| Tuesday, January
18, 2005 Jerry,
If you haven't read them "Bugles and a Tiger" and "The
Road Past Mandalay", by John Masters, are very worth it. These
autobiographical works detail his experiences as a young officer in India
and in Southeast Asia during WW II. I read these when I was about 15 and
recently took the trouble (alibris.com is your friend) to find copies of
these out of print books. Lots of amazing Gurkha stories. I would never,
ever pick a fight with the Gurkhas!
Chuck Bouldin
I have read those works and some others, and I
agree entirely.
==============
Subject: Climate Modeling
Jerry,
I followed the discussion of climate modeling with
interest, as I have done some work in this area myself. Unfortunately I
don't have the experience of the first writer, so my comments are tempered
by my lack of experience. I've worked on a climate model of Mars with the
hope of coming from first principles and not making any assumptions. This is
very difficult to do, and to the best of my knowledge isn't done with
regularity.
In fact, when I was doing my initial research, not one
paper had a first principles, no assumptions type model. Modelers have a
tendency to put their assumptions into their mathematical model. For
example, Mars models do not handle the polar ice caps very well. Granted
these are mostly 2-D models and aren't Global Circulation Models (GCM), but
there are serious computation concerns with respect to GCM's. The vast
majority of climate models that I have seen are 2-D models (that is, the
planet being modeled is divided up into latitudinal zones). Artificial
pinning of the temperature and pressure due to the polar caps is not
sufficient to answer climate questions. Unfortunately, this is even done in
Earth based models.
There are people who are doing good work. I've read
some of Dr. Schmidt's papers. They are very well written. I know that there
are people who would be considered "Snake Oil sellers" in another period,
but that is not the majority of this field. As in most cases, the loudest
members of a group are usually the least reputable. The actions and
abilities of some cannot affect the majority. Just might be something to
think about in the future.
Erik Carlstrom
===== "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but
'That's funny...' - Isaac Asimov "
My concerns are not with the integrity of
most scientists, but with their unwillingness to step up and say "Wait a
minute" when the snake oil salesmen proclaim as "established consensus"
theories that aren't all that consensual and certainly aren't all that
well established. Tub thumping for one's own branch of research in
an era of grants is inevitable, although we might want to rethink a
system of resource allocation that rewards that kind of thing; but when
that all leads to political monstrosities like the Kyoto accords, and
the visible product of it all is highly expensive conference in Rio and
Kyoto to be paid for by tax money, may I be permitted some doubts?
The models aren't very good yet; not good
enough to base highly expensive "remedies" on. We need to know more. I'd be
way in favor of more money for data gathering. Meteorology was transformed
by knowing more about the weather: satellites, but also simple linkage of
data gathering systems. More thermometers and wind gauges all linked
together and computer nets to assimilate all that. I dare say climatology
could benefit from a lot more data and fewer policy predictions.
Subject: perspective of a climate scientist
Dear Dr. Pournelle,
Although the climate discussion is winding down, I
thought it would be useful to offer my perspective as a working climate
scientist (
http://meteora.ucsd.edu/~jnorris ). I'll try to keep it short, or at
least shorter than what I otherwise could say.
One limitation of doing research on climate is that it
is not an experimental science, i.e., we can't test hypotheses by controlled
and reproducible experiments because the Earth is too large and the time
scales are too long. Instead we must rely on observations and theory (I
consider climate models to fall under "theory"). Concerning observations, it
is important to keep in mind that very few of the observing systems from
which we obtain our climate records were actually designed for monitoring
climate (this is true both for surface and satellite measurements). Many
changes in instrumentation, sampling times and locations, etc., have
introduced discontinuities into these records, and while this does not mean
they are useless, it does mean careful processing is required, and even with
that, the interpretation of climate records can be ambiguous.
My particular area of research is cloudiness, and I am
currently working with satellite and surface cloud data to determine how
cloud properties have changed over the past several decades. I have more
confidence where I find agreement between independent data, but that does
not completely exclude the possibility of coincidental errors. I've also
found areas of disagreement that could indicate problems in one or more
cloud datasets, but since the surface and satellite systems are not
measuring the exact same thing, disagreement could also indicate something
more complex is going on. As you can see, it's an inexact science.
Progress is often slow in deterring which climate
records are accurate and what they actually mean, and there will never be
complete, perfect, and obvious agreement about climate change.
Someone who believes global warming will be
catastrophic will always be able to cite some climate record that supports
his or her view, and someone who believes global warming is a fraud will
always be able to cite some different record. Thus, there will always be
room for doubt.
If you ask me what I think of global warming, all I
can do is offer my professional judgment with some necessary caveats. While
I understand your apprehension about the "I'm the expert" argument, it's not
clear to me how a person such as I can avoid arguing from expertise. The
"consensus view" is simply the average professional judgment of the majority
of scientists. In the area of weather prediction, the "consensus" forecast
is almost always better in the long run than individual forecasts, but even
the "consensus" forecast has big failures sometimes. Perhaps that can be a
lesson for how to approach the issue of global warming.
Well there's much more I can say on this topic,
especially concerning climate models, but I'll leave it at this.
Joel Norris
And my point, which everyone seems
determined to miss, is purely Bayesian: given the uncertainty of the
predictions, and the huge costs of the remedies, a simple Bayesian analysis
indicates that we are better off spending money now to reduce uncertainties
rather than spending money now on remedies. That's all I have been saying
for a long time.
There are uncertainties in the
predictions. The models are a lot less than perfect. The data we have are
ambiguous. While there is evidence for some warming, there isn't as much as
predicted, and the causes of what we see aren't uniquely determined. We have
a very good idea of the economic costs of Kyoto, and very little idea of the
climatic benefits if any.
Yet "the scientists" yammer away for
Kyoto, or, at most, simply keep quiet. The few scientists like Baliunas and
Singer who say that it's too damned early to choose policies are denounced
as idiots. Scientists step up to endorse Kerry in the name of science
because Bush rejected Kyoto (as Clinton did but Clinton didn't do it openly,
he just ignored it).
If science wants to be heard as
scientists, the scientists have a duty to step forward and say, loudly and
clearly, "We think there is a potential problem. We are not sure. We don't
know enough to prescribe remedies. Here is a consensus position on what data
we ought to be gathering that we are not gathering, and what we ought to be
doing to reduce the uncertainties." I haven't heard much of that
lately.
=============
Feeling safer already:
Sir,
a recent mailer noted that perhaps the airlines should
shoulder more of the blame, as they use out-dated criteria for "flagging"
customers. I can report that this is certainly true.
I am an active duty Lieutenant Colonel, but I
currently work for the Department of Justice on detail. My duties require me
to fly often, and usually on late notice. I also have to change my tickets
frequently as requirements change. Each of these events triggers
scrutiny...no, that's the wrong way to put it. Each of these events causes
me to be flagged. If they simply triggered scrutiny, I'd be ok, as a cursory
glance would show that my ticket was purchased by the US government travel
agency for official travel. The result is that on each leg of my flights I
have to be taken to the special area for a hand pat-down, and wand waving.
Originally, the new rules called for an exemption for
military travelers on either orders OR leave. While I've had security and
airline personnel acknowledge this, each alleges that the other is in charge
of such things and that I must raise the issue elsewhere. So, at the counter
I point to my orders, and they say "Show TSA at the gate." At the gate, when
pulled aside, TSA says, "We just follow the code on your boarding pass,
raise it with the airlines." None seem the least bit worried that they are
searching someone who is traveling FOR THE ARMY! Do they search the pilots
the same way? Do they not see that some people can be excluded based on set
criteria the same way some should be included?
bryan
We are only following orders. Your papers,
please. Remove your jacket, please. Ordnung!
Colonel, you must know that requiring
original thought from the kind of people who would take those jobs is a bit
much.
Jerry,
I've been thinking about the debate on the site
regarding the tsunami victims and the outpouring of support vs. doing
virtually nothing about the threat of insect-borne disease and the
consequent much higher death toll.
While I agree totally that more can be done with
mosquitos, you should not understate the effects of the tsunami. In addition
to those directly killed (I think the current official total is 162,000,
with some estimates that the final death toll in Sumatra could push the
total over 250,000), there is a population of an estimated 5,000,000 people
who have been stripped of their homes and livelihood and face an immediate
threat of starvation, hygenic diseases (cholera, disentry, and, yes,
malaria, among others), and other threats to their lives and livelihood.
So while we shouldn't forget the 2 million a year who
are threatened by preventable disease, the aid that is being sent is not for
the 200,000 who have died, but the 5 million who have survived and require
succor. But also compare them all to the 140 million a year (approximate)
who dies of all causes, preventable and not preventable, war and peace,
natural causes or disaster.
God help them all and bless their souls.
Jim Woosley
And say Amen...
Subject: Grammar and Writing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4185507.stm
As writers I guess this will make sense to you. --
Harry Erwin, PhD, Senior Lecturer of Computing, University of Sunderland.
Computational neuroscientist modeling bat bioacoustics and behavior. http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/~cs0her
Looks more like politics than science or
education to me. I can't make sense of why they say this, but perhaps I
didn't read it closely enough. Looks like opinion from people with a view.
=============
Here is an odd series
of letters:
Subject: Educational background
I have looked at your website and, perhaps I missed
it, but what is your curriculum vitae?
Thanks, Mark Schaffer (University of Nevada)
My reply was brief: "Why?"
To find out if you are something other than a hack
science fiction writer.
Mark Schaffer
Presumably the implication was that if I
didn't have certain credentials, I shouldn't be talking. Or something. So I
sent a sort of rambling reply, with the note that since 1970 I have made my
living as a writer, and asked the pointed question of why credentials were
important to a journalist, which is all I claim to be at this time; to which
I got this reply:
Subject: RE: Educational background
What was your Ph.D. in and when was the last time you
were published in a peer review journal? Was that also before 1970?
Mark Schaffer
At which point I weary of the
conversation. Apparently he believes I am applying for a tenure track
position at his university, or perhaps that I need to justify my existence
to him. Google reveals someone with that name in the computer department:
and as the author of a paper
Filling a number field from right to left
Subject: Filling a number field from right to left.
Category: Database Design, Version:
Access 2.0. Author: Mark Schaffer, Date: Monday, 9/15/1997
8:35 AM PDT. ...
domino3.nevada.edu/acsuport.nsf/
0/4eda01115374da078825651300559e5c?OpenDocument - 5k -
Cached -
Similar pages
but not much else.
For the record: the only credentials that
matter for what I do now are that I did have experience in operations
research which is a great background for journalism, and that I have made a
pretty good living selling words from 1970 on. I have been very careful not
to claim expertise in fields where I have none, and to give what I think is
relevant background information where my experience may be of value in
forming judgments.
My computer columns are based mostly on
personal experience: "I do these silly things so you don't have to." I think
I explained my views on journalism, public policy, and science in the
essay last week. I don't think people need credentials to question
public policies, or to ask for explanations of the science involved when the
public policies, particularly expensive ones like Kyoto, are to be justified
by supposed scientific conclusions. As to the last time I was published in a
peer reviewed journal, that would have to be about 1958 when I wrote on
selection criteria for choosing astronauts. After that I was employed by
industry and my papers on temperature tolerance and space suit design were
"published" as company documents, some of them proprietary. Then I went to
Aerospace where everything I wrote was classified. Strategy of Technology
wasn't classified, and was used as a text in the service academies, but
that's not "peer review". Most of my articles on science and policy have
been in publications that pay me money, not places where I have to pay page
fees.
I don't claim to be part of academic
science, and I don't feel like trotting out my credentials for every
Information Technology professor who demands my "peer reviewed" publication
list. My "peers" have been my editors who pay me to write, and my readers
who pay to read my writing. While I was President of Pepperdine Research
Institute I did in fact win a number of contracts and get some grants for my
colleagues, including nsf grants (I gather that Professor Schaffer would
approve since it appears he participated in an nsf funded study) but I
wasn't the PI (Principal Investigator) for any of those. I was PI for a
strategic policy study for the Air Council, but that wasn't "peer reviewed",
that resulted in a series of briefings for senior USAF officers. The SDI
documents I wrote for President Reagan were not "peer reviewed" but they
were read by the National Security Advisor and by the President.
I don't know why this minor exchange of
unpleasantries has upset me, except that I don't much like our new
credential society in which a person's worth is not judged by
accomplishments, but by certificates and credentials often awarded by people
too incompetent to make a living at anything other than doling out
credentials. If Professor Schaffer didn't intend to convey the impression
that unless I have the proper credentials I am a "hack science fiction
writer" then my apologies for misreading him.
Yeah, Mr. Schaffer, I'm a hack writer. I
hack out words and people pay me for them. I don't get grants from Nati0nal
Science Foundation, so I suppose I ought to be ashamed of myself and just go
away?
Mr. Schaffer replies:
Subject: RE: Educational background
Wow! Still content free.
Mark Schaffer
Which ends the conversation. You will note
that his only criterion for "content" is that I present credentials. I
hadn't known I owed him either credentials or content. So it goes.
=============
And from Roland:
Subject: The wages of credentialism.
http://www.reason.com/0501/fe.ps.cut.shtml
---- Roland Dobbins
and on another subject:
On Maureen Dowd
Dr. Pournelle:
Let
Maureen Dowd stand for a generic problem: a lot of very intelligent and
somewhat powerful women find themselves in her situation, never married and
approaching the end of reproductive life.
I think a much simpler answer to her problem of
finding a mate is just that she's Maureen Dowd. I can think of a long list
of intelligent and powerful women who have husbands and families.
Tom Brosz
TOP
CURRENT
VIEW Tuesday |
