Saturday, June 5, 2010

Climate denial?


Previous blog entries related to climate:

More on climate - Jan 31st, 2010
Climate change and doubt - Jan 24th, 2010
Meet Dr. Rajendra Pachuri - Jan 23rd, 2010
We wuz wrong - Jan 23rd, 2010Saving the day... - Dec 20th, 2009
Skimmed milk masquerades as cream - Dec 17, 2009

The article Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics" discusses "... What factors would distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" - who has honest questions about the HGCC consensus - from members of a Denier Movement who think a winter snowstorm means there's no net-warming of the planet? ..." and does a great job looking how each group responds to factors such as: differing notions of expertise; the presence (or lack of) humility; an understanding of 'Cui bono?'; etc.

The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism is another article that relates to this subject. It "... defines denialism as "the employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance of legitimate debate where there is none, an approach that has the ultimate goal of rejecting a proposition on which a scientific consensus exists". They go on to identify 5 characteristics common to most forms of denialism ..." which are: conspiracy theories, fake experts, cherry-picking, impossible expectations of what research can deliver, and misrepresentation and logical fallacies. A good article, even if it would seem to imply that these are tactics that only are deployed by the one (negative, denialist) side of the argument...

Hmm, what's a layperson to make of all this? The more he reads the more this blogger's head hurts. It’s the Sun, stupid claims that "... solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid..." (which does not coincide with the IPCC position). Aah, the pain.

Then Huge CO2 `Burps’ from Oceans May Have Contributed to End of Last Ice Age suggests that "... scientists concluded that CO2 would build up over thousands of years in the deep ocean, and then periodically be released into the atmosphere in a large “burp.” These CO2 pulses were massive, roughly equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning since the industrial revolution..." and "... that the CO2 “burps” — coupled with the warming and cooling of the Earth driven by changes in the planet’s orbit around the sun — may have played an important role in past cycles of glaciation and deglaciation..." So, now we need to factor in planetary orbits and the possibility that the oceans will regurgitate all the carbon dioxide they have stored since the "burp" at the end of the last ice age? Presumably were this to happen this would dwarf current emissions even were the countries of the world to agree upon and implement massive cuts in emissions? What does this do to the calculus?

Next up, Global Warming: How to approach the science which appears to be very skeptical, especially about the forcings and feedbacks that are claimed to account for most warming. "A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain... The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments..."

It really doesn't help the layperson that most reporting is incredibly shoddy, and that good articles that treat the subject fairly and comprehensively are few and far between. There are a few exceptions, and two are below - Der Spiegel's 8-part account of the recent "crisis", and The Economist's observation that "... There are lots of uncertainties in climate science. But that does not mean it is fundamentally wrong."

Climate Catastrophe: A superstorm for global warming research
The science of climate change: The clouds of unknowing

Friday, June 4, 2010

Great quotes


“You could smuggle one into the States in a bale of marijuana.” - Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) on the danger posed to the U.S. if Iran were to develop nuclear weapons! Along with other miscellaneous stupidities

"Say what?" moment...

Via The Huffington Post we hear that BP "... has not only created the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history, it's trying to manipulate and control the news ..." The story, headlined 'BP Using Google To Manipulate Public Opinion, first dings BP for initially trying to get workers to sign contracts with "gag" clauses. It's right here, even though this is old news and BP quickly pulled back after a barrage of well-deserved criticism.

It then goes on to the real 'outrage.' "... Even more important, BP is using paid search to influence public opinion as people look for information about the oil spill and its consequences. Just Google any of the common search terms related to the disaster and what pops up first? BP. Since this catastrophe is one of the hot search topics of the year, you can imagine what BP is paying for the privilege of elbowing out other news and opinion sites that would normally buy at least one of these terms. But money talks--and oil money, as slippery as it may be, talks louder than most ..."

The author quotes some "search marketing" person, who says this BP tactic "... is very effective, because BP gets its message, 'Learn more about how BP is helping' atop almost every Google search permutation related to the spill, and effectively blocks non-profits (with much smaller pockets) from getting their message across."


Wow, BP using its ill-gotten gains and financial muscle to stifle criticism and muzzle the poor non-profits... Those dastardly, oil-spilling, money-swilling, louts. Which leads us to the "say what?" moment. Below is a screen shot of the results of a Google search on the words oil spill:


Sure enough, BP's sponsored link, clearly marked as such, comes out on top (see the yellow-highlighted section). But in no way does it "effectively block" either sponsored links by other non-profits, or links to other (possibly critical) stories. We clearly see that of eight other sponsored links (highlighted in green), six are from the aforementioned 'smaller pocketed' non-profits. And then we have 65 pages of links (part of page one highlighted in pink) to stories on the oil spill.

What irremediable tripe! What total codswallop! The person who wrote this should be hooted off stage, while the "publication" that saw fit to "publish" this ought to be ashamed. However, since this aligns with the mood of the day it is taken as worthy "news." In reality, set beside the magnitude of the spill and the effect that it will have on the environment (possibly for decades), drumming up "outrage" about a Google sponsored link by BP is so ridiculously off-target that it almost makes this blogger think that the writer might be a BP mole trying to muddy the waters (sorry, bad pun). On brief reflection, and applying Occam's Razor, it probably just is a manifestation of stupidity...

Thursday, June 3, 2010

Misc barcode updates...

Previous barcode-related blog entries:
Barcode happiness - II - Apr 11th, 2010
Barcode happiness - I - Apr 11th, 2010
Misc update - Jan 30th, 2010
Barcode update - Dec 29th, 2009
No luck - Dec 15th, 2009
QR codes to hit the U.S.? - Dec 13th, 2009
Misc. update (BB/2D barcodes) - Aug 22nd, 2009
QR update - May 19th, 2009
BB & 2D barcodes - Apr 21st, 2009

I. Verizon Wireless hooks up with ScanBuy to tout its ScanLife reader software... "...Verizon Wireless said today its customers can get one-click access to product information, including application downloads, consumer reviews and more, using ScanLife, a free downloadable app found on more than 30 devices. The new technology from Scanbuy, Inc. makes it easier than ever for customers to access information by using their camera phones to take pictures or scan barcodes on certain products. The app reads two-dimensional barcodes commonly found in magazines, outdoor advertising and UPC codes found on product packaging..."

See: Free 2D barcode pleasure for Verizon Wireless customers


II. AccuLink, a marketing and technology company, touts its "Mobile Marketing" which leverages its customers' / consumers' mobile phones and 2D QR codes to enhance marketing communications. It also provides an online B2vCard application, "... turns your business card into a vCard, no typing required! B2vCard combines your personal business card into a unique 2D Barcode that, when scanned by a mobile device, transfers your contact information to the device's address book ..." Fill out your details online and get business cards with a QR code. When you pass this out the recipient can take a picture of the code (assuming of course that they have ScanLife or another QR-reading application installed on their smartphone), and presto, the vcard is on their phone and populates an entry in their contacts... (Note: in actuality the QR code points the reader to a link with the vcard, this so that if you have a change in information e.g. e-mail address, you can update your on-line profile without having to pay to print a new batch of cards...)