Save Money On Your Next Global Disaster Prediction!

It’s difficult being a Climate Change Advocate these days. You’ve spent a lot of time and money putting together a new prediction of global doom and gloom by a future date, and you’ve seen the deadline come and go. You’ve issued your 12-year predictions in 1990, 2000, and 2008. The world has not yet been sufficiently panicked into hysteria, so you go back to the drawing board. It will take a lot of time and effort to erase your old computer model results and come up with new ones.

What’s a climate scientist to do?

That’s where we come in. We’re Computer Model Elite and Discreet. And we’ve got the solution for you.

Our Climate Change Computer Models are unlike any you have encountered before. They are uniquely built and can handle all of the data you throw at them.

Meet our Computer Models: Asheena, Rebecca, and Tiffany.

3 Women

No more spending months and months pouring over computer code. These models already have their own built-in logic to process your data. It’s a simple process:

  1. Collect all of your meterological and climate data.
  2. Carefully organize the data into a comprehensive worksheet, sorted by date and location.
  3. Call us up and arrange to have lunch with one of our models.
  4. On the date of your scheduled lunch, bring your data, along with a check for 10% of your grant money.
  5. Take your model to lunch and discuss the weather.
  6. Bring her back to our lab.
  7. Receive your fully climate disaster prediction within 10 business days. If we fail to meet the deadline, you get to take the model out to lunch again. Whatever.

Many of you may have questions about our computer models. We answer them below in the familiar Q&A format below. 

Q: How sensitive are your computer models?

A: They are all a bit different, depending on the model you choose:

  • Asheena is sensitive to cold, so don’t put too much ice in her drink, and definitely do not sit under one of those ceiling fans at lunch.
  • Rebecca is sensitive to animals. A kitten or purse dog will go a long way. 
  • And Tiffany is sensitive to jewelry. Bring lots of it.

Q: Is your forecasting approach based on qualitative techniques, time series analysis, or causal models?

After a team of scientists and monkeys studied the issue for the past decade, we have settled on the following time-tested technique for forecasting:

dartboard

  • The first dart is the forecast variability index.
  • The second dart is the number of years mankind has left.
  • And the third dart is how many times you will have to put in a plug for our company in all of your speeches and news reports.  

Q: Are your models focused on the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

A: No. They are focused on how expensive the restaurant is that you take them to lunch, so the atmosphere in the restaurant had better be luxurious. And one of the models is the daughter of the CEO, so keep your hands off.

Q: Do you stand by your models?

A: We stand by them often, but sometimes our feet get tired, so we sit down.

Q: Can our team of top programmers review the model’s code?

A: None of our models currently have codes. However, they do sometimes get the sniffles.

So pick up the phone now and call us. We can be reached at 1-800-ME-NAIVE. Ask for Guido. We will be here to help you save the planet and your career.

Guido

Advertisements

Re-Upholstered Memories

 

Recovered memories

There’s a guy I know who fell into an upholstery machine. He’s fully recovered now.

I know, I know. It’s a stupid joke. But I’ll do anything to get a laugh.

The only tie-in with my theme here is that it’s about “recovering”.

It wasn’t until a few days ago that I discovered that Christine Ford’s accusations against Brett Kavanaugh are based on “recovered memories”. Not a lot has been written about this part of the story. Most of us focus on the fact that it happened so long ago, that there isn’t much evidence that it happened, but she seems so sure that it happened.

That’s where the recovered memories come into play. Recovered memories are sometimes a tool used by psychotherapists and other counselors. The idea is that, if you are having a psychological problem, then it may well be your brain’s response to a traumatic memory it is trying to repress. Through interviews, recounting personal history, and possibly hypnosis, the psychotherapist tries to bring those traumatic memories into the light where the patient can discuss them. By successfully dealing with these recovered memories, so the story goes, the patient is eventually freed and healed.

That’s the theory.

I remember being part of a church in the late 80’s and early 90’s where a counsellor held group sessions to heal people with psychological problems. This counsellor focused on recovering memories of practically everyone in the group. Everyone had traumatic childhood sexual abuse. Everyone.

And there was a twist, though. The childhood sexual abuse caused each patient to develop multiple separate personalities. It was basically like the movie Sybil or the Three Faces of Eve, old movies that dealt with the topic of multiple personalities in a person.

Getting back to the experience, I was an elder in the church, and I was concerned about what was going on. I started reading about Multiple Personality Disorder (or MPD), and it seemed like a lot of superstition based on very scant evidence. I began to hear about bizarre therapy sessions going on. The counsellor acted like a hammer in search of a nail. Everyone had the same condition.

In the half dozen years since that period, I read stories about how this was going on in other churches and counseling practices. Patients “recovered” memories of childhood sexual abuse, sometimes at the hands of parents or pastors. The place of abuse was said to have taken place in a church basement, even if the church didn’t have a basement. These patients often confronted their supposed abusers. In almost all instances that I heard about, the abuse never occurred. Tempers flared between the accusers and the accused. Families were torn apart.

According to an article in the Huffington Post, the practice and phenomenon actually in vogue about 130 years ago, then died down. It appeared again after The Three Faces of Eve came out in 1957, then died down. It reappeared after Sybil came out as a TV miniseries in 1976, then died down again. And the latest outbreak was in the late 80’s and early 90’s. It is now in a quiet phase.

Professional psychiatrists looked into the matter and saw a gaping chasm of scientific evidence. In most instances, any instances of multiple personalities were really borne out of “suggestible and gullible therapists” guiding “suggestible and gullible patients” into discovering recovered memories and multiple personalities. The therapists were not so much helping the patients to recover their memories as they were actually training them to come up with memories.

It is still controversial, with some people saying they were helped by the approach. I think it’s bottled snake oil.

Studies have been conducted into how easy it is to implant false memories into a willing subject. The researchers told their subjects that specific things happened when they were younger, such as getting lost at a mall. As the researchers told more details about the false story, the subjects began to envision the story as if it were true. Eventually, the subjects adopted the false stories as true stories.

The therapy of recovering lost memories should have been totally debunked by now. There may be a small number of patients for whom it is true, but it seems to be primarily just a lot of bunkum. Yet, there was at least one therapist who still practices it, and that therapist used it to treat Christine Ford.

And here we are, decades after it was largely discredited in the psychiatry profession, with a woman claiming to have recovered memories of being raped by a man who many years later is a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court.

In my opinion, it may very well be that Christine Ford actually thinks she was assaulted by Kavanaugh many years ago. It is possible that she was coached into searching her mind for some event in her distant past – an event that was somehow assumed to include a sexual assault. I can’t imagine why she picked Kavanaugh, but it may have been that he stuck out in her mind for some reason. Nevertheless, it could be that Ford actually believes it happened, primarily due to the particular brand of psychotherapy she was subjected to.

This is why both Kavanaugh and Ford may be telling the truth. The former actually didn’t do anything, and the latter is recounting something from an implanted false memory. I can’t say the same of Ford’s Democratic handlers. Those handlers just seem to be doing anything they can with Ford for political purposes. And it’s still possible that Ford made all of this up. But there’s also the possibility that she’s just talking about false memories she was guided into.

Regardless of how this turns out in the battle for the Supreme Court, I hope the practice of recovering memories gets pushed way into the back of the therapists tools and only used for rare, extreme cases where it may be needed.

snake oil

 

Oldest Archaeopteryx Fossil Challenges “Missing Link” Theory

The oldest known fossil of an archaeopteryx has been uncovered in Germany. We have actually known for some time that the archaeopteryx is not an evolutionary link between dinosaurs and birds. We have known this for quite some time. This article states that clearly.However, that myth continues to be spread by teachers and others who should know better.  

In fact, we have enough such fossils to realize that there are variations between the fossils which may indicate different species. Contrary to popular views of evolution, the fossil record shows that animal species sprung up in history all at once, fully formed, in a number of events known to scientists as fossil “explosions” (such as the “Cambrian explosion”). Instead of finding fossils that slightly change over millions of years, we simply find species that suddenly appear in the fossil record. Archaeopterys is one of them. 

It’s time we let the archaeopteryx “missing link” myth go to sleep. 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/02/01/oldest-fossil-missing-link-dinosaur-discovered-in-germany.html

Think Again If You Believe Marijuana Just Makes You Mellow

According to a new study, marijuana makes you more prone to feeling that others are deceiving you. It also makes you feel more alienated from other people. And that leads to a higher incidence of psychotic behavior. 

This runs counter to the popular belief that marijuana is a fairly harmless drug that just makes you want to relax and crave munchies. As I have written here extensively, there is more and more scientific evidence that marijuana does much more harm than good. We are finding all of this out only now that a number of states have accepted medical marijuana and/or recreational marijuana. Maybe we should pull back on that until we find out what is coming out of Pandora’s box.

For more information about some of the recent findings, click here

More About the Adverse Effects of Marijuana

In the 60’s and 70’s, America began experimenting with marijuana. The story at the time was that cannabis does nothing more than get you high, make you mellow, and give you a craving for munchies and sex. That was then.

Moving forward in time a few decades, and we find people pushing marijuana to become legalized. First, they convinced many that it was important medically, but it turns out that there is little scientific evidence that it helps either chronic pain or PTSD.  The U.S. government says there is no accepted medical use for marijuana.

Not only that, but there is evidence is actually causes harm:

  • Impairs short term memory and judgment
  • Distorts perception
  • Negatively affects teen cognitive
  • Addictive

Marijuana is also associated with:

Now, we have discovered that smoking marijuana makes people more violent.

Since this blog is about how people think, we can clearly see that marijuana is harming how people think. So why did we want to legalize marijuana again?

Of course, it’s because we just wanted another way to get high. Legally. Forget about whether it actually is good for us.

 

 

Trigger Warning: This is About Trigger Warnings

According to a new study, only about 31% of blacks said that they experienced discrimination “sometimes” or “often.” Comparatively, 27% of Hispanics, 23% of whites, and 18% of Asians were in the same category. That means that most minorities do not experience discrimination on a frequent basis. 

See https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9699

The actual question they asked was “In your day to day life, how often do you feel you have been treated with less respect or courtesy than other people?” The answers were “never”, “rarely”, “sometimes”, or “often”. That means 69% of black “never” or “rarely” experience discrimination. 

This was a scientific study that did not coach the respondents. They were free to interpret the question as they saw fit. 

The authors of the study said they were “surprised” by this finding because they expected the rate of discrimination to be much higher for blacks. 

Note that this study reported how each group felt they experienced discrimination. It did not identify whether there actually WAS discrimination. It was what they felt. Nor did it mention how strongly they felt discrimination. It was purely self-reported. 

Let me say here that I don’t want to minimize the experience of discrimination. Anyone who has felt discrimination can tell you how small and irrelevant it made them feel. And obviously there are different intensities of discrimination. The study does not address instensity. It only mentions frequency. 

Why does this surprise us? Because we are constantly receiving messages about racial discrimination, overwhelmingly against blacks. But the data does not back that up. 

If each of the groups reporting discrimination actually reacted in the same way about their discrimination, then Hispanic, white, and Asian outrage would less than, but not tremendously less than, black outrage. But this is not what we see in the news. 

But let me emphasize here that the discrimination reported in the survey is whatever the respondent identifies as discrimination. One of the most egregious kinds of discrimination that has been in the news during the past few years is that of white policement reportedly targeting and killing black men.Let’s ignore for now whether that is valid or not and assume that at least some (whether a majority or a minority of cases) of it are actually occurring. That’s on one end of the spectrum. 

On the other end of the spectrum is a perceived discrimination about incidents that often seem ludicrous. Recently, there were blacks from Ole Miss who were “triggered” because someone threw a banana in a tree. NC State University black students were triggered when a toilet paper noose was found in a bathroom stall. And there are others. Individuals on a witch hunt for racists will see this type of behavior as indicative of widespread racism, but the vast majority of Americans just see this as silly. It is a shame that we have to treat these kinds of incidents with the same validity as significant cases of discrimination. 

Racisl protests are almost exclusively about black racism and discrimination. It is as if no other group of Americans experience discrimination. If we were all reacting to discrimination in the same way, we would find Hispanics protesting slightly less than blacks, white protesting slightly less than Hispanics, and Asians protesting slightly less than whites. But it’s not like that. 
Again, I know some will read this and think that I don’t think discrimination is taking place. No. I know discrimination occurs, that it is sometimes horrific, and I believe that blacks probably experience more discrimination than other groups. But I think there’s an assumption that blacks are triggered much, much more easily than other groups. And I think there’s an assumption that no other groups should feel discriminated against. 

I understand the fact that lynchings of blacks were a terrible part of our past, but they have almost completely disappeared. I doubt that there are many black Americans alive who actually witnessed a lynching. That doesn’t make it inoffensive, but I wonder about the concern for “triggering” when most black Americans never saw it occur.

There are other groups who could just as easily feel triggered:

  • Shouldn’t Christians who have witnessed their brethren around the world being slaughtered on camera by Islamists with large knives be triggered by hooded men, large kitchen knives, and Muslim symbols?
  • Shouldn’t Korean- and Vietname-era veterans who were POWs be offended by anything that reminded them of the tortures they experienced in their own lifetimes at the hands of Communists? Should anyone be allowed to speak of Communism in a good way based on how these men suffered terribly?
  • Shouldn’t women (and men) who were trapped by forced sex slavery be triggered by scenes of prostitution on television and the movies? 
  • Should anyone be allowed to show entertainment that involves illegal drugs based on the number of people whose lives have been actually ruined by the same? 

It’s time for us to move beyond hyping and trivializing the discrimination experienced by one group and focus on how to remove discrimination by all. And it’s time for the Perpetually Offended to begin focusing on what others have experienced. 

Take the Politics Out of Classifying Mental Disorders

Many people have no idea that the American Psychiatric Association’s decision to say that transgender people are normal was not based on a scientific conclusion. It was simply done by fiat. 

 For several years, there were news reports that a gay gene had been found. Of course that was a news reporter’s understanding of scientific findings. They typically understand and report science incorrectly. No such gene has ever been found. What we did discover was that, if you say something often enough, many people will believe it whether there’s any evidence or not. 

 A person may decide that homosexuality and transgender’s is normal, but it is not based on any scientific evidence. It would just simply be a preference 

 This article tells some of the story of how that decision was made. It was nothing more than a vote. 

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/take_the_politics_out_of_classifying_mental_disorders.html