Daniel Eran Dilger
Random header image... Refresh for more!

Fraud science used to promote Flash performance over web standards

Daniel Eran Dilger

A report purporting to vindicate the performance of Adobe’s Flash plugin in comparison to open standards broke through the weak editorial barriers of the tech community yesterday. It’s wrong, here’s why.
.
The report was created by Jan Ozer, a proponent of Flash who makes his living selling books and seminars about Adobe’s technologies. The original article is even interrupted by an advertisement promoting Ozer’s “Streaming Production and Flash Delivery Workshop.”

After noting Ozer’s bias, one site commenting on it wrote, “we don’t think that [his bias] has any effect on the test outcomes [his report presented].”

The problem wasn’t that Ozer faked data to promote Flash; some of his findings actually indicate that even the early beta implementations of HTML5 beat the latest version of Flash in video playback tests. The real issue is that Ozer framed the debate around an absurd premise to shift the conversation from real issues to contrived garbage.

Flash Player: CPU Hog or Hot Tamale? It Depends.

A press release of fake science

Coverage of Ozer’s press release uncritically reported his findings that certain browsers were no better (or at least not much better) at rendering video from YouTube via Google’s experimental HTML5/H.264 site than via the standard Flash version of YouTube.

Ozer detailed only the reported “CPU Utilization” for his test Mac running Safari, Chrome, and Firefox browsers, and a PC running the same three browsers in addition to Internet Explorer. He compared the performance of Flash 10 with the latest Flash 10.1, and contrasted HTML5 playback on browsers that supported that as an alternative to Flash, not too subtly suggesting that HTML5 and H.264 were riddled with problems that inspire fear, uncertainty and doubt, while Flash simply works everywhere.

However, his results made no comment on the visual quality of Google’s Flash vs raw H.264 implementations. Previous tests I performed indicate that Google’s beta version of YouTube running HTML5 delivers raw H.264 video with remarkably better picture equality compared to the HD version of its Flash video for the same file. You can see for yourself by viewing anything on YouTube in “HD quality” via both Flash and HTML5.

Additionally, Ozer seemed to gloss over the fact that his tests really say next to nothing about the efficiency and performance of the Flash runtime compared to the use of open standards, because he wasn’t testing Flash content rendering, but really only the playback of video data delivered via a Flash wrapper.

To deliver video, Flash really isn’t doing anything special. That’s why browsers supporting HTML5 can do this themselves without needing something like Flash (or its doppelgänger, Microsoft’s Silverlight).

HTML5 savvy browsers like Safari and Chrome can also animate content and even (with a little more work) do the kinds of fancy interactive apps and games that Flash was originally targeted toward, all using open web specifications.

Why Apple is betting on HTML 5: a web history
Flash Wars: Adobe in the History and Future of Flash

The Flash problem

Flash is promoted by Adobe as being a great way to create everything from simple website navigation and interactive content to full-blown Rich Internet Apps. Using Flash is an alternative to using open web standards to build these types of content.

The problem is that when content creators built stuff using Flash, they’re locking up their code in a form that can only be rendered by Adobe’s sanctioned Flash Player plugin. Nobody else can create their own legitimate implementation of Adobe’s Flash Player because Flash isn’t an open specification. It’s a proprietary technology fully owned by Adobe.

That’s a problem for Apple because it wants web-based content to play back well on everything from the Mac to its iPhone platform. If content is created in Flash, that means Apple has to wait powerlessly for Adobe to fix the situation in its Flash Player plugin, something that Adobe (and Macromedia before it) consistently failed to deliver for the Mac platform over the last decade. Apple gave up on Flash in the mobile realm in part to hasten the development of open alternatives.

Flash content also forces Mozilla, Opera, and the other WebKit developers outside of Apple to similarly sit back and idly support Adobe’s poorly performing Flash platform in preference to independently optimizing the rendering of open web standards that were designed to scale better from desktops to mobile devices.

Adobe’s current mobile strategy has literally emerged just over the last year or two, largely in panicked response to the iPhone. Prior to that, Adobe was pushing the joke that is Flash Lite on mobile platforms, and a different version of Flash on PC desktops.

Ten Myth of Apple’s iPad: 2. iPad needs Adobe Flash
An Adobe Flash developer on why the iPad can’t use Flash

Ideological fraud science

Much like Microsoft and its new Windows Phone 7 initiative, Adobe is hoping everyone will forget that it has done an abysmal job in deploying appropriate mobile technology over the past decade, and has its fingers crossed that everyone will abandon the much better options that have become available over the past few years and instead turn back to subservient dependance upon refreshed version of 1990s monoculture instead.

Much of the ignorant tech media is actually cheering on this absurdity, which is a bit like right wingers hailing more Reganomic deregulation even as the economy fell into ruin due to misguided efforts at putting financial institutions (rather than the law) in charge of regulating themselves in the first place.

In both cases, ideologues are quick to leap upon the most ridiculous fraud science in order to support what they’ve been told they should shill. Ozer’s “report” on Flash conveniently ignores the real problems (which include both replacing the open web with a closed plugin architecture owned by Adobe, and Adobe’s terrible performance in building and delivering this).

Instead, he creates a strawman problem (suggesting that Apple is accusing Flash of being really bad at simply delivering H.264 video in comparison to open HTML5, and then attempting to show that’s not the case at all) while launching a conspiracy theory (that Apple is out to get Flash for malicious reasons) and a dramatic morality play (that Apple ought to instead work to invest its efforts into making Flash play slightly better, so Ozer can keep writing books about Flash for his captive audience of Flash creators and users).

HTML5 assault on Adobe Flash heats up with ClickToFlash

The truth is that Flash is irrelevant in the future

What Ozer should do instead is present the plain truth that Flash is a terrible platform for creating web content because it violates everything the web was designed to do: openly share content using openly documented specifications that any vendor can implement in competitive ways that advance the state of the art in hyperlinked, multimedia communications. Flash smothers the web with closed binaries that require Adobe’s interest to play back.

Additionally, Ozer should stop presenting half-truths comparing Google’s currently experimental version of H.264 playback with its refined existing implementation of Flash. Ozer fails to admit that Flash isn’t primarily a video distribution system, nor that video playback is really where Flash really exhibits its “CPU hog” problem. Flash is an interactive content platform that rivals the open web. Trying to subtly suggest there is not really a problem with Flash is the opposite of being honest.

Anyone can open a web page embedding a simple Flash visual and watch their CPU performance tank in real time as Flash Player is called upon to render a simple interactive graphic. Render the same element using JavaScript, and the browser itself can deliver optimizations and enhancements that cause it to play faster or more efficiently.

This is already the case in Safari and Chrome, where much work has been invested into making JavaScript execute many times faster than previous generations of browsers. Flash is really just an alternative version of JavaScript sold by Adobe that nobody else can enhance or accelerate on their own.

By presenting trickery in numbers, Ozer is playing the same role as climate change doubters: creating a distraction that lasts just long enough to turn the conversation away from meaningful changes and toward a false controversy that invents blame where none exists. In Ozer’s case, he deflects real criticism of the terrible performance of Flash (particularly on mobile devices) in order to shift the conversation to one that demonizes Apple for not rescuing Adobe from its own terrible implementation of its Flash platform.

Rather than encouraging developers to use open standards for creating interactive web content, and imploring Adobe to drop its dead end Flash runtime acquired at great cost from Macromedia and instead focus on creating tools for modern and open web standards, Ozer attempts to instead suggest that Apple is a bad company for not focusing most of its efforts into shoring up the performance of a fatally flawed web-alternative so that Adobe can serve as the sole beneficiary of all web development going forward, without actually doing anything but tainting the web with a proprietary binary trap.

Shame on you, Mr. Ozer. … and all of you in the tech media who gobbled up his fraud science while remarking how delicious it was.

  • Donald

    Is it fair to say, then, that given the way things are at present we can expect a future in which entire websites will be displayed only by proprietary applications such as Flash and Silverlight that are managed and updated by non-independent bodies?

  • borker

    @Joel

    It’s not even just that the evidence is there and examinable by anyone with an interest to do so (repeatability) it’s that there is absolutely nothing that is scientific about creationism or it’s brand du jour ‘intelligent’ design.

    Science makes predictions that can be tested, creationism is incapable of this. A pertinent example of this is that one of the hypothesis that arose as a result of Darwin’s work was that there must be a mechanism by which traits are passed from generation to generation. In the 1800s and 1900s DNA was discovered and it’s role (along with RNA in later discoveries) and the previous hypothesis was proved, in a way that could be test and independently verified.

    “Intelligent” design is a creation (ironically :) of the misnamed ‘discovery’ institute and comprises the heart of their “wedge strategy” of supplanting science with religion. A quote stating the goals of ‘intelligent’ design lifted from the so called ‘wedge document’ reads: “reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions”. People who claim to be doing ‘critical analysis of evolution’ who promote one form or another of ‘teach the controversy’ are simply running plays from the discovery institute’s wedge playbook. Nothing to do with science, no interest in the facts or specific nature of evolution, just an attempt to tear down anyone and anything that goes against their fundamentalist views.

  • http://themacadvocate.com TheMacAdvocate

    “…which is a bit like right wingers hailing more Reganomic deregulation…”
    /eyeroll

    Otherwise, nailed it as usual.

    PS: please get a publicist. I’d like you to get all the eyeballs you deserve.

  • ShabbaRanks

    @ Donald.

    That appears to be the case and is the best arguement against Flash and Silverlight. It’d be like the days when you required IE all over again. *shudder*

  • borker

    @Donald

    Exact opposite I’d say. Adobe can’t get flash onto iPhones, MS has bought its way into some usage of silverlight on a few sites (F* you CTV for your olympics website!) but won’t be making an appearance on any non-winmo phones. Netbooks, phones, iPads etc are creating too many new platforms on too many different architectures outside of the classic windows desktop for companies like adobe to keep up with and MS has no interest in supporting (but oddly Miguel de Icaza probably does ;)

    Open standards supporting browsers are spreading at such a rate that it will be much easier in terms of both writing code as well as technology licensing for developers to spend their time writing once to a standard then writing X times to every possible plugin, do client side detection for plugins etc etc

  • rufustfirefly

    I hate Reagomic deregulation. Better to have lots of rules and regulations. How about a 2700 page bill devised by people in back rooms that is read by nobody before being signed, to control how we all are able to procure medical services. Regulation is good. It comes from the smarter people who know better. They realize the wisdom in the “regulation” that creates fines and jail sentences for those who refuse to buy the insurance in the 2700 page plan, devised by people who have a completely separate plan for themselves. Now that is deregulation I can believe in.

  • ChuckO

    @twujr 3,
    “Maybe I’m just cranky today. Perhaps I’m just cranky everyday, but my mantra holds: “Get off your butt and do something.” We’ve become a society of endless consumers driven by entitlement. This mentality shows itself in the mainstream online and tech community’s insistence that Flash (and needless animation in general) are so important.”

    Well said.

  • ChuckO

    rufustfirefly 53,
    Yea right. Let’s keep the status quo while insurance costs eat up all our meager raises.

    It’s amazing how many financial meltdowns did we have between the depression and Reagonomics? Zero! How many have we had since Reagonomics? Two or three (Savings and Loan, The internet meltdown, our current problems).

    Keep up the non-thinking, buddy!!!!!

  • borker

    @ rufustfirefly

    yeah d00d, down with regulations. When I drink a bottle of vodka and want to go driving at 100 through a school zone ‘the man’ has some regulation that says I can’t. When I want to build a 100 story office building on a foundation of creamy soft camembert cheese and fill it with 10,000 occupants even though i know it’ll fall down in a light breeze, there are those dang ol regulations saying I can’t. Revolution I say!

  • rufustfirefly

    Chucko

    How many meltdowns have we had when Democrats were running Congress? And I take it you are OK with somebody “mandating” you buy something (even if you don’t want it)? I thought Liberals were pro-choice. And if is so good, why has Congress excluded itself? And it is so good, why is the current Government run plan, Medicare, so out of money? Why does the GOVT Medicare Plan so often refuse to treat “pre-existing conditions”? You may like to be told how to live your life. You may want to be a serf. I prefer freedom. Obviously, you prefer coersion and state control. These are simply competing worldviews. I wish all you totalitarians would get together in one place and then you could go to town with your government imposed slavery. Just leave the rest of us alone. It is our “choice” and choice is good, right?

  • rufustfirefly

    To Borker

    No problem with regulating driving speeds and construction. Now, as to the Health Care plan, I take it you would be OK with the GOVT mandating that you purchase a Dell with Windows Vista Home Edition. You don’t like it – tough. Bureaucrats have decided it is best. If you are OK with one of the most important aspects of our economy being completely taken over by people like Charles Rangel, Pete Stark, Chris Dodd, Barack Obama and letting these people make your personal decisions, then you are a pretty sorry specimen. Do you not have any personal pride and dignity? You volunteer to be a slave to the state? And you are OK with a bureacrat telling you that you can’t use a Mac, because it is not on the authorized list? How weak and pathetic.

  • ChuckO

    rufustfirefly 57,
    “How many meltdowns have we had when Democrats were running Congress?”

    Are you blaming the current financial crisis on the current Democratic congress? That’s beyond idiotic.

    I guess you’ll be refusing your social security checks when you retire then?

    Don’t hold your breath until the country returns to the year 1860. The rest of us have a modern country to build.

    “You may like to be told how to live your life. You may want to be a serf. I prefer freedom. Obviously, you prefer coersion and state control. These are simply competing worldviews. I wish all you totalitarians would get together in one place and then you could go to town with your government imposed slavery. Just leave the rest of us alone. It is our “choice” and choice is good, right?”

    Good God, man get a hold of yourself. What’s an embarrassment of demagoguery!

  • borker

    @ rufustfirefly

    yeah, that’s actually not true though is it? You either have to accept total anarchy is the way to go (in which case I’d rather it was you and your ilk who find a new place to go) or you have to accept that a society must operate with a degree of rules imposed upon itself (and remember, in the good ol days before corporate lobbyists took over government the ‘someone’ imposing the rules was us, through our duly elected officials… you know, democracy?)

    When a democratically elected government creates laws, its not ‘government imposed slavery’ its democracy. You don’t like? vote em out. Better still, run for election. You seem to think you have the pulse of the people, go put it to the test.

  • borker

    @ rufustfirefly

    a mandate to have health insurance is not the same as being told to by a specific computer, with a specific OS etc etc, to carry your utterly irrelevant metaphor a little further, the ‘mandate’ would be to own a computer, the freedom would be to choose which one. Now of course there is no comparison between product ownership and medical coverage.

    The mandate is, I feel, a bad thing without the option to have a government option or single payer option. Whose fault is that the best bits of the reform are off the table? Largely the republicans, partly the dems and entirely industry. You clearly have a political party axe to grind, but I couldnt care less. I think health care for all is one of the most noble aspirations a government (which is meant to represent it’s people, that democracy thing again…) can have and I don’t care what party gets us there. I’m sad that the dems are in the process of failing to do what they were voted in to do (health care access was one of the biggest promises of the Obama campaign) but its on the heads of the individual lawmakers who are allowing this fail that I place the blame.

    But again, back to your basic hypocrisy that you like some regulations but not others. The current group of law makers were voted in. If you don’t like it, vote them out or stand and run yourself.

  • JohnWatkins

    1.) I’d be happy with an “ignore” feature rather than the work intensive removal of comments by Dan. He has bette things to do.

    Flash:
    1.) It’s obvious there is not need to use Flash for video. This is settled. Within a year or two Flash will be completely marginalized for video playback (yes, I use click to Flash and rarely find it necessary to click.)

    2.) The other half of Flash is animation. It gets used for 2 basic things: conventional animation and animation of the UI.
    •A) Using Flash for UI on websites is ridiculous. I never cease to be amazed by the way corporate sites have been lured in to adopting flash so extensively on their websites. Its simply a way for expensive designer/consultants to hide their work and lock in their clients and future revenue. It serves the consultants well, but is clearly not beneficial to their clients.
    •B) Conventional animation is where Flash excels. Only problem is, the resulting file format is proprietary. We need an open “Flash-like” standard for animation. This will erase the problem of Adobe making crap software for some platforms and will allow competition and improvement in both the rendering of animation and in the creation of tools for creating/editing of those animations.
    •C) These tools are the missing link in the transition to functional HTML5. Of course they cannot be created until the HTML5 standards become more clear. HTML standards for video are just the beginning, but should be sorted out soon (if Adobe will stop sabotaging the process.)

  • ChuckO

    borker 63,
    Well put but I think we’re wasting our breath on a hysterical teabagger and ideologue.

  • rufustfirefly

    A democratically elected government does not have to invent ways to break arms and ignore all established rules to create legislation. A real legislature does not vote on bills that don’t exist and can’t be reviewed. A real legislature does not create laws that don’t apply to its own members.

    To Borker — since the Deficit has expanded fourfold in just the last year, and since it has expanded about eightfold since 2006 when Democrats took control, yes I do blame the Democrats. Is it your position that the Democrats have exercised financial constraint and have attempted to reduce the Deficit? Please.

  • JohnWatkins

    Perhaps an ignore feature that also indicates how ignored posters are. This would allow members to make their own choices while subtly signaling to the group as a whole likely trolls (although the more ornate the system, the easier it can be to game it.)

  • ChuckO

    rufustfirefly 67,
    Go Google the difference between the deficit under Carter and Reagan. Reagan spent us out of the recession in the early eighties. Or how about the (Bush) Republican’s unfunded expansion of Medicare with the prescription drug program or their unfunded tax breaks or their unfunded spending on Iraq and Afghanistan.

    You need to stop being a hypocrite or stop calling out the Democrats for things the Republicans are more guilty of. In other words stop lying especially to yourself.

  • borker

    @ rufustfirefly

    What ChuckO said, basically. Again, its results I care about, not parties, but if we’re talking deficit effects, then I guess you’re on the side of the public option as the CBO says it’ll reduce deficits more than any other approach (including the current crappy compromise bill, or your preferred ‘stick head in sand and hope China never calls in the loans’ approach).

  • rufustfirefly

    Chucko

    Google the Constitution. The Congress is responsible for creating budgets. The only thing the President does is sign the bill. Google – “who believes in big expensive government programs”. The answer is Democrats. That is why they exist. So get real.

    As for premium increases – the current bill involves massive tax increases that begin immediately. The supposed Health Care benefits (sic) don’t begin for 4-5 years. That is so the 10 year cost analysis can show this only costing $1 trillion, instead of the actual $2.5 trillion. And Democrats, including Dick Durbin just the other day, said if the bill is passed, there will be very large premium increases by the Insurance Companies over the next several years. That is if this passes. And that makes sense. This bill is not at all about controlling health care costs. That could be done by eliminating bogus lawsuits, and allowing insurance companies to sell nationally instead of having to deal with state by state regulations. These obvious improvements are too simple for Democrats. No – we must have massive regulations that will increase the cost. How can you add 30 million people to the covered without increasing the cost.

  • ChuckO

    rufustfirefly,
    “Google the Constitution. The Congress is responsible for creating budgets. The only thing the President does is sign the bill. Google – “who believes in big expensive government programs”. The answer is Democrats. That is why they exist. So get real.”

    Yea, except Reagan and Bush both had Republican Congresses for everything I mentioned. So you get real and keep pushing the lies buddy. The last 30 years the Republicans were in control of the country so suck it up buddy. This mess is on your hands. The least you could do is shut up and skulk off to your corner if you can’t face the facts. Go read some Bruce Bartlett. He get’s it.

  • Imapolicecar

    @rufustfirefly

    Thank you. I see the light now. I will throw away my Apple products and follow the Bible of Redmond. I promise to be faithful to the hold trio of Balmer, Gates and Vista. I have read the registry and confess my past wrongdoings by worshipping zippy speeds, effective programs and reliable OSes. I want Microsoft. I want corruption, poor design and above all I want it cheap. I want hardware problems so that I can better serve Microsoft, I want to know software incompatibilities so that I can better understand why I am here. I want it not to work so that I can better understand Balmer. I want the blue screen of death becasue my favorite color is blue.

    Thank you, thank you, thank you. :)

  • ChuckO

    Sorry, everybody for falling for @rufustfirefly. I won’t respond to him anymore.

  • miloh

    @Everybody

    Take a step back and look at the things rufustfirefly is saying. He/she is using so many stereotypes and clichés that it’s ridiculous. It’s so unbelievably over the top that it has to be fake.

  • borker

    yeah, I can usually manage to avoid getting sucked into this sort of thing, but every once in a while I get played. C’est la vie.

  • http://allasloss.com Nick R

    I second ChuckO – @twujr 3,
    “This mentality shows itself in the mainstream online and tech community’s insistence that Flash (and needless animation in general) are so important.”

    I was so guilty of putting Flash on a pedestal back in 2000-01. I was certain it was the wave of the future for the internet… how wrong I was. 99% of the time if I see a Flash load bar – I’m out. Thank you “click 2 flash”!

  • ipadEric

    I agreed with everything you had to say about flash and html5, but you lose credibility when you make shallow left wing innuendos that are not relevant nor appropriate.

  • takes12no1

    Cool article and was enjoying reading it until…, Daniel hurt his creditibility with this…. ‘Much of the ignorant tech media is actually cheering on this absurdity, which is a bit like right wingers hailing more Reganomic deregulation even as the economy fell into ruin due to misguided efforts at putting financial institutions (rather than the law) in charge of regulating themselves in the first place.”
    This shows he is OK with writing about his strong opinions about things he knows nothing about. Why must you ruin everything with your hate? Rufustfirefly – don’t let the libtards get you down…your right on.

    [I try to stay balanced and non-dogmatic, but have no problem with gonzo journalism when being “fair and balanced” means ignoring reality or skewing it by justapozing truth with extremist Conservative ideology.

    Remember that radical Muslim extremists also fear science, doubt climate change, and refuse to acknowledge elementary biological evolution in preference to religious myth.

    So think about whether your ideological hatred for liberal thinkers and progressives like Al Gore really trumps what you think about radical conservative fundamentalists like Osama bin Laden. Gore doesn’t blow up buildings and kill children. – Dan ]

  • Pingback: Fraud science used to promote Flash performance over web standards « iNewΙΤ()

  • kilroywashere

    Joel,

    If a person makes claims, he should be able to explain them himself and cite his sources. Those of us who are actually educated in science (versus being educated in pop science sold in grocery store magazine racks) know that the climate of the earth has “changed” drastically over the millennia and that human industrialization and farting cattle had nothing to do with it.

    I signed up to make comments on this blog because I finally had enough of a san francisco kook condescending to people with whom he merely has philosophical and world-view disagreements.

    His condescending attitude is particularly laughable given Phil Jones and the gang have now been fully exposed as frauds. Everyone knows this. Everyone knows it has been snowing in New Orleans. Anyone with a brain should be able to see for himself that the temperatures are going down….not up. So, anyone not smart enough to look at what is right in front of his face and come to the proper conclusion shouldn’t be condescending to wal-mart shoppers or any other classification of people upon which he looks down his nose.

    I visit this blog for technical analysis of tech industry trends. I often roll my eyes when Daniel inserts his personal political and religious views into the technical analysis. I find his political and religious views silly and naive. That said….I really don’t care what his political and religious views are…nor do I dare to argue over them. Its the condescending, know-it-all attitude that irks me and prompted me to comment.

  • rufustfirefly

    ChuckO

    Your history is weak. Reagan never had a Republican House – ever. He only had a Republican senate briefly.

    Did you major in Phys Ed?

  • luisd

    kilroywashere ,

    And exactly what science is it that you specialise on?

    And where exactly is it that the temperatures are going down, and when? Do you understand the mechanics of weather patterns? If your science is meteorology, I’ll shut up.

  • rufustfirefly

    Luisd,

    It doesn’t matter what science Kilroy specializes in. He has a scientific background. And that means he understands that when the top scientist in the Global Warming movement “loses” the data that supports his analysis, and has to conspire with others to create the fake data to support his preconceived idea, that is called fraud. The entire Global Warming argument is based on the science of the CRU, and Phil Jones, and the Hockey Stick (phony), and the melting Himalayan glaciers (phony), and James Hansen of NASA and his hysterical claim that the sea level near England would rise 240 feet soon, if his fraud is not accepted. And his data is borrowed from Phil Jones at the CRU. The now fired Phil Jones. Kilroy’s point was totally logical, reasonable, and indisputable. Now, I take you up on your offer to shut up.

  • luisd

    rufustfirefly, I’m just glad you have taken the offer to shut up! Everybody in this place will just be happy when you do it!

  • kilroywashere

    luis,

    I hold a bachelors degree in physics. While that didn’t teach me meteorology, it did teach me how to read and understand scientific information. I can use that training to know when a scheister is shoveling manure around my feet for the sake of securing government grants for himself.

  • rufustfirefly

    Luis, John Watkins, ChuckO, and Assorted other Lefties Here,

    You are obviously well trained to say you will “ignore” and call names (teabaggers – owww – that is so rough), and talk to one another. The one thing you don’t do is actually respond to real statements of truth. For example – the fundamental data on which Global Warming alarmists base their arguments was managed and controlled by the Climate Resource Unit – CRU – at East Anglia. This group worked with other groups, but it was the defacto official keeper of the data. It’s research is now clearly tainted with fraud. This is not in dispute. Real concerned citizens would be most concerned about why was such an elite scientific organization engaging in fraud, instead of time honored, open analysis where critical input and competing theories are welcomed, not trashed, because truth is supposed to be the motive. Instead, those who had relied on the CRU exhibit no concern our outrage at the “bad science”. No – the only concern is aimed directly at the people whose real hard work exposed the fraud. These people should be lauded, but they are not. Why? Is not science supposed to be about seeking real truth? Apparently not, as the global warming alarmists are more concerned about preserving their “theory” than actually attaining a real understanding of what the climate is doing and why.

    Now – John Watkins, Imapolicecar, ChuckO, Luisd, and Borker – you can resume the name calling. I don’t expect you to actually show any interest in real, objective science. It is too dangerous. It might not give you the answer you want.

  • luisd

    Rufus,

    Have you actually done science yourself? Beyond your Physics degree, and probably a final year research project or dissertation. Did you stay in academia after your degree? Or have you moved on to other areas not science related?

  • luisd

    And sorry Kilroy, the message was for you, not for rufus. Apologies for the mistake!

  • kilroywashere

    luis,

    You guys need to get some historical perspective. I’m old enough to remember the Indian crying over a beer can in the woods back in the 70s. I know about the howls of educated socialists back in the day over how we were all doomed due to overpopulation, deforestation, population, nuclear waste, chemical pollution, acid rain, ozone holes, global cooling. 30 and 40 years has gone by on all this stuff and none of it has come true. All of this global warming nonsense is just the impending-calamity-du-jour that socialists use to manipulate people into supporting their political ambitions.

    You need to develop a healthy sense of cynicism.

  • luisd

    Rufus,

    To you, I would only recommend to read the structur of scientific revolutions. It should help you to understand how science develops, and the interaction between science and society.

    http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Scientific-Revolutions-Thomas-Kuhn/dp/0226458083

  • kilroywashere

    The details of my personal history are irrelevant to the point. But I will say I didn’t pursue a career in physics if that is what you want to know.

  • luisd

    Kilroy,

    I entirely agree with you, but all extremes are bad. I’m a scientist myself, and do perfectly understand the relationship between science and society. I’m also fed-up with over-blown subject and scare-mongering. But also fed-up of journalists making an argument or a division in opinions when there is none.

    If all those “socialists” hadn’t cried loud about deforestation, over-population, etc… what would have happened? Did you visited London n the days of big smoke clouds? Didn’t pollution regulation helped then? Deforestation has slowed down in some areas, in other it has actually been reversed, isn’t that good?

    The weather patterns have changed. And that is a fact. Temperatures in my hometown have raised from a comfortably 2o C to 24 C all year round when I was a kid (and the records are there to see), to winters with temperatures below 14 and summers about 35. If this is not weather change I don’t know what it is.

    The river Cam in the UK used to freeze regularly 25 to 30 years ago. It hasn’t frozen in over 15 years. Same the canals in Amsterdam.

    You question (and so do I) if these patterns are human induced? Maybe they are, maybe they aren’t. But if they are, shouldn’t we do something to prevent the changes hurting us? If they are not our fault, then there is no harm in understanding the impact that our activities have on nature.

    If there was or not a fraud in the climate data at one or a small group of institutions, it is irrelevant. There are plenty of other data sets worldwide to look at.

  • rufustfirefly

    Luis

    Thank you for the suggestion. I will be looking closely to see if the “structur of scientific revolutions” includes losing ones data (as Phil Jones did – but then it was just the Global Historical Temperature Record. ) Or if this scientific book you recommend includes methods to “hide the decline” as the CRU people, and Michael Mann of Penn State, sought to do, because the decline caused trouble in selling their theory. Or does this scientific journal include using “speculation by journalists” as part of the “settled science” as the UN Report did when it referred to certain melting of the Himalayan glaciers within 35 years. Turns out this was just something that had been mentioned as a possibility in a magazine by a writer, not a scientist.

    Now – I agree with Kilroy’s point. Intelligent people exercise some critical thinking in analyzing information. If you check you will see there are thousands of real scientists who have written peer reviewed articles taking issue with the assertion that GW is caused by man. Some of these scientists may even has as academic backgrounds as impressive as yours.

  • luisd

    Rufus, it does include all that! And you will be shocked that it has been happening since the times of Galileo. And that all that is in the very heart of science! Human Science. And despite of all that we still find facts. It is an amazing book. You will love it.

  • rufustfirefly

    OK – you have me sold. I take it from your comment that you do at least recognize that the Global Warming science has included fraud which should be exposed, punished and ended. And going forward there should be serious attention given to those who have alternative theories. And the scientific method – open and honest – should rule. And if you don’t agree – you don’t say – we will put that scientist on ignore, he is a teabagger, creationist. You let the science drive the debate. And fraud, on any side of the debate, should be criticized and those engaging in it should be ostracized.

    Anyway – I will look for the book

  • kilroywashere

    luis,

    the climate has always changed….we aren’t still in an ice age. It has been drastically changing long before humans came along. The amount of pollution we generate is insignificant compared to what nature itself generates; therefore, how can our pollution have any significant effect on a planetary basis.

    btw….if socialists care so much about the environment, why are the worst environments found in socialist countries? These people are and have been for decades figuring out ways to manipulate people into supporting them in order to gain political power for themselves. I, for one, don’t buy any of their screams and howls. They don’t care one whit about the environment in my estimation.

    I’ll turn the question back on you…how many people are dead because they changed the glue on the space shuttle tiles or because they stopped asbestos from being used to insulate the beams in the trade centers or got DDT banned? How many people have died so that guilt-ridden liberals could feel like they were saving the planet?

    Further, I’ll ask….why must I drive a dinky bubble-car around when Al Gore gets to spend thousands per year heating his personal swimming pool, rides in private planes and drives SUVs around.

    The rich and intellectual elite who run everything want the average “wal mart shopper” to be dirt poor while they eat steak and lobster daily at our expense.

    This wal-mart shopper has enough sense not to fall for the baloney.

    I don’t think anyone opposes people being made to clean up their own messes and implement reasonable cleanliness in their businesses. But, these people exaggerate, lie and exploit on a massive scale. I don’t trust them.

  • luisd

    Times have changed. Now we shout, discuss, tag people with names, some loose their jobs, some don’t…. Galileo had to retract himself or be burnt alive! Simpler times then…

  • luisd

    Kilroy,

    Don’t confuse socialist with the old eastern block, which was dictatorship under a communist banner.

    Scandinavian countries despite of some of them having a Monarchy, have actually a very socialist organisation. In the true sense of what socialism is supposed to be. They also have the “greenest” records in Europe and worldwide. And some of the highest living standards. Generalisations are dangerous. I try to avoid them.

    The rest I agree with you. But just because my neighbour is bathing himself in tar, I don’t think that is a good idea to bathe myself in tar….

  • http://allasloss.com Nick R

    These are some of the best comments I’ve read in awhile. Love the debate guys, thanks for not resorting to name-calling… well, the majority of you anyway.

    *grabs popcorn*