Zero Sum

That or something else.

Next topic: Michelle Obama Secret Service Detail spends 100 million dollars protecting the First Lady while planking on vacation.

Wow really cool, even though its not a direct pic.

We need Danno to post a thread now about a White Hole swallowing up a Black star.

Well they did get the drug thing right with Rush didn't they?

Honest :rofl:

since when does any government use honest statistics ???? Dem or GOP

especially unemployment figures

garbage in garbage out.

time to run :dance:

I thought we were in an economy where there where, you know... a bunch of people out of work. Those are, after all, what the stats were talking about right?

Being paranoid about the government some times is OK. All the time, not so healthy.

When honest statistics become unimportant, those towns with a ridiculously high level of unemployment will not matter when compared to larger cities with lower rates.

like mating a few moles of carbon and oxygen?

With a molar ratio of 1 C : 2 O.

As long as we focus on Steve and not a retarded critique of his wardrobe... then we'd be following the logic I'd prefer, not what we see with nutters focusing on non-science while calling it scientific proof.

Perhaps you'd like to bring up a parallel involving the mating habits of moles while your at it?

Or of Steve Irwin and how he will return from the grave.

it might be fun for 6 or 7 of us to descend on them all at once

I like where this is going. Imagine the nutters here talking it all up over there. Diagnoses would abound.

You are talking about an issue specific to global warming as far as I can tell. Perhaps that should be discussed in a global warming thread and not one about wireless internet.

You understand I am talking about a parallel, right?

Let me re-post just part of the first post I had here, in case you think I want to make this about GW science.

"Now you know how I feel every GW thread "

If Perry will inspire libs to leave the country... then sign me up as a campaign worker!

Perry was recently threatening secession from the same country he'd presume to Preside over. Does this mean if a Congress under his watch would do something against his will, would he secede the US from itself?

I wasn't questioning the science of the original article. I was simply pointing out a couple issues with the practical application of the idea.

I know you weren't. As I point out the flaws in claiming skepticism in a science certain 'skeptics' show no proof of actually understanding. You point out obvious pragmatic issues that are right on target. Others... not so much, while these things are obviously brought to their attention to their stubborn denialism. Clearly you should see the parallels.

http://www.psychforums.com/

try it there

Imagine all of us here posting over there.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges. This was simply a fun, entertaining article. Not exactly political in nature. I think we can agree that GW has become a political topic.

Yes, we can agree it certainly is a political topic, particularly when the actual science is ignored. And therein are the demonic details which you brought up in your own post.

Lake county (Gary) comes in at 10.7% (that's #46 or smack in the middle among Indiana counties) and Marion county comes in at 9.9% which is #38 out of the state's 92 counties. In other words, most of Indiana looks worse not better in terms of unemployment than the two examples you present here. But hey, what are a few facts among friends?

OH HELL NO YOU DI'DN'T

Sounds like a neat idea, but, as with most things, the devil is in the details.

100 Mbps will be useful for home networks, but not terribly useful for internet access. I'm not aware of any ISPs that offer more than 50 Mbps service, and that is quite expensive and rare.

Note: Whoever wrote this article needs to get their acronyms straight (megabits = Mb, megabytes = MB, gigabit = Gb, gigabyte = GB)

Now you know how I feel every GW thread where we're expected to take 1) some dude's internet opinions as a smoking gun of proof and 2) someone's biased opinion about what constitutes a scientific finding.

People need to find better targets to focus their whining on.

I can tell posting actual scientific articles about pedophilia was pretty much worthless to people not interested in correlating cause to effect.

As usual nothing of substance. I put effort in showing the studies and research conclusions were shown to be not just wrong but actually manipulated and faked and all you got is............nothing.

Effort? Sounds like something a parrot would do, lucky. Try giving your opinion. Remember what that was?

You can try all you want, but if you don't understand what you post, then indeed you have nothing.

Thats what i'm interested in.

Then don't read it and move along.

So you'll continue posting... nothing.

I was curious about something. Really not that lone ago we were in an ice age and are still coming out of it. We had glaciers that covered pretty much all of North America. What is the hypotheses that brought about the warming to bring us out of that age?

First share with us your hypothesis for the climate shifts over the last 200 years.

Yay, more science.

Of course this is going to be overlooked by the sheep. I will have more though to be overlooked of course.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.

CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: Getty

By Christopher Booker

6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

1451 Comments

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog,coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

RELATED ARTICLES

• 'Climategate' university performs data U-turn
  28 Nov 2009
• Climategate won't make global warming go away
  29 Nov 2009
• Copenhagen climate summit: Doors open on summit
  07 Dec 2009
• Climate emails sweep America
  29 Nov 2009
• BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails
  30 Nov 2009
• Leaked climate change emails 'won't bias UN global warning body' says chairman
  30 Nov 2009

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Pretty much. Depending on the context, Lucky's favorite word to refer to those he disagrees with are one of 'sheep', 'moron', or 'socialist'. Sometimes all three. But he means well, and has good taste in music, so we indulge him.

I wonder what's worse, calling others that actually explain things in their own words the things he does, or parroting news articles that paraphrase a context incorrectly. If that isn't a classical example of being two of those of his favorite words... I wouldn't know what they could be. But indeed, we should always encourage him to continue.

So we have to take the word of a reverse-engineering process that doesn't follow the same variable analysis from the PCA data sets? I know most readers won't actually catch that incongruous logic, but that's like checking apple juice for the taste of oranges.

And again, as usual, we are not let down that the scientific expertise of lucky would of course take command in bringing forward this excellent analysis. I am beginning to believe that lucky is a real scientist.

Michael Mann also was the Main Author of the famous Hockey stick graph that all GW sheep jumped on. Unfortunately it was proven either faked or just bad math.

It's hard to nail down exactly when the sky started falling, but certainly the work of

Michael Mann provided its first global exposure. Michael Mann, a paleoclimatologist ( one who attempts to interpret the past climate through certain Paleolithic records, such as ice core samples, sea bed sediments, coral heads, and tree ring growth ), submitted a paper to Nature magazine in 1998 which, unfortunately, was not subjected to peer review before publication. In it, he offered what has now become known as the famous "hockey stick" chart, showing the earth's temperature having been relatively constant for the past thousand years before suddenly skyrocketing upward at the dawn of the 20th century. His interpretation was that man's production of CO₂ in the modern age was obviously responsible for the sudden increase. It turned out to be one of the biggest scientific blunders of all time.

Look carefully at the chart above, which is the famous "hockey stick" chart. Note the horizontal scale is in years, stretching from the year 1000 to the near present time. The vertical scale is in degrees Centigrade, and note carefully that it is graded in increments of 1/10 of a degree. That means the wiggly blue section in the middle is actually only varying up and down by about a half of a degree. The baseline, as noted, is set at the average of the recorded temperatures from 1961 to 1990. Also note that only the red portion represents actual measured temperatures - the rest is based on the assumption that one can interpret past temperatures from examining ancient tree rings or ice core samples from centuries-old ice locked in glaciers. This is, at best, a marriage of apples and oranges - the handle being somewhat of an educated guess, and the blade being based on actual measurements using thermometric recording devices. Sort of like pairing the skull of a human with the jawbone of an orangutan. And finally, note that the chart is for the northern hemisphere only. This chart, unfortunately, became the foundation for the first report of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ), which in turn provided the summary information and recommendations to the world's governments. The Anthropogenic Global Warming panic was off to a rocketing start.

However, some folks noticed a couple of significant and fairly well accepted climatological history facts to be conspicuously missing. The first was the well-documented "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures, at least in Europe as mentioned in our introduction, were significantly higher. The second was the "Little Ice Age", a period in which the temperatures dropped so low the Thames River in London froze over.

How could this be an accurate record of the last millennium?

Let's pause and mention that the data above is not "raw" data. Dr. Mann actually used about 70-80 data sets, and in each set he applied a mathematical analysis known as a principle component analysis ( PCA ) which seeks to extract principal, or significant component information from a widely varying set of raw data.

Along comes

Steve McIntyre, a Canadian analyst, who spends two years of his own personal time reverse-engineering Dr. Mann's PCA program. McIntyre subjects Mann's PCA program to a "Monte Carlo" analysis - which inserts random data sets into the function - and discovered that no matter what data he fed it, the result was always the same. The arm of the "hockey stick" ( paleo-record ) always came out straight. In Dr. Mann's case, the rising temperature of the Medieval Warm Period and the expected trough of the Little Ice Age had been completely erased. The hockey stick was broken. Fini. Kaput. We may never know whether Mann's work was deliberately contrived to fit some personal environmental agenda, or just a colossal mathematical blunder.

McIntyre submitted his work to Nature Magazine - since they were responsible for publishing Mann's flawed research without peer review in the first place, but they reportedly rejected it, saying it was "too long". He then shortened it to 500 words, and re-submitted it, but again it was rejected, this time saying it was "too mathematical" or words to that effect. Heaven forbid any publication calling itself an "International Weekly Journal of Science" from actually publishing any science that hinged on mathematics. Let's all push a yard stick into the snow, measure the snow depth, call ourselves "climate scientists", and get published in Nature. In the end, McIntyre turned to the internet and its true freedom of the press, and today he is known to every serious climate scientist on the planet as the man who broke the hockey stick.

The National Academy of Sciences has found Mann's graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless. Note the corrected version, below, in which neither today's temperatures nor the rate of warming are particularly unusual compared to the historical record. Thus, even the "global warming" of the 20th century was not even remotely a cause for the slightest alarm. It was all "much to do about nothing".

The Medieval Warm Period, of which the proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming don't want you to be aware, was a period in which agriculture flourished, helping Europe emerge from the Dark Ages.The Little Ice Age produced crop failures from too-short growing seasons leading to widespread hunger and even starvation in some more northern locales.

Since our emergence from the Little Ice Age, agriculture has again flourished, and most of us hope it lasts quite a while longer. This is certainly no cause for panic, and a few of us think being comfortably warm and having plenty to eat is actually good.

And Tom Nelson has a few more graphs the AGW folks don't want you to see posted HERE.

We also know why that Al Gore and most scientists persist in this hoax.

So what has Al Gore gained from his Big Green escapades?

According to public disclosure information, Gore was worth somewhere between $1 million and $2 million in 2000. Not quite eight years later, Gore is estimated to be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 million. While I ordinarily would applaud such financial gains from such a short period of time, I can’t help but to question just how it happened. When you look out at what Al Gore has done, it’s evident that he figured out on a way to capitalize on the creation of Big Green while becoming the official doomsday prophet that has helped to build Big Green into the monetary powerhouse that it has become.

In any other industry this would be considered a severe conflict of interest. In essence, Al Gore has helped to create a fictitious catastrophe, then told everybody what the solutions have to be, and then put himself in a position to capitalize on the hype. It’s not only seriously dishonest, but many people and industries are going to suffer in the wake of this hype while Gore and Big Green bring in millions (and in some cases, billions) of dollars in green money.

Lots of science in this post, I congratulate lucky once again for hitting the scientific nail in the GW coffin.

Here is Michael Mann and his part in the emails. Don't worry I have more.

IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud| Print | WRITTEN BY REBECCA TERRELL AND ED HISERODT MONDAY, 23 NOVEMBER 2009 00:00

0

Global warming alarmists are scrambling to save face after hackers stole hundreds of incriminating e-mails from a British university and published them on the Internet.

The messages were pirated from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) and reveal correspondence between British and American researchers engaged in fraudulent reporting of data to favor their own climate change agenda. UEA officials confirmed one of their servers was hacked, and several of the scientists involved admitted the authenticity of the messages, according to the New York Times. The article opined, "The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument."

Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud." The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: "Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise.... Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?... Will be getting Caspar to do likewise." The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential "hockey stick" graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," wrote Jones. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "The fact is we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed "our [inadequate] observing system." Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the "Climategate" bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a messagefrom Jones who wrote about a statistical "trick" he used to "hide" data. Or perhaps they mean Mann'sreference to climate change skeptics as "idiots."

Now that AGW is revealed as a farce, will big-spending politicians in the U.S. Senate halt efforts to impose a cap-and-trade system to ostensibly combat greenhouse gases and global warming? Of course not. Cap and trade is about raising taxes and increasing government control over our entire economy. Our socialist politicians in Washington will never stop pushing this issue, even if global-warming alarmism is disproven to the point that Hell really does freeze over.

Will widespread and irrefutable knowledge of scientific fraud silence the socialist promoters of a new United Nations Climate Change protocol? Nonsense. In the name of saving the planet, the UN Copenhagen Treaty they intend to impose on the world would help to shackle it. Specifically, their "green" agenda would impose international controls, diminish the industrial might and living standards of developed nations, and transfer wealth from rich countries to poorer ones in an emerging world government. Internationalists and socialists will not back away from their long-sought-after global designs simply because the "science" supporting runaway global warming is shown to be flawed. No doubt they will continue to demand retributions for climate debt from the United States and the largely agreeable EU, despite Trenberth's observed "lack of warming."

The good thing is that even more than in the past, these false scientists and their alarmism will be countered with their own words. Even now reliable researchers are compiling the information in apublication that should shake our nation — and maybe even a few Democratic politicians.

He's got more science. Indeed, lucky hits another homer.

This is Mann the one just said to have done nothing wrong. Have more to post.

In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes

Network News

XPROFILEView More Activity

TOOLBOX

ResizePrintE-mailReprints By Juliet EilperinWashington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Electronic files that were stolen from a prominent climate research center and made public last week provide a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming.

THIS STORY

• In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes
• Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center
• Do the hacked e-mails expose scientists or skeptics?

View All Items in This StoryWhile few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.

"I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Jones replies.

Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute who comes under fire in the e-mails, said these same academics repeatedly criticized him for not having published more peer-reviewed papers.

"There's an egregious problem here, their intimidation of journal editors," he said. "They're saying, 'If you print anything by this group, we won't send you any papers.' "

Mann, who directs Penn State's Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of "vigorous debate" researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. "We shouldn't expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they're speaking in public," he said.

Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute who has questioned whether climate change is human-caused, blogged that the e-mails have "the makings of a very big" scandal. "Imagine this sort of news coming in the field of AIDS research," he added.

The story of the hacking has ranked among the most popular on Web sites ranging from The Washington Post's to that of London's Daily Telegraph. And it has spurred a flood of e-mails from climate skeptics to U.S. news organizations, some likening the disclosure to the release of the Pentagon Papers during Vietnam.

Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and wrote some of the pirated e-mails, said it is the implications rather than the content of climate research that make some people uncomfortable.

"It is incontrovertible" that the world is warming as a result of human actions, Trenberth said. "The question to me is what to do."

"It's certainly a legitimate question," he added. "Unfortunately one of the side effects of this is the messengers get attacked."

In his new book, "Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save the Earth's Climate," Stanford University climate scientist Stephen H. Schneider details the intense debate over warming, arguing that it has helped slow the nation's public policy response.

"I've been here on the ground, in the trenches, for my entire career," writes Schneider, who was copied on one of the controversial e-mails. "I'm still at it, and the battle, while looking more winnable these days, is still not a done deal."

Ad Choice

Hopeless.

I did ask you for your opinion. Still chicken? All you showed ad nauseam was inconclusive 'evidence' that goes nowhere in terms of proving anything, if not just your ignorance of the science involved.

Rats... network timed out last response.

Bob, its great that you point out the potential for sampling error. That said, notice that you can have the most specified sample pool in testing these criminal populations. One needs to consider the methodology to ensure the control groups (if in prison) are indeed seeking to not incriminate themselves, thereby diluting the effect of the experimental group. In effect, sampling error in the kind of studies highlighted before in this thread would actually strengthen the significance of the obtained results... if weeded out.

Luckily, the imaging paradigms are much harder to obfuscate as lie detector responses are in real time. Brain activity happens in the order of milliseconds, much faster than the threshold one needs to try and dominate slower detection technologies. To make it simpler, focusing on specific populations of known offenders within certain categories actually establishes the potential for a stronger result correlated to a common mechanism, and that would be effectively markedly different from a control group that lacked this result...

And having him realize that he needs to choose his actual scientific articles more carefully. Or at the least, not pick articles that contradict the bias he says it proves.