Friday assorted links


CBT won't help when you're low IQ and losing the race against the machines. Beans ahoy!

4. I wonder if the change is due to a change in patient population.

Or perhaps less bias in the studies. When CBT first started becoming widespread, it was rapidly adopted primarily by psychologists and non-MD therapists, while at the time most psychiatrists were doing psychoanalysis or some version of in-depth psychotherapy. My experience was that many of these psychologists had a fervor for CBT, in part because it was 'their thing' (in a psychology vs. psychiatry way). Many early studies, performed by psychologists, showed that CBT was equal to or superior to either medication or in-depth therapy.

In the clinical trenches, I never thought CBT was all it was cracked up to be, so this doesn't surprise me.

There's still some cooling in the data after the seasonal adjustment. They need to do a double seasonal adjustment.

I see your doubled seasonal adustment and raise you a triple adjustment. Did i win the funding?


With your talents, you are probably already funded.

There is a large number of third-generation born-in-Japan ethnic Koreans who are carried on the books as Korean citizens. They can apply for Japanese citizenship, but they must adopt a Japanese name and speak perfect Japanese. They are descendants of forced labor brought to Japan during the occupation of Korea.


I guess Japan is getting serious about immigration reform.

#6 "Quite possibly there has been no slowdown in global warming." But then quite possibly there hasn't been any anthropogenic global warming anyway, or not enough to matter. I wonder whether we're due another Little Ice Age soon.

No evidence of either of those but ok.

it's a well settled consensus that the Holocene is ending and the more common state of a new ice age will come. Maybe in 1,000 years, maybe in 5,000, but winter IS coming.

That's not correct, Gopchik. Milankovitch cycles that result in variations in solar energy reaching the earth's hemispheres are quite predictable on a scale of thousands of years. In the absence of humanity they would have resulted in a period of cooling in about 1,500 years that is very likely to have caused the earth to enter another glacial period. However, human activity has greatly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas. Without intervention it would take much longer than 1,500 years for it to return to pre-industrial levels, so unless we act to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, we are likely to skip the next glacial period. If humanity were to magically disapear and have no more effect on the earth's atmosphere from now on, then the next glacial period might be in 50,000 years.

So global warming is a good thing? It prevents the next ice age? Cool.

Only if you have a negative discount rate, Gopchik.

@ #2 The article is not about “more democratic,” but more “Democracy.”
The collator of that article defines “Democracy” as:

“a political system based on the idea of the empowerment of individuals”

Well, so are monarchy, dictatorship and oligarchy – just *particular* individuals.

Democracy is a process; not a condition; not a political “system.”

However, the “empowerment” attributed to technologies by the article’s collation does not differ much from historic experience in their effects being dependent upon (1) distribution and (2) the nature of the “empowerment” distributed (e.g., transportation differs from information).

Assuming the distribution is (or could be) roughly equal over more people, and the nature of the “empowerment” of roughly equivalent significance or value to all (never is), what would change in those who would use the democratic process that would cause it’s broader use amongst social orders?

There may not be any, let alone strong, correlation between technology developments and the uses of a democratic process in a social order.

I'd say things have gotten more Democratic, even if the great boomlet of democratization from the 1989-2000 has slowed significantly (every advance inspires a reactionary response). The citizens of China may not be able to vote, but they are far more boisterous than in the past, especially online. Even if their euphemisms must change constantly to stay ahead of the censors. I'd expect they speak their minds far, far more than in, say 1975. Or 1995.
We are also in the midst of a time of revolutions devouring their children, another typical response...(especially in the mid-east, where one oppressor is replaced with another or with anarchy).
Speaking of, anarchy does seem to be up.

I lean left, but often want to hear opinions from other parts of the spectrum. It's very difficult for me to take any Cato economists and policy proposals seriously (or honestly even read them) when their climate scientists are grasping at straws to discredit global warming.

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Now that's science!

Wouldn't his statement be more of an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque?

"This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said"

Hey, remind me -- what's the Latin phrase for avoiding the obviously correct substance of someone's statement and instead hiding behind clever-seeming-but-not-actually-clever logical arguments?

I mean, clearly you would have to have your head pretty far up your ass to grant Cato any credibility on climate change, but I need a way of expressing that sentiment that makes me seem more condescending. I'm sure you guys can help. Tx!

"Hey, remind me — what’s the Latin phrase for avoiding the obviously correct substance of someone’s statement and instead hiding behind clever-seeming-but-not-actually-clever logical arguments?"

ad Adam?

"I mean, clearly you would have to have your head pretty far up your ass to grant Cato any credibility on climate change,"

I'm still trying to understand how Cato's opinion on climate change relates to the current thread.

The article discussed Cato's response to NOAA research. Cato called bullshit, as one would expect.

Ha ha, zing! Man, sick burn. Let me see if I can help you understand this thread:

David B: I'm interested in diverse viewpoints, but Cato's hackish stance on climate science makes it tough to take anything they say related to climate change seriously.

magilson & JWatts: let's use highminded rhetorical arguments to insinuate that David B's statement is not just something we disagree with, but in fact represents a sort of mental confusion that befalls inferior intellects. Then let's snicker and high five one another.

Adam: hey, guys, there's nothing logically fallacious about drawing judgments about a source's credibility; in fact, we necessarily make such judgments all the time. The fact that you're pretending not to understand this says a lot, but probably not what you want it to say.

JWatts: Paul Krugman!

I think that about covers it. I very much cannot wait to see how you guys, harnessing the insight granted to you by the power of raw logic, find new ways to misunderstand the very basic exchanges in this thread.

Adam, the very basic issue in the thread is David B's, and your, mistake of treating Cato's economists as the same people as Cato's scientists.

That Cato's climate scientists might have little credibility should have next to no bearing on whether Cato's economists have any credibility. Unless you think that by merely by associating with the name Cato you are suspect. In which case, refer back to magilson's and JWatt's comments. Also, see any comment by prior_approval.

Presumably Cato's vetting process for climate scientists is the same as for economists. If it produces bad results in one category, it's reasonable to wonder whether the others are wack as well.

Original D,

So you're saying any bad science conducted at any university simultaneously discredits any (or all?) of the rest of the work there? Are you being serious? Because it seems like a few of you are trying really, really, really hard to avoid admitting off-hand dismissals because of what amounts to brand is anything other than a logical fallacy? Could you please clarify?

Because I'm sure I can find enough evidence to convince that every major climate scientist must be ignored because one of their co-workers in another department has done poor work.

It's reasonable to make that conclusion only if Cato's vetting process is the same for both. So your "Presumably" is doing all of the work in that statement.

So is your "reasonable"? Are you being serious right now? This is incredible.

I think it's clear everyone is talking past each other at this point.

This is a bit ridiculous. Of course different institutions have different levels of credibility--and yes it can extend across departments and across individuals within departments. It doesn't mean ask their work should be completely ignored, but definitely heavily scrutinized.

If nothing else this conversation has revealed Tyler's "mood affiliation" isn't well catching on.

'Also, see any comment by prior_approval.'

That's right - GPL software is associated with programmers uninterested in the market, and we all know what that makes GPL software. A "cancer that attaches itself in an intellectual property sense to everything it touches" - Steve Ballmer, just another disinterested observer looking out for the best interests of those who don't want to get cancer.

Like, the most recent IPCC report states that earlier IPCC reports got the forcing issue wrong and, therefore, IPCC reports have no credibility? That really is a fallacy, whether applied to CATO or IPCC.

Yeah, I feel the same way when I read anything in the NYT's about minimum wage or by Paul Krugman.

The pause seems to have vexed the warmists. Who knew that a little nipping and tucking of the data and all would be well again?

It never "paused." It was a slowdown in the warming.

A little nipping and tucking, like continuing to study it? To be fair, they are just using the same argument that many climate change deniers have for years--there is a bias in measurement.

The reason it was referred to as a slow down, pause, or hiatus was because of the many projections that showed a continuation in, mostly unabated, the rate of increase seen in the 90s.

Yes, but I think most people who hear pause or hiatus in global warming take it to mean the warming has paused, rather than the rate of increase.

Everyone's got their own religion.

It is a pause. Look at the data (before the people who issue it, warming advocates decided it had to be changed). There is clear warming till around 2000, and then no clear pattern (tho remaining high). That's why they changed their slogan from global warming to climate change.

And does nobody remember Climategate? Cato hasn't lost its reputation for scientific integrity like the mainstream climate scientists have.

The pause wasn't predicted, which means the models are wrong.

It also means CO2 is not currently determining temperature.

This would intrigue a questioning mind.

The pause wasn’t predicted, which means the models are wrong.
It also means CO2 is not currently determining temperature.

2014 was statistically the same as 2010, and 2005.
Sounds like a pause.

Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: 'With 2014 essentially tied with 2005 and 2010 for hottest year, this implies that there has been essentially no trend in warming over the past decade.'

"Manufacturing Depression" Gary Greenberg

"6. Quite possibly there has been no slowdown in global warming."

Here's another take on the recent study:

Yeah, Those guys talk to CATO guys-- anathema anathema.

Here, try this link instead:

So satellite data doesn't show the warming.

Yet. That's the beauty of Climate Science! Like climate itself, if you just wait a while, it'll change!

"So satellite data doesn’t show the warming."

Furthermore, the Argos Buoy network, which was specifically designed to gather oceanic temperature data, doesn't show the warming either. The paper's authors adjusted the Argos temperatures upward to match data from ocean going vessel engine intakes. The engine intake sensors are not scientifically accurate instruments. So the decision to adjust the numbers would seem to warrant a great deal of scrutiny.

Has the use of CBT expanded over the years?

If so, that seems to be a highly plausible explanation for the decline in its effectiveness. Less skilled therapists treating patients who are perhaps less clearly suitable subjects would be a natural cause of the apparent decline. The article claims that therapist skill, at least, did not change,but this was based solely on training, which might not be the best measure.

2. Information control.

6. " A huge body of physical evidence — notably, that practically every large piece of land ice on the planet has started to melt — suggests the temperature finding is correct." Five thousand years ago much of the northern hemisphere was covered by kilometers of ice, which has been melting ever since.

"The buckets varied, the thermometers varied, and some of the sailors were more diligent than others about following instructions. On average, scientists believe, the water tended to cool off a bit before the temperature was recorded.

NOAA had long believed the data glitches from the buckets had largely disappeared after World War II, but new information suggests that bucket measurements continued on some commercial vessels long after the war. The new NOAA data set attempts to correct for this and other problems in the ocean records."
They didn't like the numbers they had so they made up new ones. Just like seamen, some scientists may be more diligent than others.

#6) The NYT article links to a blog post by the "deniers" at Cato []. They post a graph that shows that, even if one accepts the newly adjusted data, the increase in temperature is only at the 2.4th percentile of the distribution predicted by the global warming models.

I'm not a climate scientist; my only technical training is a PhD from MIT in electrical engineering. Could someone explain to us lay people why it's bad climate science or science denial to compare observations to model predictions in assessing the models? That seems like standard practice in other scientific fields. Thanks.

6. When the facts conflict with my theories, I change.... the facts. What do you do, sir?

Determining "global" temperature is not equivalent to sticking a thermometer in the earth and taking a reading. As noted in some of the links posted here, the process involves many heterogeneous measurements of the water, land and air, which require adjustment to create a single temperature record. These adjustments require judgment and are open to manipulation, as we see now and as we saw with the infamous hockey stick (which was used to get rid of an inconvenient Medieval Warm Period).

My assessment is that climate science is immature and not in any position to guide our actions today.

The Science article is an example of starting with the result and reverse engineering the method to obtain it. The gold standard of sea surface temperature measurement is adjusted upwards to fit the historically flawed methods? Seriously????

Comments for this post are closed