You do realize that your body can handle both nitrites and nitrates perfectly well, right? From the article cited:
"Nitrate, from any dietary source, does not accumulate in our body. Nor does nitrite.
Nitrite is formed in especially high amounts in our mouths from bacteria. Salivary nitrite accounts for 70-97% of our total nitrite exposure. Ingested nitrate (from foods and water) is converted to nitrite when it comes into contact with the bacteria in our saliva. About 25% of the nitrate we eat is converted to salivary nitrate, and up to 20% is converted to nitrite. Most absorbed nitrate is simply excreted in the urine within five hours.
In our stomach, nitrite then reacts to the natural flora and gastric contents, yielding nitric oxide, and little is absorbed. Moreover, what nitrite that is absorbed disappears quickly from our bloodstream, with the average half-life estimated to be as low as 1-5 minutes. More recently, the favorable role of nitrite and the formation of this nitric oxide in our bodies is beginning to be better understood (see below).
Nitrate undergoes a number of metabolic interconversions, absorbed in the proximal intestine and becoming part of the enterosalivary circulation, and is recirculated in the blood, recycled between the saliva and the gut. In other words, total nitrate and nitrite in our blood is almost identical to the nitrate levels, according to the scientific opinion issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), adopted on April 10, 2008."
The primary drive of cancer is chronic carbohydrate poisoning, which gives you chronically elevated insulin levels and chronically high blood sugar (an environment in which cancer cells thrive, being highly adapted to using blood glucose for growing).
Any "link" between nitrates and cancer is a correlation, not a causation. In fact, it's quite reasonable to assert that those people who are more likely to get cancer are driven to consume more nitrates because nitrates are *good* for them and they are instinctively *fighting* the cancer they got from their whole wheat bread.
"What may be more surprising to learn is that scientific evidence has been building for years that nitrates are actually good for us, that nitrite is produced by our own body in greater amounts than is eaten in food, and that it has a number of essential biological functions, including in healthy immune and cardiovascular systems. Nitrite is appearing so beneficial, it’s even being studied as potential treatments for health problems such as high blood pressure, heart attacks, sickle cell disease and circulatory problems."
In other words, if we find NO correlation, then there's not going to be any causation, and we can all go home.
Well, that is unless there's some sort of confounding variable not found in the model (not quite sure if that's a proper use of the word "confound" in a statistical sense, but it felt right). A and B could have some sort of causation with each other, and not show correlation, if there is also a C which exists that is out of phase with A or B, effectively neutralizing what we would've *thought* was a correlation.
The limits of our ignorance are truly infinite, aren't they?:)
Sure, but we can simply assert that the influence of pirates on global warming was mitigated by another variable...say, the number of AOL CDs sent out in the mail.
Any sufficiently complex model can preserve its central conceit by making an ad hoc special pleading for observations that don't fit the model. In this way, you have apparent falsifiability (since you're making predictions), but not really functional falsifiability (since every failed prediction generates an ad hoc special pleading).
The way to tackle the "pirates cause global warming" hypothesis is to ask for falsifiability. What observations of pirates, and global warming, would cause someone to abandon the central conceit?
Fun fact, you can ask the same thing about CO2 and global warming:)
1. As the experimental data come in, the theories must change so that they accurately predict the results from an ever wider set of experimental circumstances.
The problem of course, is that you've got the case where the ad hoc special pleadings become so numerous, that essentially *every* falsification of a prediction is simply integrated ever more complexly into the model. Theories should be clear about what observations will falsify their central conceit, rather than simply asserting that they can be adapted to any result observed.
Well, you've got the devils on the corporate side, who may be trying to avoid bad press, say large organic potato farmers who don't wan to see studies that show the deleterious effects of carbohydrate intake on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. Fewer carbs sold means less profit to the company.
But then, you've got the devils on the government side, who also may be trying to avoid bad press, say the USDA regulators who don't want to see studies that show the deleterious effects of carbohydrate intake on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. In this case, a refutation of government advice (four food groups, food pyramid, my plate), would mean less credibility for government advice in the future.
In either case, I think we need systems in place to combat fraud. Start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement *before* the study. Publish the result data publicly no matter what the outcome (data retention and dissemination). A focus on double blind placebo controlled work instead of observational studies that can't show causality.
Trying to pose this as a "government schools are declining, therefore science is going wrong" is a misunderstanding of the fact that government can have non-scientific impulses.
...a study found that large scale hamster wheel energy farms could theoretically power 100% of humanity's energy needs.
Heck, you could argue that if we just had enough humans riding on stationary bikes we could power 100% of humanity's energy needs.
The problems with wind are:
1) expensive capital investment; 2) expensive upkeep; 3) real life output a fraction of any rated capacity; 4) intermittent real life output.
We gave wind up in the 18th century because it wasn't worth it. Trying to revive it with subsidies is as silly as trying to resurrect the whale-oil industry since it's "renewable".
Well, I hope along the way you've been exposed to some data and rationale that might allow you to challenge your own strongly held beliefs. The only way to break through the rut of dogma is to rigorously apply the scientific method, which means starting off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
97% of climatologists? You mean that tired old trope based on a survey of 76 people? Apologies in advance for the WUWT reference, but he's got you dead to rights:
The theory of evolution is falsifiable (find a modern rabbit in the precambrian).
The theory of an expanding universe is falsifiable (find a blue shift, instead of a red shift).
Even the moon landing is falsifiable (point your laser at the mirror they left from earth).
What is your possible falsification for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Oh, that's right, you don't have one, and can't quote anyone who does:)
Of course, what should we care about the scientific method when we can determine truth simply by polling:)
Astrologists make predictions that come true all the time - that doesn't make it science.
Hansen, in 1982, didn't specify a single observation that would have caused him to question his central conceit. My assertion is that to this day, he has never specified *any* observations that would cause him to question his central conceit. We have a word for these unfalsifiable hypotheses: religion.
The fact that the study is appearing in a peer-reviewed psychology journal is a stain on the peers that reviewed the paper, and the journal that proposes to publish it.
As for odd enviro-whacko conspiracy theories similar to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, you can always look to anti-vaccineers, vegans, organic food worshippers, astrologists, tarot card readers and of course 2012 apocalyptic preachers:)
Simply put, CAGW is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is pseudo-science at its worst. This psychology paper demonstrates more about the author's biases and activism than it does enlighten us on any sort of motivation for those who adhere to the scientific method and ask for a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Wait a tick - this is a survey, which deals with statistics, which McIntyre is a master of. Not to mention, this is a survey done by a non-climatolgist:)
McIntyre hardly *lost* karma in Climategate, his concerns about the shoddy science of the Team were fully realized and confirmed! As for Heartland, you're talking about a tiny drop in the bucket compared to criminals like Glieck and his ilk:)
Bottom line, this study was a fraud, pure and simple:
Did you read the original cite (which didn't claim McIntyre wasn't contacted)? And of course the sly wishful thinking on Lewandowsky's part ("I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission"), intimating that he's keeping quiet because of some sort of privacy concern:)
Regarding different questions - there is no evidence of this.
The fact of the matter is this was shoddy science, based on faulty data and post hoc data manipulation in order to obtain a predetermined conclusion. Much like the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis:)
Your passioned defense of this survey (which had *different questions*, not just different ordering), is yet another perfect example of the motivated rejection of science:)
Your first link is a snarky non-response that doesn't address the question of various versions of the survey. Hardly a stirring rebuttal, but hey, maybe you didn't really read it at all.
As for the lack of invitations, you'll note from McIntyre's response:
"Thus, if your post refers to me, it would be accurate to say that I did not recollect receiving the email, but it is not accurate to say that I "denied" receiving the invitation email, since, like Lucia, I did not preclude the possibility of overlooking something in the tide of email.
A question: in Lambert's invitation post, he stated that you were the author of the survey, a point not disclosed in the covering letter to me from a Charles Harnich. Did Deltoid and similar blogs receive a different covering letter than the one sent to me - one which associated the survey with "Lewandowsky". If so, was this different form of approach included in the approved survey plan? Would you please disclose the different covering letter.
A second question: the participation invitations to Deltoid and similar blogs were posted between August 28-30, while your invitation to me was not sent until some time afterwards. Was this part of the approved methodology? If so, what was the purpose of the delay?
A third question: the reported responses from readers of Deltoid and similar blogs clearly included "scam" responses - a point conceded by Tom Curtis of Skeptical Science. Did your approved methodology include any precautions to identify and exclude "scam" responses? If so, what were they.
As a comment to your mention of me in your article: I have not testified to the "UK Parliament" or any of its subcommittees. In 2006, I testified to a subcommittee of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, it would be inaccurate to say that I testified there as a "blogger". I had published articles in academic literature that were critical of the statistical methodology of Mann et al 1998-99 and was invited in that capacity. "
But again, you've closed your heart and mind to the clearly shoddy fraud being perpetrated by Lewandowsky:) Typical:)
So, do we give out -1 SkS refs, or -1 realclimate refs?
WUWT can be provocative and touchy, and even a bit screwy sometimes, but this is *clearly* one of the stories they're legitimately ahead of the curve on. This study is a flat out fraud, whose conclusions do not fit their data.
So you'd alter the experiment by making the additional 3g of CO2 go in *slower*, with the expectation that only 67% of it would be absorbed by the two barrels of water. Say you go with my procedure anyway, would you care to take a bet on how long it would take for the 3g to stabilize back to 300ppm in the air? Or if we were to inject the 3g over a period of a month (.1g per day), would you be surprised if every single day, the CO2 balance remains at 300ppm?
we have pretty good records going back over 100 years. We can only work with what we have.
True, but just because it's all we have doesn't mean that it's sufficient to prove our pet hypothesis:)
Notice how the curves for the past 3 decades have shifted towards the hot end of the scale increasing the chances for heat waves and decreasing the chances for cold snaps.
Isn't that contrary to what is predicted (or touted) by the current crop of alarmists saying that we will get more heat waves *and* more cold snaps? Would an increase in cold snaps be evidence against global warming (regardless of its origin)? Over what time period?
Slashdot Mirror
...might be another man's satellite.
My bet is that the first implementation of this is an anti-satellite weapon.
You do realize that your body can handle both nitrites and nitrates perfectly well, right? From the article cited:
"Nitrate, from any dietary source, does not accumulate in our body. Nor does nitrite.
Nitrite is formed in especially high amounts in our mouths from bacteria. Salivary nitrite accounts for 70-97% of our total nitrite exposure. Ingested nitrate (from foods and water) is converted to nitrite when it comes into contact with the bacteria in our saliva. About 25% of the nitrate we eat is converted to salivary nitrate, and up to 20% is converted to nitrite. Most absorbed nitrate is simply excreted in the urine within five hours.
In our stomach, nitrite then reacts to the natural flora and gastric contents, yielding nitric oxide, and little is absorbed. Moreover, what nitrite that is absorbed disappears quickly from our bloodstream, with the average half-life estimated to be as low as 1-5 minutes. More recently, the favorable role of nitrite and the formation of this nitric oxide in our bodies is beginning to be better understood (see below).
Nitrate undergoes a number of metabolic interconversions, absorbed in the proximal intestine and becoming part of the enterosalivary circulation, and is recirculated in the blood, recycled between the saliva and the gut. In other words, total nitrate and nitrite in our blood is almost identical to the nitrate levels, according to the scientific opinion issued by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), adopted on April 10, 2008."
The primary drive of cancer is chronic carbohydrate poisoning, which gives you chronically elevated insulin levels and chronically high blood sugar (an environment in which cancer cells thrive, being highly adapted to using blood glucose for growing).
Any "link" between nitrates and cancer is a correlation, not a causation. In fact, it's quite reasonable to assert that those people who are more likely to get cancer are driven to consume more nitrates because nitrates are *good* for them and they are instinctively *fighting* the cancer they got from their whole wheat bread.
...and the idiot writing the hit piece doesn't seem to know that.
http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/07/does-banning-hotdogs-and-bacon-make.html
"What may be more surprising to learn is that scientific evidence has been building for years that nitrates are actually good for us, that nitrite is produced by our own body in greater amounts than is eaten in food, and that it has a number of essential biological functions, including in healthy immune and cardiovascular systems. Nitrite is appearing so beneficial, it’s even being studied as potential treatments for health problems such as high blood pressure, heart attacks, sickle cell disease and circulatory problems."
Well, that is unless there's some sort of confounding variable not found in the model (not quite sure if that's a proper use of the word "confound" in a statistical sense, but it felt right). A and B could have some sort of causation with each other, and not show correlation, if there is also a C which exists that is out of phase with A or B, effectively neutralizing what we would've *thought* was a correlation.
The limits of our ignorance are truly infinite, aren't they? :)
Sure, but we can simply assert that the influence of pirates on global warming was mitigated by another variable...say, the number of AOL CDs sent out in the mail.
Any sufficiently complex model can preserve its central conceit by making an ad hoc special pleading for observations that don't fit the model. In this way, you have apparent falsifiability (since you're making predictions), but not really functional falsifiability (since every failed prediction generates an ad hoc special pleading).
The way to tackle the "pirates cause global warming" hypothesis is to ask for falsifiability. What observations of pirates, and global warming, would cause someone to abandon the central conceit?
Fun fact, you can ask the same thing about CO2 and global warming :)
The problem of course, is that you've got the case where the ad hoc special pleadings become so numerous, that essentially *every* falsification of a prediction is simply integrated ever more complexly into the model. Theories should be clear about what observations will falsify their central conceit, rather than simply asserting that they can be adapted to any result observed.
http://pmretract.heroku.com/byyear
Seems like despite the small percentage (say, like CO2 ppm in the atmosphere), the trend is alarming.
Well, you've got the devils on the corporate side, who may be trying to avoid bad press, say large organic potato farmers who don't wan to see studies that show the deleterious effects of carbohydrate intake on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. Fewer carbs sold means less profit to the company.
But then, you've got the devils on the government side, who also may be trying to avoid bad press, say the USDA regulators who don't want to see studies that show the deleterious effects of carbohydrate intake on obesity, diabetes, heart disease and other chronic diseases. In this case, a refutation of government advice (four food groups, food pyramid, my plate), would mean less credibility for government advice in the future.
In either case, I think we need systems in place to combat fraud. Start off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement *before* the study. Publish the result data publicly no matter what the outcome (data retention and dissemination). A focus on double blind placebo controlled work instead of observational studies that can't show causality.
Trying to pose this as a "government schools are declining, therefore science is going wrong" is a misunderstanding of the fact that government can have non-scientific impulses.
Hear, hear!
The intarwebs are a dangerous place, instead of trying to Disneyfy it, people need to wear fucking helmets.
...a study found that large scale hamster wheel energy farms could theoretically power 100% of humanity's energy needs.
Heck, you could argue that if we just had enough humans riding on stationary bikes we could power 100% of humanity's energy needs.
The problems with wind are:
1) expensive capital investment;
2) expensive upkeep;
3) real life output a fraction of any rated capacity;
4) intermittent real life output.
We gave wind up in the 18th century because it wasn't worth it. Trying to revive it with subsidies is as silly as trying to resurrect the whale-oil industry since it's "renewable".
Well, I hope along the way you've been exposed to some data and rationale that might allow you to challenge your own strongly held beliefs. The only way to break through the rut of dogma is to rigorously apply the scientific method, which means starting off with a necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Apologies for the typo - 79 not 76 people :)
97% of climatologists? You mean that tired old trope based on a survey of 76 people? Apologies in advance for the WUWT reference, but he's got you dead to rights:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/02/scientific-consensus-on-global-warming-sample-size-79/
The theory of evolution is falsifiable (find a modern rabbit in the precambrian).
The theory of an expanding universe is falsifiable (find a blue shift, instead of a red shift).
Even the moon landing is falsifiable (point your laser at the mirror they left from earth).
What is your possible falsification for catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Oh, that's right, you don't have one, and can't quote anyone who does :)
Of course, what should we care about the scientific method when we can determine truth simply by polling :)
Astrologists make predictions that come true all the time - that doesn't make it science.
Hansen, in 1982, didn't specify a single observation that would have caused him to question his central conceit. My assertion is that to this day, he has never specified *any* observations that would cause him to question his central conceit. We have a word for these unfalsifiable hypotheses: religion.
Obligatory Popper link for you: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html
The fact that the study is appearing in a peer-reviewed psychology journal is a stain on the peers that reviewed the paper, and the journal that proposes to publish it.
As for odd enviro-whacko conspiracy theories similar to catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, you can always look to anti-vaccineers, vegans, organic food worshippers, astrologists, tarot card readers and of course 2012 apocalyptic preachers :)
Simply put, CAGW is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, which is pseudo-science at its worst. This psychology paper demonstrates more about the author's biases and activism than it does enlighten us on any sort of motivation for those who adhere to the scientific method and ask for a falsifiable hypothesis statement.
Wait a tick - this is a survey, which deals with statistics, which McIntyre is a master of. Not to mention, this is a survey done by a non-climatolgist :)
McIntyre hardly *lost* karma in Climategate, his concerns about the shoddy science of the Team were fully realized and confirmed! As for Heartland, you're talking about a tiny drop in the bucket compared to criminals like Glieck and his ilk :)
Bottom line, this study was a fraud, pure and simple:
http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/09/lewandowsky-data-shows-more-alarmists-believe-the-moon-landings-were-faked/
http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/09/01/lewandowsky-et-al-2012-motivated-rejection-of-science-part-3-data-analysis-of-the-conspiracy-theory-element/
How about climateaudit.org?
http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/
Did you read the original cite (which didn't claim McIntyre wasn't contacted)? And of course the sly wishful thinking on Lewandowsky's part ("I would love to be able to release those emails if given permission"), intimating that he's keeping quiet because of some sort of privacy concern :)
Useful reading for you:
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/09/06/fish-rot-from-the-head-part-1/
http://www.ambitgambit.com/2012/09/07/fish-rot-from-the-head-part-2-what-is-a-conspiracy/
The fact of the matter is this was shoddy science, based on faulty data and post hoc data manipulation in order to obtain a predetermined conclusion. Much like the whole catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hypothesis :)
Sounds like plugging your ears with your fingers and screaming "lalalalalala!" in order not to hear something that might challenge your world view.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/08/replication-of-lewandowsky-survey/
I wonder how the survey will turn out when not done by shoddy scientists :)
Your passioned defense of this survey (which had *different questions*, not just different ordering), is yet another perfect example of the motivated rejection of science :)
Your first link is a snarky non-response that doesn't address the question of various versions of the survey. Hardly a stirring rebuttal, but hey, maybe you didn't really read it at all.
As for the lack of invitations, you'll note from McIntyre's response:
"Thus, if your post refers to me, it would be accurate to say that I did not recollect receiving the email, but it is not accurate to say that I "denied" receiving the invitation email, since, like Lucia, I did not preclude the possibility of overlooking something in the tide of email.
A question: in Lambert's invitation post, he stated that you were the author of the survey, a point not disclosed in the covering letter to me from a Charles Harnich. Did Deltoid and similar blogs receive a different covering letter than the one sent to me - one which associated the survey with "Lewandowsky". If so, was this different form of approach included in the approved survey plan? Would you please disclose the different covering letter.
A second question: the participation invitations to Deltoid and similar blogs were posted between August 28-30, while your invitation to me was not sent until some time afterwards. Was this part of the approved methodology? If so, what was the purpose of the delay?
A third question: the reported responses from readers of Deltoid and similar blogs clearly included "scam" responses - a point conceded by Tom Curtis of Skeptical Science. Did your approved methodology include any precautions to identify and exclude "scam" responses? If so, what were they.
As a comment to your mention of me in your article: I have not testified to the "UK Parliament" or any of its subcommittees. In 2006, I testified to a subcommittee of the US House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, it would be inaccurate to say that I testified there as a "blogger". I had published articles in academic literature that were critical of the statistical methodology of Mann et al 1998-99 and was invited in that capacity. "
But again, you've closed your heart and mind to the clearly shoddy fraud being perpetrated by Lewandowsky :) Typical :)
So, do we give out -1 SkS refs, or -1 realclimate refs?
WUWT can be provocative and touchy, and even a bit screwy sometimes, but this is *clearly* one of the stories they're legitimately ahead of the curve on. This study is a flat out fraud, whose conclusions do not fit their data.
So you'd alter the experiment by making the additional 3g of CO2 go in *slower*, with the expectation that only 67% of it would be absorbed by the two barrels of water. Say you go with my procedure anyway, would you care to take a bet on how long it would take for the 3g to stabilize back to 300ppm in the air? Or if we were to inject the 3g over a period of a month (.1g per day), would you be surprised if every single day, the CO2 balance remains at 300ppm?
True, but just because it's all we have doesn't mean that it's sufficient to prove our pet hypothesis :)
Isn't that contrary to what is predicted (or touted) by the current crop of alarmists saying that we will get more heat waves *and* more cold snaps? Would an increase in cold snaps be evidence against global warming (regardless of its origin)? Over what time period?