You're right but isn't all this just extremely banal? To say that entropy is a statistical measure of disorder and that between certain bounds, life is more or less likely is simply to say that a body at equilibrium (like Mars) is much less likely to harbour life than one that isn't (like the Earth). It's a "no-shit Sherlock" moment.
Constructing rational biases, which is what a prior effectively is ("objective prior") isn't all that easy though, is it. There's no universal method for constructing a prior. It's a big source of potential error.
I don't think that's what it means, no. It means there are difficult to discover sources of bias in the design, implementation and interpretation of studies. Over time they change and so (remarkably) do the results.
Bayesians need priors don't they? Where do they come from and what affect does the choice of prior have on the final outcome? I don't think Bayesian analysis is any more of a silver bullet than any other technique.
Isn't this generally know as The Decline Effect? It's not just clinical trials, it applies to almost everything (to varying degrees). It's also been interpreted as The Half-Life of Knowledge.
Yes. When I was a child, which was quite a while ago now, pictures of Diplodocus or "diplo - dokus" as I used to call it, showed them mooching around in lakes with predators like Tyrannosaurs looking on wistfully from the shoreline.
Though just one sample (in my case) isn't significant, this is also my personal experience. Since I started avoiding bread, potato (not sweet potato), rice, pasta and sugar, I've lost a lot of weight. Part of the reason though, is that these foods are all over the place and very cheap, whereas my sweet potato mash with chicken breast and steamed green beans takes a little effort to produce.
So I do wonder if it's more about availability than it is the form of calories (the emptiness of many carb calories notwithstanding).
Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.
It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.
Probably. It's just something I heard about a conference for the Deep Carbon Observatory some time ago. We'll get everybody into a room to discuss whether we think it's a great idea for the government to give us $100,000,000 to do a study into it. Oh, we all voted Yes! The result was a massive shock, as you can imagine.
I'm guessing he also explained how it would cost the government $100,000,00, payable in monthly instalments to various institutions, to do the feasibility studies.
have seen no compelling reason to part with my money
This is pretty much why Linux has never broken through on the desktop. Who wants to develop for a system that people like you use? I've got a mortgage to pay and I'd prefer not to starve to death. I'd rather develop on Windows and get paid actual money than develop for ungrateful Marxist pricks like you on Linux.
Oh dear, you were doing so well until you had to put your conspiracy theorists hat on.
It's not a conspiracy theory if its true, is it. It wouldn't be the first time either. The "official report" is the IPCC's report. It's filtered out of the literature, such as it is. It's almost certainly more accurate than the summary for policy makers, which tends to read more like an appeal for funding than a careful distillation of the facts.
the natural carbon cycle deals out no where near the amount of CO2 humans do
What the hell are you talking about? Estimates for natural emissions are around 150 billion tonnes per year. That's thirty times Human emissions. And that estimate is from the IPCC so it's likely the figures have been carefully massaged down to make Human emissions appear bigger than they are.
On the other hand, methane vents at the bottom of the Atlantic have probably existed since the Atlantic was formed and I expect for quite a few billion years in other oceans at other times. The idea that they came into existence the moment we discovered them and that therefore they must be caused or influenced by Man, specifically a few parts per million of a trace gas that's regularly recycled by the biosphere in huge quantities and has been for a billion years, is completely ridiculous.
Don't be silly. There are at least 30 different versions of "what scientists think" about this issue. In other words they don't know. That isn't settled science is it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think it's got anything to do with it actually.
Of course. I read about this quite a few years ago in a book called Global Warming and Other Bollocks. It has a chapter on salt. I'm still recovering from being told that egg yolks are as bad for me as smoking, though I don't eat 20 eggs a day (or smoke any more), it turns out that actually they're probably only bad for people with heart disease or diabetes.
Anyone losing the will to live yet? I could go on...
You're right but isn't all this just extremely banal? To say that entropy is a statistical measure of disorder and that between certain bounds, life is more or less likely is simply to say that a body at equilibrium (like Mars) is much less likely to harbour life than one that isn't (like the Earth). It's a "no-shit Sherlock" moment.
Constructing rational biases, which is what a prior effectively is ("objective prior") isn't all that easy though, is it. There's no universal method for constructing a prior. It's a big source of potential error.
I don't think that's what it means, no. It means there are difficult to discover sources of bias in the design, implementation and interpretation of studies. Over time they change and so (remarkably) do the results.
Bayesians need priors don't they? Where do they come from and what affect does the choice of prior have on the final outcome? I don't think Bayesian analysis is any more of a silver bullet than any other technique.
Isn't this generally know as The Decline Effect? It's not just clinical trials, it applies to almost everything (to varying degrees). It's also been interpreted as The Half-Life of Knowledge.
In the UK the standard metric is units of London double-decker buses.
Yes. When I was a child, which was quite a while ago now, pictures of Diplodocus or "diplo - dokus" as I used to call it, showed them mooching around in lakes with predators like Tyrannosaurs looking on wistfully from the shoreline.
You aren't aware of the term "cognitive burden", with respect to user interfaces?
The basic idea is this: You want people to use your software, not throw their phone at the wall.
Though just one sample (in my case) isn't significant, this is also my personal experience. Since I started avoiding bread, potato (not sweet potato), rice, pasta and sugar, I've lost a lot of weight. Part of the reason though, is that these foods are all over the place and very cheap, whereas my sweet potato mash with chicken breast and steamed green beans takes a little effort to produce.
So I do wonder if it's more about availability than it is the form of calories (the emptiness of many carb calories notwithstanding).
Because it's an absolutely fantastic opportunity to make huge amounts of money from lots of poor suckers. Can you imagine it? No need for fearmongering ad campaigns; the politicians and activist-scientists do it for you. Scare everybody witless then sell them insurance.
It's such a brilliant idea I don't know why I didn't think of it before. Oh I remember now... I'm not a sociopath.
Yes and being just 2mm it's way outside of the range of experimental error.
Certainly not as thick as many climate alarmists here, no.
Probably. It's just something I heard about a conference for the Deep Carbon Observatory some time ago. We'll get everybody into a room to discuss whether we think it's a great idea for the government to give us $100,000,000 to do a study into it. Oh, we all voted Yes! The result was a massive shock, as you can imagine.
What an unusual comment.
Oh dear, list me all of the other things you don't pay for in life because of your sense of entitlement. Food? Clean water? Central heating?
I'm guessing he also explained how it would cost the government $100,000,00, payable in monthly instalments to various institutions, to do the feasibility studies.
If you don't like it, don't buy it. Nobody's forcing it on you are they.
This is pretty much why Linux has never broken through on the desktop. Who wants to develop for a system that people like you use? I've got a mortgage to pay and I'd prefer not to starve to death. I'd rather develop on Windows and get paid actual money than develop for ungrateful Marxist pricks like you on Linux.
Enjoy your lentil soup.
It's not a conspiracy theory if its true, is it. It wouldn't be the first time either. The "official report" is the IPCC's report. It's filtered out of the literature, such as it is. It's almost certainly more accurate than the summary for policy makers, which tends to read more like an appeal for funding than a careful distillation of the facts.
What the hell are you talking about? Estimates for natural emissions are around 150 billion tonnes per year. That's thirty times Human emissions. And that estimate is from the IPCC so it's likely the figures have been carefully massaged down to make Human emissions appear bigger than they are.
There's one in Iceland that's predicted to be huge and... unfortunately it's looking like it might be thinking about going off sometime soon.
On the other hand, methane vents at the bottom of the Atlantic have probably existed since the Atlantic was formed and I expect for quite a few billion years in other oceans at other times. The idea that they came into existence the moment we discovered them and that therefore they must be caused or influenced by Man, specifically a few parts per million of a trace gas that's regularly recycled by the biosphere in huge quantities and has been for a billion years, is completely ridiculous.
Don't be silly. There are at least 30 different versions of "what scientists think" about this issue. In other words they don't know. That isn't settled science is it.