How Much Money Will You Pay For Green Energy?

[TimG]

And spreading confusion has been identified as a key strategy to those who are trying to block policy change, to take the winds out of the sails of the scientific debate before the policy debate is questioned.

The "merchants of doubt" meme is nothing but propoganda by people pushing one set of policy choices. They think that if they can villify their opponents then the public will embrace their policy choices. It is not really succeeding.

The fact is there is doubt about many of the climate science predictions and there is nothing wrong with questioning them. If you are advocating policies that require people to believe that there is no doubt then maybe you should rethink your policy choices.

Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Wikipedia has a cabal of editors that are alarmist fanatics. They have worn down skeptics who have given up trying to correct for balance. So wikipedia articles on climate are usually skewed.

The process as you lay it out is completely biased, according to you. Even when open systems such as peer-review, and wikis. It's disheartening that you think that this is possible in open systems such as this.

If I were as conspiracy minded as you appear to be, it would be easy for me to point out that all the corporations who broadcast the news (as in News Corp) serve private interests, with no obligation to publish their plans, and are directly controlled by individuals who can easily manipulate how information is broadcast.

I could also point out how right-wing politics have dominated the debate since 1980, and how power and wealth continue to accumulate, while this mistrust of academic and government continues to be fueled.

Some on the left of the spectrum have pointed out such biases already, but I believe that public dialogue still happens and that there's hope to improve the debate.

It is sad to me that someone who is as intelligent as you has completely lost faith in our institutions.

Your pessimism is contagious.

[Michael Hardner]

The "merchants of doubt" meme is nothing but propoganda by people pushing one set of policy choices. They think that if they can villify their opponents then the public will embrace their policy choices. It is not really succeeding.

The fact is there is doubt about many of the climate science predictions and there is nothing wrong with questioning them. If you are advocating policies that require people to believe that there is no doubt then maybe you should rethink your policy choices.

I'm not going to talk about the predictions with you, since we still haven't progressed beyond the question that warming is happening.

If you have no faith in the institution of science, we have nothing upon which to build a discussion. We'll just keep quoting sources that feed our own 'biases' right ?

[TimG]

The process as you lay it out is completely biased, according to you. Even when open systems such as peer-review, and wikis. It's disheartening that you think that this is possible in open systems such as this.

Wikipedia's model is 'he with the most dedicated fanatics' wins.

That said, Wikipedia works really well in a lot of other areas. All I am saying you one must be aware of the flaws. i.e. if you go to an article on climate you need to be aware that the presentation is often skewed to support alarmism.

That said, I did go back and look at Wikipedia before writing this post and it appears it has significantly improved. Still slanted but not nearly as bad as 2 years ago. It appears to be yet another happy consequence of climategate.

[TimG]

I'm not going to talk about the predictions with you, since we still haven't progressed beyond the question that warming is happening.

Why do you say that? I have never disputed that. I don't think a lot of people do but you are bothered by the fact that there are few people out there that say that. Why do you worry about such people?

If you have no faith in the institution of science, we have nothing upon which to build a discussion. We'll just keep quoting sources that feed our own 'biases' right ?

Only those people who are unaware of their baises. If we change the discussion and dispense with the illusion of scientific objectivity then everyone would have to acknowledge their own biases. This would lead to a more useful discussion of policy and alternatives. Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why do you say that? I have never disputed that. I don't think a lot of people do but you are bothered by the fact that there are few people out there that say that. Why do you worry about such people?

You're an odd case, in that you insist that there's a huge bias, that MM is to be believed, that MBH is flawed and yet you buy into the "CO2 causes warming" theory.

Why do I worry about such people ? Because these are the people that form public opinion and, indirectly, policy.

Only those people who are unaware of their baises. If we change the discussion and dispense with the illusion of scientific objectivity then everyone would have to acknowledge their own biases. This would lead to a more useful discussion of policy and alternatives.

I don't see how we can do more than we have done in that regard. This topic is so charged with emotion that opponents of the AGW theories call into question the character of the leading scientists, they publish hacked emails, and make their lives difficult. With that kind of spotlight glaring on them, it's too much.

[waldo]

If you have no faith in the institution of science, we have nothing upon which to build a discussion. We'll just keep quoting sources that feed our own 'biases' right ?

Only those people who are unaware of their baises. If we change the discussion and dispense with the illusion of scientific objectivity then everyone would have to acknowledge their own biases. This would lead to a more useful discussion of policy and alternatives.

nonsense... just a few short posts back you, as you've done many times over, throw the "group think" pejorative at climate scientists. Without accepting your premise, apparently, to you, DenialTown holds no biases, presents no "group think". Go figure!

[TimG]

You're an odd case, in that you insist that there's a huge bias, that MM is to be believed, that MBH is flawed and yet you buy into the "CO2 causes warming" theory.

Why is there a connection between the two? Mann is a crappy scientist who invents statistics that give him the results he wants. The scientific community should be ashamed of him. But this has nothing to do with the radiative effect of CO2.

I don't see how we can do more than we have done in that regard. This topic is so charged with emotion that opponents of the AGW theories call into question the character of the leading scientists, they publish hacked emails, and make their lives difficult. With that kind of spotlight glaring on them, it's too much.

And how is this different from abuse hurled at scientists like Linzden and Spencer? Do you realize that Linzden has actually been dragged into lawsuits by environmental groups for "denying" climate change?

Edit: http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2006/08/30/mits_inconvenient_scientist/

For no apparent reason, the state of California, Environmental Defense, and the Natural Resources Defense Council have dragged Lindzen and about 15 other global- warming skeptics into a lawsuit over auto- emissions standards. California et al . have asked the auto companies to cough up any and all communications they have had with Lindzen and his colleagues, whose research has been cited in court documents.

Scientists have become pawns in this debate because alarmists thought they could push through a set of dubious policies by hiding under the skirts of scientists. The way out of this mess is to acknowledge that this is debate about policy - not science.

Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[waldo]

I'm not going to talk about the predictions with you, since we still haven't progressed beyond the question that warming is happening.

If you have no faith in the institution of science, we have nothing upon which to build a discussion. We'll just keep quoting sources that feed our own 'biases' right?

Michael, must I remind you of what a 'concernTroll' is/does... just look at the reply you received... one stating "no dispute of warming". And yet, that same person has over and over again, pulled out ridiculous cherry-picked short-term intervals in attempts to challenge temperature trends.

[Wild Bill]

I don't know science, so I follow debates on here and elsewhere that refer to the science.

Please don't be offended by my take on where you get your information. After all, I asked you several times to explain it and your response isn't that different from mine.

What I found several years ago was that the media wasn't adequately explaining what was going on in the field of climate science. They are too sensationalist, and too prone to leaving loose ends on fake controversies such as Climategate.

Again, I blame the media for not providing a good link for you (or for me) to the real science.

And the fact that you fell for the bogus 'Ice Age' red herring tells me that you (like me) got duped by media into thinking that they do a good job of reporting science.

I get the impression that you think the answers are all on the Net somewhere and if we google long enough we'll find them. Science doesn't work like that! Most of the answers are not discovered yet. All you can do is improve your background knowledge to the point where you can start to make some educated guesses.

So we can't blame the media for not reporting what is not yet known.

Again, I am puzzled by what leap of logic you used to draw a certain conclusion, that I "fell for the bogus 'Ice Age' red herring". When did I ever say that? I would have thought it obvious that I never bought into it from the start! It was my accumulated scientific data that kept me from buying their story!

Michael, now I might be the one who sounds patronizing but please believe I do not mean to at all. To properly form an opinion on these scientific subjects might not require a degree but it does pre-suppose a great deal more background knowledge than you appear to possess. No matter how intelligent or well-spoken you are you won't be able to do it with a pile of cites and a copy of some Cole's crib notes. Just go back through this thread alone and count the number of times you needed to be corrected. How many times did you demand a cite from Tim and he just cheerfully obliged?

I suspect you may be a teacher. Again, not being patronizing but I have often had the experience working with people of academic backgrounds who make the mistake of thinking that somehow their liberal arts education was 'universal' and that an intelligent person from such a background can fully grasp a subject just because he has taught from a textbook. It's like thinking you can learn to play a guitar without having one to play, because you took piano to the point where you are certified to teach it.

Some things, many things, demand first hand experience and a long time accumulating background. If you were charged with a crime, would you like me for a defense lawyer? I've never actually done any law but I've got some great books and a list of helpful websites! I can build a guitar amplifier from stem to stern with no need to consult any books so I must be intelligent enough to understand how to properly conduct your defense, no?

Notice that I refrain from expressing an opinion of the nitpicking details of the climate change argument. I readily admit I don't know enough for my opinions to be credible! However, I do possess enough background to form an opinion of someone's credibility when they are presenting a climate change argument. Even on MLW, we have posters that start a rebuttal by belittling their opponent. For me, that's more than enough to dismiss them out of hand. Certainly, I won't expect anything positive from a debate with such a person. I'm suppose to keep wading through abuse, providing the person with much entertainment, on the slim chance I might actually learn something worthwhile? If a poster feels the need to lead with "ad hominem" then chances are he has a very weak argument. Life is too short to waste time.

Anyhow, I think you are going to be disappointed trying to use raw brainpower to understand scientific thinking. You really need more background. Some of the people you debate with have been doing this most of their lives. It's how they feed their kids and pay their mortgage. They keep having to educate you on point after point before you can understand why they disagree with you.

I did NOT mean to insult you by suggesting you're an academic! Society needs academics as much as any other group. I'm just suggesting that this is an area of debate where you need some more 'hands on' experience.

One of the scariest things in the world is calling a plumber and having a university kid show up, armed only with a book! There are just too many details involved for you to trust in his ability to fix your leak.

[waldo]

Mann is a crappy scientist who invents statistics that give him the results he wants. The scientific community should be ashamed of him. But this has nothing to do with the radiative effect of CO2.

you make McIntyre proud! Without heading down the trail of McIntyre's never-ending audit, all one needs to do is point out that a brazillion other reconstructions have occurred, have helped substantiate one of the first/meaningful reconstructions. Riddle me this concern troll boy... if you state you accept the warming... do you also state you don't accept the result of all the reconstructions that produce a "hockey stick"? Or just the ones that McIntyre has selectively targeted in his self-styled, never-ending audit?

Scientists have become pawns in this debate because alarmists thought they could push through a set of dubious policies by hiding under the skirts of scientists. The way out of this mess is to acknowledge that this is debate about policy - not science.

say what? Now this looks new/interesting... TimG drawing a clear separation/distinction between so-called "alarmists" and scientists. So, when you say "alarmist" TimG... just who are you referring to - specifically?

[TimG]

all one needs to do is point out that a brazillion other reconstructions have occurred

Yes. The pea under the thimble. Point out the flaw with one reconstruction and another gets hauled out with different flaws. Point out the flaw with that one and the original gets hauled out again because it does not have that particular flaw. Round and round we go until we get dizzy.

There are no "hockey stick" reconstructions that meet the following criteria:

1) Include the MWP;

2) Do not use questionable proxies;

3) Are statistically significant using measures that are recognized by statisticians.

Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

I get the impression that you think the answers are all on the Net somewhere and if we google long enough we'll find them. Science doesn't work like that! Most of the answers are not discovered yet. All you can do is improve your background knowledge to the point where you can start to make some educated guesses.

So we can't blame the media for not reporting what is not yet known.

Yes we can. You are proof of this, in your thinking that there was a significant scientific belief in the 'ice age'. The media reported what was not yet known, and got a lot of interest, to the detriment of the general knowledge.

Again, I am puzzled by what leap of logic you used to draw a certain conclusion, that I "fell for the bogus 'Ice Age' red herring". When did I ever say that? I would have thought it obvious that I never bought into it from the start! It was my accumulated scientific data that kept me from buying their story!

Sorry - to correct myself, you fell for the idea that the scientific community believed there was a pending ice age. There was no such significant movement in climate science.

"Their story" you said - was the media story. You BOUGHT the media story, and thought that the scientists were wrong, if I read you correctly. In fact, it was the media that was blowing it all up out of proportion.

Michael, now I might be the one who sounds patronizing but please believe I do not mean to at all. To properly form an opinion on these scientific subjects might not require a degree but it does pre-suppose a great deal more background knowledge than you appear to possess. No matter how intelligent or well-spoken you are you won't be able to do it with a pile of cites and a copy of some Cole's crib notes. Just go back through this thread alone and count the number of times you needed to be corrected. How many times did you demand a cite from Tim and he just cheerfully obliged?

Yes, you sound patronizing and elitist. Note that I haven't ridiculed you from naming a Penthouse Publication as your apparent primary source on the science of the pending ice age. Instead, I put the blame on the media for not serving the information to you, an intelligent consumer of information.

I have explained where I get my knowledge though - I review summaries of the original material, and wikpedia. That should be enough for any member of the public to form an opinion.

I suspect you may be a teacher. Again, not being patronizing but I have often had the experience working with people of academic backgrounds who make the mistake of thinking that somehow their liberal arts education was 'universal' and that an intelligent person from such a background can fully grasp a subject just because he has taught from a textbook. It's like thinking you can learn to play a guitar without having one to play, because you took piano to the point where you are certified to teach it.

Let's not bring our qualifications into this. As members of the public, we should be able to get the information we need to understand the sides in context and make a decision.

You don't have a degree yourself do you, so why bring university education into it ?

Some things, many things, demand first hand experience and a long time accumulating background. If you were charged with a crime, would you like me for a defense lawyer? I've never actually done any law but I've got some great books and a list of helpful websites! I can build a guitar amplifier from stem to stern with no need to consult any books so I must be intelligent enough to understand how to properly conduct your defense, no?

No, I wouldn't want you as a lawyer.

Notice that I refrain from expressing an opinion of the nitpicking details of the climate change argument. I readily admit I don't know enough for my opinions to be credible! However, I do possess enough background to form an opinion of someone's credibility when they are presenting a climate change argument. Even on MLW, we have posters that start a rebuttal by belittling their opponent. For me, that's more than enough to dismiss them out of hand. Certainly, I won't expect anything positive from a debate with such a person. I'm suppose to keep wading through abuse, providing the person with much entertainment, on the slim chance I might actually learn something worthwhile? If a poster feels the need to lead with "ad hominem" then chances are he has a very weak argument. Life is too short to waste time.

There's a subtle belittling, too, when you demand that somebody not have a liberal arts degree in order to discuss such things - not that you have done that exactly, but I agree that we need to be open to learning and teaching from each other.

Anyhow, I think you are going to be disappointed trying to use raw brainpower to understand scientific thinking. You really need more background. Some of the people you debate with have been doing this most of their lives. It's how they feed their kids and pay their mortgage. They keep having to educate you on point after point before you can understand why they disagree with you.

It's not about the science for me, as I told B_C. It's about people agreeing to common ground, to compromise, and to admitting where they are wrong.

I did NOT mean to insult you by suggesting you're an academic! Society needs academics as much as any other group. I'm just suggesting that this is an area of debate where you need some more 'hands on' experience.

Hmmmm... strange. Hands on experience in Climate Science ? I suppose I have stuck my hand in a snow bank so I qualify !

One of the scariest things in the world is calling a plumber and having a university kid show up, armed only with a book! There are just too many details involved for you to trust in his ability to fix your leak.

Really this discussion is about common building blocks of knowledge. To my mind, it is a huge problem when people nitpick scientists, while believing media figures that have no responsibility, or reputation for being honest and rigorous. But then again, they believed McCarthy until he was brought down so...

[Michael Hardner]

you make McIntyre proud! Without heading down the trail of McIntyre's never-ending audit, all one needs to do is point out that a brazillion other reconstructions have occurred, have helped substantiate one of the first/meaningful reconstructions. Riddle me this concern troll boy...

Waldo - this debate has come up again, and you have come around again - both of which are happy events.

However, for it to continue towards a satisfying end I suspect you will need to drop the snide tone down to about a level 1 or maybe level 0.5, otherwise you will drive people away from the discussion. At least an acceptance of the basic premise should deserve TimG a modicum of respect, don't you think ?

[Michael Hardner]

Yes. The pea under the thimble. Point out the flaw with one reconstruction and another gets hauled out with different flaws. Point out the flaw with that one and the original gets hauled out again because it does not have that particular flaw. Round and round we go until we get dizzy.

There are no "hockey stick" reconstructions that meet the following criteria:

1) Include the MWP;

2) Do not use questionable proxies;

3) Are statistically significant using measures that are recognized by statisticians.

The problem is that one side has made these things impossible by outlawing the use of tree ring data.

[TimG]

The problem is that one side has made these things impossible by outlawing the use of tree ring data.

Extracting temperatures from proxies is not an easy task. It requires that a natural process track temperatures and nothing else. Ice cores are good proxies because there is a relatively simply chemistry involved. Tree rings are more problematic because tree growth is affected by many different things including water supply, disease and proximity of other trees. Then you have the problem that tree rings only track summer temperatures. There is a lot of peer reviewed literature that covers these topics so it is not a complaint unique to climate sceptics.

IOW, the rejection of tree rings is not arbitrary - it based on evidence which shows they are rotten temperature proxies.

Edited August 10, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

The rejection of tree rings is not arbitrary - it based on evidence which shows they are rotten temperature proxies.

It seems that they are ok up until the divergence, and as such can be used until temperatures are known to be on the record.

I'm tired of this now, though, and given that you actually buy in to the CO2=WARMING theory I'm not sure why we're still discussing it.

[waldo]

Yes. The pea under the thimble. Point out the flaw with one reconstruction and another gets hauled out with different flaws. Point out the flaw with that one and the original gets hauled out again because it does not have that particular flaw. Round and round we go until we get dizzy.

nonsense

There are no "hockey stick" reconstructions that meet the following criteria:

1) Include the MWP;

2) Do not use questionable proxies;

3) Are statistically significant using measures that are recognized by statisticians.

reconstructions exist going back 1300 years without tree-rings... going back 1700 years with tree-rings. Perhaps you could come out from your thimble and express what is within TimG's complement of "acceptable proxies". Of course, when you hang your hat on the regional impacting MWP, you must accept that none of the causal ties for that periods warming are applicable to today's global warming period - today's warming period that is accepted as being greater than the warming that occurred within the MWP. I note your standard genuflection to the altar of McIntyre's skew on the influence of statisticians...we danced this scene once before... as I recall you didn't fare so well when you dredged up the woefully failed piece of crapola as authored by statisticians McShane&Wyner.

in any case... paleo is but a small subset component of the overall... temperature reconstructions even more so. And yet, you continue to fixate on the never-ending McIntyre audit of the "hockey stick". Perhaps you've been hit by too many pucks to realize the hockey stick can't be broken... no matter how hard and long McIntyre preaches to his denial flock... preaches to you.

[Michael Hardner]

reconstructions exist going back 1300 years without tree-rings...

Please to provide link for. Thanks.

I note your standard genuflection to the altar of McIntyre's skew on the influence of statisticians...we danced this scene once before... as I recall you didn't fare so well when you dredged up the woefully failed piece of crapola as authored by statisticians McShane&Wyner.

in any case... paleo is but a small subset component of the overall... temperature reconstructions even more so. And yet, you continue to fixate on the never-ending McIntyre audit of the "hockey stick". Perhaps you've been hit by too many pucks to realize the hockey stick can't be broken... no matter how hard and long McIntyre preaches to his denial flock... preaches to you.

Snide, snide, snide. You will never get asked to the Alarmist Prom with that attitude.

[Wild Bill]

Sorry - to correct myself, you fell for the idea that the scientific community believed there was a pending ice age. There was no such significant movement in climate science.

"Their story" you said - was the media story. You BOUGHT the media story, and thought that the scientists were wrong, if I read you correctly. In fact, it was the media that was blowing it all up out of proportion.

More correctly, the media presented me with the story that SOME scientists were touting the "ICE AGE" theory and a bunch of ignorant but often influential people were buying it. I never bought it in any way from the start. I also never believed that it was sanctioned by the entire scientific community.

There is a big difference in how scientific and non-scientific minds think, or should think, at least. If I point to a house on a hill and ask someone what colour is it, the average person might say "White!". A scientifically educated person would take a long look and reply "It seems to be white on the side I can see!"

You perceive the difference?

And just as a sidebar, did you ever read much from Omni? I'm curious if you dismiss it out of hand from personal experience or just from second-hand reputation. Many very well respected scientists wrote articles for Omni. Does the fact that they were owned by the same man as who published Penthouse change the value of anything they wrote? I find the fact that you could even imply such a thing significant.

[Michael Hardner]

More correctly, the media presented me with the story that SOME scientists were touting the "ICE AGE" theory and a bunch of ignorant but often influential people were buying it. I never bought it in any way from the start. I also never believed that it was sanctioned by the entire scientific community.

Ok. What was the high level support you were talking about before though ? That's the only thing that's still out of place here.

There is a big difference in how scientific and non-scientific minds think, or should think, at least. If I point to a house on a hill and ask someone what colour is it, the average person might say "White!". A scientifically educated person would take a long look and reply "It seems to be white on the side I can see!"

You perceive the difference?

I don't think you're correct in your assumption of what a scientifically educated person would say.

And I would assume that the house is all white, and would be right pretty much 100% of the time.

And just as a sidebar, did you ever read much from Omni? I'm curious if you dismiss it out of hand from personal experience or just from second-hand reputation.

Yes, I read it in my 20s. It was very entertaining.

Many very well respected scientists wrote articles for Omni. Does the fact that they were owned by the same man as who published Penthouse change the value of anything they wrote? I find the fact that you could even imply such a thing significant.

Yes, but it's not a respected scientific journal, and probably not a basis for good science if memory serves. Scientific American is a better magazine for popular science.

What is significant in my statement ? I get the feeling that you're looking down your nose at me with statements like this:

Michael, now I might be the one who sounds patronizing but please believe I do not mean to at all. To properly form an opinion on these scientific subjects might not require a degree but it does pre-suppose a great deal more background knowledge than you appear to possess. No matter how intelligent or well-spoken you are you won't be able to do it with a pile of cites and a copy of some Cole's crib notes.

As I have said, we should be able to find good sources for science as members of the public and not have to be scientists to form a reasonable opinion. I don't care if you consider yourself as a scientific-type thinker or not, or if you read Omni or Spider-Man as I did when I was younger.

The point is that members of the public should be better informed about the real state of science today - and THAT is what they require to form an informed opinion on scientific subjects, nothing more.

[bush_cheney2004]

...The point is that members of the public should be better informed about the real state of science today - and THAT is what they require to form an informed opinion on scientific subjects, nothing more.

Unfortunately, such efforts have only lead to more "junk science" in the popular media. Climate change as warming is still subject to the same omissions and simplifications that were made for predictions of cooling. As member Wild Bill suggests, neither reported analyses or conclusions would/should be held in higher regard than the other based on presented theory absent something more compelling.

Inter-decade cooling is/was supported by the data sets of the period, and is still supported upon review today. Ramifications for the longer term were not well understood and predictions were only that. Further confusion was provided in the form of conflating inter-glacial studies and longer cycles.

While not comprehensive, this global cooling wiki summary organizes the reports and reactions that I recall from the day (1970's). I suspect that the surface temperature dataset includes hourly dry/wet bulb thermometer readings (to determine relative humidity) we would take while at sea (US Navy).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_awareness

[Michael Hardner]

Unfortunately, such efforts have only lead to more "junk science" in the popular media. Climate change as warming is still subject to the same omissions and simplifications that were made for predictions of cooling. As member Wild Bill suggests, neither reported analyses or conclusions would/should be held in higher regard than the other based on presented theory absent something more compelling.

What such efforts ?

And there is a difference between the warming and cooling situations in the science:one has overwhelming support, and the other was only ever a fringe position. Of course, being attention-grabbing and dangerous sounding - both phenomena were put on the front page.

Inter-decade cooling is/was supported by the data sets of the period, and is still supported upon review today. Ramifications for the longer term were not well understood and predictions were only that. Further confusion was provided in the form of conflating inter-glacial studies and longer cycles.

And more scientists believed in warming - even at the time when 'ice age' screamed from the front page.

[bush_cheney2004]

...And more scientists believed in warming - even at the time when 'ice age' screamed from the front page.

An interesting choice of word..."believed". Perhaps what has been forgotten is the very same lesson from the 1970's, the idea that accurate predictions cannot and should not be made. At the very least, warming should not be used to achieve a geo-political or economic objective.

[Oleg Bach]

An interesting choice of word..."believed". Perhaps what has been forgotten is the very same lesson from the 1970's, the idea that accurate predictions cannot and should not be made. At the very least, warming should not be used to achieve a geo-political or economic objective.

You can look at a computer model of the earth's weather, it is so complex that air and water movements can not be predicted with perfect accuracey - Michael is big on sience and I respect him for that - but I am big on nature and respect IT...and nature is still not fully understood. It seems that Michael "believes" religiously in the power and truth of science - science at one time dictated that removing blood from a human body could fight lukemia. The greatest social scientist of all time believed that cocaine was the great cure all.. Michael is a mixture of political and natural science..the two do not mix - politics is artifical (artifice) nature is real...YOU can not expect an accurate reading when the message is mixed.