Bart -
Please read the Pennsylvania Medical Society <a href="http://www.mccumberdaniels.com/userfiles/files/Blog%20attachment/PAMED%20statement-4-18_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">News Release</a> On page 2:
<blockquote>Inherent in [physicians] right to receive this [proprietary] information is the ability to share the information with the patient, with other physicians, and providers including specialists assisting and involved with the care of the patient. Further, reporting and information sharing with public health and regulatory agencies such as the Department of Health is necessary and permitted. In short, the information can be utilized in whatever manner is necessary to respond to the medical needs asserted by the health care professional. </blockquote>
Comment on The Righteous Mind by blueice2hotsea
↧
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by timg56
Now you are going to tell us the Easter Bunny isn’t real?
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by blueice2hotsea
Note: the above quote is from PA Secretary of Health, Eli Avila to the president of PAMED. It explicitly allows doctors to share info with patients and advises that sharing with public health and regulatory agencies is necessary and permitted.
Who is in charge of the botnet that saturated us with the PA frakking hysteria?
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Bernie Schreiver
Mike, it’s just like Sam Palmisano says in that video:
The most obvious, and also the most underestimated lesson in the 100-year history of IBM is that you must keep moving to the future. I will repeat that because I think it’s worth repeating: You must keep moving to the future.As you know, that is easier said than done. It is so easy to stick to things that have made you a successful company or institution. A winning product, a profitable business model. It’s even easy to stick to your own personal behavior, what made you successful as a professional. As you know, muscle-memory.
But yet one of the core responsibilities of leadership is to understand when it’s time to change: change the organization and change yourself – ourselves.
It’s also equally important to know what not to change, what must endure, and to get that balance right is really, really hard.
A pretty good way to “keep moving to the future” is to pay close attention to the science, even when its message is unwelcome … this approach has worked well for IBM.
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Adam Chavin
What the freak is going on here????
I don’t understand anyone on this thread. I have never felt despair, anger or hate when people disagree with me. And I am completely surprised and flummoxed that it seems everyone else does.
Judith, I read your blog every day because I can expect a big dose of sanity, but this post and comment thread seems like something.out of Alice in Wonderland.
Tell me if I’m alone on the following:
I find that almost all arguments steam from one of two sources, and neither of them is “reasoning differently”.
1) What Judith calls “talking past eachother” – which I take to mean, believing that we’re arguing about the same thing, where in fact we are arguing about two different things.
William James and the squirrel seems to be a good example of this: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/james.htm
2) A difference of opinion about cause and effect in the real world – typically when the effects are hard to measure.
I think it is best to explain with an example. I plucked this by going to a news source, and picking the top article about political debate: http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11309106-obama-gop-square-off-on-student-loans?lite
Here’s a quote (sorry don’t know how to do italics):
The Obama administration Friday kicked off a push to delay a scheduled increase in the interest rate charged on so-called Stafford loans for college. But the program is just one of many that face pressure from Republicans who say they are too costly for taxpayers.
The thing is, everyone would like people to pay less on student loans, and everyone would like for the government to incur less debt as well. The real question is which one of the two options will have a better effect on America?
Obama apparently believes that America would benefit the most by not increasing the interest on student loans. Republicans apparently believe that America would benefit the most by having this money go elsewhere.
In theory this could be empirically tested assuming we all agree what constitutes a “better effect on America”. But as modelers are fans of telling us, that would require two different worlds and many years to test.
We can look to history to help guide us, but then there will certainly be other factors that make the difference.
And of course this assumes we can somehow quantify and compare the lives of all Americans.
Since these things are impossible instead it comes down to how tough you feel loan payers have it at this time, how much everyone will benefit if the interest doesn’t increase, and how much everyone will benefit if the money is used elsewhere.
Those are very subjective beliefs and they are not something that will be solved by arguing, but something that might be solved by statistics and taking a closer look at the world.
The point of all this is that when people disagree with me I never feel an emotion other than curiosity, which apparently is different from everyone else on this thread (and, if Haidt’s book is to be believed, the earth). I’m curious because either we’re doing such a bad job communicating that we’re talking about two different things…
Or, more importantly, we disagree on cause and effect.
By which I very literally mean that we believe the same action on the world will have different effects.
Don’t you find this curious??
No one will tell you that baking soda and vinegar don’t react chemically because you can point to a junior high science fair and show them that they do.
So when people disagree with me about other things I get curious about what junior high science fairs they’ve been going to. In essence, I get curious as to where they see such cause and effect in the world, and why I see a different cause and effect.
Usually I find – as J.C. would put it – uncertainty.
How can I feel anger, hate or despair about that?
↧
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Agnostic
This is precisely the view I am challenging. It is NOT a left vs right issue at all. It is a scientific question that has political implications. You are far too concerned about the political implications that you have not stopped to objectively assess the scientific question. You are approaching this exactly backwards in my view. It is the notion that the political will was first BEFORE the scientific question was posed that I find so untenable about your position.
I appreciate absolutely that once the notion of CAGW had been established, it plays much better to liberal sentiments than to conservative ones, but you have seen many commentators here outside of the US whose politics and views on AGW do not line up along the same boundaries as in the US? You are absolutely too coloured in your thinking by a US-centric almost parochial attitude.
To non-US readers it is absurd, and it undermines the case skeptics of the alarmism to GW have on the genuine scientific and policy response question.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. The whole precept of CAGW is not unreasonable in that it is certainly a question worth asking. For various reasons, confidence in the answer was unwarranted, and a small cabal of scientists have been instrumental in distorting it to the extent it is as politicised as it is, objectivity has been lost, and the whole thing has descended into the sort of tribalism you sadly demonstrate in your posts.
Seriously, if world temperatures were going up alarmingly, sea levels really were accelerating and parts of new York were starting to flood as a result – if all the indicators were that CAGW was real or beginning to occur, the projections were turning out to be right, how would you expect society to respond? We surely would need governments around the world coordinating a response?
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Beth Cooper
I am softened by the glint in the kitten’s eye,
oh … and the gift of a moonbeam, )
↧
Comment on UQ by Punksta
Well I wouldn’t say climate modelling is an inherently fraudulent process.
But I would say the attribution of exaggerated confidence is, and that such fraud is motivated by a combination of totalitarian ideology and grant-farming.
And I do wonder just how much a CAGW outcome is programmed into them right from the start, both consciously and unconsciously. Does the poor layman have any chance of getting a handle of this, I wonder?
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Brian H
What a nasty, snarky post! Unfortunately, I agree with pretty much all of it. Unfortunately/unfortunately, I may have to cut you loose, as you lose me with your egregious error: ” “America’s Flagship Company” is looking to loose [sic] its corporate shirt”.
Bad dog.
↧
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Brian H
Careful, David. Sowell is brilliant and extremely observant. Do read some of his work. (He also writes very well; so reading is no chore.)
↧
Comment on The denizens of Climate Etc. by Brian H
It’s a thread for readers to introduce themselves and provide background. It is not for substantive discussion of issues. Your posts, IMO, are topical and argumentative — nothing to do with introducing yourself or your background. Capisce?
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Chief Hydrologist
Le Pétomane,
The French have told you that? You have spoken to them all? They object to me calling you Le Pétomane? I think you are lying again. You don’t appreciate the cross lingual pun? Bart rhymes with fart? (hah hah) A little immature – I do admit -but it amuses me as you most certainly do not.
Your graph – Fig 7 – is not referenced correctly so I can’t tell what the meaning of a linear vs exponential 5m sea level rise this century. Perhaps it is due to scientific reticence. Perhaps it is just that you plop in irrelevancies at every opportunity to divert from your absurd claims and to bury relevancies in absurdist fantasies.
In this case you borrow as well Eli’s absurd brain is a vat reference -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat – we deny that we are brains in a vat in some way that relates to information provided in our programming or inputs. So called denial logic. But we are obviously nor brains in a vat – it is just another tedious space cadet fantasy.
And we are right about the world no warming for a decade or three more – hah hah.
Robert I Ellison
Chief Hydrologist
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Bart R
Middle rhyme. How droll.
Couldn’t find anything in French that rhymes with R? Get it? End rhyme?
You should do more work on your French Rs.
↧
↧
Comment on Arctic warming opens region to new military activity by lolwot
Mike I think you are letting your emotion get in the way of practical common sense here.
Problems:
1) Time Zones. Yes you can expect the president to wake up at 3am to answer the phone, but this is a completely different ballgame. This is an international conference consisting of hours of meetings and wrangling over many days, involving many delegates from many countries. Who decides which countries get the luxury of the meeting happening during the daytime when their delegates are more fresh and effective? Countries will argue with each other bitterly over the advantage to have the conference during daytime in their timezone. A whole new level of diplomatic haggling that gets in the way of the meeting.
2) Jumping the gun. Why are you expecting an international conference to work using videoconferencing when videoconferencing hasn’t even been demonstrated to work at the country-level? Last time I checked all your politicians were traveling to the same “congress” building to debate rather than video-conferencing. Aren’t you jumping the gun demanding video-conferencing for international events when your own politicians don’t even use video-conferencing within their own country?
3) Debate/Arguments. You don’t seem to be appreciating that the nature of these conferences is argumentative. It’s not like a business conference or where everyone largely turns up to nod at presentations, or a skype conversation where people are just socializing. In international conferences many countries will look for *excuses* to argue – think of your congress but on a bigger more fractured scale. The technology of video-conferencing opens up many new avenues for them to use stall/delay tactics.
4) The Software. Video-conferencing for an international conference sounds great in principle, but it’s full of the same flaws that all these technology-at-any-price pie-in-the-sky ideas have. When you come to implement it you discover that it’s a lot more complicated than you think. You can’t just take off-the-shelf video conferencing software and host an international conference off it. You need tailor made software. You have a video conference in which delegates from potentially hundreds of locations around the world are dialing in. Okay great now they can talk together at the same time, but how do they hold private discussions with each other? What is the replacement for casual mixing in crowded rooms that generates spontaneous exchanges?
5) How do you ensure all the connections are stable and stay up? It’s inevitable with so many lines in from so many locations around the world that there will be technical hiccups. Delegates of countries #81 and #94 have lost sound and are demanding the conference doesn’t proceed until it’s fixed. One hour passes until the issues are resolved (perhaps on *their* end). Now delegates of country #55 are seeing the video link breaking up and is demanding the conference be postponed further – afterall we waited for countries #81 nad #94 so it would be unfair to proceed without country #55, it would suggest country #55 was irrelevant. At a key moment, country #80 who doesn’t want to make a decision on a matter suddenly claims they haven’t been able to reach a decision because they lost sound yesterday…
6) Training. Who is going to train all these delegates in the use of the technology? These delegates are used to meetings, in person. They could deal with that. They are not used to this software that has been foisted on them just for this conference.
7) Technical Support. Do we need to post engineers in every country to be able to fix problems at their end with the software/hardware? Will we need to fly them out?
8) Distractions. If they are not physically at a conference some leaders will get distracted and will try to do other stuff, treating the conference as a kind of “phone call meeting” that happens during the day. Cue a load of absences as leaders and their teams doing show up to the meetings because they got delayed in traffic doing something else.
↧
Comment on The Righteous Mind by Considerate thinker
“Do you ever find yourself reading something by a commentator you disagree with and wanting to punch them in the face? Do you listen to people on the other side of the political debate and find yourself almost hating them?” ?
My answer is a resounding NO to that opening question, and to the second part of the question, my question, Why would you hate someone that is taken in by political spin and merely spouts the words of the propaganda put about by clever people who are deliberately lying to those that have absolute faith in them?. So sad, a simple person, manipulated by a flawed proposition, prediction, or political process spun by liars.
The worst thing of course is, the smart spinners, depend upon that simple unquestioning response, while maintaining an arrogant contempt for those they so cleverly manipulate with their lies and misinformation.
When ordinary trusting people finally realise the depth and extent of the lies, the misinformation, the contempt and loathing is all encompassing, as is the loss of trust for years to come.
↧
Comment on The denizens of Climate Etc. by Pete Ridley
Hi Brian H, Yes, I’ve “Capisce!” but it looks as though you haven’t. In none of your numerous comments here was I able to find anything that fits your description of what should be in comments on this thread, i.e. I found “ .. nothing to do with introducing yourself or your background… ”, e.g. where on 21st April 2011 at 12:16 am. did you do that? Perhaps you’d be good enough to point out where you do so – Capisce?
My comment was a response to Tom’s, much like yours were to Gene, Roger, Harold, Tom and Harold.
Best regards, Pete Ridley
↧
Comment on Assessing climate model software quality by Brian H
Prezakly. An internally consistent model of the climate based on phlogiston is worthless except as a playtoy; same with CO2 forcing.
↧
↧
Comment on Assessing climate model software quality by Brian H
Related is the persistent effort to make “90%” and “95%” confidence levels sound respectable. The reason 3,4,&5-sigma levels are required in real science is to combat the powerful forces of data snooping, investigator bias, fraud, self-deception — plus the hiding of negative results in dark corners. All of which are rampant and unconstrained and unrestrained in climate “science”.
↧
Comment on Assessing climate model software quality by Brian H
There are rumours that some of them briefly considered it, but decided they were too busy and it wasn’t worth the effort.
↧
Comment on Climate change responses in the developing world by WebHubTelescope
Like he said, the oil age is over for Mexico, and the majority of the world’s countries.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
