Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:For a First Step (Score 1) 143

Fact check your facts. Your second link's researcher was funded by Bayer

You've discounted one of the linked articles (for a reason I understand but don't entirely agree with). What about the other? Does finding a reason to discount one piece of data allow you to discount all of it, in your opinion?


Comment: Re:For a First Step (Score 2) 143

One word of caution about proclaiming the involvement of these pesticides in bee deaths is recent findings that these pesticides are not found in the reproductive regions of plants:

Here's another study from last year which found no link between pesticides and bee deaths:

It's a popular and appealing story, but recent data suggest that it may not be true!

Comment: Re:Translation... (Score 2) 784

by Illserve (#46986333) Attached to: Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans As Antarctic Ice Melts

Also, don't you understand how competitive science can be? For the time being we're stuck with anti-competitive oligopolies in oil and banking and several other industries. But not in science. If a few scientists had good evidence that Climate Disruption was wrong, do you suppose they would keep quiet and maintain the front? No way! They'd all be scrambling to publish first. It'd be a bombshell, like figuring out how to build a usable quantum computer and breaking many and perhaps all of our public key encryption schemes.

Sadly this last point you make isn't true at all. Speaking as a scientist I can point to quite a few cases where a scientist who could clearly prove that the establishment was wrong were ignored and ridiculed.

The best example is Ignaz Semmelweis, who could easily prove that washing his hands prior to surgery or delivering babies led to fewer fatalities. He was mocked by the scientific community, and eventually institutionalized and beaten to death.

I wish that science functioned differently but it doesn't. Therefore one cannot conclude that there is a huge incentive to disprove global warming. Such a paper is actually quite hard to publish, and even if published such a finding could easily disappear, silently ignored, into the oblivion of our vast scientific literature.

Comment: Re:Ad hominem. It doesn't matter who says it. (Score 1) 769

by Illserve (#46859827) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

I don't know where the GP got the 3-times figure, (which seems way too high), but there is little doubt that Germany's renewable energy policy has caused significant problems for consumers, and ironically, may end up increasing overall CO2 emissions now that new coal-plants are being brought online to patch the inadequacies of the renewables.

Here is a link:


Comment: Re:Buggy whips? (Score 3, Informative) 769

by Illserve (#46857903) Attached to: The Koch Brothers Attack On Solar Energy

Actually what is happening in Germany is a not an entirely rosy picture for the renewables industry. Their energy prices have been spiking, while simultaneously CO2 emissions have been increasing as a consequence of their new policies.

As evidence of the uncomfortable position that German is now in, their Vice Chancellor is reported to have said :

“The truth is that the Energy U-Turn (“Energiewende”, the German scheme aimed at pushing the “renewable” share of electricity production to 80 % by 2050) is about to fail”
“The truth is that under all aspects, we have underestimated the complexity of the “Energiewende”
“The noble aspiration of a decentralized energy supply, of self-sufficiency! This is of course utter madness”
“Anyway, most other countries in Europe think we are crazy”

Unfortunately my German is too rusty to confirm this for myself, but here's the video feed if anyone is interested in seeing it:

Comment: Re:It's the end of the world as we know it (Score 0) 703

by Illserve (#46558411) Attached to: IPCC's "Darkest Yet" Climate Report Warns of Food, Water Shortages

That's precisely the problem. The warming isn't going to cause much of a problem for most people old enough to post here. By the time the problems get too bad to ignore, we're already committed to even more problems, because the excess carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That's why we keep getting these warnings, so we can avoid those problems before it's too late.

You are aware, I trust, of these things called plants. It turns out that they absorb carbon dioxide right out of the air. What's even cooler is that the more CO2 that's in the air, the faster they grow and thus the faster they absorb it. This is why greenhouses will often run with drastically increased CO2 levels.

Comment: Re:"These images are not snapshots"? No kidding. (Score 1) 59

by Illserve (#28627223) Attached to: This Is Your Brain On Magnets — Or Maybe Not

...and yet, it does. It's become so routine, so reliable, so well-understood and well-controlled, that doctors and researchers know they can rely on it as a matter of course. They still have to be aware of the errors and distortions that can arise, but that's true of every imaging or monitoring system, all the way down to the stethoscope and the fever thermometer.

The problem with the activation maps is precisely that one is NOT looking at an image, so there's no way to fine tune the algorithms. Therefore, fMRI is NOT well understood in the way that CT or MRI are.

Consider that in imaging, you have the luxury of comparing the output of a brain scan to the known physical structure of the brain. Is there a hippocampus? No? Well then it didn't work, go back and fiddle until you can show me a hippocampus.

In fMRI, apart from low level sensory corticies (where visual field mapping techniques can reproduce broad level retinotopic maps), researchers are operating in a vacuum in which there is no hard and fast error signal to fine tune the methods.

Science has to proceed very cautiously in such a situation. This is particularly true when one has hundreds of thousands of voxels to sift through because it's easy to find any pattern in noise, if you have enough noise.

So I would argue that fMRI offers a very different set of challenges compared to MRI and CT scans, and therefore it's very important to keep a sharp, critical eye on the statistics used, as these authors are doing.

To illustrate this point further, here is a link to a poster in which someone put a dead salmon into a magnet and found that (in the absence of proper statistical controls) its decomposing brain was apparently reacting to the emotional content of pictures:

Comment: Re:polar region climate change (Score 2, Informative) 633

by Illserve (#27633489) Attached to: Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

These are really complicated systems, and one of the reasons we model them is that they're too complicated for any one person to understand every single aspect; models are a sane way to integrate the results of studies requiring disparate expertise (or at least different people).

I am a modeller, and I simulate the brain a system which is also mind bogglegingly complicated.

The secret ingredient that makes modelling work as an enterprise is the ability to make predictions, and then test them through experimental manipulations. The reasoning is that if your model captures a gem of truth, then it should be able to accurately predict data that you as the experimenter haven't seen yet.

Or at least, that's the theory. The ugly truth is that even in brain science that's a standard which is rarely lived up to.

And the situation is bound to be worse with modelling in climate science. One cannot even perform experiments because we don't have multiple earths to play around with.

So, while modelling is a way for scientists to explore theories and communicate, as you indicate, I fear that the climate modelling process is fundamentally bankrupt because it's impossible to run experiments for the purpose of testing models.

They do make pretty pictures though. A video of a virtual earth turning from blue to orange is extremely compelling!

Comment: Re:Temperature (Score 4, Insightful) 633

by Illserve (#27632245) Attached to: Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?

Did the GGGP of this post not just say that global warming causes COLDER poles?

How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?

It's an impossible position you've put your opponents in; none of the evidence counts against you.

Comment: Re:Good data point, does not reverse slope of line (Score 1) 633

by Illserve (#27632085) Attached to: Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

But all the "global warming doesn't exist people" are going to jump on this like every bit of news about cold weather to claim it contradicts the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Global warming advocates are quick to leap on any image of an ice shelf falling into the water as if it supports the idea that there's global warming, which it doesn't.

Comment: Re:Temperature (Score 5, Insightful) 633

by Illserve (#27631683) Attached to: Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.

What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.

The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what's going on. But that doesn't stop many people from boldly claiming that "X causes Y" with undeserved confidence.

What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)

Comment: Re:Temperature (Score 5, Insightful) 633

by Illserve (#27631155) Attached to: Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station

So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.

Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.

When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.

So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 219

by Illserve (#26219945) Attached to: Crackpot Scandal In Mathematics

Actually,it can take researchers YEARS to debug a very complex proof of something like the Riemann hypothesis. To begin to understand the proof, even a Riemann scholar might need to first learn entire fields of mathematics.

I've heard it said of de Branges at Purdue that there are few people capable or willing to confirm his work because of the difficulty involved.


+ - New Theory Explains Periodic Mass Extinctions

Submitted by i_like_spam
i_like_spam (874080) writes "The theory that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid impact, the K-T extinction, is well known and supported by fossil and geological evidence. Asteroid impact theory does not apply to the other fluctuations in biodiversity, however, which follow an approximate 62 million-year cycle. As reported in Science news, a new theory seems to explain periodic mass extinctions. The new theory found that oscillations in the Sun relative to the plane of the Milky Way correlate with changes in biodiversity on Earth. The researchers suggest that an increase in the exposure of Earth to extragalatic cosmic rays causes mass extinctions. Here is the original paper describing the finding."

Testing can show the presense of bugs, but not their absence. -- Dijkstra