I didn't know until today that my sister had a blog. Its called Alice-Mutton and I wonder if that inadvertently describes what its all about. There certainly is some Wonderland stuff in there. One post caught my eye. Its on Global Warming.
Now I know its against the rules to criticise one's sibling, but there is a tale for the telling in this one.
Quite by reflex, the English teacher in me noticed a jarring attempt at what is called parallelism in writing. You repeat a structure using an antonym of synonym. Poets use it to great effect. Its quite compelling. "I am Australian" overuses it.
"Anthropogenic or heliocentric."
Now, if you are using the literary device properly, you say:
"Anthropogenic or heliogenic."
If you were thinking "heliocentric", you might be discussing world view of the Middle Ages.
Odd, indeed. This led me to wonder if my sister had written that at all. So, I Googled the next bit, which seemed to suggest that 8000 scientists were challenging climate change. 8000. That's a lot. And from CERN. That gives it a bit of a clout.
So the first item in the search comes up with a tasty conspiracy theory site called Red Ice Creations. Amongst its recommended sites is The Conspiracy Archive. Scroll down to the bottom of the page on Red Ice Creations. Don't laugh out loud. This is serious. The FBI is out to get you. If they don't, the United Nations will.
Back to the 8000. Of course, CERN employs a lot of scientists. How many have been involved in the CLOUD research? There they are, smiling at you, all 14 of them. So why say 8000? Oh, well, that's to get your attention. If the meme is to get traction, it has to have big numbers. But, to be fair, this is a fairly large scale international collaboration, as this CERN publication shows.
So what did they actually say? You know that someone is hiding something when they won't link to the original work, but selectively quoting instead. Its a sure sign of memetics at work. Andrew Orlowski at Red Ice Creations doesn't want you to read:
"Atmospheric aerosols exert an important influence on climate1 through their effects on stratiform cloud albedo and lifetime2 and the invigoration of convective storms3.
Model calculations suggest that almost half of the global cloud
condensation nuclei in the atmospheric boundary layer may originate from
the nucleation of aerosols from trace condensable vapours4, although the sensitivity of the number of cloud condensation nuclei to changes of nucleation rate may be small5, 6.
Despite extensive research, fundamental questions remain about the
nucleation rate of sulphuric acid particles and the mechanisms
responsible, including the roles of galactic cosmic rays and other
chemical species such as ammonia7. " (Article in Nature, Kirkby et al., Nature, 25 August 2011, my red highlight added)
Note the proper scientific wording using the appropriate modality of certainty. That's because their conclusions are tentative. As Kirby explains:
“It was a big surprise to find that aerosol formation in the lower atmosphere isn’t due to sulphuric acid, water and ammonia alone,” said Kirkby. “Now it’s vitally important to discover which additional vapours are involved, whether they are largely natural or of human origin, and how they influence clouds. This will be our next job.”
The Royal Society of Chemistry had a somewhat different conclusion to Orlowski.
"Scientists have studied in detail how human activity influences
global warming, but humanity also contributes to cooling effects, for
example releasing light reflecting aerosols. Kirkby says that aerosols
are the biggest gap in our understanding of humanity's contribution to
climate change.
'I think these are quite exciting results, it's
certainly a step change paper,' says Christian Pfrang, an atmospheric
aerosol specialist at the University of Reading, UK. 'What we have here
is a capability of bridging the gap between laboratory experiment and
field measurement in the environment. It's a unique facility which can
address a number of controversial and longstanding issues.'
The
CLOUD team will now try to identify which organic species are
responsible for aerosol nucleation. Kirkby says they have already been
conducting experiments which might answer this question and are
analysing the data now. "
But, then again, they bypassed the meme. Must have been immunised against its invasion by reason and logic.
And Kirby, in another Nature press release says:
"But, Kirkby adds, those particles are far too small to serve as seeds
for clouds. "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible
cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first
step," he says."
Just for your edification, here's the CERN release. Read it and see if you think you agree with the chinese whisper propogated on my sister's blog.
Scientists modify current thinking in the face of new data. Skeptics pounce on any doubt to make it seem as if the whole theory is in doubt. This is the insidious nature of the meme.
Cheshire Cat: Oh, by the way, if you'd really like to know, he went that way.
Alice: Who did?
Cheshire Cat: The White Rabbit.
Alice: He did?
Cheshire Cat: He did what?
Alice: Went that way.
Cheshire Cat: Who did?
Alice: The White Rabbit.
Cheshire Cat: What rabbit?
Alice: But didn't you just say - I mean - Oh, dear.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Take a cold shower, Paul
Paul Howes, arguing from the secure point of personal incredulity, has suggested that the employment of foreign workers by Gina Reinhart violates every principle of common sense, let alone proper industiral relations. Although the union movement has a long history of xenophobia, this is perhaps the most ludicrous. Amongst the splutterings that somehow connected EMA with the loss of industrial employment opportunities (which Paul Howe has claimed is mostly related to the Australian dollar), Howes managed to give the union movement a fairly bad look.
It does not take a genius to realise that the Australian labour market is not the sole provider of workers for projects in Australia. Every major mining undertaking in Australia, not to mention dozens of other industries, including aviation, defence, and transport, indirectly employs overseas labour to do work for them, in the form of consultants and contractors. So, let's get over this delusion that Australian labour is sacred.
Of course, such arrangements are not ideal and, in many industries, Australians are the only practical source of labour - for example, primary education. You can't have FIFO early childhood teachers. Of course, you can have resident Australians born overseas teaching little kids, and that's just fine. Of course, everybody working in any industry deserves and should have industiral protection. Hence, the fundamnetal issue in the labour market is industrial protection. Even if you bring workers from another country, they must have the protection of proper employment agreements and awards.
If the Gina Reinharts can be demonstrated to be flaunting proper industrial relations, then this, not their choice of the country of origin of the workers, should be the grounds for a public lashing. This is what should be exicting Paul Howe. Unfortunately, he has drawn a crude line between foreign workers and Australian workers, not Gina and the rest of us. Now, when we rightly ask Gina et al to cough up their share of Australia's riches to benefit the rest of the nation, we will already have a public that thinks unions are simply selfish.
The typical reaction of most Australians to this decision is based on a confusion of issues, illustrated in this article: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/13787412/fury-as-thousands-bid-for-mining-jobs/. The other side of the story can be understood through this article: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/13776783/rinehart-mine-gets-special-employment-deal/
Of course, we must remain vigilant that the EMA doesn't become a mechanism for driving down Australian wages or a mode of exploitation of immigrant workers. But these are the real issues, not the threat to Australian workers or the country of origin of workers.
It does not take a genius to realise that the Australian labour market is not the sole provider of workers for projects in Australia. Every major mining undertaking in Australia, not to mention dozens of other industries, including aviation, defence, and transport, indirectly employs overseas labour to do work for them, in the form of consultants and contractors. So, let's get over this delusion that Australian labour is sacred.
Of course, such arrangements are not ideal and, in many industries, Australians are the only practical source of labour - for example, primary education. You can't have FIFO early childhood teachers. Of course, you can have resident Australians born overseas teaching little kids, and that's just fine. Of course, everybody working in any industry deserves and should have industiral protection. Hence, the fundamnetal issue in the labour market is industrial protection. Even if you bring workers from another country, they must have the protection of proper employment agreements and awards.
If the Gina Reinharts can be demonstrated to be flaunting proper industrial relations, then this, not their choice of the country of origin of the workers, should be the grounds for a public lashing. This is what should be exicting Paul Howe. Unfortunately, he has drawn a crude line between foreign workers and Australian workers, not Gina and the rest of us. Now, when we rightly ask Gina et al to cough up their share of Australia's riches to benefit the rest of the nation, we will already have a public that thinks unions are simply selfish.
The typical reaction of most Australians to this decision is based on a confusion of issues, illustrated in this article: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/13787412/fury-as-thousands-bid-for-mining-jobs/. The other side of the story can be understood through this article: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/news/13776783/rinehart-mine-gets-special-employment-deal/
Of course, we must remain vigilant that the EMA doesn't become a mechanism for driving down Australian wages or a mode of exploitation of immigrant workers. But these are the real issues, not the threat to Australian workers or the country of origin of workers.
Pompous arse-ism
I've learnt from those who are most pompous in our society that the way to disparage something is simply to add "ism" on the end of its name and immediately the reader must recognise that this is a form of extremism that must be avoided and, most definitely, derided. Thus, when people overthrew the privileged class who were milking them of their very lifeblood, this was not a revolution against injustice, but simply "communism". This single word could then take on a myriad of negative connotations and the work of the reactionaries became so much easier.
Not to be outdone, I am proposing a new movement in intellectual circles called "pompous arseism". Since this is too long, I'll simply abbreviate this to "arseism", since those subscribing to this movement eventually spend copious amounts of time gazing up their own arses.
Arse-ists are generally philosophers, but more often philosophisers, engaging in philosophy not so much to develop a coherent way of thinking about difficult topics, but to simply keep some topics from ever becoming so mundane and pedestrian that the common man might understand.
The Chief Most Holy Bishop of Arse-ism is Alvin Plantinga. Why he isn't more frequently referred to by his proper title is a mystery to me - being a professor of philosophy seems, well, so ordinary. Plantinga, in tones only achievable in a very large cathedral, declares war on Dawkins for daring to mention God in the title of his book without proper authorisation. Dawkins, he helpfully notes, is a biologist and therefore ought to just keep his nose out of philosophising. (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm)
Where I might have criticised The God Delusion for its singular lack of evidence that religion really does anything except provide some manner of coherence to social, cultural and psychological behaviours - its a long shot to start counting it as a causal agent in behaviour - Plantinga's blood boils because Dawkins supposedly belongs to the opposition Church of the Great Naturalism. There is no-one quite so pompous as a theist defending his God against the idolater.
Suppose I took our friend the CMHB Plantinga to a seance. As we sit there listening to the silly knocking, I can imagine a kind of smug self-confidence coming over his face. At the end of the seance, he will reflect that the great Harry Houdini long ago debunked this nonsense. His assurance that all those spooky events observed had natural explanations will make you believe, just for a moment, that he has adopted that philosophical posture of believing, first and foremost, that events have natural explanations. It is, after all, a perfectly human posture.
However, later, when we stand at the bedside of his friend who is dying of cancer, he will be tempted to participate in 'praying over' this friend, despite his almost certain knowledge that the natural qualities of the drugs administered by the palliative care staff will do their work and provide real comfort at a very chemical level.
But, despite this heavy subscription to naturalism, the CMHB will later write of the curse of "naturalism" spreading rife throughout the world like a vile plague. All in defense of his stature amongst his sub-cultural religious group. It is a breath-taking kind of translation that he manages, but not uncommon.
Not uncommon also, is the tendency, as one lambasts the 'illogicality' of the opposition, to lapse into pompous arse-ism. Its not really necessary to relate anything back to the real values you live by, only to pontificate about the real meaning of everything. Thence to "The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it." First class arse-ism.
Of course, you can only be that pompous if you have already dug yourself a large enough hole in which to fit it. Dawkins is derided for failing first year philosophy. Oh dear. The one sentence version of Plantinga's hole is: "If the brain is evolved, and the brain is what we do our believing with, then, as is observed with those who believe in delusions like God, the brain is capable of delusion, then it certainly is capable of the atheist delusion, which makes it untrustworthy and therefore not a good arbiter of the truth and therefore believing in God or atheism is pretty much roulette and there, I win."
Of course, if you say stupid things fast enough they sound convincing. But, for the statement above to have any kind of sense, you have to suppose, from the outset, that there is a truth that hovers outside human consciousness in the universe somewhere. (So that we can come to the conclusion that the brain is pretty hopeless at getting to that truth) Of course, this is a fine premise, except Plantinga and others want to start making categorical statements about this truth. Apparently, it is inherently natural to believe that this truth is owned, established and revealed by God. Why?
Its the Philosophy 101 conundrum. If a stone didn't make those ripples in the water, what did? Well, just about anything is the answer. In fact, the number of possibilities approaches infinity. Because, in practical terms, we do not have any other mechanism for generating a short-list, we use probability. Probability, not premised in experimental observation, but based on our experience of what is likely. Yes, we employ that unreliable brain to do that clever guesswork. Later, we employ that secure process called science to verify this, but let's not go there.
Now, Dawkins, in a measured British kind of way, is very patient with his short-listing, giving necessary complexity as the grounds for rejecting a supernatural (revealed) explanation for a natural (observed) explanation for complexity, at least in the world of living creatures. Now, regardless of whether that argument can be generalised to the universe (maybe something as simple as my anus created the laws of physics) and setting aside the very real problem that the complexity of God calls for an explanation in itself, we (the unwashed masses) need never allow supernatural explanations to get to the short-list.
In the Dawkins taxonomy, I am a 7 out of 7 atheist. This places me is the extremist category and thus, I am almost certainly about to blow up your house. But stay calm. It is our duty, as humans, to reject spin wherever we find it. It is a political duty, not a scientific one. It is our political duty to stop stupid ideas becoming generally accepted such that our society is in danger.
Consider the idiots who live hippy lives in and around Byron Bay who we stupidly allow the indulgence of not immunising against preventable diseases. In the year where India may finally see the last case of polio, in a dreadful irony, Australia may become the place where it re-emerges. Who knows when some un-immunised hippy may trek around some country in which eradication has not been total and then returns to a clutch of un-immunised hippy friends. No, its not science fiction.
The stupid, dangerous idea that immunisation causes conditions such as autism should have been rejected by those whose duty it is to politically protect our society. In a democracy, that is us. We all have a duty to take stupid ideas and reject them in the short-list. There are a hundred reasons why that duty has not been exercised in relation to theism, most of them to do with the insidious integration of religion into every corner of our society and psyche.
But let us return to the Chief Most Holy Bishop of Arse-ism. What is our duty? We need to look beyond his languid, pleasing voice (he writes so clearly and so well) from the pulpit and start to reject his ideas for good reason - they just don't stack up (the layman's way of saying the probability is so remote as to be considered zero).
The Goldilocks hypothesis is an example of where clear thought can just blitz waffley wankerism. The notion that the fine tuning of the constants in the universe incorporated in the laws of physics are 'just so' and incredulously 'just so', since a tiny variation would arrive at another universe, points to someone tuning the universe, is just plain stupid. I pick up a pack of cards. I deal them one by one. Out comes three Aces in a row. Of course, the standard "these were poorly shuffled" is the 'golden oldie' of excuses for playing badly, but, in reality, most people accept that that's just how the cards fell. No-one snuck in during a break in the dealing and set up the cards. They just fell out that way.
A mathematician will do the maths to give you a sense of the incredible odds against the way that these 52 cards 'fell out'. So infinitesimal is the chance of that order of card emerging that we should find it unbelievable. But we don't. Why? Because we accept a fundamental principle of naturalism that some things just 'fall out that way'. But not in a weird way. We do not often see the 23 of hearts emerge, nor the Ace of Pigs Bottoms. Certain constants are there and they are, well, just there. Yes, you can philosophise all you like about how convenient it is that no Pigs Bottoms and numbers in the 20s emerge out of the pack, but in the end, you are just spouting so much pompous arse-ism.
I feel I must leave you with the master of pompous arse-ism, Conor Cunningham. If you ever really get to the bottom of what this actually means, send me a postcard.
"In other words, persons naturalize nature, which is to say they actualize nature. They reveal nature to itself, doing so in all its forms, colours and structures, for without them all is dark, or at least shadow. Thus they do not flee nature, as do the philosophical naturalists who destroy all that is natural." (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/22/3508607.htm)
Not to be outdone, I am proposing a new movement in intellectual circles called "pompous arseism". Since this is too long, I'll simply abbreviate this to "arseism", since those subscribing to this movement eventually spend copious amounts of time gazing up their own arses.
Arse-ists are generally philosophers, but more often philosophisers, engaging in philosophy not so much to develop a coherent way of thinking about difficult topics, but to simply keep some topics from ever becoming so mundane and pedestrian that the common man might understand.
The Chief Most Holy Bishop of Arse-ism is Alvin Plantinga. Why he isn't more frequently referred to by his proper title is a mystery to me - being a professor of philosophy seems, well, so ordinary. Plantinga, in tones only achievable in a very large cathedral, declares war on Dawkins for daring to mention God in the title of his book without proper authorisation. Dawkins, he helpfully notes, is a biologist and therefore ought to just keep his nose out of philosophising. (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm)
Where I might have criticised The God Delusion for its singular lack of evidence that religion really does anything except provide some manner of coherence to social, cultural and psychological behaviours - its a long shot to start counting it as a causal agent in behaviour - Plantinga's blood boils because Dawkins supposedly belongs to the opposition Church of the Great Naturalism. There is no-one quite so pompous as a theist defending his God against the idolater.
Suppose I took our friend the CMHB Plantinga to a seance. As we sit there listening to the silly knocking, I can imagine a kind of smug self-confidence coming over his face. At the end of the seance, he will reflect that the great Harry Houdini long ago debunked this nonsense. His assurance that all those spooky events observed had natural explanations will make you believe, just for a moment, that he has adopted that philosophical posture of believing, first and foremost, that events have natural explanations. It is, after all, a perfectly human posture.
However, later, when we stand at the bedside of his friend who is dying of cancer, he will be tempted to participate in 'praying over' this friend, despite his almost certain knowledge that the natural qualities of the drugs administered by the palliative care staff will do their work and provide real comfort at a very chemical level.
But, despite this heavy subscription to naturalism, the CMHB will later write of the curse of "naturalism" spreading rife throughout the world like a vile plague. All in defense of his stature amongst his sub-cultural religious group. It is a breath-taking kind of translation that he manages, but not uncommon.
Not uncommon also, is the tendency, as one lambasts the 'illogicality' of the opposition, to lapse into pompous arse-ism. Its not really necessary to relate anything back to the real values you live by, only to pontificate about the real meaning of everything. Thence to "The naturalism that Dawkins embraces, furthermore, in addition to its intrinsic unloveliness and its dispiriting conclusions about human beings and their place in the universe, is in deep self-referential trouble. There is no reason to believe it; and there is excellent reason to reject it." First class arse-ism.
Of course, you can only be that pompous if you have already dug yourself a large enough hole in which to fit it. Dawkins is derided for failing first year philosophy. Oh dear. The one sentence version of Plantinga's hole is: "If the brain is evolved, and the brain is what we do our believing with, then, as is observed with those who believe in delusions like God, the brain is capable of delusion, then it certainly is capable of the atheist delusion, which makes it untrustworthy and therefore not a good arbiter of the truth and therefore believing in God or atheism is pretty much roulette and there, I win."
Of course, if you say stupid things fast enough they sound convincing. But, for the statement above to have any kind of sense, you have to suppose, from the outset, that there is a truth that hovers outside human consciousness in the universe somewhere. (So that we can come to the conclusion that the brain is pretty hopeless at getting to that truth) Of course, this is a fine premise, except Plantinga and others want to start making categorical statements about this truth. Apparently, it is inherently natural to believe that this truth is owned, established and revealed by God. Why?
Its the Philosophy 101 conundrum. If a stone didn't make those ripples in the water, what did? Well, just about anything is the answer. In fact, the number of possibilities approaches infinity. Because, in practical terms, we do not have any other mechanism for generating a short-list, we use probability. Probability, not premised in experimental observation, but based on our experience of what is likely. Yes, we employ that unreliable brain to do that clever guesswork. Later, we employ that secure process called science to verify this, but let's not go there.
Now, Dawkins, in a measured British kind of way, is very patient with his short-listing, giving necessary complexity as the grounds for rejecting a supernatural (revealed) explanation for a natural (observed) explanation for complexity, at least in the world of living creatures. Now, regardless of whether that argument can be generalised to the universe (maybe something as simple as my anus created the laws of physics) and setting aside the very real problem that the complexity of God calls for an explanation in itself, we (the unwashed masses) need never allow supernatural explanations to get to the short-list.
In the Dawkins taxonomy, I am a 7 out of 7 atheist. This places me is the extremist category and thus, I am almost certainly about to blow up your house. But stay calm. It is our duty, as humans, to reject spin wherever we find it. It is a political duty, not a scientific one. It is our political duty to stop stupid ideas becoming generally accepted such that our society is in danger.
Consider the idiots who live hippy lives in and around Byron Bay who we stupidly allow the indulgence of not immunising against preventable diseases. In the year where India may finally see the last case of polio, in a dreadful irony, Australia may become the place where it re-emerges. Who knows when some un-immunised hippy may trek around some country in which eradication has not been total and then returns to a clutch of un-immunised hippy friends. No, its not science fiction.
The stupid, dangerous idea that immunisation causes conditions such as autism should have been rejected by those whose duty it is to politically protect our society. In a democracy, that is us. We all have a duty to take stupid ideas and reject them in the short-list. There are a hundred reasons why that duty has not been exercised in relation to theism, most of them to do with the insidious integration of religion into every corner of our society and psyche.
But let us return to the Chief Most Holy Bishop of Arse-ism. What is our duty? We need to look beyond his languid, pleasing voice (he writes so clearly and so well) from the pulpit and start to reject his ideas for good reason - they just don't stack up (the layman's way of saying the probability is so remote as to be considered zero).
The Goldilocks hypothesis is an example of where clear thought can just blitz waffley wankerism. The notion that the fine tuning of the constants in the universe incorporated in the laws of physics are 'just so' and incredulously 'just so', since a tiny variation would arrive at another universe, points to someone tuning the universe, is just plain stupid. I pick up a pack of cards. I deal them one by one. Out comes three Aces in a row. Of course, the standard "these were poorly shuffled" is the 'golden oldie' of excuses for playing badly, but, in reality, most people accept that that's just how the cards fell. No-one snuck in during a break in the dealing and set up the cards. They just fell out that way.
A mathematician will do the maths to give you a sense of the incredible odds against the way that these 52 cards 'fell out'. So infinitesimal is the chance of that order of card emerging that we should find it unbelievable. But we don't. Why? Because we accept a fundamental principle of naturalism that some things just 'fall out that way'. But not in a weird way. We do not often see the 23 of hearts emerge, nor the Ace of Pigs Bottoms. Certain constants are there and they are, well, just there. Yes, you can philosophise all you like about how convenient it is that no Pigs Bottoms and numbers in the 20s emerge out of the pack, but in the end, you are just spouting so much pompous arse-ism.
I feel I must leave you with the master of pompous arse-ism, Conor Cunningham. If you ever really get to the bottom of what this actually means, send me a postcard.
"In other words, persons naturalize nature, which is to say they actualize nature. They reveal nature to itself, doing so in all its forms, colours and structures, for without them all is dark, or at least shadow. Thus they do not flee nature, as do the philosophical naturalists who destroy all that is natural." (http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/05/22/3508607.htm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)