Where will the war end?

I have just read a brilliant blog post about climate change by Brian Micklethwait of samizdata.net. I feel that there is a fantasy/war fiction/steampunk novel in this post. I have no idea if their was any intention to create this feeling of an epic in waiting. Being a climate sceptic I agree with a lot of what is said, so that may help in what I felt as I was reading...

    A small village, that keeps itself to itself, in a small county of a giant nation governed by a weak ruler who hides behind his trusted advisors. Slowly the evil and malice of these advisers starts to pollute the nations minds. This once liberal land starts being crushed under the heelof the ruler's name. The majority, unthinking, just continue with their lives slowly being subverted by the lies of the propoganda machine, ignoring the quiet disappearances of those who start to question. The lord of the small county, who was a reasonable man preaching of understanding and accomodation, is summoned by the ruler to be brought to heel.
    For some time an intelligent, presumed mad, and badly tolerated member of the isolated village has been trying to tell the village of what is happening, of these malicious forces bent on domination, determined, and monstrous these shadows. It is not until the summons of their Lord does anyone seek to question the old man on his opinions. In questioning a part yet not the whole of the group of people whom question him come to doubt and investigate. In the questioning they begin to realise the danger of this misinformation and start to work to build a point of defence from where to attack the chinks in the armour.
    Slowly, word starts to reach the advisors of this redoubt of hope, by this time expanding slowly to encompass most of the small county. Upon the obtaining of this information a force is sent to swat them away, to arrest and slaughter the higher echelons of this free-thinking collection. As this force moves to crush this rebellion of thought word of these secret actions start to spread throughout the nation, with more people flocking to the banner.
    This primary force meets with a small amount of success, but fails to destroy the uprising, merely containing it. Reinforcements are requested, again the advisor's misjudge the power of the movement sending in sufficient support. When battle is next enjoined, the forces of the ruler are crushed. The support for the resistance grows rapidly. Elite soldiers and commanders flock to the banner of the rebels and the truth they stand for.
    The rebels consolidate their gains and prepare for the next assault. The ruler's advisor's are in disarray, all arguing with no leader. Finally a group of the more extreme members of councillors gains control. They summon the army and prepare for total war.
    Meanwhile small elite groups of soldiers have been sent to prepare for the assault of the castles, keeps and hill forts of the enemy. The remaining troops ready for battle knowing the cost of failiure and willing to sacrifice. The armies of the enemy draw near the battle lines are drawn and the nation holds its breath for the first charge. Unknowingly, in skirmishes being fought all around the armies, a convoy containing correspondence for the upcoming fight, and the long running campaign of propoganda is captured. This, the commanders of both sides hide one waiting for the time to strike, the other in the hope it was destroyed and was not captured. Intelligence is recieved on the planned date for the first offensive by the coucillors. The signal releases the, now much duplicated, correspondance to be released to the enemy.
   The clash of arms the following day is a hard fought victory for the warriors of the county, but the defeat causes large amounts of desertion from the councillors ranks. Battle after bloody battle is fought in a rear gaurd action, with the extreme councillors often entering the fray to rally troops. Soon one is lost, the others start to cause dissent in the ranks of the councillors army causing the more reasonable councillors to leave with the majority of the army and retreat further to other strongholds. The tide of the county' army unstoppable marching through scorched ground littered with bodies, few from their own side, eliminating pockets of resistance with clinical effiency.
   The uncontrollable advance of the counties troops extends near to its limits. The commanders upon seeing this call for a halt and regrouping, some heed the call, others still with the bloodlust carve out the remaining of the extreme councillors forces.
   This shattered land now lies still, in the eye of the hurricane. An uneasy and unnatural calm that onl makes those whom observe fret and fear. Where will the fight continue... Can the councillors be overcome...

YAY!

Hooray! Not all science has devolved into partisan stupidity. I have just read this article on dark matter research and the line that has made me remember that the climate science is but a tiny fraction of the scientific community, and that it is the scientists like these whom I revere.

These are the scientists whose struggle with the unknown creates giant leaps in technological advancement for the rest of us, but for them leads to a small increase in accuracy or computing power. I am also reading another article, here, which again reminds me of why I hold scientists and engineers in such high regard. This research, which is really not terribly important for what goes on in the world, into how elephants move at high speed is an essential part of scientific research. This research required the use of pressure plates that could withstand elephants running over them. As one of the researchers said,

"We had to build the plates - you just can't go down to your local hardware shop and pick up an elephant-sized force plate."

This may well have meant that this design provided some groundbreaking new technology, unlikely but still needs to be done. So this is a post to say THANKYOU to all you scientists out there taking part in extremely difficult and extremely random experiments. Life would be much more boring without you.

Climategate, global warming, global climate change...

Climategate, global warming, global climate change... it goes on and on and on and o... you get the picture of how I'm currently feeling. I must confess to it being slightly self-inflicted having spent most of today reading two blogs arguing from both ends of the scale, http://climateaudit.org/ - for the sceptic arguments - & http://www.realclimate.org/ - for those in support. The first is written by a statistician and the second by a collection of expert climate scientist and general scholars. I will state now the Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State, currently under investigation for poor practice, does write for realclimate.org but he is only one of a large panel who write on there.

My whim of ire is one that I'm sure many people suffer from, that of the partisanship of the media and apparent repetitive counts of failiure to follow due process. On one hand I hear that the data is flawed, cherry-picked and adjusted to suit their cause, then you hear that this data is but a flick right at the very end of what is already a flick, or in the current characterization of it as a hockey stick on the tip of a hockey stick. You then see the graph depicting this and it does nothing to help clear anything up, yes there are some lines which show a general upwards trend in the last 200 years but on this graph are some broad shaded areas which, one assumes is the error range, can show a relatively constant temperature for the past 2000 years or what would have to be described as an emergence from an ice age in the past 200 years. This graph seems to be being used by those in favour of climate change... WHY?

This graph, to me, shows absolutely nothing! A sausage could almost ell me as much. Okay it does tell me one thing, that in the past 200 years we have been better able to calculate a world average. This graph, when used, has only minimal explanation for the references, again why? I am trying to make an informed decision based on research that has been done, when the proposers of this phenomenon use strange graphs which explain little to back up statements it makes me more skeptic.

This though is being counter-acted by those who disagree who concentrate on small items. I know people will say that they are attacking the fundemental data upon which this has been based, but from what I have been reading the skeptics have gotten stuck purely on temperature, yes important but not the whole picture.

What happened to science being impartial?!
How can I make an informed decision when the two sides start arguing different parts of the arguments at the same time?!

If you were watching two people arguing over two sports A & B and the two arguments you hear are "A is better because it is more popular" and "B is better because it is more challenging." How are you as a simple observer going to be able to decide which is better on a level of understanding when the two sides don't stop to talk about what is agreed.

Would it be too much to ask that several experts with opposing interpretations of this topic to sit down and set down what is accepted fact, and what is under contention? Surely it is impossible that one side of the argument is a complete fabrication, invented on whims and anomalies?

Can a brother get a little help around here?