GW Skeptics vs Scientific Concensus

[Breakable]

Brian H wrote:

Here’s some info about how unclean the AGW data is: http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/ClimateGate-Data-Series-Part-I-A-break-down-of-large-data-file-for-manipulating-global-temperature-trends-from-2006-2009.aspx

I am not a statistics expert, but this article is flawed. Type I error does not make hypothesis invalid:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error, or one can inappropriately fail to reject the hypothesis, this is called type II error

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

Here’s some info about how unclean the AGW data is: http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/ClimateGate-Data-Series-Part-I-A-break-down-of-large-data-file-for-manipulating-global-temperature-trends-from-2006-2009.aspx

I am not a statistics expert, but this article is flawed. Type I error does not make hypothesis invalid:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error, or one can inappropriately fail to reject the hypothesis, this is called type II error

?? That’s not what it says. Strict protocols use the null hypothesis as a basis.
The basic hypothesis is a contrary one: “This effect is insignificant or non-existent.” You quickly get into double and triple-negatives, when discussing type Is and alphas, etc.

I took a combined degree in Psych and Statistics once upon a time, and had “null hypothesis” pounded into my skull till it bled!

Using it, you never get to formally conclude anything positive about a theory, you just get tired of trying to disprove it and move on to a more vulnerable target somewhere else. 😆

[Breakable]

This is what article said:

A “Type I” error in Statistics (Stats Math) means the conclusion is incorrect for the data and the hypothesis must be rejected.

This is what Wikipedia said:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error…

Just stating the obvious, but it seems to me that “hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected” and “hypothesis must be rejected” are absolutely different things.

[benf]

Another revealing study on solar radiation and the current disconnect with atmospheric temperature increase. From Stanford U.:
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html
Temperature had followed sunspot cycle variation. Now it isn’t.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: This is what article said:

A “Type I” error in Statistics (Stats Math) means the conclusion is incorrect for the data and the hypothesis must be rejected.

This is what Wikipedia said:

The hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected, this is called type I error…

Just stating the obvious, but it seems to me that “hypothesis can be inappropriately rejected” and “hypothesis must be rejected” are absolutely different things.

Wikipedia’s wording is simply a bit fuzzy. It means that, “When a (null) hypothesis is inappropriately rejected, this is called a Type I error,” or “The inappropriate rejection of a (null) hypothesis is a sort of error called a Type I error.”

It does not mean that it is optional to reject the null hypothesis. It means a mistake was made in doing so. Note that the null hypothesis asserts that the ‘positive’ hypothesis is false.

Not that Wikipedia is any sort of authority, in any case!

Here’s the Statistics Glossary:

Type I Error

In a hypothesis test, a type I error occurs when the null hypothesis is rejected when it is in fact true; that is, H0 is wrongly rejected.

For example, in a clinical trial of a new drug, the null hypothesis might be that the new drug is no better, on average, than the current drug; i.e.
H0: there is no difference between the two drugs on average.

A type I error would occur if we concluded that the two drugs produced different effects when in fact there was no difference between them.

The following table gives a summary of possible results of any hypothesis test:
Decision
Reject H0 Don’t reject H0

H0 Type I Error Right decision
Truth
H1 Right decision Type II Error

A type I error is often considered to be more serious, and therefore more important to avoid, than a type II error. The hypothesis test procedure is therefore adjusted so that there is a guaranteed ‘low’ probability of rejecting the null hypothesis wrongly; this probability is never 0. This probability of a type I error can be precisely computed as
P(type I error) = significance level =alpha

Warning: thinking too much about the null hypothesis may cause brain pain! :coolmad: :-S

[Phil’s Dad]

Benf has a point of course. True (as Mr Hall suggests) it is likely he reads (sees, hears, smells, touches, thinks about) things that support his paradigm and he may yet suffer the discomfort of cognitive dissonance if the real world suggests otherwise but…

benf wrote: Regarding what Focus Fusion should leverage, GW or GWD(sic), I think there are some major obstacles that have to be overcome with convincing people that Focus Fusion (using pB11) is a safe and benign nuclear power alternative that makes economic sense, compared to traditional fission or even “enhanced safety” fission designs. The anti-nuke movement of the 70’s and 80’s was a really big deal imho. It stopped fission nuclear power in this country and slowed it elsewhere. It was part of the growing concern for the environment by the public. People haven’t forgotten or changed their view that transporting and burying spent fuel rods is a bad thing. They haven’t forgotten about Three Mile Island or Chernobyl. I’m not one to stifle debate, but…

In short; for many people nuclear = bad and they shut down their receptors before you get to the aneutronic bit.

This is largely unrelated to the debate about the amount of influence man can have over world temperatures as it holds true which ever position you are wedded to. If you don’t buy AGW the FF is good for economic reasons or energy security or a whole host of other things.

It’s still nuclear though – and that’s still a major perception obstacle to be overcome. Thanks to the legacy of the anti-nuke movement he refers to (partly justified at the time though it may have been) this could remain the hardest sell the project faces.

Benf (or anyone else); how do you suggest it is done?

[benf]

I would answer that we’re already off to a very good start of taking on the debate and informing people with this website. From my experience, most of the people who comprised the no nukes movement in the past were not Luddites, they were mostly educated. The very same people began searching for viable alternatives to nuclear and oil turned to what science, even space science then had to offer. Solar cells and wind generators were a safe and relatively affordable way out, though on a small scale. Back in the seventies and eighties they were totally innovative. But as Eric has pointed out in his presentation to Google, that with the amount of time and resources to scale these technologies up, they won’t, as novel as they are, take us to where we need to be to deal with peak oil and the global warming threats. This was an eye opener to me and needs to be further circulated to people in a very big way. Now we have just been through eight years of an administration that was seriously anti-environment and anti-science and pro big oil. People in the environmental movement had their clocks turned back, seriously. The new administration was elected partly on a platform to move us away from that trend and they haven’t said no to nuclear power development. Environmentalists are in a bind, clearly, and looking for alternatives again, I think. They’re still against the idea of transporting and burying long half-life spent fuel. They also don’t want plants that have the potential to melt down or discharge hot water into the rivers. Focus Fusion addresses many of these issues and while there may be a fission component to the transmutation of the elements (if this is the right way to put it) it is near enough to inconsequential to my understanding. As long as there isn’t transportation to a cave in the southwest it will probably be acceptable. Also keep in mind that for the general public, the idea of a “warp drive” power plant for space travel has been totally acceptable thing to aspire to for the future! We all would like it to be safe, if possible. Global Warming Deniers still have the problems of peak oil economics to contend with and will also be wanting hi-tech solutions beyond coal mining, so maybe they can learn to put up with the environmentalists and see a brighter future.

[Breakable]

Brian, I can agree that in that article they might have been talking about the original hypothesis where in Wikipedia they were talking about null hypothesis.
Still as far as I understand, failure to check for null hypothesis does not make the original hypothesis false.
Maybe it was not done because you cant learn anything new doing that. What do you think can be learned?

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote: Brian, I can agree that in that article they might have been talking about the original hypothesis where in Wikipedia they were talking about null hypothesis.
Still as far as I understand, failure to check for null hypothesis does not make the original hypothesis false.
Maybe it was not done because you cant learn anything new doing that. What do you think can be learned?

It’s a rigorous approach to science that maintains you can never be certain something is true, only that something is false. A speculation which offers a potential test which would disprove it if performed becomes a hypothesis. A hypothesis which has offered and survived many such tests is a theory. A theory which has survived every test anyone can think up (so far) is a law. But even “laws” can be updated and revised and supplanted by a more general and inclusive formulation (Einstein enfolded and included Newton). But Einstein’s theories are not yet compatible with quantum mechanics. And so on.

Certainty is unobtainable, but is the ever-receding goal.

It’s the only way you “learn”, since you never assume you know anything yet (which is a concrete barrier to learning), but always do your best to get there.

[Brian H]

benf;
Notwithstanding a load or two of media-promoted common false knowledge and political bumpf, your summary of the bind that environmentalists are in is accurate. FF, however, will hyper-green the environmentalists into silence, I think. It is so squeaky clean and resolves so many “issues” that they’d have to commit cognitive hari-kari to reject it. But the process does involve Atoms, which are dangerous things, you know … 😉 :coolsmirk:

But there is no transmutation other than changing boron+hydrogen into common helium. “Dangerous” transmutation is a fission thing, and to some extent a fast neutron problem. None of that. No transport and burials necessary.

And we Deniers don’t think burning or not burning coal or oil has squat to do with the climate; it’s a non-issue except insofar as the Warmists want to ride that horse to wealth and power beyond the dreams of avarice and megalomania. (Think control of every energy generation and use activity on the planet.) Here’s an Australian response:
Back to the Nineteenth Century

Excerpt:

“The Greens do not particularly want a carbon-free world.
They want a world in which there are many fewer people; they want a world in which
those people who are left are subordinate to nature, living very frugal but more equal
lives under the guidance of an elect caste of high priests who decide on the doctrinal
issues which arise under such a regime. The Greens are an authoritarian sect, with a
new religion to establish, and for them nuclear energy is anathema, since it promises
energy in abundance for a world with even more people than we have today.”

My motto: “Conservation is nice. Surplus is (much) better.”

[KeithPickering]

Brian H wrote:

…
The global warming debate will go on, partly genuine, partly a diversionary tactic for the big oil and coal industries. Global warming deniers have made contributions to this debate and in these forums on other topics as well, but I fear what I see.

The images you have fixated on are, of course, selected. Science, however, depends on clean data, not emotive mental images.

Here’s some info about how unclean the AGW data is: http://69.84.25.250/blogger/post/ClimateGate-Data-Series-Part-I-A-break-down-of-large-data-file-for-manipulating-global-temperature-trends-from-2006-2009.aspx

Kids and teens call it “making shit up”.

Kindly point to any datum published in any peer-reviewed journal which has been fabricated, falsified, or “made up.” If you can, it will be a first: climate deniers have been taking a microscope to these emails for months and so far we have precisely zero such cases.

This is a scandal?

[Rezwan]

Brian H wrote: And we Deniers don’t think burning or not burning coal or oil has squat to do with the climate; it’s a non-issue except insofar as the Warmists want to ride that horse to wealth and power …

Excerpt:

“The Greens do not particularly want a carbon-free world.
They want a world in which there are many fewer people; they want a world in which those people who are left are subordinate to nature, living very frugal but more equal lives under the guidance of an elect caste of high priests who decide on the doctrinal issues which arise under such a regime. The Greens are an authoritarian sect, with a new religion to establish, and for them nuclear energy is anathema, since it promises energy in abundance for a world with even more people than we have today.”

Really? That’s the issue? It’s not even about the science? Hmmm.

So, just imagine: what if they’re right? OK. Impossible. OK, what if they’re not right – it has nothing to do with anthropogenic causes, but for some other random reason, things fall apart. Climate catastrophe ensues, crops fail, cities are drowned, things collapse, etc etc. The alternative to the above envisioned greens authoritarian sect where people try to make do with less and cooperate, is a world where whoever has the best monopoly control of violence (access to arms & capital) can control resources and screw the rest. (Actually, that’s the system currently operating in our world, you’re a bit sheltered from it here in the states because you’re with the guys with the monopoly control of violence).

I suspect the green folk are truly afraid of limited resources. This may be a limitation of their imagination. But taken at face value, in light of these limitations, they are trying to be fair. The “green authoritarian sect” would probably be a lot nicer than other sorts of authoritarian sects that would emerge in a bad case environmental scenario.

I don’t see the harm of learning how to share or make do with less. Or of trying to calculate who is benefiting from an action and how to get them to also pay the environmental costs of that action. A triple bottom line seems like a logical accounting practice. I don’t see the “subordinate” to nature thing, but I would love to be more in touch with nature and its rhythms. See elsewhere my reference to a migrating animal app.

I like that you’re hoping for a fusion-ex-machina solution to this conundrum, I likewise, am working towards that end to avoid either authoritarian scenario. But in its absence, you might have to face this question. If it comes down to it, are you the kind of person who will explore ways of egalitarian cooperation and accommodate others’ needs, or are you the kind of person who will blow others away and take as much for yourself as possible? In a limited resources scenario, your primal character is revealed.

[Rezwan]

benf wrote: I would answer that we’re already off to a very good start of taking on the debate and informing people with this website.

Thanks!

Environmentalists are in a bind, clearly, and looking for alternatives again, I think. They’re still against the idea of transporting and burying long half-life spent fuel. They also don’t want plants that have the potential to melt down or discharge hot water into the rivers. Focus Fusion addresses many of these issues and while there may be a fission component to the transmutation of the elements (if this is the right way to put it) it is near enough to inconsequential to my understanding.

I think there is still a lot of progress to be made on all fronts. Bill Gates TED talk suggested that there are some interesting fission ideas on the horizon that can actually use up that spent fuel and waste, which is great!

Focus Fusion is conceptually the best idea I’ve encountered so far, but the drawback is that it is still not a proven concept. Neither is Bill Gates advanced fission concept (“Terrapower”).

“Environmentalists are in a bind, looking for alternatives” – this speaks to me of a tendency I get from some environmentalists. I’m with Gates on this. He says:

We need to go for more research funding. When countries get together in places like Copenhagen, they shouldn’t just discuss the co2, they should discuss this innovation agenda, You’d be stunned at the ridiculously low levels of spending on these innovative approaches.

Exploring alternatives requires commitment to research. This takes time, money, talent, enthusiasm in the face of an apparent lack of progress.

Environmentalists tend to have a conservative streak about this, seeing only what is on the ground at this moment. Not a lot of faith in innovation to provide. Like someone who wants to stop the car or stop the game when things appear sketchy, rather than drive on through to the other side.

Keep in mind that for the general public, the idea of a “warp drive” power plant for space travel has been totally acceptable thing to aspire to for the future! We all would like it to be safe, if possible. Global Warming Deniers still have the problems of peak oil economics to contend with and will also be wanting hi-tech solutions beyond coal mining, so maybe they can learn to put up with the environmentalists and see a brighter future.

Where focus fusion blows everyone out of the water is, indeed, the future. If you can get small, decentralized plants that run on light elements like boron and hydrogen – that takes you up to a whole different level of existence. Beyond the planet. There’s something expansive about it. Beyond surplus.

With one teeny, tiny caveat, and that is the word “if”. If you can get it to work. Flippin’ proof of concept time.

[benf]

Here’s to hoping we can get the “if” behind us!

Brian H -20 April 2010 01:52 AM:
The images you have fixated on are, of course, selected. Science, however, depends on clean data, not emotive mental images.

In the news lately:
A coal mine disaster kills twenty nine….
Twelve missing, seven critically injured after an oil rig explosion in the Gulf of Mexico….
A young Gray Whale found dead in San Francisco Bay, it’s stomach is found to be full of trash….
A coal tanker from China leaves standard shipping lanes and ends up grounded and spilling fuel on the Great Barrier Reef off Australia…

This is empirical data observed relating to human consumption, I believe. The information causes me to feel some sad emotions.
These are risks we take to trying to maintain or expand raw materials and markets. It has become standard news that people just have to live with.

Focus Fusion and other sustainable technologies can help reduce those incidents for everyone’s benefit. 🙂

[benf]

Brian H. -20 April 2010 10:35 PM
But there is no transmutation other than changing boron+hydrogen into common helium. “Dangerous” transmutation is a fission thing, and to some extent a fast neutron problem. None of that. No transport and burials necessary.

Thanks for the clarification Brian H. Rezwan, I had to do a search for this information to find it in the new web design:

https://focusfusion.pmhclients.com/index.php/site/article/focus_fusion_vs_nuclear_reactors/

I think it used to be more accessible. It addresses the main concerns around radioactive emmissions and byproducts. I don’t know what ends up happening to the water barrier and boron 10 jacket, or if it’s ever an issue. Maybe that could be addressed. But I think this is info that should be prominent to allay concerns. Rezwan your informative thoughts are again helpful! It would be nice to have the likes of Bill Gates supporting your efforts.

[Author]

Posts