Posts by Tony Judd
-
-
The Real Climate guys have reacted to recent claims of "secretive scientists refusing to share data" by putting up a page of data sources (both raw and processed, including source code for a number of Global Circulation Models used in research at the present time).
Worth a look if you really do want to check the working of climate experts.
This is in addition to their excellent list of references and primers on climate science. -
@ Rik
Sure - but has this actually happened? Every time I take some interest in this topic there seems to be respected scientists on opposing sides and you're left wondering if they can't figure it out then who can?
Well, actually the respectable scientist are all lined up behind the overwhelming scientific consensus - that anthropogenic climate change is occurring as we speak.
A good point to start your research is the New Scientist feature Climate Change: a guide for the perplexed. They specifically address the "conflicting science" myth here.
-
Re: Lessig
I'd like to know his view on why Obama has stopped mentioning Net Neutrality as part of his technology platform and where he thinks the Obama administration (__if elected etc__...) would stand on this issue.
Obama used to be vocally pro-neutrality, but lately - not a squeak. Most notably in the latest web ad on his sci/tech policies:
-
Is that melatonin? My doctor tried me on that for a while. It didn't seem to make any difference to my sleeping, but I did get the vivid dreams.
and
Melatonin is the only thing that's ever had any effect on my sleep... It helps with my inability to adjust to seasonal changes, and I do feel better when I wake up when I've been taking it.
I love Melatonin. You can buy it over the counter here in the US and it helps me have the most natural night of sleep, with the added bonus of excellent and memorable dreams (which I hardly ever experience otherwise).
Combined with a bit of exercise and bright light it's great for speeding up jetlag recovery too. +1 vote for Melatonin. -
It's going to be a thing of Lyndon Johnsonesque proportions. You mark my words.
I'll grant you that's possible. I'll go so far as so say that a recent, small swing in some polls (most of which Obama still leads) is hardly the end of the world.
But can we trust the polls? I fear The Bradley Effect.
-
@Grant
That is one of the most incoherant rants I've read in some time. Are you drunk?If a group has the power to check and control laws made by a government made doesn't that make the group the higher authority?
What sort of dictatorship do you want to live in?
In NZ the system of government is based on Democracy:Democracy is a system of government by which political sovereignty is retained by the people and exercised directly by citizens. In modern times it has also been used to refer to a constitutional republic where the people have a voice through their elected representatives.
The people are the higher authority. The government is a tool for achieving the people's aims. That's why elected officials are also known as representatives. They represent the people. You are probably getting representatives confused with rulers. Traditionally rulers did not have any checks on their power because it was thought that they had a divine mandate... Oh, wait, I see...
Morgan thinks that a different name for a bunch of laws will help our courts do away with unjust legislation that manages to get through. He thinks more laws with a different name are another safeguard against the poorly thought through kneejerk legislation that tends to win short term favour in the public eye. Morgan is deluded. :)
Morgan clearly doesn't understand that a theocracy is the only answer to all questions of government.
-
No, Grant's a Pauline Christian. They tend to regard Jesus as a bleeding heart liberal, and the Apostle Paul as the he-man author of the faith.
Ah - I didn't get that reference when you wrote it earlier. I assumed that you meant something like this.
-
But until you bother reading the paper you have no idea about any of the assumptions made in setting up the study, do you?
-
Statistical models just aren't equipped to analyse such things and your acceptance of the papers you cite does betray something.
Actually sometimes I run ecological statistical models with up to 20 explanatory variables and scores of dependent variables. The statistical models I use analyse and explain very complex relationships in all sorts of clever ways. My acceptance of the papers I cite betrays my acceptance of the scientific method and the system of scientific publication that it rests on. While I am not a social scientist I am willing to believe the evidence that they publish in peer reviewed journals.
Your refusal to accept this illustrates (yet again) your general refusal to believe anything that doesn't line up with your preconceived biblically driven prejudices.