Simulate "The Day After Tomorrow" On Your PC

kpearson writes "climateprediction.net, a distributed computing project to predict Earth's climate 50 years from now, has a new add-on project to study THC slowdown (how climate might change as CO2 changes in the event of a decrease in the strength of the thermohaline circulation). This kind of rapid, extreme climate change is shown in the movie The Day After Tomorrow, in which New York City is treated to a 10,000-year-long ski season. Anyone can download the project's client software and participate in the simulation. climateprediction.net was previously mentioned in the September 13, 2003 article Distributed Computing and Climate Change." Clients are available for various varieties of Microsoft Windows, but none are listed for other OSes.

Comments

THC slowdown

[quigonn]

I always experience THC slowdown after I smoked some good pot. No need for a simulation here, absolutely not.

Re:THC slowdown

[Brendan Byrd]

Same thoughts here. In fact, everybody's thoughts. One would think that the planet would benefit from increased levels of THC :)

Re:THC slowdown

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes my friend, you're missing something. The "pollen" that your friendly hashman refers to is most likely polm. The finest morrocan hashes are polm. I am unsure as to the genesis of the word, but it could be related to palm, or else is an indigenous north african word.

There are varieties of hash called pollen I believe, but they are "brand names" much like "northern lights" or "silver pearl" are to skunk herb.

Your dealer is either using the name in this way, or has bastardised polm. It seems to be a commonish error. But, now you know...

The reason why 100% female plants are preferred to males is that they are much stronger and more productive. The ladies give us concentrated trichomes containing high levels of THC/CBD, whereas the males contain little of the active ingredients and give us a headache and a weak buzz.

So, spread the word brother.! No more pollen. Polm!

Re:THC slowdown

[Haydn Fenton]

These guys are a little late with the THC slowdown project, us stoners had one years ago (Download Here), yet they all call us the slow ones, pffft!

And remember, 420 is ten times better than the meaning of life :-p

THC Slowdown

[Anonymous Coward]

I would have had first post, if it wasn't for THC Slowdown!

I you have to wonder that

[Ckwop]

.. if back at the time of the dinosaurs all this carbon was in the air.. then how can be releasing it be the end of "life as we know it".. The Dinosaurs did quite well :)

Personally, It's my opinion that the earth is a pretty robust system and our climate models will be rather wrong.

Simon.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[loyalsonofrutgers]

Yes, those dinosaurs did great... which is why they are... extinct... and all. Yeah.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[richie2000]

"life as we know it".. The Dinosaurs did quite well :)

I for one welcome our new/old dinosaur overlords!

Joking aside, the argument that the earth has been experiencing major differences in temperatures in the past and that this is normal and all is very fascinating except for one small fact: We're humans. We don't like having volcanoes in our back yards, ferns all over our lawns, hurricanes ripping our houses to shreds and brontosaurs trampling our offspring. We're kinda picky that way.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[nmoog]

I agree that the earth has a pretty robust system. Once it can kill off all those pesky humans it will take no time to bring itself back to good health, and enjoy the good life for another few million years.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[kd4evr]

Hmm...

Earth may have a self-regulating system we do not yet (fully) understand. When you say its a robust system, you are right. Our climate models may well be worth squat, right again.

Dinosaurs did quite well for quite a long time, until they could...

However, the issue is not whether human interventions can fully derail earth's climate or only tackle the parameters a bit.
The point is, that the changes in the weather we as a civilisation started will most certainly affect our way of life as we know it. Human is considered the most adaptable species, present in all kinds of environments. I cannot argue whether we are going to drive ourselves into extinction or not by what we did to the climate, but surely life (and survival) in either dry deserts, frozen glaciers or stormy swamps has little to do with the current trends in economy. There is a vast difference between a habitable and comfortable climate, you see...

Dont start the IPO on that dino-breeding company just yet ;-)

Re:I you have to wonder that

[hey!]

The new form of anthropocentrism displaces the paternal role of God into systems: whether it be the Market or the Biosphere or Climate. If so, these are blind, impersonal gods that follow their own agenda: they even aware of our existence, much less are they working for our benefit.

Systems do have negative feedback behavior, which create short term stability, but they also have positive feedback behavior which can create rapid shifts and oscillations. We should be aware of this and act accordingly. While its fairly clear that people are sufficiently adaptible that they will survive practicaly anything, our culture, economic systems and populations can in fact go extinct very easily.

Inevitably, climate will shift without anthropogenic help. The real question is whether anthropogenic factors can tip it earlier than it would otherwise? If so, then it would be wise to buy time. If not, then we should make hay while the sun shines and store it away to carry us in lean times.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[Decaff]

The earth and life are robust, but we aren't. Most of human civilisation has occurred within a 10,000 year period since the last glaciation in which ice sheets covered much of the Northern hemisphere. The climate has been particularly and unusually stable for the past millenium. This is not going to last. If (as is very likely) the ice returns, or if global warming stirs up the climate, millions could die and many more will be forced to migrate. In terms of life as a whole on our planet, what we do matters little in the long term, but we could, and probably will, make things very unpleasant for ourselves.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[Epistax]

What I'd like to know is which animal on this planet will (would have) evolve into the next "Big Thing"? If it weren't for our timely sentience, many species we've killed over the years would still be around (mammoth, anyone?). My point is: is this planet at an evolutionary dead end until a disaster strikes, or is there a contender to be top eater? Could humanity be considered the natural disaster that they need?

Re:I you have to wonder that

[richie2000]

The ultimate goal of all this kookiness is impeding US industry and prosperity

Why so narrow-minded? It impedes ALL industry and prosperity. No one targets the US specifically. Oh, I totally agree that the current set of narrow regulations are counter-productive (to put it mildly). One such example local to me is Swedish energy industry buying coal-generated electricity from Poland to make up for the lower emission standards imposed on the Swedish (much cleaner) power plants. That's why we need a level playing field and the EU-wide emission rights market is a step in the right direction (properly implemented, that is).

However, looking at eco-friendlyness in the industry as an inherently bad thing is also counter-productive. Instead, it should be seen as an opportunity to modernize the industry - using the technical advantage that the 3rd world countries do not have. Work smarter to keep ahead. Digging for coal and burning it is going to be cheaper in Poland, Belarus, Mexico, Nicarague or where ever anyway and the trick is to not compete with that. Compete with high-tech instead. They can't keep up with that. Look at the major oil companies, they are shifting from simply pumping oil to being diversified energy producers. They are going with the flow in ways that Joe Q. Public hasn't yet realized they even could. They've been taught, time and time again, that they have to be quick or be dead. The governments of the world have to realize that, too.

It's like when Star Wars broke the Soviet Union - for years the US military tried to out-perform the Red Army and Strategic Rocket Forces on their home turf and failing miserably. Not until they turned the tables on the Reds and went in a different direction where the Soviets couldn't follow did they win the Cold War. The basic economic realities of the brewing eco-war are the same.

The facts are that the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are way higher now than they were a hundred years ago. The atmosphere is also warming at a rate unheard of since we started measuring these things and at a rate not found in any ice samples from the last several hundred thousand years. Large chunks of very old ice is melting in Antarctica and there are island nations that will soon cease to exist due to rising ocean waters.

Can we afford to ignore the possibility of a causal link? I believe we can't.

I'm not saying we should go back to dwelling in caves in Eden, that's a pathetic strawman argument. I'm just saying that we should put some thought into fixing emissions in a smart way, a way that will keep our scientists at the forefront of innovation, that will keep our industries competitive and that will preserve our way of life and preferably enable more people to share it.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[richie2000]

Roaches. They're hardy, breed easily and eats almost anything. When we're gone, they'll take over. Single-cells, fish, dinos, mammals, insects. I dunno what comes after the insects, though. Bacteria, maybe. Or MS Blaster. ;-)

Re:I you have to wonder that

[Anonymous Coward]

Insects like the cockroach won't "take over" (any more than they already have; most species of land animal are beetles) because you can't get much bigger than a beetle without your exoskeleton collapsing under its own weight. Insects like the cockroach lived alongside the dinosaurs and didn't "take over" their ecological niches when they died the way the mammals did for this reason. "Bacteria" is an even sillier answer because bacteria have been around for even longer than insects.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[SEWilco]

There are several indicators that Earth did not have a massive carbon dioxide atmosphere, as well as that oil and natural gas are from virgin carbon and not recycled.

• There were not increasingly greater deposits of carbonate rocks created further back in time.
• Carbon isotope ratios have not become altered due to recycling.
• Carbon is being removed from the atmosphere at a rate which would remove all carbon dioxide in 500,000 years. Plants haven't all died off over millions of years, so either new carbon is being released or we are quite unlucky to be on a planet soon dead.
• Natural gas, oil, and coal are found together with the thicker materials usually being closer to the surface. If coal and oil are from separate origins they should be likely to appear in isolated deposits and at any depth.

The Origin of Methane (and Oil) in the Crust of the Earth

And that our climate models are wrong is a given. If our models are right, why are these researchers adding, and trying, new factors? Because we don't understand climate well enough to have good models.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[SEWilco]

The facts are that the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are way higher now than they were a hundred years ago.
Which greenhouse gases increased, and by how much? Has the major greenhouse gas (it's not CO2) increased? Does CO2 affect temperature, or does temperature affect CO2 levels? (For example, warmth encourages fermentation in swamps rather than burial of carbon)

The atmosphere is also warming at a rate unheard of since we started measuring these things
That would be the warming during the past 100 years, the period when we've had thermometers. Look at that graph and how much warming happened before 1945, when we had little fossil fuels in use. After 1945...cooling for 30 years while we burned more fuels. How much has the rate of increase changed during warming periods?

and at a rate not found in any ice samples from the last several hundred thousand years.
Look again. Start around 15,000 years ago and see if there was a rapid change back then.

Large chunks of very old ice is melting in Antarctica
Check when that began melting, and compare the ages of ice. Melting is not new.

and there are island nations that will soon cease to exist due to rising ocean waters.
Those reports have been studied in several ways, look at them again. Also check their tectonic base, such as whether they're in the large area west of Australia which is sinking.

Can we afford to ignore the possibility of a causal link? I believe we can't.
Spend your money how you wish. Can you afford to ignore the possibility of a warmer Sun, secret misuse of alien technology, or a meteor destroying your ISP? Better prepare...better safe than sorry.

Re:I you have to wonder that

[gfxguy]

Because "Global Warming to Destroy Life as We Know it!" sells more than "Everything's Fine and Dandy."

I need sleep.

[DrEldarion]

I missed the first word and thought this was going to be an article about Suprnova.

Here's how the simulation works:

[Anonymous Coward]

We all leave our computers on
- running this software,
- thereby using more electricity,
- creating more greenhouse gases and the like,
- increasing global warming...
and therefore getting a very accurate answer much sooner.

THC Slowdown?

[kevinvee]

Fond memories of high school, but I think THC Slowdown goes better with a 10,000 year snowboarding season. Or 10,000 years of marshmallow creme and funyuns.

Concerning the movie "The Day after Tomorrow"

[Peden]

That movie is expected to draw furhter focus on the environment and specifically global warming. This is both good and bad, as too much focus on the environment can draw focus from other points of interesets. Danish Scientist "Bjorn Lomborg" (one of Time Magazines top 100 important persons) has been warning politicians to not forget other points of importance, such as healthcare and clean water. I hope this does not distort the vision of politicians around the globe, lets not forget how er priotitize.

Re:Concerning the movie "The Day after Tomorrow"

[Hektor_Troy]

Danish Scientist "Bjorn Lomborg"

You placed the "" the wrong place. It should be

Danish "Scientist" Bjørn Lomborg

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Re:Concerning the movie "The Day after Tomorrow"

[JasonAWallwork]

The Abrupt Climate Change FAQ from the Union of Concerned Scientists, has a lot to say on the subject and the movie:

Can what happens in The Day After Tomorrow happen in real life?

No. The dramatic, virtually instantaneous and widespread cooling envisioned in the film is fiction. But like all good science fiction, the film is premised on several important scientific facts. We know with great certainty that the Earth is already warming, largely because as we burn fossil fuels and clear forests we are releasing carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This warming is expected to continue in the coming decades, accompanied by changes in rainfall patterns and rising sea levels. The possibility of an abrupt shift in the climate system is only one feature of a changing climate that is expected to become more erratic, with extreme weather events like droughts, torrential rainfall, and extreme heat becoming more common. We can slow down global warming and reduce the likelihood of future abrupt climate changes by reducing our emissions of heat-trapping gases.

The other interesting thing it mentions is that Abrupt Climage Change refers to changes that happen over years to decades as opposed to climate change that is happening now over decades and centuries. Make no mistake, we have changed our climate more in the last hundred years than in the previous thousand years.

Re:Concerning the movie "The Day after Tomorrow"

[BRSQUIRRL]

I don't think anyone should forget that this "environmentally focused" movie is based in part on the book The Coming Global Superstorm, written by Whitley Strieber and Art Bell, not exactly the paragons of scientific objectivity.

One question...

[beacher]

Does it come with media fearmongering "THE WORLD ENDS TOMORROW. DETAILS AT 8" addons? Seriously. Every single damn weather event is a showstopper. If my team blew everything out of proportion like the media did, I'd sack em. Also speaking of weather... They can't even get the 3 days forecast even close much less years out.

Interested in weather, love/hate to watch tornados and hurricanes.. trouble is the news makes it out like "The Perfect Storm" is about to happen ..
-B

Simulating a fiction...?

[ZaMoose]

Considering that most serious climatologists think the very premise of Day After Tomorrow is bunk, what does that say for the utility of us wasting CPU cycles on it?

Or is the association with the upcoming movie merely some editorial license on the part of the /. crew?

I for one ...

[torpor]

... welcome our THC overlords, and would like to remind them that as a qualified potsmoker, I've done my fair share of THC propagation in the world ... ;)

GIGO?

[pesc]

So if the computer is big enough, the garbage-in, garbage-out problem disappears?

We can't predict the weather for the next week, but doing it for the next 50 years might work if we only can get a computer big enough?

Re:GIGO?

[pe1rxq]

The input is totally different if you are doing climate predictions than for weather.....
For predicting the climate in 50 years it is not necessarry to known for each day if it rained in your back yard.

Jeroen

Foolishness

[Yonkeltron]

Lorenze proved that weather was non-deterministic about 40 years ago. It seems foolish to believe we can predict weather to such a degree even with today's technology. I'll be saving my cycles for Seti@Home

Re:Foolishness

[gowen]

Lorenz proved that weather was non-deterministic about 40 years ago.

But Lorenz, being much, much, much smarter than you, appreciated that weather is not climate.

Re:Foolishness

[Eivind]

There's a difference between weather and climate.

A bit simplified, climate is average weather.

It's a bit like while it is impossible to predict which days will get rain in Bergen, Norway this november, it's pretty easy to predict the average temperature, the annual rainfall and how many days it'll rain.

Strange

[Roland Piquepaille]

Clients are available for various varieties of Microsoft Windows, but none are listed for other OSes.

If I was to make a program that basically asks of people to give me something for free (in this case, CPU time, and a little aggravation to install the client), I'd make the Linux/*BSD client a priority, since those OSes have been made almost entirely by people on their own time for free.

At least I'd know I'd be likely to find a sympathetic hear to whatever cause my client serves in that community.

Looks like it will be a bad film

[QuasiRob]

Just from watching the trailers it looks like it will be another contender for inclusion on various bad movie websites.

How much of the public will be mislead into thinking thats how it really happens? I still cringe whenever Armageddon is on.

Wine / CrossOver?

[cerberusss]

Has anyone gotten the client running with Wine or CodeWeaver'sCrossOver? It installs and starts alright, but on the console, a bunch of warnings is printed:
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 60 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 62 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 63 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 64 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 65 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 66 Not Opened
CLOSE: WARNING: Unit 67 Not Opened
It doesn't seem to continue further...

Re:Attempting to model the real world on this scal

[zopu]

True, but isn't that a different problem?

I admit I'm a bit clueless here, but AFAIK climate modelling deals with overall changes at a high level e.g. "It's going to be colder in the north atlantic by about 2 degrees on average in a few decades" and the like.
As opposed to weather prediction which says "It will rain in this spot on this day"

Just because we can't predict the 'noise' in the short term doesn't mean we can't determine overall changes long term.

On global warming.

[ForestGrump]

"There is nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine . . . been
here 4 1/2 billion years. We've been here, what, a 100,000 years, maybe
200,000. And we've only been engaged in heavy industry a little over 200
years. 200 years versus 4 1/2 billion. And we have the conceit to think
that somehow we're a threat? The planet isn't going away. We are."
-George Carlin

Re:On global warming.

[Paulrothrock]

The planet isn't going away. We are.
Do disrespect to Mr. Carlin, but I don't want to go away. I realize the planet will be fine without us, but I also realize I don't want us to die out.

Re:On global warming.

[SEWilco]

If you don't want us to die out, get us off this planet. All our eggs are in this one basket, at the bottom of a gravity well.

"Simulate "The Day After Tomorrow" On Your PC"

[NineteenSixtyNine]

Windows ME?

wrong!

[QuasiRob]

The moons orbit is expanding.

Where did you get all that from, tarot cards?

Re:wrong!

[QuasiRob]

Good grief, dont you people know how to use a search engine to do a little research before you post?

Freemars - Gravitational interaction (tides on the Earth caused by the Moon) transfers kinetic energy from Earth to the Moon, slowing Earth's rotation and raising the Moon's orbit, currently at a rate of 3.8 centimeters per year.

another page

and another

and another

Ski in NY

[Roland Piquepaille]

in which New York City is treated to a 10,000-year-long ski season If this is to happen, I hope there's a massive earthquake crust movement to tilt the city a bit...

Who Cares?

[essreenim]

I'm sick of these movies focusing as if its the greatest city in the world or something. They expect ppl of the world to flock to the cinema to see a post apoalyptic New York which is actually primarily being caused by Americans ..! I would have more emotion in my heart if it were London or Paris or somewhere. ps. I'm Irish

Not gonna work

[bigHairyDog]

I did a climate modeling project for my dissertation at university. These guys have a good idea - throw massive computing power at it - but it's not that simple. Compared to SETI or protein folding, climate modeling is not as highly parallelisable. Plus what's holding back the state of the art right now is the quality of the algorithms we're using - they loose accuracy pretty fast as the result of feedback between multiple iterations of a process that introduces quantisation noise each time.

IMHO this project will produce the same quantisation noise-ruined results we have now, just more finely ovesampled

Still, they might get some useful insights into how to tackle the problems of parallel dynamic system simulation

Re:Not gonna work

[dave_frame]

We're not running a parallelised model across lots of computers, we're farming out a run to each of several thousand machines. And the purpose of the experiment is precisely to look into the feedback processes that govern how climate changes. You say: "what's holding back the state of the art right now is the quality of the algorithms we're using" and this - on climate timescales - is what we're looking to explore. Basically, the models that we have these days (IPCC TAR, for instance) lack any sort of quantitative measure of uncertainty. We're looking to find "error bars" for these sorts of predictions. See http://www.climateprediction.net/science/strategy_ adv.php for details of the experimental strategy. [We (& friends overseas) have submitted bids in recent EU Framework 6 and NSF rounds, to try to do something similar with very different models. This will help us conduct a convergence/verification process.] We have recently submitted a "first results" paper and are awaiting the reviewers' comments. So far, things seem to be going pretty well (though we'd love some more participants!). Cheers, Dave Frame climateprediction.net coordinator

Re:Not gonna work

[SengirV]

Plus what's holding back the state of the art right now is the quality of the algorithms we're using

I'm sure there is no pressure to tweek these to get the desired "Imminent global calamity!!! make the US stop all commerce" outcome that is desired in this Anti-US world we live in today. I'm sure your dissertation's algorithms were fine, but once you start playing with the big boy politics where Meryl Strep has more pull in congress than actual scientists, then I have little faith in how accurate and reliable these algorithms are.

Re:The responses so far.

[RangerFish]

Sounds like a good plan...

Re:Attempting to model the planet trajectories

[gowen]

Foolish. Theres no way that computer simulations could possibly predict the motions of the planets. We can't even predict the quantum fluctuation of individual molecules!

Re:Attempting to model the real world on this scal

[gowen]

Yes and no. Interannual trends are captured fairly well, seasonal forecasts tend to be off (worse, as you get down to the scale of weather) See here, for more information than you'd possibly want.

Robust, with a large latency.

[Vellmont]

You refer to the lie that some of the eco-freaks like to believe in. That is that we're "saving the planet". As George Carlin put it, "That planet is fine, the people are fucked".

You're right that the earths eco-system is very robust. It's survived meteor collisions, massive climate changes, etc. Human society isn't particularly robust though. While you may be fine with the eco-system taking a few thousand years to adjust to a new climate, most people aren't. I think mass famine because of crop failure and flooding of the coasts is a Bad Thing (for us humans that is). That's the real reason people should be concerned about climate change, and not this altruistic bull that a small minority wants to shove down our throats.

Re:Southern Africa in Peril.

[JasonAWallwork]

Do you have a source that suggests the moon is getting closer? According to this article, (and many others) it's been moving further away. The water levels will rise drastically in the next few years probably but it will be due to global warming, not the moon.

Funny but..

[Hewhosaysni]

"The Day After Tomorrow" (dagen efter) means hangover in swedish .

What good are all the computers in the world...

[Walkiry]

when you don't know all the variables involved?

Re:What good are all the computers in the world...

[TeknoHog]

when you don't know all the variables involved?

The same applies to all scientific projects, yet we somehow manage with proper use of approximations.

Re:Attempting to model the real world on this scal

[dave_frame]

Exactly. Although in a chaotic system predictability due to initial conditions washes out over time (in the atmosphere initial condition predictability washes out over about 2 weeks) predictability due to changes in the boundary conditions of the system emerges over time. Imagine a choppy and complicated lake which is fed by a river. The river's flow is getting bigger and bigger (perhaps due to some earthworks in the upstream catchment area). You take a snapshot of the lake, and use your model + initial conditions to predict the surface in thirty second's time. You do okay. But (say) you do a lousy job of predicting the surface in a day's time. BUT, you might do an okay job of predicting the *average level* of the surface in a month's time, not by knowing the initial conditions very well, but by knowing the rate of change of the river's flow. So though we can't predict the exact state (the weather) on longer timescales, we can (we hope, models and data permitting) do a reasonable job of predicting the average state (the climate) of the system on longer timescales. Dave Frame climateprediction.net coordinator

Of course The Day after tomorrow is wrong

[Snaller]

... and totally unbelieveable according to Bjørn Lomborg (Whom you should know if you pay any kind of attention to world affairs)

What about SimEarth?

[OneDeeTenTee]

I've already done this.

Re:MODS: THIS IS _NOT_ OFF-TOPIC

[dave_frame]

We're in the process of moving the software to BOINC, which will make us much more platform neutral. We reckon this ought to be done in a few weeks (it's been quite a big job). We'll be having a public beta test, so if you want to get involved (on your Mac or linux box) keep an eye on http://www.climateprediction.net

Cheers

Dave Frame

climateprediction.net coordinator

Who wrote the script?

[randomErr]

Um guys.... the movie was written by Art Bell. The guy who had a late night radio show for decades where he talked about aliens, astro projection, and psychic pets. For that reason alone I can't take this movie too seriously.

Re:Attempting to model the real world on this scal

[SEWilco]

However, if we can determine overall changes long term...then this new research would not be needed.

Take a look at one small section of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Note the uncertainties and many "improvements" since the previous report, the SAR upon which the Kyoto protocol is based. Browse the report further for more uncertainties and recent discoveries.

We simply don't know enough about climate yet. For example, water causes most of the planet's greenhouse effect. Increased temperatures will obviously put more water in the atmosphere. But how much will stay as water vapor, and how much will condense into clouds? And will greater cloud cover be as a thin horizontal layer (which might cool the planet if it reflects more sunlight, or might warm the planet as a blanket which traps heat), or will the increased water appear as vertical rain-producing clouds?

Bjorn Lomborg

[Mad Man]

was Re:Concerning the movie "The Day after Tomorrow"

He's in statistics, and judging by some of the critisism he's gotten from other people in that area, not a very good one either.

Actually, it turns out many of his critics aren't very good scientists.
from http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/004625.shtml

Case Against Scientifically Honest Bjorn Lomborg Dismissed

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty abetted a vicious ideological environmentalist smear campaign against Bjorn Lomborg by declaring two years ago that his excellent book The Skeptical Environmentalist , was "objectively dishonest." Naturally this accusation hit the headlines. However, in December, 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science and Technology overturned the DCSD kangaroo court's decision and sent it back to them. On futher reflection the DCSD members have now decided that perhaps they'd been a bit hasty and have completely dropped the matter (see press release below).

Press Release
March 12, 2004

Scientific Dishonesty Committee Withdraws Lomborg Case

The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) today announced it would not reopen the case concerning Bjørn Lomborg's book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

In December 2003 The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rejected the DCSD finding that "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "objectively dishonest" or "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

The Ministry, which is responsible for the DCSD, found that the committee's judgment was not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The Ministry invalidated the original finding and sent the case back to DCSD, where it was up to the committee to decide whether to reopen the case for a new trial.

"The committee decision is as one would expect," Environmental Assessment Institute director Bjørn Lomborg said today. "More than two years have passed since the case against my book was started. In that time every possible stone has been turned over, yet DCSD has been unable to find a single point of criticism that withstands further investigation."

"DCSD have reached the only logical conclusion. The committee has acknowledged that the former verdict of my book was invalid. I am happy that this will spell an end to what has been a very distasteful course of events," Bjørn Lomborg said.

The DCSD translated their first judgment into English. Today's announcement is only available in Danish.

No word of an apology nor headlines declaring Lomborg vindicated.

Posted by Ronald Bailey at March 12, 2004 03:27 PM

Re:Bjorn Lomborg

[Hektor_Troy]

Yeah, I read about that as well - and reading between the lines of the media take, they were forced to drop the issue by the government. Apparently the Prime Minister who don't like "so called" experts telling people what to think, don't really like it, when people take issues with his own handpicked experts.

Since I have not read the (now withdrawn) findings by the Committee, I choose not to base my judgements on their findings.

By the way - I wasn't even thinking of that Committee, but was thinking of a smallish 5 page (I think) dissection (page 12 to 17 of that pdf) of a just a small part of his book - by Inge Henningsen, who is an associate professor at the Statistic Department of the Institute for Mathematical Sciences at Copenhagen University.

She also notes in her piece, that he's not actually a statistician like they know them at her department, as he has a M.A in Political Science from Århus Universitet and teaches "Methods" there as well. He is (as is noted) "an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Politital Science".

As to who has the better credentials when it comes to statistics - well, my oppinion is fairly obvious, but I've given you plenty of venues to explore yourself and leave you to draw your own conclusions.

In song...

[Theaetetus]

I was gonna get first post, but then I got high.
Now my karma's toast, because I got high.
All my posts are zeroes, and I know why... hey, hey,
Because I got high, because I got high, because I got hiiiigh.

;)

Can't get it working

[gnalre]

Tried it, but my PC froze