On Fri, 16 Dec 2016 15:54:18 -0800 (PST),
cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>What I find curious is that ANYONE that has worked in science knows
>that if you get 10 scientists in a room and ask a single question
>you will get 10 different answers.
You'll probably get 20 more answers. Each scientist will offer 2 or
more answers to any questions, leaving the person asking the question
with the responsibility of selecting the correct answer. Lawyers do
the same thing when asked for legal guidance.
Scientists also have the bad habit of answering questions with another
question. Infinite clarification is a good way to give them time to
think, or wiggle room if they don't have a clue as to the correct
answer. For example, you can ask your 10 scientists "does the sun set
in the east or west" and you'll get questions like "on what planet" or
"what about very high and low latitudes"? This again leaves the
person asking the question with the responsibility of digging through
the intentional muddle to produce a usable answer.
Of course, the best answer to any question is to admit ignorance and
proclaim "more research is necessary" which tends to attract more
research grants that eventually produce more confusion.
Where do these 10 scientists get their research funding? Most likely,
it's from 10 different sources, all with wildly different and highly
polarized points of view on almost any topic imaginable. This is the
real reason why you'll get 10 different answers. Any scientist
capable of independent thought cannot be trusted and will soon
disappear soon after his funding and sponsors evaporate. Rather than
contradict the position of their sponsors, many scientists swallow
their pride, pocket the money, and publicly proclaim one position,
while privately offering a very different position.
Might as well throw in preconceived opinions, prejudice, and bias.
Despite claims that the scientific method helps reduce these to
insignificance, they're still around. If you analyzer why a
particular scientist offered some specific opinion, the motivation
might be something quite unscientific. For example, he might want to
leave the meeting early and selected the fastest possible answer. He
may have applied for funding from some organization and would be
expected to support their position. He may be writing a book and
wants to generate press coverage. He may be having a war with a
colleague and would never consider agreeing with them. He may be
trying to steal someone else's research or hint that he discovered it
first. Lots of reasons, none of which are scientific.
>And in all likelihood ALL will be wrong.
Yep. The current fashion in AGW research is to average all the
research to produce the "right" numbers on the assumption that all the
errors will cancel by averaging. That's like taking all the wrong
answers together, mixing well, and producing the "right" answer.
Amazingly, that does work for some things, but also tends to produce
some wildly erroneous garbage for other things.
Drivel: It's quite easy to force projections to go in any desired
direction and at any rate. In 2007, I graphed local historical
rainfall data to determine if there was a trend in rainfall. We were
experiencing a drought:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-06.jpg>
Using a high order polynomial projections, I can make the trend curve
increase if odd, or decrease if even (without changing any of the data
points). Want a Mann style dog leg? No problem. However, if that's
too radical or obvious, here's lower order projections, which are
easier to swallow and miss:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall-forecast.jpg>
If you want to play with the original spreadsheets, they're in:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/>
Incidentally, you can see the Dust Bowl years in California on this
graph of the same data:
<
http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/slv-wx/SLV-rainfall.jpg>
Notice the drop in rainfall during the 1930's (orange line = 11 year
running average).
--
Jeff Liebermann
je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060
http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS
831-336-2558