Much of the work in climate science involves using proxy measurements. I got to wondering what other things in life could be done using proxies in place of actual measurements.

  1. You pull up to the gas station and fill your tank. A fill is your only option due to a new system that removes pump metering. Before you start to fill, you snap a quick shot of your gas gauge using the digital camera provided at the pump. After filling your tank, you go in to pay. A calculation is made: your car has an 18 gallon tank, the gauge says ¾ empty to start, so you pay for .75 x 18=13.5 gallons.

    The assumptions are that the manufacturer was accurate in stating gas tank size and that the gauge is accurate as manufactured. The math is straightforward, so use of the proxy should be acceptable.

    (My Subaru has a 14 gallon tank—at ¼ tank on the gauge, the proxy says I bought 10.5 gallons. Under the “old” system, I would have bought 8.5 to 9 gallons when metered at the pump.)

  2. A business’s time clock begins to malfunction. Sometimes it registers, sometimes it doesn’t. New time clocks are expensive, so the owner decides to instruct his bookkeeper to pay as follows:

    Any time card with missing values should be paid the average number of hours the other employees worked—8, 8.5, 9, etc. Since most workers have similar schedules, this should result in payment very close to what the time card should have shown. The bookkeeper notes this will not work with employees F, R, and Z. F seems to show up half an hour late regularly– his coworkers have complained about this. R and Z work half an hour to an hour overtime routinely. The bookkeeper is given permission to apply the corrections to the paychecks.

  3. A construction company has all of its levels, tape measures and some other tools stolen. They are in a remote area and it would take days to get replacements. All materials were brought in at once with the idea they would finish and never have to make a trip back to civilization in the middle. The crew decides that employee A has a shoe that is very close to one foot in length. He is designated the official “foot” measurement person. Employee R has a finger with approximately 1 inch between knuckles. He is the “inch” measure. Employee S has good spatial skills so he is designated the “level” person. Since mortar and grout will still need to be mixed with no way to measure, employee K, the person with the most experience using mortar and grout, is designated the “mix” person. The crew is confident these substitutes will work fine. The crew has years of experience and have no doubt they can finish the home without problems and the homeowners will never know what has transpired.
  4. A medical professional is working with a very remote tribe. The sight of a thermometer nearly caused an international incident. As an alternative, it is discovered there is a woman in the village who can measure “not sick”, “sick”, “quite sick” and “very sick” by touching the patient. She seems to be basing this on the amount of warmth the person is emitting. You have two choices:

    (a) medicate the “quite” and “very” sick people with antibiotics, maybe even the “sick” ones, too, and risk antibiotic resistance 10 to 20 years down the line or

    (b) only medicate the “very sick” and risk children dying if the woman with the “touch” is off by a couple of degrees in her judgement.


26 comments on “Proxies

  1. Reality,you wrote above ” If comments have be edited, it was due to failure follow blog rules. It really is that simple.” there is nothing in the blog rules that that says “if I decide that a comment thread has been discussed sufficiently I will end the discussion and delete any further comments.

    (You really don’t want to comment on here, do you? If you cannot understand the statement “MOST DISSCUSSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED.” This means I can shut down any discussion I want. That is what that means.
    THIS IS YOUR LAST WARNING–I am sick of arguing over common English language statements. Either learn the language or you are finished commenting.)

  2. It was written directly in the comments. This is not kindergarten–I do not have to put a chalkboard listing of rules. We’re adults and we can read and follow directions. Besides, the “we’re finished with this discussion” applied to that one thread.

    My rules say MOST discussions will be allowed. Please do not make me define the word “most” and do not argue over the definition thereof.

    The fact remains you have been allowed THOUSANDS of words of commentary on here. I have been very lenient. (As for SkS, if you are so enamored of their blog and rules, you might want to post on there exclusively and avoid the discomfort of posting here.)

    If you continue to complain about my rules, you will not be allowed to post.

  3. But that is NOT listed anywhere on your blog rules, so in my view it was arbitrary, as I was directly relating to what you had written, and you had not provided any reasonably response to what I had written. As I said you should check out the lewandosky post on SKS.

  4. I find only one comment that I moderated out–on the “Yellow Brick Road” entry. You were told the discussion was finished and you tried again. You made very clear your position and I made mine clear. You are NOT being censored, though your difficulty with understanding simple words in the English language may lead you to believe so.

    Crying “censored” is ridiculous. You have been allowed thousands of words to express your opinion here. In many cases, you have written more words than I have on MY blog.

  5. I do not see the place in your blog rules that states that when you decide you are no longer willing to engage with someone commenting or address the valid issues they bring up, you may remove their comments and arbitrarily end the discussion. It is of course your blog and you can use or even break any rules you want.
    I just read a fascinating blog interaction on RetractionWatch and then specifically SKS on Lewandosky where the moderator carefully detailed how comments were being moderated for commentors on BOTH sides of the issue. One that was hotly contested. They ultimately banned someone, but that was after several warnings and when they DID ban them they posted exactly what he had said and why it was such an egregious breach that it merited being banned.
    How can I possibly know what is acceptable to you if you do not point out what I have written that was against your blog rules? And I would hate for people to whisper to each other that “reality check” has a more arbitrary moderation policy than SKS. just deleting my comment, when in my opinion it was totally within the rules of your blog, just reinforces an increasing belief that you are not interested in reality or honest disagreement.

  6. Ah, I see you are now censoring my comments. I can understadn you getting irritated with my persistance. I am happy to support your thoughts and ideas wher i think they have merit, but. I have repeatedly asked you to substantiate you assertions. When you don’t and then ignore my points you are not doing anyone any faovrs and certainly are not interested in a reality check

  7. Oh, I am not at all saying gays angage in rational behavior.
    But you seem to be missing my point. Do we as a society have to tolerate people experessing the opinions I mentioned, such as opposing interacial marriage, or supporting woman not being allowed to own porperty or vote? at what point is one being tolerant and at what point is one empowering people with socailly unacCeptable beliefs
    I am a firm beleiver in the first amendment, yet I have no problem expressing strong disagreement with views I consider offensive.

  8. I think if you have to tolerate gays you have to tolerate those who disapprove of the behaviour too.

    I would disagree with the label “rational” for the behaviour.

  9. I think it is funny that you point to the NBA player coming out as gay as an example of intolerance.
    It is certainly socially condemned to come out against interacial marriage, or slavery, or that woman should not work. the intolerance in this case is clearly the fact that NO male major sports paleyrs in the US have come out as gay, BECAUSE of intolerance. Do you actually believe it is a reasonable position that should NOT be attacked that there should NOT be gay sports players?
    Did the sprotscaster, Chris Broussard, who attacked him as a gay man lose his job becuase of his statements? No. Were his statements social unaceptable in the current social climate of the US? yes. Just as it is unnaceptable to say woman shouldn’t work, or blacks and whites can’t marry. And even Broussard didn’t say he shouldn’t play basketball, just that he wasn’t a christian. Along with every person who has ever had sex outside of marriage, which I think would decimate the ranks of people who think of themselves as christians in this country.
    And here is a case specifically where liberal thning has created a more rational understanding about human nature and moral values, even as there are negatives associated with that as well.

  10. Evolution IS a fact. And there is a theory that explains that fact. the theory is incomplete and probably understood innacuarately. I think that is what is taught in most schools. it is conceivable that that fact is wrong, but so is any fact possibly wrong. if one accepts empiricism it is as true as pretty much any fact.
    I just listened to an excellent book by Karen Armstrong, “The Case for God” and she makes an interesting claim that the development of religious fundamentalism came out of the enlightenment. The idea that you COULD know something to be true through science led to the idea of the literal interpretation of religious texts, which led to militant athiesm and the back and forth dynamic between them. I think there are sureyl some examples of people overselling science and “facts”, but that is not the major problem. We are facing a parlty religiously backed anti-science crusade. I just ggogled this as my first hit. it is astounding This is pure religious dogma with no basis in anything remotely related to reality. the consequences of this srot of thinking are staggering.

    As for liberal theology, even though there is no such thing, I do agree that there are aspects of it that are NOT based on science or rational thinking, and the culture of dependance is a genuine concern, but liberal thinking is based on science and enlightenment principles and critical thinking. As I said, I live in VT, the most liberal state in the country. We have one of the best helath care systems in the country and while there is certainly abuse, there is also a tremendous amount of progress because people are well educated, are learning collaborative skills for solving issues and are taught to listen and think critically. That is the exact opposite of a large minority of Christian religious teaching that is based on authority and subserveneice to immutable beliefs. I grew up in a community that had a very strong born again christian presence and thinking was NOT encouraged. Doing what the Bible said and how your pastor interpreted the Bible were the accepted ways of living. Questioning was deeply frowned upon. this is still true in ;large areas of the country, and is seriously damaging our productivity as a nation

    • I believe you overestimate the threat from religion, especially since virtually every public school out there forbids the mention of it. I do think science is elevating itself to the level of God in the hopes of destroying religion (as in Steven Hawking saying “We don’t need God anymore–we know how the world began”). I view that as a very serious problem, since science can no more prove there is no God than they can that there is a God.

      Evolution in the sense that everything changes and adapts is a fact. Beyond that, it is a theory.

      I think it’s best to drop this thread. This is about climate change, not religion. We’ve done enough.

  11. Sheri says:

    No where have I advocated teaching creationism. It’s religion–I know that. However, teaching evolution as a fact, not a theory, is a lot of the reason religion came up with intelligent design. Back off from the certainty in evolution and it might help. I don’t think it could hurt.

    I worry far more about liberal theology than religious theology as it teaches people dependency and victimization. I am also unclear how the religious theology is such a threat when today’s politics is basically set up to beat up religion whenever possible. Note the reactions to the NBA player coming out as gay. Any negative comments are severely punished. You will approve or you will be fired, ridiculed, etc. That, to me, is pretty dangerous.

    There is a chance that people will chose wrong. That is just the way it works. It’s part of being humans. We can and do make bad choices.

  12. But, sherri,

    I am not saying it is likely that that should or could happen, teaching nazi and lenisit propaganda to grade school children. I am making a direct analogy to waht you were suggesting. there is no wild claim here, it is a question of what is reasonable to teach to children. In fact i wuld encourage the teachinf of nazi and marxist theory to older high school children provided they had some background in political philosophy.

    As for your contention that ideas are being pushed from a purely ideological perspective based on limited science, I am sure it is happening, right wing blogs post these sorts fo things all the time. the problem is that liberals and conservatives have rejected real education reform for the last hundred years. I am totally opposed to propaganda based on ideology whetehr it is left, right or center, and I have seen the damaging effects of all of these becuase of a fear of teaching real critical thought. I am MUCh more worried about the religious fundamentalist abuse of this though than the liberal abuse, sicne I think it is MUCH more widespread and much more anti science and anti critical thinking in general .
    it is Not a question of being more persuasive, it is a question of inhibiting policy by generating much more uncertainty than actually exists. Certainly the arguments agaisnt tobacco causing cancer have led to many many lives being destroyed, even though it is hard to make individual correlations between smoking and any particular case of cancer. Children are actually dying becuase of an inflated uncertainty about Vaccination right now. And people are dying becuase of an inflated ideological beleif in homeopathy, and prayer.
    the fact that there are lots of people who have misundertandings about issues that have concrete effects is soemthing that needs to be addressed by public policy. teaching creationism on the same level as evolution will support the idea that they have similar degrees of credibility. that is very different from saying that Evolution is a very complicated theory and there are a number of aspects that are incomplete or not well understood.

  13. Reality,

    yes in school the best available understanding of science is taught as fact. it is as one gets a deeper understanding of science and the real world that more nuance is presented. I agree that our entire educational system is screwed up. the idea that we put groups of children in a room and then present them with “facts” that they have to memorize is in certain ways quite destructive.Which is why school systems like Finland produce much more wel rounded and better educated students.
    but do you explain all the caveats to every child about every issue that they might bring up? if a child asks you how babies are born do you tell the the details of miosis and mitosis and developmental biology, and about the role of mitochondria, and how epigenesis impacts genetic expression? Do you go into sexual fetishes and the ways modern advertizing objectifies woman and helps foster a culture of opne wantonness and therefore unwanted children. Do you explain about homosexualiy and that there is a debate about the impacts of heredity and environment, and about abortion and adoption? I don’t think so.
    I fully support evolution and climate science and the big bang and vaccines and a host of other accepted scientific principles as being our best understanding of science. I do NOt support discouraging children from asking questions and from being involved in active discussions about the relative merits and understandings of various aspects of science. I am sure this happens in palces and that there re teachers who unfairly limit childrends exploration of issues and I deplore that whetehr from the left or right.
    I went to a very conservative high school, and was pressured not to present information that I had about science and history. My family had lived in four countries and my father was a very intelligent and well informed diplomat. So I knew a bunch of stuff that some of my teachers didn’t want their calssrooms to know. Whereas i remember a class where a student thought we should invade Canada for its natural resources because they couldn’t stop us, and ther was no discouraging of that idea.
    And if it wasn’t for the deeply anti scientific ideological undermining of science I would be open to looking at other theories and possibilities. yet, creationists, and anti ACC and anti Vaccine advocates, in my experience are not interested in teaching how to be critical thinkers, but in promoting propaganda to undermine our understanding of science.
    Why not teach NAZI theory and Leninism to 4rth graders so they can make up their own minds about the best political economic system. maybe jews ARE behind the world government and Un atttempts to subvert our way of life? SHould we prevent a full look at that possibility?

    • Sheri says:

      I don’t explain biology and reproduction the same to a 5 year old as a 15 years old. In kindergarten, you don’t explain babies and where they come from. By the time a child is a senior in high school, you do explain and the schools do cover all the things you mention, except they tell kids homosexuality is normal and that to disagree is to be a homophobe. It’s really hard to get around the “it’s our way or else” behaviours in schools. The same for abortion, sexualization of women, etc. I would hope that in college there is more openness, but I really doubt colleges allow anti-abortion groups to show up with aborted fetuses in jars anymore (they did this when I took ethics in college). Now they just tell kids that abortion is a human right and ridicule and demean those who disagree. Hopefully, there are some who do not. I really don’t see any thinking being taught anymore, to be honest. Maybe in very limited areas.

      I fully agree with you on schools, as you can tell from my statement above. Schools are failing to educate in most ways.

      I don’t think that the lack of an alternative theory or the existence of theories one does no like is an excuse not to teach the true nature of science. We may not have any theory outside of evolution that explains things as well as this theory does, but there is no reason to stop looking for one. That should be encouraged.

      Critical thinking is discouraged by huge sections of the population–creationists and skeptics don’t have a lock on that. Whether your opponent is annoying or not, dogmatic or not, does not excuse failure to teach logic and critical thinking. You just have to work harder to show your idea is the right one. Why is it that people worry so that the anti-vaccine crowd will win if we let them talk? Or the creationists? Are they that much more persuasive than scientists are? Why? Think about that one for a bit.

      You’re pushing with the NAZI theory and Leninism to 4th graders and doing exactly what you complain about my doing–exaggeration to make this look foolish. (So the tactic is okay for you, just not me? It’s okay for Tony to make wild claims but not Sheri? Please explain.) Only you suggested this–I am saying age appropriate. On the other hand, we do have teachers pushing “Heather has two mommies”, chemicals are bad, your parents are bad if they drive an SUV (they are planet haters), and so forth, on kindergartners so maybe you idea is already accepted. Maybe we already do push politics on small children in the hopes of winning their hearts and closing off their mind

  14. And then you mke the even more bizarre statment “refusal of science to just admit they can never know how the universe began, where people came from, what the insides of an atom looks like, etc.” EVERY scientist I know of is quite clear that we cannot know for sure how the universe began, where people came from or ESPECAILLY what the inside of an atom looks like. in fact just about any scientist will tell you that the first and third questions are probably meaningless. and Almost everyone I have heard who studies biogensis says that we will probably never know how life started or when human beings first appeared. Why do you continue to make broad accusations without ANY substantiation?
    And then you say something perfectly reasonable that is satandard understadning of science that it is the best approximation we have at this time. The thing is the “best approximation” in ALL of these fields is far beyond what anyone could have considered possible a little over a hundred years ago in ALL these fields. Our “best approximation” understanding of quantum physics has allowed us to for all intents and purposes create magic with technology. And you over and over again ignore that scientific fields overlap, and in the vast majority of cases reinforce the understandings and make them stornger by addding new levels of understanding.
    You are right a person who has never seen cannot know what the color green is. But if he has a app that tell him when something is green on his iPhone and can utilize the information in the ways that most sighted people can see through technology, then that persons graps of reality, while not perfect, will be quite sufficient to utilize the concept of green.

    • Have you been to school lately? Try questioning the accuracy of evolution of the big bang (actually that was not allowed 40 years ago either, in many schools). They are taught as immutable FACTS, not theories. Children are flunked for questioning climate change. Scientists you know may admit this, but it is being taught to children as absolute truth that can not be questioned.

      You do seem to understand the limits of science. But this is not what the real world gets for science. Perhaps that is the major problem–scientists need to be insisting that evolution and climate change be taught as “best theory” and not as fact. They should be buying ads that list the limits of evolution, climate change, drug therapy, etc. so people have a clear view. Then there would be a lot more science and a lot less dogma.

  15. fascinating that you question ALL data that is based on proxies in every science. Well you have your work cut out for you. Pretty much all of biology, and astronomy and quantum mechanics are now apparently totally unreliable sciences since they are so strongly based on ionformation gained from proxies.
    You are of course right when you say that if one only used one type of proxy to try to determine some metric, there is always the potential for serious error.
    But you are totally ignoring what the real science is and treating science as if it is some sort of ad hoc hobby where some guys get togerther vaguely look at some issue and make semi educated guesses. REAL science is actually based on trying to figure out as many appproaches to understanding phenomenon as possible Scientists that come up with novel approaches are rewarded, and science moves forward. Your view of science and scientists is frankly insulting and seems to be clearly based on ideology and not on what scientists actually do.
    Thiis last study, that is so venomously attacked by C3 is based on multiple proxies by different approaches by different teams of scientists with different qualifications, the conclusion of the blog is that there is aconspiracy of ALL these scientists to fool the public into believing a fraudulent theory. there is no other reasonable reading of what is written there. They apparently accept ALL the use of proxies, and are not attacking the methodology at all. They contend that the facts are absolutely the opposite of what the authors contend
    You apparently are u nable to look at these sites and use any sort of skepticism regarding ther claims or to compare the actual language and assertions.
    the actual paper is very reasonable and explains numerous caveats in ways that make sense and that indicate limitations of the work and that point out well established understandings in a very clear manner. the C3 Blog makes absolute categorical statements of truth denying all the major conclusions of the study and insisting on a conspiracy, while of course providing no evidence of such a conspiracy. I classify this sort of writing as propaganda Propaganda DEMANDS acceptance, science does research, makes assertions and qualifies them. You keep asserting that scientists are demanding acceptance, yet this paper is clearly presenting data, and making reasonable assertions.

    • Actually, I am VERY concerned about the computer modeling and proxies in biological research. Unless we are made of zeros and ones, there’s a serious problem. Real life and computer models are not the same thing. You cannot dissect a pig on a computer screen and truly understand how the physiology of the pig works. At this moment in time, we are still different from zeros and ones.

      C3 chose not to go my route. And please remember, I said they were NOT scientific objections, which kind of precludes comments about the scientific method. I also did not say I agreed. I gave them as examples of what the blogs were saying about the article.

      Can you not comprehend the idea that I share information and allow people to think on their own? I do NOT spoon-feed people. If you need spoon-feeding, try SkS. They are more than happy to tell you how to think.
      Again, in caps for emphasis I DO NOT TELL PEOPLE WHAT TO THINK. I SHARE INFORMATION AND LET THEM ANALYZE IT AND COME TO THEIR OWN CONCLUSIONS. I share what I think and why and read what others think and write whether I agree or disagree. Everyone is free to believe me or not. If you want someone to tell you how to believe, try church or many of the science sites that spell everything out for you so you think like they do. This is not the place.

      One additional note: This is EXACTLY why I complained on WtD that their source was not science. You called me rude for that, yet you complain that I posted something I clearly indicated was not science because I am limited to science here, you think. You are one of the reasons for the post–you demand every single line I post be science, even when clearly indicated it is not science. You need to read someone else’s blogs if this is a problem. Henceforth, I cutting out the comments about not being science. Moderation is for those who cannot learn.

  16. have no idea waht you are talking about now. This post is a general attack on the use of proxies, i pointed out to you that almost all of science uses proxies in various diffeent ways, and you seem to only have a problem with proxies that are involved in a science taht you have an ideological objection to.
    You sayy there is no way to know for sure how close proxies are to reality. RThat is jsut your assertion. What is fascinating to me about hostrotical sciecnes is just how remarkeably they are able to come close to “real” measurements through proxies in such ingenious ways. teh sue of radioactive, dating. the use of knowledlge of biological processes and various sorts of biological signals, and the understanding of the occurracne of isotopes in specific situations give an incredibly complex web of overlapping answers that are then analyzed to approximate a margin of error.
    Again i do not say that they are perfect or that mistakes are not made, But your blythe dismissal on the basis of a meaningless analogy is just argumentation, not science and certainly nothing to do with reality. In order make a VALID analogy valid you would have to assert EVERY case where the proxy evidence was similar to how you described and deterimine how often there would be cases where all the evidence was wrong because of an extreme set of circumstances that invalidatd the evidedence, What tyou are REALLY saying is that no matter how much evidence there is in a case we should NEVER find anyone guilty as long as it is possible to invent a scenario where the evidence is invalid because of inforamtion we are not aware of.
    Of course that does fit with your view of ACC. it seems that as long as there is anyway that it might not possibly be true we shoudl assume that it isn’t becuase it is possible to concot some other scenario.
    So yes there is a big difference with how you presenting science and in the way that science has been operating, I do not see anything like the big problem that you are alleging.

    As I have said repeatedly, unless there is some massive conspiracy involving thousands of scientists there are thousands of other qualified experts that are honest and that would pretty quickly pull the plug on a fraudulent science that was undermining scienitific principles.

    Of course you can find things to point to that you can allege are frusdulent or insufficient for conclusions. many people do that with evolution, and fear of vaccines and with GMO’s and with 9/11 and a host of cosnpiracy theories. Alleging these things does no tmake them true and making genearl aspersions about proxies does not make them less valuable than they actually are.

    • My response: To answer your questions, I do not throw out all of the data, I question the legitimacy of the proxies and refer to none of these things as “facts”.

      No where in that statement is the questioning limited to climate science. It is an answer to your questions about if I questioned all the fields you listed. I do.

      There is no way to know how close a proxy is to reality if the proxy is the only measurement you have. If you had instrumental or experimental data, you would use that. You can never know whether or not a proxy temperature based on tree rings in 200 AD is accurate. It is an assumption that is made based on, hopefully, based on comparison to a carefully controlled comparison of tree rings to instrumental data that is available. I addressed this before.

      My objection is the refusal of science to just admit they can never know how the universe began, where people came from, what the insides of an atom looks like, etc. They can create theories and ideas based on proxies and physical law. Then modify the theory if it does not work out. The theory is not the “truth”. Rather it is the best approximation we have thereof at this point in time.

      Question: Can a blind person know what the color green is? Of course not. Yet science of the past and quantum arenas presumes it can know. That is my objection.

      No conspiracy is required to explain how ACC became political and not scientific. Human behavior covers that.

  17. To answer your questions, I do not throw out all of the data, I question the legitimacy of the proxies and refer to none of these things as “facts”. A proxy is SUBSTITUTE for actual measurable data. The methods used to obtained them are always to examined. Proxies can be very inaccurate and are modified often. Part of the reason there is so much statistical evaluation of proxies is in the hope of getting a result that is close to what a real measurement would give. Yet there is absolutely no way to know for sure how close the proxies are.

    Picture a courtroom with an alleged murderer on trial. The prosecution has DNA, videotape, and three eye witnesses to the crime. The guilt of the accused is fairly certain–or as certain as we can ever be. Now, a new murderer where we have his clothes, his cell phone, he has a past record and could have been at the place the murder occurred. Do we convict? How sure are you he is the one? Proxies. (Imagine you are the suspect in the latter example–should the jury go with the evidence or not?)

    If proxies are wonderful, why not use proxies in everything? Why both with instrumental measurements at all–oh, wait, that happened with the hotspot in the troposphere. Proxies were used and instrumental readings rejected. How can one “know” the proxies are more accurate than the instruments? Algorithms are “adjusted” all the time–including in regards to the arctic ice. So how can one know the proxy is more accurate than the instrumental record?

    If science works differently from what I am presenting, then there’s a problem with what is being called science. I understand how science is SUPPOSED to work just fine. If you are saying it does not work this way, then there is a serious problem. I am not alone in this belief–many worry what climate change rhetoric has done to the discipline of science.

  18. Once again a totally bizarre set of correlations you are proposing.
    The current use of proxies which is widespread throughout the entire scientific realm for any science that has a historical basis is suddenly fraught with all sorts of dire risks in coming to conclusions.
    Again it seems like you have no understanding of how science actually operates. Do you totally throw out all the science around cosmology and evolution becuase they use proxies. Do you just ignore evidence about the relation of organisms to each other becuase it uses proxies of DNA?
    Do you throw out everything we know about stars becuase there is the use of spectroscopic analysis that serves as all kinds of proxies for our understanding of the nucelar processes in stars, and our understanding fo their formation. DO you throw out all of quantum mechanics becuase it is based on really really bizarre conclusions that are drwan from a host of proxy measurments>
    What is the point of these “stories”, since they have no actual relevance to how the scientific process develops and uses proxies.
    What amazes me about science is the incredible creativity and ingenuity that scientists have used to solve problems that seemed impossible to get to generations ago. Also the years of training and the degree of scrutiny that almost all of scientific methodology has to go through in order to be accepted. That does not mean it is always perfect or there aren’t mistakes, but what you describe above has almost nothing to do with “proxies” in the “REAL” world of how science operates.

  19. Otter says:

    Good morning, Sheri.

    Blog now added to my climate change folder. I’ve got nearly 200. Thanks!

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s