Wednesday, November 07, 2012

A Message From Civilization

Stephan Lewandowsky sends Eli a message to pass on:

Eli might also add: To those who are planning on leaving for Central or South America: they speak Spanish there.  Jet Blue is offering free flights.


55 comments:

Jim Eager said...

Canada can't match quite all of those, but we come pretty close.

Although they could probably tolerate Alberta.

Jeffrey Davis said...

There are existing plutocracies where there's no minimum wage, lax environmental regulation, child labor is widespread, the poor die miserably from lack of health care, etc. etc.

Why don't our plutocrats get together at their secret picnics and agree to move there?

Anonymous said...

So, why don't we believe Hauser's Law?

Ed Darrell said...

Off topic -- well, maybe -- but you need to go here at get photos:
http://www.facebook.com/johnny.metal.13

Especially this one: http://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/58849_4528804014978_310785570_n.jpg

John Mashey said...

The recently-created website natesilverwronjg.com says:

'This website is temporarily unavailable, please try again later.'

Nate may be a bit a confused on climate models, but did OK.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Why don't we believe Hauser's Law?

1)It is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue.

2) It does not consider payroll taxes separate from other taxes.

susan said...

They can join the nazis hiding in paraguay etc.

(yeah, that makes me snarky and not quite nice. about time, too)

Anonymous said...

Dilbert -

I agree things are complex.

However, if Hauser's Law is correct it doesn't matter whether the tax is at payroll or after, there is a limit.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

I am sure Eli noticed but in case not, I know Maine and maybe New Hampshire was the other one? Legalized same sex marriage by way of ballot iniative. I am shocked. First time ever it has passed on the ballot iniative.

Anonymous said...

Snow Bunny:

Eli, how can I share this on Facebook? Too funny!

Dear Lumpus, Maine and Maryland. New Hampshire state legislature legalized gay marriage circa 2006. Too bad I can't tell you awful consequences to straight marriages resulted.

Rattus Norvegicus said...

Lumpy Poopypants:

It is even worse, ME, MD, and WA approved gay marriage and MN refuses to ban it! Not only that WI elects first openly gay woman to the Senate. Watch out, we are coming to convert you!

chek said...

Careful Dr. Lumpus, don't dwell on it too long or your pants may get all a'twitter.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Anon@10:32

1) "If..."

2) Actually, the type of tax matters a whole helluva lot, as payroll taxes are not negligible and have remained constant throughout the period. Subtract them out, and the wiggles become a whole lot more significant.

Anonymous said...

Well color me stoopid, that is why they call me "Hey Stoopid".

Sorry, to say, the land 'downunder', already has a complete quota of climate denialati retarded racist bigots. Unwanted clowns, such as Alan "Cash for Comment" Jones and Tony "Papist" Abbottard. To name but a few, of the few, who walk around with their heads buried deep in some one's posterior, with their hands open for the next bribe and spew the lies, for a mere thirty pieces of silver.

I do believe the shirker, or British PM 'David "Teflon" Cameron', has quite a few vacancies, to join the ever shrinking rank of "Mosley's Blackshirts" rebranded as the gun obsessed "British National Party"!

Alternatively, they should all return to their native home in Africa. For, approximately 40K, their ancestors left to explore/exploit the world around them, for profit.

Such is life.

Russell said...

Hi Stephan

Sorry to see you stuck in such a terrible place- you'd better stir the possum while you can.

Regards to all the Australians who said they will move to America if Gary Johnson wins- I assure you the damned Base hasn't put a dent in bloodsports or fornication hereabouts and our voluntary electorate has just nixed putting a Mormon in charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Cheers !

dhogaza said...

"Nate may be a bit a confused on climate models..."

Yeah, and unfortunately devoted a full chapter of his book to being confused about that. Given his recent fame built on success in the political and (earlier) sports worlds, unfortunately I fear that a lot of devotees, smart ones, who essentially understand the stastical modeling he does at some intuitive level at least, will take his word on climate models as gospel.

dhogaza said...

"It is even worse, ME, MD, and WA approved gay marriage"

Much worse, in WA they can now legally smoke pot at their wedding!

Hank Roberts said...

> a full chapter of his book
> to being confused

Hm, never heard about that at all.

Does it appear he's confused in an educable way, if some of the competent people with chops made the effort? Or did they try already and get rebuffed?

Hank Roberts said...

Oh, found the review.

"... The one disappointment for me was the chapter on climate change. This falls outside of Silver’s expertise and I’m assured by colleagues who know climate science well that Silver didn’t get a balanced perspective when he relied on others to bring him up to speed, including one fellow in particular who is paid by powerful interests to cast misleading doubt on the merits of climate models."

http://www.perceptualedge.com/blog/?p=1431


So who was that 'in particular' who offered to help him to get tutored?

Anonymous said...

Question for Mr. Mashey.

So, Nate Silver--who is a freak with numbers--is a genius when it comes to baseball, and political races, but he is "a bit confused" when it come to climate models? Do I understand you correctly? Because it makes no sense.

I m curious why you would think this. I've not yet read his book, but I will soon. But if you have them, could you give me the salient points which makes you think he is confused?

Because, frankly, he does not strike me as someone who gets confused often.

Thanks,

Greg Ridley

Anonymous said...

Gee, I guess the bird man is skeptical of Nate's abilities in the climate arena. Care to explain dho? I am genuinely curious.

Greg Ridley

Lotharsson said...

Sadly, Nate Silver had some input from at least one person who knows what he's talking about, and then wrote what he wrote about climate change anyway.

That person is distinctly unimpressed.

Lotharsson said...

Go read the whole thing (that last link I posted). It has some analysis suggesting some fundamental logic errors Nate made when it came to climate science.

As one example amongst several:

"When it came to areas like climate change well outside his own expertise, he to some extent fell into the same "one trick pony" trap that was the downfall of Levitt (and arguably others like Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point). That is, he repeatedly invokes the alluring, but fundamentally unsound, principle that simple ideas about forecasting and prediction from one field, like economics, can readily be appropriated and applied to completely different fields, without a solid grounding in the principles, assumptions, and methods of those fields."

John Mashey said...

See Dana Nuccitelli's detailed review.

Smart people (and I've been a 538 fan from 2008 onward) often get confused when they get outside their domain and over-generalize. I went into this in some detail at RC a few years ago, after observing the kinds of errors that people made who were used to some kind of modeling, but didn't understand the differences between their sorts of models and climate models. The problems vary by discipline - I gave examples from biochemistry, EE/software, EE/teacher, financial services.

See also RC on models (read first link first.)
In general, statistics models and physics models are not the same.

Hence, I used the term confused, because I don't think Nate is a contrarian, but a smart guy who just got outside his area of expertise, perhaps "helped" along by Armstrong, who you might read about here or as a Heartland Expert.

mike roddy said...

I suggest that Rush and friends all move to Texas. There is plenty of room there, and it's going to remain "socially conservative" for a long time. Then, we can decide to reinstate Texas' status as an independent country, and withdraw the statehood granted in 1845. There will be a few details- Austin residents will have to relocate, and the Abilene nuke plant will have to be shuttered- but it's worth a try. They'll need something to do with all of those guns, but if they decide to invade El Salvador that's their business. At least we won't have to deal with them.

mike roddy said...

I suggest that Rush and friends all move to Texas. There is plenty of room there, and it's going to remain "socially conservative" for a long time. Then, we can decide to reinstate Texas' status as an independent country, and withdraw the statehood granted in 1845. There will be a few details- Austin residents will have to relocate, and the Abilene nuke plant will have to be shuttered- but it's worth a try. They'll need something to do with all of those guns, but if they decide to invade El Salvador that's their business. At least we won't have to deal with them.

Sou said...

Apparently an awful lot of tweeters vowed to move to Australia if Obama was re-elected, including one young woman who thought our 'president' was a 'Christian'.

Might be worth letting them know a few more details about our lovely nation.

We don't have a president. Our three most senior leaders are women - namely our formal head of state who is the Queen (the English one), our Governor-General and our Prime Minister. Our unmarried Prime Minister (who is an atheist) has a partner who was a hairdresser (she met him at the salon at which he worked) before he became 'first man'.

Our Prime Minister also successfully introduced a price on carbon, which started in July this year.

Most of us live around the edges of the second driest continent after Antarctica. (Even so, we usually manage to shower once or twice each day provided there is enough water. Our cars and gardens aren't always as fortunate.)

It's second nature to watch out for venomous snakes whenever we go into the backyard (and occasionally find that the cat has brought one into the house). Our great Australian wave is not a greeting, it's us swatting away flies and mossies. Before going to bed at night we check for redback or maybe funnelweb spiders. (We don't mind the huntsmen - they are like pets.)

Just the same, we're a multicultural pluralist society and do have some tea party types. They put on their best cardigans, pack up their walkers and hire a bus to attend Lord Monckton's circus when it comes to town.

willard said...

Some might suggest Somalia.

J Bowers said...

Sou - "including one young woman who thought our 'president' was a 'Christian'."

That's because there's a fake interweb and email claim out saying Julia Gillard told Muslims were to go and Oz is a christian nation. It was actually a TeePartee asshat's rant which "mysteriously" became attributed to her.

Anonymous said...

If the American public are now taking baseball/political prognosticators like Nate Silver seriously on climate science, our country is even more screwed (and stupid) than I thought.

But, hey, as Tina Turner liked to sing,

"What's physics got to do got to do with it? What's physics but a second hand and motion?"

We're done for.

~@:>

Anonymous said...

Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.

@snow bunny

I said ballot iniative. Of course I know that state legislature's have approved it, usually in the face of majority opposition. But please, post your mistake on facebook and make a fool out of yourself.

EliRabett said...

SB The picture is a jpg in the Blogger cache and should be copyable from there.

EliRabett said...

The problem with applying Nate Silver's modeling techniques to climate is that climate is constrained by physics and statistics is not. See Andy Lacis somewhere or other. It's not even second law stuff but basic conservation of energy

Hank Roberts said...

I read a lot but I'd missed all mentions of Nate Silver's book, let alone his climate chapter errors, til yesterday. Good pointers on that above -- worth a topic heading gathering them together somewhere.

Maybe he's got an editor who'd listen if he goes to another printing or edition.

Anonymous said...

I would recommend Paraguay for the weeping Republicans. Abortion is illegal, everyone owns guns, nobody pays taxes, and Government is small enough to strangle in a bathtub. They don’t speak English but if you just talk louder and wave your hands a bunch I’m sure they will eventually understand you.

-Dirt Girl

Rattus Norvegicus said...

And the last word on the Romney campaign.

Anonymous said...

All due respect, I am not impressed with those answers. In particular, Loths appeal to Mann's authority. Mann is not a statistician. In fact, I would say he is not particularly strong in that department which is one of his downfalls.

I just find it odd that Silver is considered the best at what he does--crunch numbers--yet doesn't "get it" when it comes to climate models which are exactly what he excels at. Math and models. Physics becomes numbers in models. So why is he so inept? Why is this the area where he misses it?

I have followed Silver since before 2008. I followed him during this election and pointed many his way. I find it odd that he is soooooo right with all the other things he does, but doesn't "get" climate modelling.

Mann says he's wrong so he is? If you say so.

Greg Ridley

EliRabett said...

You are missing the point Greg, Nate Silver is great at statistical modeling. In his models the trends are not constrained by the physics. Climate models are not statistical models but physical ones which are constrained.

Anonymous said...

Greg, the really big statistical point in all this discussion about Silver is that he works on Bayesian principles. As soon as you claim that in relation to climate, you have no option but to get a handle on the physics involved. It's not at all like the human decision type problems in economics or politics where you look only at numbers. You must, must, must take account of the physical principles governing climate.

Using the approach he took, he finished up with the same kind of elementary errors as a lot of amateurs, not just the professional deniers. That's why Mann and several other Silver admirers are so disappointed. Silver thought he was applying the correct approach, but he fell at the first hurdle.

MinniesMum

Anonymous said...

Ah, but Australia is over 93% white. That's the main thing we want in a country, if we'd just be honest with ourselves. The politics don't really matter, but the demographics do. Australia is perhaps the last large white nation left on Earth, other than Russia.

Brian said...

Maybe the knowledgeable people can tell me if this demonstrates Silver's mistake:

Say you have a reasonably deep lake. You've taken a small number of readings of the temps at lake bottom, ranging from 1C to 3C. The scientist says that the lake bottom will not drop below 0C, while Nate says it could - the small number of data points leaves an uncertainty that could take it well below 0C.

How's that?

John Mashey said...

Matt Ridley:
'Mann is not a statistician. In fact, I would say he is not particularly strong in that department which is one of his downfalls.'

So, who's a good statistician?

Lotharsson said...

"All due respect, I am not impressed with those answers.

OK, so presumably you have good reasons?

"In particular, Loths appeal to Mann's authority."

Hmmm, I'm not appealing to Mann's authority. I'm relaying his informed arguments. I haven't seen you respond to those yet, other than to argue you're not impressed for dubious reasons.

"Mann is not a statistician. In fact, I would say he is not particularly strong in that department which is one of his downfalls."

Er, say what? You're not impressed by critiques of statistician Nate Silver's comments on climate science because Mann isn't a statistician? That does not follow!

"I just find it odd that Silver is considered the best at what he does--crunch numbers--yet doesn't "get it" when it comes to climate models which are exactly what he excels at. Math and models."

Well, you and others find it odd, but that doesn't mean the oddness is incorrect.

All models are not alike as John Mashey points out above, and hence all modeling expertise is not fungible to different types of models. In particular Nate's expertise at polling-based models does NOT translate into expertise at physics-based models, no matter how confidently Nate or anyone else asserts that it does.

Lloyd Flack said...

Another more accurat version of what Eli posted

So Obama won and you're moving to
Australia
Compulsory voting
Universal healthcare
Strict gun control
Evolution taught as fact in schools
A tax on carbon dioxide
Medical abortions supported by law
No death penalties
A ban on nuclear weapons
Strong regulation of banks and money markets
Compulsory superannuation contributions
Freedom of speech not enshrined in law

WELCOME!

Anonymous said...

"Notstradamus"

-- by Horatio Algeranon

Natestradamus
Nails elections,
But on the climate
Peddles fictions

J Bowers said...

Realising Australia and Canada have weevil universal healthcare, Boehner and McConnell have decided it's time to push the USA over that cliff and double down on obstructionism. Wankers.

dhogaza said...

"Then, we can decide to reinstate Texas' status as an independent country, and withdraw the statehood granted in 1845."

Even easier, we can just simply retroactively agree to their secession at the beginning of the civil war ...

dhogaza said...

Greg Ridley:

"In particular, Loths appeal to Mann's authority. Mann is not a statistician. In fact, I would say he is not particularly strong in that department which is one of his downfalls."

"downfalls"? The Mann's had an extremely successful career, has garnered numerous rewards, is highly respected within his field, and you speak of "downfalls"? That's pretty hilarious.

Don't bother bringing up McI.

Regarding Silver, he may be a fine statistician, but he seems to miss the fact that Hansen's 1988 predictions ran a bit warm because it incorporated an estimated climate sensitivity of 4.2C. Missing this is not a statistical error on Silver's fault, it is a basic failure to understand the model he has criticized. Most likely because he got it from a denialist who is a marketing guy not interested in telling the truth.

Today's accepted most-likely range for sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is about 3C, and the projections we see today that scare reasonable people are based on that. Not 4.2C. That's a big miss on Silver's part.

David B. Benson said...

dhogaza --- Check the latest press relase from NCAR.

J Bowers said...

@ David Benson, is that:

Future warming likely to be on high side of climate projections, analysis finds

J Bowers said...

Gary Younge's piece in the Grauniad is well worth a read:

After Obama's re-election, liberals need to drop the blind devotion

It's time for progressives to stop fawning over the president and start following his example by pushing for change

susan said...

It is sad that so many people with large expertise, even within physics, are unwilling to acknowledge their limitations. Nate Silver is just the last in a long line of people who know a lot, just not enough, and are unwilling to say so. It's so much easier for us amateurs to be humble.

David B. Benson said...

J Bowers --- You got it.

dhogaza said...

David Bensen ... yeah, more scarier.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I have to say that I have little patience with the progressives who say Obama is worse than Bush. Although the Electoral college vote was lopsided, many of the wins in swing states were by the thinnest of margins.

Obama did what an incumbent President must--count to 270. He took some significant risks--including ending DADT, refusing to support DOMA and explicitly supporting marriage equality. These could have suppressed African American voter turnout and cost him the election. It is easy to armchair quarterback. It is quite another thing to try to steer an unweildy and balky ship of state through the narrow shoals offered by a 50/50 electorate.