Wednesday, 19 August 2015

Well, Antony, how do you sleep?

Like a cry baby. Someone sent him this email:

Message: Do you know what astounds me the most about this world?? The fact that there is a dedicated and extremely sophisticated group of people which is out there just to obfuscate science. They are full time into it! And they are even successful in misleading people.  How do you sleep at night knowing that you are abetting in such a farce crime?
Anyways, I don’t have much about denier mentality. Do you get sleep at night?
But who cares. Deniers are loosing heavily. For decades you have succeeded, but the downfall was inevitable.
Leave the science to the scientist, will you?
Faux Name
Time: August 18, 2015 at 11:20 am

Watts must know he's talking rubbish.  He can't be off it because even Willis Eschenbach has told him he doesn't understand science.  Sou has a fuller article.  I just wanted to post a video to remind Anthony that  it could have been worse.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=stooSRBWjek


Friday, 31 July 2015

Faith vs Fact

Edited to correct the book's title (h/t Metzomagic) I've used some of my holiday time to read Jerry Coyne's latest book, Faith vs Fact.  His premise is that science and religion are mutually incompatible.  That's not to say there are no religious people accepting the findings of science or scientists who are religious. Science finds things out and religion doesn't, according to Coyne.

I bought the book at the local Barnes & Noble.  The science section was one row of shelves.  By contrast, the religion section was at least three times the size.  This is a religious area.  There are plenty of fish stickers in evidence on the cars and many churches. The local newspaper had a four page section labelled religion at the weekend.

I found no books on climate change in Barnes & Noble.

But there is a chunk on climate change in Coyne's book in which he links climate science denial to religion.  I don't know exact figures but there is a voluble section of the denialati who are religious.  Roy Spencer is.  Lord Monckton is a Catholic.  Many others have signed the phoney theological Cornwall Alliance proclamation.  According to Coyne, there is a strong proportion of the conservative religious in the States who, when confronted by a scientific result that contradicts their religious beliefs, they will deny the scientific finding.  Climate change denial shows that pattern.

Some of these prominent deniers are intelligent people yet they undergo mental contortions to maintain their denial. In the meantime science progresses, makes new discoveries, refines what is already known and understood.

Coyne's thesis seems sound and he produces strong evidence in its favour. Coyne also demolishes the idea that science, or any of its branches, is religion too, based on faith in reason or the regularity of the Universe.  He points out that the term is used as something of an insult.  So my rhetorical point when confronted by that slur will be to ask the other person if they are religious and, when they say yes, ask if they think so little of their religion that they equate it with the science they despise.

For those that might be thinking of reading the book, do so.  It is determined and, in places, strident.  But it is never less than evidence based.  And it is very readable too.  Buy it here http://www.amazon.co.uk/Faith-Versus-Fact-Religion-Incompatible/dp/0670026530/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438344630&sr=8-1&keywords=Fact+v+faith

Monday, 27 July 2015

Letter from America

I apologise for my recent absence but I've been contending with a huge pre-summer workload, a bereavement and a kidney stone so I have had little time to spend on my wibblings.

But, never fear, Virgin Atlantic have managed to deliver myself, Mrs Catmando and our luggage to sunny Florida, for a fortnight's rest and recuperation.  Or at least that was the plan.

It has been scupper end by three things.  Firstly, I lost my expensive sunglasses somewhere which meant having to go out a buy a cheap replacement pair that I probably can't lose if I tried.  Secondly, the local branch of Barnes & Noble, the bookstore chain, had copies of the egregiously dangerous anti-medicine What Doctors Don't Tell You in its racks (so I covered it up and bought a book by Paul Offit instead).  Finally, the sun is barely visible because it is raining so hard.

It's a visible sign of El Niño.  Increased precipitation in the south east of the USA accompanied by cooler than usual temperatures.  A dampened on the holiday perhaps, but here's a prediction.  Those reliable deniers will start using the current weather to say I told you global warming was a hoax.  Give it time.

Friday, 19 June 2015

Climate Double Fail At The Daily Telegraph

I know I shouldn't but I can't help it.  I look at the website of the Daily Telegraph, once a paper of record, now one with a record they wouldn't really want to look back on.  I don't know what has happened to the science staff but there are some unscientific folk inhabiting the world of the opinion pages.

Yesterday, Julia Hartley-Brewer nailed some colours to the mast with her opinion of the Pope's opinion on climate change.  She doesn't want the Pope telling her what to do, oh, no.  Here is her tawdry effort.  I'm not a fan of the Pope and I agree with Lawrence Krauss, Steven Pinker and Jerry Coyne that he missed some tricks but, kudos to the man, he got it right on climate change.  Time to do something about it.

But Julia doesn't see it that way and although she skirts the issue of whether there is a scientific case for global warming, she doesn't seem to understand what her fingers are typing:
Whether you are a card-carrying eco-alarmist who worries daily about your carbon footprint or whether you are Jeremy Clarkson, what the Pope has to say about humans tackling climate change as a moral issue is about as relevant as Kim Kardashian’s views on the future of the eurozone.
The editor liked that paragraph so much, it got pulled to create the little teaser thing at the top of the article.  But the problem is, the Pope does the morals thing.  It's his job.  It's what those millions of Catholics look to him for and if he wasn't saying something about climate change morals he would be saying something else moralistic. 

And to dip a toe in the comments is to spot those that realised the article was poor - long on a personal opinion, short on real thought - and those that crawl like ants from under a log when the pheromone of climate change is on a comment thread just waiting for the hive mentality to strike.

Today, Fraser Nelson, once of the right wing Spectator magazine, has an op-ed opining on how the ruling Conservative party can out intellectualise the defeated and disarrayed opposition Labour party on the subject of climate policy.  You can read what he wrote here.  You know how poor the science in the article is when it links to one of Christopher Booker's pisspoor misrepresentations about homogenisation of the temperature data.  If Nelson thinks Booker is worthy of his attention then he scraped a mighty empty barrel to find him. But perhaps the potty peer Lord Monckton is just too toxic (or more likely too unknown) for a family newspaper to read over their boiled egg and toasty soldiers.

Nelson has form.  While editor of the Spectator he hosted an article puffing Ian Plimer, written by noted interpreter of interpretations, Little Jimmy Delingpole.  In 2012 Carbon Brief took him apart for some claims he made following the Olympics in London related to energy consumption and climate change.  But it's all right because, actually, Nelson does agree that humans are causing the climate to change, the planet to warm up and, you know, the rest.  Simon Singh spotted the smoking tweet.

Not that actually Nelson isn't mouldable.  I detect a whiff of hypocrisy, to claim you do believe in human caused climate change, then hang around with your mates from Nigel Lawson's phoney education charity, the GWPF.  They are hosting the tatty Telegraph article.

So bottom of the class this week is the Daily Telegraph.  They could have been so right on this and they let two of their writers get it so wrong.  The Pope was more right than the two of them.  Who would have thought that?  But then the Pope did actually do some work in a chemistry lab and perhaps knows a thing or two about physical science.  Ms Hartley-Brewer did PPE at Oxford and Mr Nelson did History and Politics at Glasgow.  I don't know if either of them encountered the history of science but had they done so, they might have heard some names, like Tyndall and Arrhenius, scientists of a different age who demonstrated what the deniers so often ignore.  This is a physics problem and it was solved before your mother was born, though she was born a long, long time ago.

Monday, 15 June 2015

Cognitive fail at Anthony Watts site

Guest post by Margaret O'Hardman

To be fair, Anthony Watts is a bit of a dingus. So while he was in a snit about a paper he didn't like, he sent an email to one of the authors (and undisclosed others) and found it posted in a comment at Sou's place. Some numbskull has gone into bat for Anthony, though heaven knows why, allowing a window into the denier brain, demonstrating, in a phrase I've borrowed from Jerry Coyne, that they are one neuron short of a synapse.

If you dare go to see what was on Anthony's site, try here (archived, of course).

But the comments do prove one thing.  The denier crowd are scared of Hotwhopper. Exhibit 1 is from our old friend and butt of many a joke, Smokey:

dbstealey says:

MichaelS and RockyRoad,
I’m in agreement with what both of you wrote. Yes, Nick Stokes is a partisan. But it would have been infinitely better if Peterson/Revkin has decided to send Anthony’s letter to Stokes instead. But they didn’t, because they knew the most damaging blog for Anthony was Hotwhopper.
It was deliberate, underhanded, and calculated to cause the most damage. That makes Revking more of a propagandist than a journalist. As for Peterson, he’s very unhappy that the planet isn’t doing what he wants it to, so he’s taking it out on Anthony. Neither Revkin nor Peterson are stand-up guys, IMHO.

Exhibit 2, it's that man again:

dbstealey says:

Simon,
Yes, I’ve read Hotwhopper a couple of times. That’s how I know. Since you asked.
There is zero comparison between WUWT and her slimy blog.
There is NO comparison.
And I get my range of opinions from other alarmist blogs. I don’t need [Sou's] brand of hatred. If you like that sort of thing it says a lot about you, doesn’t it?
[Sou] should be sending Anthony Watts a bouquet of flowers, instead of hating on him every day. Before the ‘hotwhopper’ articles here, her blog was a thinly-trafficked backwater entirely populated by a small handful of malcontents. Now it’s a much bigger backwater populated mostly by malcontents. In my view you’re a loser if you like that sort of 24/7 hatred.

Exhibit 3 (this is getting predictable):

dbstealey says:

Ray Boorman says:
… you may notice that Revkin had NOTHING to do with sending the email to hotwhopper.
I respectfully disagree. Revkin is a journalist, and he knows Peterson pretty well. Is there any doubt in your mind that they got their heads together, and came up with an action plan? Is there any doubt that Revkin understood what Peterson was planning to do with Anthony’s letter? Journalists ask questions. It’s what they do.
I think Revkin wass in on the whole thing from the beginning, and he knew what Peterson was planning. As Pat Frank points out, Peterson transformed Anthony’s private critical opinion into a manufactured public attack. It was deliberate. And of all the blogs to send it to, they decided on Hotwhopper. [Sou] is a real hater, and she’s fixated on Anthony and WUWT. From their perspective they could not have chosen a more damaging venue. And the Peterson/Revkin team did it without notifying Anthony. Is that OK with you?

 The cognitive fail? That being so nasty, slimy, vicious, is what Watts and his egregious acolytes seem to be about.  I rarely waste any time there any longer.  It is poorly written, poorly argued, full of commenters who would have no friends but for the Internet.  Science fail Anthony Watts brought this on himself.  Good for Sou.
 
 

Sunday, 24 May 2015

Lynne McTaggart's "The Field" - wrong, wrong and then wrong again

The Field (2001) is an attempt by the "investigative journalist" Lynne McTaggart to put a scientific shine on the turd that is pseudoscientific consciousness tosh, promulgated by a variety of sources but notably in the unscientific film What The Bleep Do We Know (2004).  There are some genuine, as opposed to gushing, fawning and sycophantic, reviews available online, most notably "The Non-Science Of Lynne McTaggart" by Dmitri Brant.  Most of the Amazon reviews haven't approached the book with anything like a critical mind.  I am guessing that most of those don't have a clue what quantum physics is.

For that there is no excuse.  There are a whole host of books available that one could refer to in order to check whether what McTaggart says about quantum physics is correct.  I list a selection that I have read in the further reading section at the end of this article.  I will also list some of the books that McTaggart refers to in her book. 

The Field came out when the Internet was already well established but before blogging had become commonplace.  Blogging has enabled much information to be disseminated, and much more disinformation in many areas, making checking somewhat more straightforward than it ever was.  But access to a decent library would have been more than enough for McTaggart not to get caught up in the disingenuous promotion of wild speculation as fact that she seems to have done. 

If a teacher somewhere needs a text to use as a basis for critical thinking exercises, here it is.  The Field is readable.  McTaggart's style is smooth but she also does what so many pseudoscientists do - they make up their own interpretations.  If you are not cued in to this, you will miss it.  It is the way Erich von Daniken worked all those years ago and it fooled millions then.  It fools millions now.

For instance, this list comes from a variety of websites and seems to be officially sanctioned by McTaggart or the blurb writers:

New Truths from The Field
What biology tells us
  • The human being is a survival machine largely powered by chemicals and genetic coding. 
  • The brain is a discreet organ and the home of consciousness, which is also largely driven by chemistry – the communication of cells and the coding of DNA. 
  • Man is essentially isolated from his world, and his mind is isolated from his body.
  • Time and space are finite, universal orders.
  • Nothing travels faster than the speed of light.
What biology tells us list is in some ways unarguable.  All living things, not just human beings, are survival machines powered by chemicals (and physics, let us not forget).   But this is also a statement that can be extended by adding a dig at Richard Dawkins in the pseudoscientific world.  McTaggart doesn't like Dawkins.  That is clear.

As for the brain being a discreet organ...   Like all discreet organs there is a slightly fuzzy edge - where does an organ actually end when you take into account the blood and nerve supplies?  But that is by the by.  The real thrust of point is the comment about consciousness.  I cannot think of reliable, repeatable evidence that sites consciousness anywhere other than the brain.  Injuries to the brain can, and do, result in temporary or permanent loss of consciousness. 

And is the mind isolated from the body?  Doubt it, mostly because, as I understand it, the mind and consciousness are totally linked.  Sounds a lot like a load of rubbish to state that man is essentially isolated from the world when clearly he is not.  His (apologies for the sexist language but I am continuing with the same gender non-neutral word used in the summary) sense ensure that he is not isolated from the world - he sees light that has travelled across vast distances, hears sounds, detects chemicals, senses thermal energy, etc.  Trivially and actually wrong, then.

As for time and space being infinite and nothing travelling faster than light, these are not the discoveries of biology.  They are the discoveries of physics and philosophy.  If space and time are not infinite, what are they?   I might be able to tell you once I have had the chance to read Lee Smolin's book Time Reborn and Sean M Carroll's From Eternity To Here, both of which deal with the nature and physics of time.  Other books on time are available.  Other books on the universe are available too.  I'll collect them together in the further reading section.

Then we get the list of what The Field has learnt:
What The Field has discovered:
  • The communication of the world does not occur in the visible realm of Newton, but in the subatomic world of Werner Heisenberg. 
  • Cells and DNA communicate through frequencies.
  • The brain perceives and makes its own record of the world in pulsating waves.
  • A substructure underpins the universe that is essentially a recording medium of everything, providing a means for everything to communicate with everything else.
  • People are indivisible from their environment.
  • Living consciousness is not an isolated entity. It increases order in the rest of the world.
  • The consciousness of human beings has incredible powers, to heal ourselves, to heal the world – in a sense, to make it as we wish it to be. 
It is pretty much meaningless.  Communication between organisms does occur in the visible realm of Newton, and is the invisible realm of electromagnetic radiation.  Cells and DNA do not, so far as anyone but Jacques Benveniste, communicate through frequencies (it does not state which medium or which manner but a little research tells us it is electromagnetic waves).  Such radiation appears to be very hard to detect.  I bet it doesn't exist.

The latter list becomes increasingly fantastic, in the old sense of the word, as we go down it.  In the end it is not a list of scientific discoveries so much as a wish list for ageing hippies.  It should not be forgotten that, for all the pretences to being a record and interpretation of scientific discovery, this book is nothing of the kind.  It has all the hallmarks of the a posteriori wish fulfilment that pseudoscience throws up again and again.  Nothing in the science actually insists that McTaggart's interpretation is the only valid one.  Rather, the science says something entirely different.

There are little clues dotted about McTaggart's text that give away her understanding of science and the nature of scientific evidence.   I quote in full one paragraph and give my readers a challenge.  Spot where the paragraph turns from science to non-science.
If all subatomic matter in the world is interacting constantly with this ambient ground-state energy field, the subatomic waves of The Field are constantly imprinting a record of the shape of everything.  As the harbinger and imprinter of all wavelengths and all frequencies, the Zero Point Field is a kind of shadow of the universe for all time, a mirror image and record of everything that ever was.  In a sense, the vacuum is the beginning and end of everything in the universe.[23] (1st paperback edition, page 32)

Did you spot it?  It was the word "If".  That assumption about the interaction leads, somehow, to the idea that subatomic waves [sic] are imprinting a record on the universe [sic] of everything and anything.  Many have said that McTaggart has no idea about quantum physics.  I disagree.  I think she has some idea, in the sense that an elephant has some idea about gravity, because she has read something about it or seen a documentary on the TV.  But she truly doesn't understand what she has written, or she has wilfully misinterpreted it, because this paragraph takes a piece of evidence and takes it to a place where it doesn't belong. 

The Zero Point Field is the idea that there is a minimum level of energy permeating the vacuum of space.  It is something that arose early in our understanding of quantum mechanics and is generally ignored because there is something important about it that McTaggart doesn't grasp.  It is a minimum energy state.  There cannot be any energy taken from it or given to it.  The fluctuations that happen, the popping in and out of existence of particles and so on, do not alter the minimum nature of this state. 

By the way, the [23] refers to a footnote that says the ideas came from interviews with Hal Puthoff, a genuine physicist with some unfortunate ideas, who was once described as one half of the Laurel and Hardy of PSI by James Randi.  Gullible might be a more kind term.  Uri Geller did manage to fool a lot of people.

The key to understanding that McTaggart really doesn't get this zero point field thing is that she misses the quantum nature of it.  These tiny particles are jiggling around and will always jiggle around.  They do not behave in an orderly fashion on their own but have a randomness that precludes any sort of imprinting.  How do you imprint anything on energy?  Or on particles whose existence is measured in trillionths of a second?  A good scientist will stop and consider whether their ideas are physically valid, if they are consistent with all the other bits of evidence and known science that they can think of.  McTaggart is not, of course, a scientist.

I haven't mentioned McTaggart's application of the zero point field idea to biology.  The relationship between the quantum world and the living world is uncertain.  I have little sympathy with Roger Penrose's ideas on consciousness, for example, and less with those that claim that non-living things have consciousness or that consciousness permeates everything.  I am old fashioned enough to want to see evidence, and I am afraid the evidence that does get offered up is mostly rubbish.  And just waving the word quantum around does not make anything more physically real. 

Perhaps she doesn't know that she does it.  Perhaps Lynne McTaggart does not know that she repeats the old fallacy that Erich von Daniken did all those years ago: if you say the word "if", then make a conclusion that is not validated by the evidence, your readers will remember the conclusion and not the uncertainty.  So a few sentences down the line, you can repeat the conclusion without the doubt and proceed as if the conclusion were true.  The premise of McTaggart's book is that the zero point field can, in some way, be tapped for meaningful "things" by humans in one way or another.  Assuming that Puthoff and Targ's remote viewing is anything other than a conjuring trick, it does not follow that there is anything quantum mechanical about it.  And, of course, the first assumption is a massive one for which the evidence is hardly strong enough to withstand a collision with a quark.

There is an entire industry of new age wishful thinkers, brought up with some esoteric ideas that do not withstand scrutiny, that are not supported by established science, but which makes money through the publication of books, magazines and movies that pander to those people who won't or cannot get the idea that things happen without reason.  They don't like science because it provides answers that they don't like, but they cling to science because it has the power to provide evidence and to persuade people.  Science is extremely powerful as a tool for understanding the universe.  It has enabled us to describe the most likely beginning our universe had.  It helps us to understand the very small, the very big, and everything in between.  It uses a language that most people do not, themselves, understand.

Popular science books often try to make the nearly incomprehensible comprehensible to the masses.  A Brief History Of Time was, for a while, almost trendy, because it did just that, even though it soon became fashionable to own but to confess that you also could not understand it.  The ideas in it were not easy, but they were far from incomprehensible.  It required a few moments' thought.  It also included a section in which the zero point field was explained.  I assume McTaggart missed that when she said that the zero point field was almost unknown.  It wasn't.

Further reading:

John D Barrow The Book Of Nothing (2000)
Brian Cox & Geoff Forshaw  The Quantum Universe (2012)
John Gribbin  In Search Of Schrodinger's Cat
John Gribbin  In Search Of Schrodinger's Kittens
Manjit Kumar Quantum (2008)
Chad Orzel  How To Teach Quantum Physics To Your Dog
James Randi Flim Flam (1982)
Simon Singh The Big Bang (2004)
Roberto Mangabeira Unger & Lee Smolin The Singular Universe And The Reality Of Time (2014)
Stephen Wilson (ed) The Bloomsbury Book Of The Mind (2003)
Robert Winston The Human Mind (2003)

and many, many more.

Wednesday, 20 May 2015

Tombstone Blues

Sou has the full story but there is still fun to be had.  Chrissy Boy Monckton is throwing another snit.  He got his name inscribed on a mock memorial of deniers that won an art prize.  Hence the snit.

And so is James Delingpole.  Well, who'da thought it?  Delingpole and Monckton seem to be on one continuous, never ending, snit.  Nanny must be chucking toys in their prams at an immense rate because the pair of them chuck them back out constantly. 
Calm down, he's not a scientist

Jimmy's best writing is reserved for those moments when his bile runneth over, as it does in this Shakespearean paragraph (I realise it would have been better in Iambic pentameter but the blessed Jim was probably a bit pushed for time and the editor of the Spectator was tapping his watch):

I wonder what deep background research led him to form this considered view. Actually, no I don’t, because it’s obvious. He’ll have got it from his science and geography teachers at school; from BBC nature documentaries and news reports; from comedians like Dara Ó Briain and Marcus Brigstocke; from celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, whispery-voiced gorilla-hugger David Attenborough and pouty-mouthed astronomer Brian Cox; from every other article in the Guardian; from the Science Museum in London; from Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth; from his fellow students and university professors; from the ‘97 per cent’ of scientists who, so legend has it, say the science on global warming is settled… .
So let's just examine this paragraph shall we.  First, Delingpole's credentials: English Literature, Christchurch College, Oxford.

Ian Wolter, the art student in question, may have got his climate science from those people.  His science and geography teachers will all have had relevant degrees.  And of the others...
This man can do more complicated sums than James Delingpole can, and he can read posh books by dead, white, male writers

 Dara O Briain has a degree in mathematics and theoretical physics.

 Marcus Brigstocke studied drama but did not complete his degree (he's in the list not so much for his climate science claims but for his left wing comedy).
This man has proper science qualifications

Simon Singh has a PhD in particle physics.  He's here because he helped to change the libel laws which were being used to threaten scientific criticism of quacks and frauds.

David Attenborough has a degree in natural sciences (including geology) from Clare College, Cambridge.
This man is a scientist as well

Professor Brian Cox has a PhD in high energy particle physics from the University of Manchester.  He's in the list because Delingpole once sat and watched a programme Prof Cox made.

There is some hefty science learning here.  Perhaps an Eng Lit graduate could learn something.  But, alas, Delingpole, famously an interpreter of interpretations, prefers to go to see a bunch of, well, non-experts with some out of date qualifications at the Heartland Institute on their jolly to Rome to persuade the Pope that he is, after all, infallible:

At the Heartland event, on the other hand, a series of fascinating, erudite mini-lectures was delivered by a team including a meteorologist, a physicist, an ex-Nasa man who’d helped devise the landing gear for the Apollo project, and a theologian.

Wow, just wow.  Here's a list of the participants:
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., national spokesman for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
Hal Doiron, former NASA Skylab and Space Shuttle engineer
Richard Keen, Ph.D., meteorology instructor at the University of Colorado
Christopher Monckton, chief policy advisor to the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
Marc Morano, executive editor and chief correspondent, ClimateDepot.com
Tom Sheahen, Ph.D., vice chairman of the Science and Environmental Policy Project Board of Directors
Elizabeth Yore, J.D., former General Counsel at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in Virginia
I leave it to you to work out the weatherman, the physicist, the man who worked on the landing gear for the Apollo project (note, Skylab didn't land and the Space Shuttle wasn't Apollo but you can't expect Delingpole to get everything anything right), and I think we can be certain that the theologian is of the distinctly unsophisticated kind (TM Jerry Coyne).  You can't be surprised that journalists had better things to do.

I'm guessing Delingpole will be attending the Heartland non-science event in June.  Here is the schedule.  Spot the non-denier competition has been cancelled.

Other people interested in real science will, of course, find something better to do.  Here's an example:





And this:



Hat tip to Jerry Coyne for alerting me to Philomena.

And if you think the title is familiar: