Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Elizabeth May; Science Divided by Zero

I learned at an early stage in my Mathematics career that when you take any number and divide it by zero, the result is an error message. If you try to divide something by nothing, you can't. After listening to Slick Lizzie being interviewed by one of my favourite pundits Roy Green (pinch hitting on Adler, 7pm pacific, CKNW 980 in Vancouver), a couple of things jumped out at me.

First was that she must have dropped the term "peer reviewed" at least a dozen times if not more. She went so far as to claim that Global Warming has faced more peer review than any other hypothesis in human history. Meanwhile we recently found in correspondence between top scientists that they were restricting entry to peer reviewer status. Opposition was neither encouraged nor allowed. The scientific method demands scrutiny at all stages of the scientific process, and by silencing dissent they were essentially Manufacturing Consensus!

(ps; considering Manufacturing Consensus as a possible book subject/title some day, unless somebody beat me to it)

Secondly on the subject of the scientist E-Mails, she insisted that we should focus on the criminal activity and not what the hacker found. Sure, when Green activists break Canadian laws, we are then supposed to focus on the message and not the criminal offense. Got it Liz. Furthermore, she reassures us that she has personally read all of the climate E-Mails and assures us that there is nothing negative at all in any of them. There is no need for other Canadians to read the content because Liz tells us everything is okay. So when scientists confess to manipulating data in order to fit the hypothesis; that is not scientifically incriminating? What ever happened to the scientific process? You are dividing by zero again, but she says that we should trust what she says and we should accept that at face value.

And of course you can't report on polar bear populations unless you are able to filter a proper research study through the specifically chosen review panel that only approves what fits the hypothesis. So the Chief Wildlife Officer in Nunavut is out of his mind saying that there are twice as many polar bears as 50 years ago. The real experts on this are scientists at Hogwarts. And yet you can't log into the Liblogs without seeing at least one if not more polar bear pictures used as props. Some Liberal bloggers openly acknowledge using polar bears as props!

Oh, and Elizabeth May is teaching us economists new terminology "negative cost" meaning that if we go what she says, we will have growth. Negative cost does not exist as she presents, yet she is preaching it like the spirit of Adam Smith has possessed her body. If we don't do what she says, anyone under 9 meters from sea level will be underwater in the near future. Who is the dream weaver?

Some Liberal bloggers are completely smitten with Elizabeth May.

Which gets me to a future poll question. I write a lot about Green Economics. If I were to write a book on this issue, what should it be titled? Thus far I have:

Manufacturing Consensus

Where Environmentalism Ends and Marxism Begins

It's Not Easy Being Green

When Pacifists Attack

An Inconvenient Scientific Method

Divided By Zero

And I will be taking your nominations before I launch the poll.


  1. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

  2. I suggest..

    The Science of Manipulation.

    Ask an expert.
    Lizzy May wrote the book(literaly).

    go here...

    I'm no fan of hers, she has spent her entire life MANIPULATING those around her.

  3. Re. the title, why not "The Interpretation of Dreams"? (I realize it's already been taken, but that doesn't matter w/r to book titles. And you could pretend it was in homage to An (but not The) Austrian School). Or a variation on the old Yippie theme - "Burn this Book!". Or perhaps "Principia Mishmatica"?

  4. The climategate scandal has called into question the whole concept of peer review, and has tarnished all scientists in every field of endeavour. Peer review obviously now only means "reviewed by those I consider my peers". So, if you go to the local kindergarten and ask a student for a treatise on cold fusion, and four of his classmates agree with it, then the science is settled and he has solved the dilemma of cold fusion. If you drop in on your local mental institution and ask one of the inmates to write a commentary on developing advanced psycho-kinesis, and four or five of his fellow patients agree, then the science is settled and we can all start moving mountains.
    Peer review is only valid when the review is done by someone who dramatically disagrees with the hypothesis.

  5. I like the classic:

    You lied, you're fired!

    Simple sweet to the point. No reason to mince words.

  6. ...and the cow jumped over the moon!

    I've got tons more nursery rhymes where that came from bud!