pop.

She has a recipe for sorbet, too.

Hey, melinda, there's a response to your query at Lucia's Blackboard @ the L!ink U!nder N!ame.

Melinda Romanoff

Thanks, Kim.

I waded in, with a big hook. The player seems atmosphericly constrained, others, not so much. I'll see if they can be drawn out into theoretical physics. Ideas first, then try the math.

And I know the math works.

Melinda Romanoff

Oh. and that LUN link is not so hot.

Had to wade upstream.


So, did BP kill us all? LUN.

I have not read such b*llsh*t in quite some time. There are too many misstatements of fact, misunderstandings and out-and-out nonsense that I hardly know where to begin.

So I won't.



I suppose this should be on the schism thread, but I'll take the guy who gets chills up his leg looking at Sarah Palin any day over guys who get chills up their leg looking at Obama---but thats just me. (and thankfully your husband).


I have not read such b*llsh*t in quite some time

Bunkerbuster's on the next thread down.


I think we got the gals from that presidential
anthology series, daddy, didn't they get the
memo, you're supposed to smile during a photo


bgates, I don't read Bubu's posts.


I've been trying to avoid "Otto' but neither killfile or the narcisolator seems to engage,



On the road and missed yesterdays episode. Was it as bad as the previous 2?


Missed it completely, I think someone re-attached the brain slugs, because they've lost the plot of the thing, I thought the movies were a fluke but not so much apparently


Speaking of brainslugs, Newt is saying Steele should speak more on foreign policy, what's that line, 'removing all doubt, Angle is not
the best candidate but she will win against
Reid, and Palin is too polarizing 'pot/kettle'



the 1st 2 really were unwatchable. Personally I'd rather watch 30 minute episodes of ">"> Hypnotoad than what they've been putting out since the Series ended.


It really is an alternate universe.

Gretta just interviewed MeatLoaf on some new album of his about Teddy Bears, and now she's talking about some new pin-up calendar of 88 year old Betty White. I want the universe back where the pin-up Calendar's were of somewhat attractive ladies. What next, the girls of the View? Arghhhhh!


esrevinU orrazziB, is the only explanation


Another NBP video--If this one gets seen by enough people it should be the end of Holder.>Yes, let's talk frankly about race, Eric

Jane says obamasucks

“I was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against Black defendants for the benefit of White victims. That if somebody wanted to bring these cases, it was up to the US Attorney but the Civil Rights Division wasn’t going to be bringing it.”

He alluded to the same sort of collusion in his interview with Megyn Kelly yesterday. He said that once the DOJ found out that Shabazz was "not told to harass people with a nightstick" they dropped the charges against the NBP.

I want to know who in teh NBP's talked to who in the DOJ.

The comments to this entry are closed.