Posted by Dave4Liberty on 02/23/09

One of the common counter-arguements I see claiming that global temperature change is simply random weather change. Those who believe the Earth is warming often try to discover the cause and a scientific theory that confirms that believe. But is there a way to confirm or disconfirm whether an event is simply random? The answer is yes. Mathematicians (and probably a lot of lay-folk) know of a little thing called "random clusters". Of course, you need to have more than just heard about it to be able to determine if a set of data is random or not, but there is a science to it that is reliable and often used in forensic investigation of data.

The problem we hit with many areas of science (cancer research, psychoactive drugs, and especially global warming) is the science is corrupted by the funding. But this time, rather than repeating various theories I've heard from various scientists, I've decided to analyze the data myself in a rational manner that requires no funding. Anyone can (and everyone is invited) to confirm my findings by doing just a little bit of reading on probability and random clustering to learn how to do this on your own. I've provided some links at the end of this blog to get you started.

So is global temperature change random? The answer is No, and thankfully so. Read up on 'Gambler's Ruin' problem if you are unfamiliar with it. The mathematics behind that demonstrate quite clearly that if global temperature change were truly random, we'd eventually one day find the Earth either too warm or too cold to support life. We're talking a 40 degree change in global temperature within tens of thousands of years. Fossile evidence seems to indicate life has existed on Earth much, much longer than that. Random change is absolutely out.

The reason we're still here is because the net force of nature is keeping the global climate in check. In going through the data, the first thing I did was determine each year whether the average global temperature was up or down from the previous year. The data I found spanned 125 years--from 1880 to 2004. Since I had no data from before 1880, I couldn't tell if 1880 was an "up" or a "down" year, so that left me with 124 data points to work with. Of those, 4 times the temperature stayed the same (within one hundredth of a degree C). 64 years the temperature was up from the previous year versus 56 years the temperature being down from the previous year.

This seems to suggest a slight trend towards warming until a little common sense is invoked with a low-cost experiment to confirm. Flip a coin 120 times. The expected result would be to score 60 heads and 60 tails, however the chances of getting exactly 60 of each are much less likely than there being some small deviation (which leads into standard deviations). The point is a 64/56 split doesn't really tell you anything about the trends.

Next, I measured how much the temperature changed each year. On the "up" years, the average temperature change over my data set was about 0.12 C. The average change on the "down" years was about 0.14 C. So even though up years were more common in this data set, the magnitude was greater in the down years. What astonished me is that the magnitude to which higher temperature change was favored in the "down"  years is a very close match to the magnitude in which a temperature change "up" is favored compared to a temperature change "down". Again, we should be thankful of nature's powerful ability of self-correction.

Finally, I'd like to get back to the random clusters I alluded to earlier. In a data set like this, we should expect to find about 7 occurances of "streaks" of 4 or more consecutive years of temperature change in the same direction (either up or down). It turns out there are zero. Although there might be one, and the reason I'm unsure is because of the precision of the measurements involved.

There was one year the temperature remained the same from the previous sandwiched in between two "up" streaks. If this year was technically hotter than the year before (by say, one thousandth of a degree C), this would make for an unusual 6-year streak in the up direction. Evidence of a strain on the ecosystem? Perhaps. But the global warming crowd shouldn't pop their champaign bottles yet. That streak occured between 1892 and 1897. If it means anything at all, it means we have a stronger, more stable ecosystem than ever.

In fact, from 1891 to 1897, the earth saw a climb in global temperaturs of .55 C--the same exact amount in the same-length period (1992 to 1998) leading up to the hottest year in recorded history. Could it be that our "carbon footprint" or release of other greenhouse gases is the same now as it was 100 years ago? I don't think that's what Al Gore is saying. Actually, he seems to be saying the exact opposite.

Of course, the sticky point of statistical analysis is you're never 100 percent sure, and I've always maintained that the 130 years we've now been recording global temperatures simply is not enough information to be conclusive about anything. We would need another 800 years to get us beyond any reasonable doubt. But what disturbs me most is that the so-called scientific research invested into global climate change has failed in the most basic aspects of scientific method. A random "coin-flipping" model of global temperatures like I've presented here is at the very least required for comparison as a placebo-like group. Without it, there is no science, no matter how white the lab coats.

What I've seen here suggests a stable ecosystem. What those who predict dire consequences of global climate change suggest is instability. Randomness indicates neutral stability. What we need to look out for over the next 100 or so years is an increase in "streaks" of temperature change in the same direction. Combined with a 7-year climate change streak over the next 100 years would make for a warning that we've transitioned into a neutral stability. We'd still be far off from the gloom-and-doom scenario of run-away greenhouse gases, but for reasons I cited earlier, 10,000 years of "neutral" stability isn't something we really want.

Average Global Temperature Data:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Ice/Ice_data.htm

(Interesting to note that this web site supports the climate change theory, and the very first indicator listed on the page is decline in Arctic Sea Ice--this information is dated, currently Arctic Sea Ice is back to the levels it was at in the 70's.)

Wikipedia Entry for Random Walk--includes Gamblers' Ruin 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_walk

An elementary school experiment on random clustering

http://www.abc.net.au/science/surfingscientist/pdf/lesson_plan19.pdf

Posted by Dave4Liberty on 02/17/09

This blog is in response to the comments from another C4L blog found here:

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/wire.php?view=2756

I've heard a lot of different scientific theories that don't fit into the mainstream. One in particular that caught my attention was a radio interview I heard with a physicist discussing hyper-dimensional physics. He offers an alternative theory to global warming, not denying that it exists, but certain that it is not caused by man-made polution.

As a bit of background on the subject, the main theory behind hyperdimensional physics is that all forces in the universe are the result of geometry of higher spatial dimensions. It springs out of a continuation of Einstein's quest for a unified field theory and it turns out, indeed, that many theories of science do unify in higher spatial dimensions.

The scientist in this radio interview believes (as I understand it) that the force of spin (as in the rotating of planets) is caused by the geometries of a hyper-dimensional hexagon, that energy is traveling through hyperspace to the center of planets and then in turn being deflected outwards according to the geometric properties of a hexagon inscribed within the planet.

Three pieces of evidence he believes supports this theory:

1) That if you imagined a 3-dimensional projection of the hyper-dimensional hexagon inscribed in a planet, the points would touch the surface at around the 19.5 longitude marks as well as at the poles. Throughout our solar system, the largest, most active volcanoes of each planet tend to be found at that longitude.

2) A peculiar storm formation at the north pole of Saturn that has showed up on satellite images taken decades apart. It is a huge formation that is apparently permanant and in the shape of a perfect hexagon.

3) Although global temperatures are cyclical, there is an overall trend towards warming on Earth, but that same trend is present on other planets. While global temperatures do seem to correlate with sunspot cycles, it doesn't make sense for, say, Pluto to be so affected since three times of the energy on Pluto comes from within the planet rather than from the sun.

It's this last point that I find extremely interesting. If the other planets are experiencing the same Global Warming as Earth, that seems to rule out the possibility that life on Earth has anything to with climate change--unless there's a good explanation why Americans driving SUV's causes Global Warming on Mars.

My dilema here, though, is I have no idea who this guy is or why I should believe him. I can't find the climate change data from other planets. If there is any legitimate science behind climate change on Earth, the data would have to exist. Basic scientific method--if you want to see whether or not man is affecting global climate, you need to compare to a control group--planets without humans. The data is either being hidden from the general public or it simply doesn't exist. Either way, until I see the data for myself, I can only conclude that climate change theories are political and not scientific.

*I wrote a separate blog as a sidebar regarding credentials.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=11151

Even if every scientist in the world were to agree on the topic, I'd still want to see the data for myself.

Posted by Dave4Liberty on 02/16/09

The main focus of my "higher education" has been in mathematics, although since graduating college, I've been an independent learner across a broad array of topics. While in college, I experienced first hand how different students are from one another--in terms of study habits, intelligence, extra-curricular interests, critical thinking, and thinking truly freely. And yet we all graduate with the same piece of paper. One of my math teachers once told me that, statistically speaking, 50% of all doctors graduate in the lower half of their class. I've shocked a lot of people by repeating that gem.

Heck, I could even scale this back to an experience I had in highschool. History used to be my weak point--I'm a lot better at it now that I study it by choice rather than force. But at one point in highschool I made a vow to put more effort into my history class. The way the class worked is, teacher would give a list of terms from the chapter that would be on the test the following week, and the students would just study those terms and thus have no problem acing the exam. As per my vow, I instead opted to actually read the chapter.

One day, teacher made a little mistake. He forgot to give us one of the terms that would be on the test. Everyone in the class got that question on the test wrong because, naturally, they didn't study that particular term. They still did pretty well. I, however, was the only one who flunked the test since I didn't study the terms at all. I was also the only one who got that one question right. And when the tests were handed back, the other students wanted to know if anyone in the class got that question right. The teacher realized the only one who did was the only one who failed the test, and so he asked me how I knew the answer, and I responded, "I read the chapter."

In that instance, it became pretty clear that the system doesn't work. If my grades in highschool affected which college I could attend, and the college I graduated from affected which job I could get, and that job affected how credible a source I was, and that the foundation of all these credentials, then credentials don't mean squat. And if credentials don't mean squat, then who do you believe? Who do you listen to? I think the answers are yourself and everyone respectively. Listen to everyone and try to see things from many points of views, but believe in yourself--look at the evidence first hand and decide for yourself.

I'll end with a bit of evidence that is not so anecdotal. There's a book I'm currently reading, "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives" by Leonard Mlodinow. I personally wish it were a little more technical and in-depth, but it's written to be comprehendable by anyone. One important idea it discusses is that performance, of course, is not consistent. We all have good days and bad days. As a consequence, if one were to work at something for an arbitrarily lengthy period of time (say 10 years), even if you're terrible at it, you're bound to get lucky at some point during that time and accomplish something worthy of recognition.

This means two things. First, a person with a reputation for being a total idiot might actually be right about something, and secondly, a person who has done ground-breaking work or research in a particular field just might be, in all actuality, a total idiot. Thus it is always important to evaluate the message, not the messenger. We can see that quite clearly as our Democratic President pushes the same policies as our previous Republican President.

Posted by Dave4Liberty on 02/11/09

The Most Favored Customer clause is known by several names, but it's common in business-to-business contracts. It's essentially a guarantee of getting the best price. If another customer manages to negotiate a lower price, you also get that lower price if you've got a Most Favored Customer clause in your contract. If you're a buyer, this seems like a good way to pay less, however the actual effect of an MFC is a price increase!

To understand why consider the simple case of a customer walking into a store. The customer is interested in an item, but wants a much lower price than the store owner is asking. If the store owner doesn't give the customer a better price, the store owner will not profit, since the customer can just leave without buying anything. In this sort of bargaining situation is a game the seller can never win.

What if, on the other hand, the store owner had MFC agreements with most of his customers? Now this one potential buyer walks in demanding a better price, but the seller realizes that if he gives the buyer a lower price then he must give all of his customers that same lower price, and that means the seller loses less money by losing the business of one customer rather than cutting into the profits from all customers. In this sort of bargaining situation, it is a game the buyer can never win.

Some businesses realize the counter-intuitive effect of the MFC clause, and others don't. Those that do sometimes still use it anyway. For example, in the US today there's really only one supplier of industrial baking pans. Bakeries willingly accept an MFC, knowing full well it will cause their costs to rise simply because no bakery can afford to be at a competitive disadvantage with another bakery who managed to negotiate a better deal. In this way, the MFC is mutually beneficial to buyer and seller. Similarly, purchasing agents tend to favor MFCs even when they may not be in the best interest of their clients simply because if a competing purchasing agent gets a better price, it might look like the one who didn't get the best price is incompetent.

So how does this apply to our government? Just like a purchasing agent is willing to harm the client in the long haul to avoid seeming incompetent and thus securing his job, our elected officials must answer to us at the polls and need to avoid seeming incompetent. This makes them prone to legislating in ways that resemble MFC. US Congress has done this numerous times over the past 2 decades with prescription drugs. Most of us are aware what's happened to drug costs over the course of those years.

The important thing to keep in mind here is that even with honest, enlightened politicians, and even with a watchful, informed public, MFC-type legislation is the natural course of things in politics. It isn't about corruption in government or the political machine or liberalism or conservatism or even about a democracy vs a republic. It is simply a fact of nature that there are things in which a democratically elected government must not be allowed to meddle. The prosperity of the people, and therefore the preservation of democracy depend on this restraint.

Posted by Dave4Liberty on 02/10/09
Last updated 02/10/09

http://news.aol.com/article/girl-starves-to-death/336192?icid=200100397x12181891
81x1201235486

(Feb. 9) - An 8-year-old British girl who was terrified of dentists starved to death because she refused to eat after all her baby teeth were extracted, an inquest was told Monday.

British media reported Sophie Waller died Dec. 2 in her home in St. Dennis, Cornwall, in southwestern England. A pathologist told the inquest in Truro, Cornwall, that the girl died of acute kidney failure caused by dehydration and starvation, the BBC News said.
Skip over this content

Sophie developed a fear of dentists as a 4-year-old when a dentist accidentally cut her tongue during a check-up, the inquest was told, according to the Daily Mail.

Four years later, she cracked a tooth on a candy but refused to go to the dentist. After she would not eat for three days, she was admitted to a hospital, where doctors removed all of her baby teeth.

Sophie's parents, Janet and Richard Waller, insisted they only gave consent for one tooth to be pulled, not eight.

"She didn't like dentists already so she was very freaked out. She had blood running all down her face. The poor girl was devastated," Janet Waller said.

Sophie was discharged from the hospital in Nov. 17 but thereafter refused to eat solid food, the Times of London said. Her parents said they could get her to swallow only small amounts of yogurt and mashed fruit.

The Wallers said they called the hospital on Nov. 28 but was told Sophie could not be readmitted. Instead they were told to contact a community child psychologist who had been assigned to the case, and the psychologist told them not to worry. Sophie's parents said they talked to their regular family doctor once over the phone, but no medical practitioner ever saw the child.

"No one saw her after she was discharged from hospital. I told [the child psychologist] she was sucking on a watermelon, she told me that was enough for her to survive on," Janet Waller said. 'I asked her to come round and see her but she kept saying there is nothing to worry about and I'll come next week."

"This could have easily been avoided, if we could have just gone to the hospital," Sophie's father said.

Posted 02/10/09 Dave4Liberty Fall River, MA

The part that gets me is this, "The Wallers said they called the hospital on Nov. 28 but was told Sophie could not be readmitted." Is socialized medicine to blame in this?

Posted 02/10/09 Andrew Sica Woodbury, CT

In a word, yes. I don't know how I'd react if the hospital did this to my child - but given the legislation the U.N. has pushed with regards to children and families, the government has more power in Europe than the wishes of the family. Not to mention that the strict government control over the healthcare system and the complete lack of rights you have as a consumer of that system. And people want this HERE? Actually, I was lying before. I do know how I would react if this was my child in the article - but I won't put it in writing here as I don't feel like having the FBI at my door.

Posted 02/10/09 Heather D Port Byron, IL

Coming soon to a state near you... This is absolutely insane. Pulling EIGHT teeth when one is chipped? Then they refuse to see or readmit her..... Contained in the spendulous bill that just passed the senate, there is a provision for the govt to determine your healthcare, as depicted in a new post on the home page. This sort of scenario WILL happen here, very soon.

Posted 02/10/09 Fu Manchu Belleville, MI

Not on our watch Heather! Andrew I'm with you!