Tuesday, November 30, 2010

>:( COP: Bjorn "Monkey Math"?

COP: Bjorn Lomborg: Monkey Math

From an article: ( the Guardian )

"There are two battles over climate change. The legitimacy of climate science has been challenged in the media, but repeated reviews have found only scattered typographical errors in IPCC reports and other assessments. Last year's theft of emails from climate scientists revealed the shocking news that leading researchers can be rude and competitive – but not much else. While science-deniers remain prominent in US politics, most of the world has moved on.

What the debate has moved on to, though, is concern about the costs of climate policies. Bjorn Lomborg, the poster child of climate scepticism, is no longer attacking the science; instead, he now claims that the damages from climate change would be small, while the costs of doing anything about it would be enormous. The new Lomborg ("Scepticism 2.0") relies heavily on a few conservative economists, notably Richard Tol and William Nordhaus, to suggest that we can't afford real climate solutions.

I read Bjorn Lomborgs "The skeptical environmentalist". Let me share what I learned: That it is ok to write in books using a pen.

The book is filled with his "one dimensional" "excel based" charts of "corn prices". It is sad to see such tools being used to attack a body of science that is young and growing and "complex" not "linear" in nature, because nature is not linear.

Bjorn Lomborg certainly did not show me his "complex math". Why? He does not have any. He uses linear analysis and stovepiped "examples" of why he "feels" that climate change science is flawed. Of course it is flawed. New science always is.

When new laws enter our government, they need work. Review, readings, rewrite until everyone "is happy". Well, that is also debatable, but, do I call into question the validity of the courts, because, a law is yet to be finalized? Technically, no. As you have seen from my previous blogs, I assert that governments cannot act morally, but, that is my opinion.

I wonder how much Bjorn lost in ABCP "his industrys" science? A science based on a symbol. The symbol of money. A concept. An idea.

See in business, money is "linear" symbol. A dollar is always worth its face value. What people pay for it, is the "market value". These market values are controlled largely by people that make the "big trades" not the tiny investor, like you or me.

What I found in Bjorns book, is that he uses business math, to attack "climate" math. One is linear ( the methods Bjorn demonstrated ) the other complex ( the methods scientists are using to model the earths climate: complex analysis ).

Nature is weird. It never behaves the same way twice. If you see the same cloud formation every day, maybe in the shape of a square or circle, you would think something is wrong? Yes, and you would be correct!

"Nature does not come" in: points, lines, circles, squares or triangles or cubes.

It comes in complex "shapes": "Flowers, rocks and "approximations of" the "shapes of electrons".

I use these three for a reason. One is living, one is not and the other is a "simple building block". You cannot use a linear math formula to define a flower in its entirety, but, we can understand molecules and the materials that rocks are made from, but, never precisely. That is the way it is folks.

The more "systems" you have in living things, the more complex. A carrot versus a tiger.

Using science to determine the impact on life: how plastics impact a bacterium, how changes in GHG's impact our climate are orders of magnitude more complex.

Both are complex, but, one is "simple" compared to "the massive complexity of other". I am sure you can guess which is which. Most people can "get it".

Bjorn does not. He is stuck with his linear analysis to describe a massively complex systems. His book is "full of crap".

I got "serious" and started marking up everything that he uses his linear "games" to refute something complex.

He uses squares, lines and circles to try to attack non-linear systems. Like a child, unable to see what he is talking about.

Nature is a "massive collection of unique shapes" with energy interacting with one another in real time, not a straight line on a sheet paper.

If someone ever shows you a two dimensional graph on the behaviours of a Black hole, just remember, real math has no "monkey numbers" or "squares in it". That chart is the product of complexity, reduced to illustrate simple factors. It is a one way street, much like entropy.

Humans developed the "primitive concepts" of math to quantify and understand our surroundings:

Linear math : 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.

Complex math: Why are we adding apples? there is no "apple" just two unique shapes that humans call "apples" for simple purposes. They are genetically, topologically, volumetrically, and visually unique, etc.

But, complex math does "its job" when defining how much the two apples weigh together and their calorie content. And even more! No two apples are alike.

So when people, like Borjn, are given the same "platform" as the expert scientists, what do they have to add to the dicussion? Their amature "feelings"? This is why I wrote Metaman in Metalanguage. With this, Bjorn, can not hold us all back. We just discredit his assertions using science and "boot him to the curb". If he returns with valid peer reviewed science, let him speak, otherwise, lock the door and keep him out, thanks.

Even the scientists are a fighting each other, why? Because science works like that. But, you have to prove it using science. But, in complex analysis, not everything is as simple as my two apples concepts. There is multitude of factors involved, and none of them truely belong on a "two dimensional graph" to begin with. Science trys to give you graphs to illustrate a simplified relationship: a graph is the simplification of understanding. Bjorn uses graphs to try to explain complexity. It does not work that way. Sorry, Bjorn. You are incorrect again. Please go home, already!

If you have a snap shot of a friend, is "that the same" as being with her, in your backyard having a picnic? One is a description from the picnic, the other is reality of a picnic. Understand? I hope so. With a picture, can you tell the ingredients of the potato salad? Get my "picture"?

But, the science I see that Bjorn uses, is the same stuff that any kid can learn in highschool. Linear stuff. The science that trys to predict complex natural systems ( climate, the long term trajectory of a moon, the weather ) is different.

Interesting aside. A group tried to predict the orbit of one of jupiters moons using motion analysis. Their science was reliable for 22 days then the "little secrets" and "errors of the calulations" show their model as incorrect, after the 22 days. But, it was close "for 22 days". That is complexity. Close but never a "cigar".

Bjorn also fails to understand "tipping points": the complex and unpredictable nature of a system when the "rules" change when thresholds are passed.

I think Bjorn does not have the right "to talk". Why does he get the opportunity?

We should be critical of "who is saying" what.

All I am saying is that Bjorn does not know what math is.

From wikipedia:

“On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed messages, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[6] “

Why does this guy get to be heard? Because a lot of people benifit from his lies and distortion of something he does not understand: math.

Of course, Lomborg complained.


All information and concepts on my blog is property of me, Graham Chivers.

Retweeting is highly recommended!

This information may not be used, in any publications, without direct prior consent from Graham Chivers @ http://deepgreendesign.blogspot.com/. My Blog is not to be within or, on any entities that have advertising. Sounds weird? Well, that is my choice. Freedom of speech and freedom of access, without any capitalism, by companies, that I do not find green enough. I assert that my Blogs will deliver my blog with NO ADVERTISING! As such, If you wish to rebroadcast my content, ask for permission. If your publication has absolutely no advertising, anywhere, I will be happy let you use my content, on the condition that I verify the publication for content, first. I dreaded the day that my blog would be beside advertising for laptops or other non-green thingies, but, it did. Support Ad-Free knowledge! If you see this blog beside advertising, please, let them know to respect my authority as a citizen. Thank you! I assert the right to assert my opinion on each blog, I blog. I assert that I am not a “domestic terrorist”. I assert that I am an individual, not a marketing scam. I collect no data from my Blog. All the products use to manufacture this product are “free” on the Internet. I use no marketing software for data collection. I feel that anyone should be able to read my blog with only knowledge being the product for free.

If you do not agree with any above content, prove it first. If you can teach me something, I will thank you in a manner warranted. If you are intending to “limit my internet access” or Freedom of Speech or my Human Rights: please go away!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.