Vill has given a response to your bet offer on http://www.ukweatherworld.co.uk/...art=26& posts=37 |
Thanks Tom - I've tried to explain it to Vill, but no luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, May 23, 2005
Saved comment thread for "Betting on global warming" post
(I'm saving and recopying a comment thread here for the "Betting on global warming" post in case I lose old comments when I switch to a new system. Please leave any new comments at the Betting post, not here. Sorry for the kludgy system. -Brian)
...large volcanic eruptions at the end of the betting period will skew the results while telling us nothing about humanity's effect on climate...
TomK, if you have suggestions on what would constitute a fair bet, I'm open to it. I think I've made plenty of fair offers for denialists of different stripes. Let's see what bet they want to make.
I bet you're a (expletive deleted by siteowner) kook. I win!!
I haven't followed all the links to analyze this carefully, but at first reading I don't see anything here that allows people to make bets based on support or denial of human-induced global warming.
Hi Brian,
Okay Jack,
I'll bet you 1000 units of afterlife / next world currency that within the next 50,000 years, the current interglacial will have ended, with significant ill effects upon living conditions in North America and Europe.
Hi,
See
I've been told that you are willing to bet on global warming. I thought I would find something on the odds you are offering, but it looks like you are all mouth and no action.
The biggest increase we see is that of a rising lower temperature. More so than the rising high temp.
Brian, a choice of bets:
So what's next, the minimum of arctic sea ice in winter 2008-09 or not ? Or do you know if the december slowing is an artefact ? 
Saw your comment over at OB. I hold what I call the well-informed skeptic's position. I think CO2 is a first order forcing but the total second order effect 0.
It is easy to make bets when you know that the people at the CRU are fixing the results!
I'd gladly bet on the issue of hurricane intensity, only the way you got it set up its a sucker bet.
Taming the Nightmares of Yesterday for a Better Tomorrow
A striking sci-fi/political satire/PowerPoint-plus-audio presentation on the web. I let it play while doing other stuff, but it's entertainingly distracting. (Via Boing-Boing.net)
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Movies: The Woodsman, The Day After Tomorrow, and Enron
Brief movie reviews:
The Woodsman: excellent, excellent film, Kevin Bacon was robbed of an Oscar nomination. He plays Walter, who was rightfully convicted of a horrible crime. Upon release he struggles with reintegrating with society and with the temptation to reoffend. Spoilers about the crime he committed are everywhere, including the DVD sleeve, but I'll hold back. Strongly recommended. A missed opportunity here - the DVD extras should have added a short called "If You Know Someone Like Walter" to give a brief lesson on how to help these people.
The Day After Tomorrow: the very mediocre, global warming disaster film from last summer. I skipped most of it so maybe there's great stuff in the middle, but I doubt it. Rented it to see if there was a snazzy, good-science exposition scene before it became ridiculously exaggerated, but no luck. Also a missed opportunity in the DVD extras, where they could've added some good science and activist information. Oh well.
Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room: an excellent documentary of Enron's deserved collapse. Showed how wrong and corrupt its leaders were while keeping them human. Briefly mentions Schwarzenegger's connection to Enron - I'd like to know more. I think I'll have to read the book it's based on. I was especially taken with how Enron CEO Skilling thought that coming up with an idea was all that counted, while making the idea happen was drudge work for non-geniuses. I might have believed that years ago, but I sure don't now.
The Woodsman: excellent, excellent film, Kevin Bacon was robbed of an Oscar nomination. He plays Walter, who was rightfully convicted of a horrible crime. Upon release he struggles with reintegrating with society and with the temptation to reoffend. Spoilers about the crime he committed are everywhere, including the DVD sleeve, but I'll hold back. Strongly recommended. A missed opportunity here - the DVD extras should have added a short called "If You Know Someone Like Walter" to give a brief lesson on how to help these people.
The Day After Tomorrow: the very mediocre, global warming disaster film from last summer. I skipped most of it so maybe there's great stuff in the middle, but I doubt it. Rented it to see if there was a snazzy, good-science exposition scene before it became ridiculously exaggerated, but no luck. Also a missed opportunity in the DVD extras, where they could've added some good science and activist information. Oh well.
Enron: the Smartest Guys in the Room: an excellent documentary of Enron's deserved collapse. Showed how wrong and corrupt its leaders were while keeping them human. Briefly mentions Schwarzenegger's connection to Enron - I'd like to know more. I think I'll have to read the book it's based on. I was especially taken with how Enron CEO Skilling thought that coming up with an idea was all that counted, while making the idea happen was drudge work for non-geniuses. I might have believed that years ago, but I sure don't now.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
More disinformation from Dr. Peiser about global warming
Dr. Benny Peiser has a long Op-Ed in the Financial Post of Canada discussing his supposed proof that no consensus exists on global warming. He repeats his incorrect statement that he "checked the same set of abstracts" as the Oreskes study published in Science magazine that had found a consensus.
As discussed extensively below, Dr. Peiser has known since May 8th that he did not check the same set of abstracts. The Op-Ed was published on May 17th, so it's possible that Dr. Peiser crossed the same dishonesty line that he did with MSNBC.com, if he submitted his Op-Ed after May 8.
I've written a letter to the Financial Post - if it doesn't get published, I'll put it up here.
As discussed extensively below, Dr. Peiser has known since May 8th that he did not check the same set of abstracts. The Op-Ed was published on May 17th, so it's possible that Dr. Peiser crossed the same dishonesty line that he did with MSNBC.com, if he submitted his Op-Ed after May 8.
I've written a letter to the Financial Post - if it doesn't get published, I'll put it up here.
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Peiser cuts off communication over his honesty
(See the long May 16, 2005 post below for background. I disputed the honesty of part of Benny Peiser's work, which questions whether a consensus exists on global warming.)
Below is the email I sent to Peiser after he responded to my original post:
Thank you for replying, Dr. Peiser. I will add this
section of your response to my post:
(excerpt removed from here - you can see it at the end of the May 16th post)
Unless I hear otherwise from you, I assume you have no
objection to my posting your entire email, and will do
so in several days.
Your saying:
"Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know."
differs substantially from your public statement
published on the MSNBC website:
"I have analysed the same set of abstracts."
Saying "I don't know" leaves much to be desired in my
opinion, as I believe it has been shown you did use a
wider search. Still it represents an improvement over
what you said previously, and I obviously think you
should stop saying you analyzed the same set.
Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
Following my reply, Peiser sent this response:
Dear Mr Schmidt
I am sorry to notice that you decided to
selectively post parts of my letter on your
website.
On this basis, I think we should end our
communication.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
I immediately reiterated my previous email, that I was waiting a few days to give him a chance to object to my posting his entire email. I said I was disappointed in his response, but now assumed that I should go ahead and post his full response. (I forgot to save this email, so you're just getting the summary.)
Peiser doesn't seem eager to discuss this issue, or any other where his arguments run into trouble. Besides raising questions of honesty, it also raises questions of his ability to wrestle with science.
Anyway, here's his complete reply to my original post:
Dear Mr Schmidt
I'm afraid you are missing the point. I have tried to show that the
Oreskes
'study' is flawed in a number of ways:
1. Oreskes claims that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position." This is simply incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as
a few abstracts actually reject the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes
(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm).
2. Oreskes claims that "all major scientific bodies in the United
States
whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" have endorsed
the
consensus. This is incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as most
open-minded observers of the debates know that both the American
Association
of State Climatologists (AASC) and the American Association of
Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) remain decidely sceptical of the "consensus".
3. Oreskes claims that "75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the
consensus
view." My analysis, however, shows that the vast majority of abstracts
does not
deal with anthropogenic global warming. In fact, I could only find 13
abstracts
that *explicitly* endorsed the "consensus". This falsification of her
results
is true even if Oreskes may have used slightly fewer abstracts (928)
than I did
(1117) from the same ISI databank.
4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."
I also found that some 10% of documents in the ISI databank on "global
climate change" did
not include any abstracts. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is
that Oreskes 'study'
lacks any coherent methodology, which is rather strange given her
emphasis on peer-review.
I cannot recall any other study published in Science that lacked *any*
clear method. All
she says in her essay is that she "analyzing 928 abstracts, published
in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate
change" (sic). Why 928 and not 929? What happened to all those
abstracts that were "deleted
from the analysis"? Why don't any of these figures add up?
To conclude, the scientific community is far from any global warming
consensus. Not only
are there many open questions about the balance between human and
natural drivers of
terrestrial climate; even less agreement exists about whether or not
the anthropogenic
contribution to climate change poses any long-term threat to the
stability and health
of our global village.
The reality of disagreement was confirmed by a recent survey among some
500 international
climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch of
the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." It simply
confirmed what a previous survey, conducted in 1996 and published in
the peer-reviewed
literature showed: that there is a sizeable body of scepticism within
the scientific community.
To deny its very existence seems rather futile to me given that
'sceptical' research papers
continue to being published all the time.
BTW: I'm not a climatologist and would not want to voice any strong
opinion on the complexities
involved in trying to attribute climate change to any of the countless
factors. The *real* problem, as I see it, is how we, as individuals and
as a society, deal with scientific doubts and uncertainty on such and
other controversies. All I am arguing is that science requires freedom
of thought, freedom of debate and freedom to doubt. If we lose these
liberties because
climate alarmists think it is crucial to silence any doubt, or deny its
very existence, you
can forget science.
I hope this clarification is helpful.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
To quickly respond to his arguments:
1. Lack of disagreement with the consensus shown here.
2. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has an obvious industry association that makes their statements biased, and I further question their climatological expertise.
The American Association of State Climatologists is a little trickier. I've read their 2001 policy document (available here), and it's very mushy on climate change. I'd place that document as either non-committal or rasing doubts on whether current current warming is primarily human caused, while definitely acknowledging the human role in climate. At most it gives Peiser marginal support, and whether 150 climatologists with obvious political affiliations (many presumably appointed by conservative Republican governors) constitute a "major scientific body" is questionable.
3 and 4. Partly dealt with in the comments here, but to truly handle it, one would have to repeat Oreske's original study, and maybe Peiser's too, which I'm not prepared to do, especially given Peiser's lack of credibility at this point. I dealt with Peiser's reference to a survey of "climatologists" in my May 16th post.
In any event, it is Peiser that's missing the point - the issue isn't whether the original Oreskes study that Peiser attacks is flawed, but whether one can trust anything Peiser says about climate. I think I showed dishonesty in how he portrayed his work, his response to me was unsatisfactory, and then he cut off communication.
As to what, if anything, happens next, I have no idea.
UPDATE: Dr. Peiser has not completely cut me off, apparently. He responded to my email:
Below is the email I sent to Peiser after he responded to my original post:
Thank you for replying, Dr. Peiser. I will add this
section of your response to my post:
(excerpt removed from here - you can see it at the end of the May 16th post)
Unless I hear otherwise from you, I assume you have no
objection to my posting your entire email, and will do
so in several days.
Your saying:
"Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know."
differs substantially from your public statement
published on the MSNBC website:
"I have analysed the same set of abstracts."
Saying "I don't know" leaves much to be desired in my
opinion, as I believe it has been shown you did use a
wider search. Still it represents an improvement over
what you said previously, and I obviously think you
should stop saying you analyzed the same set.
Sincerely,
Brian Schmidt
Following my reply, Peiser sent this response:
Dear Mr Schmidt
I am sorry to notice that you decided to
selectively post parts of my letter on your
website.
On this basis, I think we should end our
communication.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
I immediately reiterated my previous email, that I was waiting a few days to give him a chance to object to my posting his entire email. I said I was disappointed in his response, but now assumed that I should go ahead and post his full response. (I forgot to save this email, so you're just getting the summary.)
Peiser doesn't seem eager to discuss this issue, or any other where his arguments run into trouble. Besides raising questions of honesty, it also raises questions of his ability to wrestle with science.
Anyway, here's his complete reply to my original post:
Dear Mr Schmidt
I'm afraid you are missing the point. I have tried to show that the
Oreskes
'study' is flawed in a number of ways:
1. Oreskes claims that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position." This is simply incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as
a few abstracts actually reject the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes
(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm).
2. Oreskes claims that "all major scientific bodies in the United
States
whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" have endorsed
the
consensus. This is incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as most
open-minded observers of the debates know that both the American
Association
of State Climatologists (AASC) and the American Association of
Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) remain decidely sceptical of the "consensus".
3. Oreskes claims that "75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the
consensus
view." My analysis, however, shows that the vast majority of abstracts
does not
deal with anthropogenic global warming. In fact, I could only find 13
abstracts
that *explicitly* endorsed the "consensus". This falsification of her
results
is true even if Oreskes may have used slightly fewer abstracts (928)
than I did
(1117) from the same ISI databank.
4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."
I also found that some 10% of documents in the ISI databank on "global
climate change" did
not include any abstracts. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is
that Oreskes 'study'
lacks any coherent methodology, which is rather strange given her
emphasis on peer-review.
I cannot recall any other study published in Science that lacked *any*
clear method. All
she says in her essay is that she "analyzing 928 abstracts, published
in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate
change" (sic). Why 928 and not 929? What happened to all those
abstracts that were "deleted
from the analysis"? Why don't any of these figures add up?
To conclude, the scientific community is far from any global warming
consensus. Not only
are there many open questions about the balance between human and
natural drivers of
terrestrial climate; even less agreement exists about whether or not
the anthropogenic
contribution to climate change poses any long-term threat to the
stability and health
of our global village.
The reality of disagreement was confirmed by a recent survey among some
500 international
climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch of
the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." It simply
confirmed what a previous survey, conducted in 1996 and published in
the peer-reviewed
literature showed: that there is a sizeable body of scepticism within
the scientific community.
To deny its very existence seems rather futile to me given that
'sceptical' research papers
continue to being published all the time.
BTW: I'm not a climatologist and would not want to voice any strong
opinion on the complexities
involved in trying to attribute climate change to any of the countless
factors. The *real* problem, as I see it, is how we, as individuals and
as a society, deal with scientific doubts and uncertainty on such and
other controversies. All I am arguing is that science requires freedom
of thought, freedom of debate and freedom to doubt. If we lose these
liberties because
climate alarmists think it is crucial to silence any doubt, or deny its
very existence, you
can forget science.
I hope this clarification is helpful.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
To quickly respond to his arguments:
1. Lack of disagreement with the consensus shown here.
2. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has an obvious industry association that makes their statements biased, and I further question their climatological expertise.
The American Association of State Climatologists is a little trickier. I've read their 2001 policy document (available here), and it's very mushy on climate change. I'd place that document as either non-committal or rasing doubts on whether current current warming is primarily human caused, while definitely acknowledging the human role in climate. At most it gives Peiser marginal support, and whether 150 climatologists with obvious political affiliations (many presumably appointed by conservative Republican governors) constitute a "major scientific body" is questionable.
3 and 4. Partly dealt with in the comments here, but to truly handle it, one would have to repeat Oreske's original study, and maybe Peiser's too, which I'm not prepared to do, especially given Peiser's lack of credibility at this point. I dealt with Peiser's reference to a survey of "climatologists" in my May 16th post.
In any event, it is Peiser that's missing the point - the issue isn't whether the original Oreskes study that Peiser attacks is flawed, but whether one can trust anything Peiser says about climate. I think I showed dishonesty in how he portrayed his work, his response to me was unsatisfactory, and then he cut off communication.
As to what, if anything, happens next, I have no idea.
UPDATE: Dr. Peiser has not completely cut me off, apparently. He responded to my email:
>I assume you have no objection to my posting your *entire* email,I responded:
But I do have objections to *selective* posting. I did not give you
permission to cut and paste.
My apology for the confusion - if your original emailHe then thanked me. The only good thing about all this is that it's been conducted civilly.
had said, "please publish this as my response," I
would have done so immediately. I have now published
your email in full as an update to the original post,
just as I did yesterday in a follow-up post.
keywords: science, global warming, Peiser
Monday, May 16, 2005
Benny Peiser as the next John Lott?
John Lott is a conservative, anti-gun-control researcher with a reputation for dishonesty. Benny Peiser is a global warming denialist who conducted an easily-refuted study (UPDATE: also see here for more refutation) disputing proof that scientists have reached consensus that human-caused global warming currently exists.
Now it's one thing to defend your work with weak arguments, or even to ignore flaws in your work that have been pointed out to you. You cross a line, however, when something you've said is proven to be refuted, you've read the refutation, you refuse to address the issue in front of an audience that knows of the refutation, and then, in front of a new audience not aware of the refutation, you reassert the original statement. At that point, you're the next John Lott.
The chronology is below, but if you want to skip it, here's the summary: Peiser asserted in comments on Tim Lambert's blog that he used the same abstracts as a study he was refuting in order to show the flaws in that study. Other comments on the same Lambert post proved him wrong. Peiser continued to post in the comments, which is nearly-absolute proof that he read the refutation, but he ignored the refutation and failed to repeat his assertion to that narrow audience that was aware of the refutation. Several days later, he repeats the assertion on a different website, where people are not aware of the refutation.
In short, Peiser doesn't try to stand by his argument where the audience is aware that it is wrong, and then repeats the argument to a different audience while being aware that it is wrong. That is dishonest (at the bottom of the post, I try and think of excuses, but I'm not satisfied).
Chronology:
1. Early on May 6 or late on May 5, Tim Lambert posts 33 of the 34 abstracts that form an important part of Peiser's argument that there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). (The date listed for the post is May 6, but it may reflect the updates Lambert added.)
2. In the hours following the posting, I and other Lambert readers go through the 33 abstracts (and a 34th added still later), and post in the comments section our conclusion that the vast majority do not support Peiser's position as contradicting the consensus view.
3. May 6, 8:30 p.m., A major news website, MSNBC.com, discusses Peiser's work at the Cosmic Log:
Although the exercise may be politically satisfying, it does little good to try to resolve scientific debates by calculating how many wheelbarrows' worth of published papers support your view, as the backers of standard evolutionary theory did this week in Kansas, or as climate researchers did recently in the journal Science. (Check British social anthropologist Benny Peiser's Web site for updates on his feud with Science over those global-warming claims.)
3. May 7 at 1:58 a.m., Peiser posts the 34th abstract at Lambert's website in the comments section, and defends his own work. He claims the study by Naomi Oreskes that he is challenging gave a wrong total number of abstracts dealing with climate change. This is the key issue now for purposes of examining Peiser's honesty.
4. May 7 at 2:29 a.m., commenter Meyrick quotes and refutes Peiser:
Peiser: "she was wrong about the overall number of ISI abstracts"
Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search.
6. May 7, 5:34 p.m., Peiser writes:
Let me correct another canard, the claim that “Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search”: I used exactly the same data bank (ISI Web of Science) as Oreskes, and selected the same period of time (1993 – 2003). Everybody with access to ISI can confirm that a key word search for “global climate change” will produce 1,247 documents (of which only 1117 have abstracts). I repeat: Oreskes got her figures wrong.
7. May 7, 10 p.m. Meyrick writes:
Think I’ve finally worked out how to replicate Oreskes’ search. There are 2 fundemental differences between Peiser search and Oreskes.
9. May 8, 6:48 a.m, commenter Connelley posts:
On the 1247/929 question: BP got a different # to Oreskes. Did he stop and work out why? Did he ask Oreskes? It seems not: he just assumed she was wrong. Yet Meyrick seems to have found a rather sensible solution to get the "right" number.
10. May 8, 7:23 a.m., I wrote:
Dr. Peiser,
13. May 9, 1:19 a.m., Peiser posts:
OK folks. Let's call it a day. I acknowledge your denial of the reality of scientific scepticism in the global warming debates and its presence in the scientific literature.
(note: all the quotes above are excerpts - full quotes are here.)
14. Sometime between May 6 and the evening of May 10, I notice the MSNBC.com report citing Peiser, and send a critical email. I didn't keep a record of this, so I don't know the exact time.
15. May 10, 7:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts my email on their website:
"When publishing Benny Peiser's attack on the global warming consensus position, you should also publish how easily he's been refuted. ... Peer review and consensus have something in common: quality control. Peiser challenged the consensus position, refused peer review, and ended up with material that supports the opposite of his position. When 99 percent of the experts agree, they may still be wrong, but anyone who relies on that possibility in order to do nothing is foolish indeed."
16. May 11, 11:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts Peiser's response to my email:
My apology for the long chronology, but I want to give the details for anyone interested. I think Peiser's failure to address the argument with an informed but small audience is an important indication of his credibility. It would have been understandable, if not entirely acceptable, had Peiser simply walked away from that argument that he analyzed the same abstracts, but reasserting the argument where he was not likely to get caught is a serious breach of honesty.
It takes a great leap of imagination in my opinion to come up with a non-dishonest explanation. I can't believe he didn't read the refutation, so at best he had some kind of cognitive failure that kept the refutation from sinking into his head. Such a failure would make future work from him pretty unreliable, though.
Final notes:
1. I'm not a scholar, and haven't repeated Meyrick's search that refuted Peiser, but I have no reason to think Meyrick is wrong.
2. I assume Peiser did not know who I was when he attacked my argument at the Cosmic Log, but even if he did, I could imagine him repeating his original reckless assertion there, and hoping to get away with it.
3. The "99 percent" figure I stated was a general assertion based on Oreskes' finding of consensus with no-to-virtually-no disagreement in peer-reviewed science articles. I don't have another explicit source for that assertion. If it's at all incorrect, I suspect it's nowhere nearly as incorrect as Peiser was about analyzing the same abstracts, and in any event I would stop using it if proven wrong.
4. Peiser's final reference to a survey of 500 climate "scientists" refers to work that is even worse than his own, and is refuted again by Lambert here.
5. I'm going to have to email this to Peiser. I'll let him say what he wants here, if he feels like it, and if he proves me wrong, I'll correct it or remove the post, as he wishes.
UPDATE: Dr. Peiser responded to my email. Excerpt below:
UPDATE 2: Peiser cuts off communication with me (see my May 17 post above this one).
UPDATE 3: In accordance with Dr. Peiser's wishes, I'm posting his full email below, which I've also posted in the May 17th entry above. I had only posted the excerpt above because I was not sure if he wanted me to post the entire email, but felt justified in posting the only part that I believe was responsive to the issue I raised publicly. My May 17th post discusses the parts of Peiser's email other than the part excerpted in the first update.
Now it's one thing to defend your work with weak arguments, or even to ignore flaws in your work that have been pointed out to you. You cross a line, however, when something you've said is proven to be refuted, you've read the refutation, you refuse to address the issue in front of an audience that knows of the refutation, and then, in front of a new audience not aware of the refutation, you reassert the original statement. At that point, you're the next John Lott.
The chronology is below, but if you want to skip it, here's the summary: Peiser asserted in comments on Tim Lambert's blog that he used the same abstracts as a study he was refuting in order to show the flaws in that study. Other comments on the same Lambert post proved him wrong. Peiser continued to post in the comments, which is nearly-absolute proof that he read the refutation, but he ignored the refutation and failed to repeat his assertion to that narrow audience that was aware of the refutation. Several days later, he repeats the assertion on a different website, where people are not aware of the refutation.
In short, Peiser doesn't try to stand by his argument where the audience is aware that it is wrong, and then repeats the argument to a different audience while being aware that it is wrong. That is dishonest (at the bottom of the post, I try and think of excuses, but I'm not satisfied).
Chronology:
1. Early on May 6 or late on May 5, Tim Lambert posts 33 of the 34 abstracts that form an important part of Peiser's argument that there is no consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). (The date listed for the post is May 6, but it may reflect the updates Lambert added.)
2. In the hours following the posting, I and other Lambert readers go through the 33 abstracts (and a 34th added still later), and post in the comments section our conclusion that the vast majority do not support Peiser's position as contradicting the consensus view.
3. May 6, 8:30 p.m., A major news website, MSNBC.com, discusses Peiser's work at the Cosmic Log:
Although the exercise may be politically satisfying, it does little good to try to resolve scientific debates by calculating how many wheelbarrows' worth of published papers support your view, as the backers of standard evolutionary theory did this week in Kansas, or as climate researchers did recently in the journal Science. (Check British social anthropologist Benny Peiser's Web site for updates on his feud with Science over those global-warming claims.)
3. May 7 at 1:58 a.m., Peiser posts the 34th abstract at Lambert's website in the comments section, and defends his own work. He claims the study by Naomi Oreskes that he is challenging gave a wrong total number of abstracts dealing with climate change. This is the key issue now for purposes of examining Peiser's honesty.
4. May 7 at 2:29 a.m., commenter Meyrick quotes and refutes Peiser:
Peiser: "she was wrong about the overall number of ISI abstracts"
So is Peiser. He gets the 1247 by including the social sciences and humanities indicies, but this was about consensus in the scientific community. (P.S. I consider myself to be a social scientist, so this is not about a scientists elitist bias)
5. May 7, 7:27 a.m., I write:Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search.
6. May 7, 5:34 p.m., Peiser writes:
Let me correct another canard, the claim that “Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search”: I used exactly the same data bank (ISI Web of Science) as Oreskes, and selected the same period of time (1993 – 2003). Everybody with access to ISI can confirm that a key word search for “global climate change” will produce 1,247 documents (of which only 1117 have abstracts). I repeat: Oreskes got her figures wrong.
7. May 7, 10 p.m. Meyrick writes:
Think I’ve finally worked out how to replicate Oreskes’ search. There are 2 fundemental differences between Peiser search and Oreskes.
1. Oreskes excluded the “Social Sciences Citation Index” and the “Arts & Humanities Citation Index”, Peiser does not.
2. Oreskes set the search limits to include only “Article”s, whereas Peiser set the search limits to include “All document types”.
Using Oreskes search you get 929 documents (her article says 928, close enough?), where as with Peiser’s search you get 1247 documents.
8. May 8, 4:33 a.m: Peiser posts the next comment following Meyrick; his post ignores Meyrick's refutation and makes a new argument. While evasive, this is not dishonest.9. May 8, 6:48 a.m, commenter Connelley posts:
On the 1247/929 question: BP got a different # to Oreskes. Did he stop and work out why? Did he ask Oreskes? It seems not: he just assumed she was wrong. Yet Meyrick seems to have found a rather sensible solution to get the "right" number.
10. May 8, 7:23 a.m., I wrote:
Dr. Peiser,
You quoted me as having stated the "canard" that “Peiser didn't take Oreskes' abstracts, he changed the search”. Given Meyrick's research here, do you retract that description of my statement being a canard, and do you retract the statement you've made here and doubtless repeated elsewhere that you did not change the search? You appear very interested in having Science magazine correct any misrepresentations it has made - the principle should be universal.
11. May 8, 8:43 p.m., Peiser posts another comment making additional arguments and ignoring the refutation to his original claim the he used the same abstracts. To defend Peiser (slightly), the number of abstracts was only one of several issues being discussed in the comments, but still he was being evasive.
12. May 8, 10:55 p.m. Meyrick posts:
Dr Peiser
1. You have failed to replicate Dr Oreskes work and have failed to admit this.13. May 9, 1:19 a.m., Peiser posts:
OK folks. Let's call it a day. I acknowledge your denial of the reality of scientific scepticism in the global warming debates and its presence in the scientific literature.
(note: all the quotes above are excerpts - full quotes are here.)
14. Sometime between May 6 and the evening of May 10, I notice the MSNBC.com report citing Peiser, and send a critical email. I didn't keep a record of this, so I don't know the exact time.
15. May 10, 7:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts my email on their website:
"When publishing Benny Peiser's attack on the global warming consensus position, you should also publish how easily he's been refuted. ... Peer review and consensus have something in common: quality control. Peiser challenged the consensus position, refused peer review, and ended up with material that supports the opposite of his position. When 99 percent of the experts agree, they may still be wrong, but anyone who relies on that possibility in order to do nothing is foolish indeed."
16. May 11, 11:50 p.m., Cosmic Log posts Peiser's response to my email:
(Emphasis added for the bolded statement.)"Naomi Oreskes claims to have analysed 928 abstracts on global climate change. She claims that 75 percent either explicitly or implicitly accept the view that most of the recent warming trend is man-made and concludes: 'Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.' I'm afraid none of her claims are correct. I have analysed the same set of abstracts. Not only are there a few abstracts that explicitly reject the alleged consensus; the vast majority of abstracts does not even mention anthropogenic global warming. Her claim that the consensus is supported by 'all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter' has also been shown to be bogus.
"I am sorry to say that Mr. Schmidt's claim that '99 percent of the experts agree' is just as fictitious, as a recent survey among 500 international climate scientists has shown: 'These results seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4 percent of the respondents "strongly agree" that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes' (PDF file).
"So much for universal agreement among the climate research community."
My apology for the long chronology, but I want to give the details for anyone interested. I think Peiser's failure to address the argument with an informed but small audience is an important indication of his credibility. It would have been understandable, if not entirely acceptable, had Peiser simply walked away from that argument that he analyzed the same abstracts, but reasserting the argument where he was not likely to get caught is a serious breach of honesty.
It takes a great leap of imagination in my opinion to come up with a non-dishonest explanation. I can't believe he didn't read the refutation, so at best he had some kind of cognitive failure that kept the refutation from sinking into his head. Such a failure would make future work from him pretty unreliable, though.
Final notes:
1. I'm not a scholar, and haven't repeated Meyrick's search that refuted Peiser, but I have no reason to think Meyrick is wrong.
2. I assume Peiser did not know who I was when he attacked my argument at the Cosmic Log, but even if he did, I could imagine him repeating his original reckless assertion there, and hoping to get away with it.
3. The "99 percent" figure I stated was a general assertion based on Oreskes' finding of consensus with no-to-virtually-no disagreement in peer-reviewed science articles. I don't have another explicit source for that assertion. If it's at all incorrect, I suspect it's nowhere nearly as incorrect as Peiser was about analyzing the same abstracts, and in any event I would stop using it if proven wrong.
4. Peiser's final reference to a survey of 500 climate "scientists" refers to work that is even worse than his own, and is refuted again by Lambert here.
5. I'm going to have to email this to Peiser. I'll let him say what he wants here, if he feels like it, and if he proves me wrong, I'll correct it or remove the post, as he wishes.
UPDATE: Dr. Peiser responded to my email. Excerpt below:
4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From whatAt least he's civil about it, but this doesn't suffice for me, and I still don't know if he's changing his public claim. I responded:
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."
Your saying:
"Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know."
differs substantially from your public statement
published on the MSNBC website:
"I have analysed the same set of abstracts."
Saying "I don't know" leaves much to be desired in my
opinion, as I believe it has been shown you did use a
wider search. Still it represents an improvement over
what you said previously, and I obviously think you
should stop saying you analyzed the same set.
UPDATE 2: Peiser cuts off communication with me (see my May 17 post above this one).
UPDATE 3: In accordance with Dr. Peiser's wishes, I'm posting his full email below, which I've also posted in the May 17th entry above. I had only posted the excerpt above because I was not sure if he wanted me to post the entire email, but felt justified in posting the only part that I believe was responsive to the issue I raised publicly. My May 17th post discusses the parts of Peiser's email other than the part excerpted in the first update.
Dear Mr Schmidt
I'm afraid you are missing the point. I have tried to show that the
Oreskes
'study' is flawed in a number of ways:
1. Oreskes claims that "none of the papers disagreed with the consensus
position." This is simply incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as
a few abstracts actually reject the "consensus" as defined by Oreskes
(http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm).
2. Oreskes claims that "all major scientific bodies in the United
States
whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter" have endorsed
the
consensus. This is incorrect, or at least grossly misleading, as most
open-minded observers of the debates know that both the American
Association
of State Climatologists (AASC) and the American Association of
Petroleum
Geologists (AAPG) remain decidely sceptical of the "consensus".
3. Oreskes claims that "75% either explicitly or implicitly accept the
consensus
view." My analysis, however, shows that the vast majority of abstracts
does not
deal with anthropogenic global warming. In fact, I could only find 13
abstracts
that *explicitly* endorsed the "consensus". This falsification of her
results
is true even if Oreskes may have used slightly fewer abstracts (928)
than I did
(1117) from the same ISI databank.
4. Did I use a wider search than Oreskes? I don't know. From what
little she says about
her methodology, I understood that she used an ISI databank search of
abstracts on "global
climate change". I did exactly the same. But whatever search strategy
Oreskes may have
employed - and she hasn't clarified this problem as yet - her figures
simply don't add
up. She claims she analysed 928 abstracts. But she also claims that
"some abstracts were
deleted from our analysis because, although the authors had put
'climate change' (sic) in
their key words, the paper was not about climate change."
I also found that some 10% of documents in the ISI databank on "global
climate change" did
not include any abstracts. Whatever the case, the fact of the matter is
that Oreskes 'study'
lacks any coherent methodology, which is rather strange given her
emphasis on peer-review.
I cannot recall any other study published in Science that lacked *any*
clear method. All
she says in her essay is that she "analyzing 928 abstracts, published
in refereed scientific
journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the
keywords "climate
change" (sic). Why 928 and not 929? What happened to all those
abstracts that were "deleted
from the analysis"? Why don't any of these figures add up?
To conclude, the scientific community is far from any global warming
consensus. Not only
are there many open questions about the balance between human and
natural drivers of
terrestrial climate; even less agreement exists about whether or not
the anthropogenic
contribution to climate change poses any long-term threat to the
stability and health
of our global village.
The reality of disagreement was confirmed by a recent survey among some
500 international
climate researchers. The survey, conducted by Professors Dennis Bray
and Hans von Storch of
the German Institute for Coastal Research, found that "a quarter of
respondents still question
whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic
changes." It simply
confirmed what a previous survey, conducted in 1996 and published in
the peer-reviewed
literature showed: that there is a sizeable body of scepticism within
the scientific community.
To deny its very existence seems rather futile to me given that
'sceptical' research papers
continue to being published all the time.
BTW: I'm not a climatologist and would not want to voice any strong
opinion on the complexities
involved in trying to attribute climate change to any of the countless
factors. The *real* problem, as I see it, is how we, as individuals and
as a society, deal with scientific doubts and uncertainty on such and
other controversies. All I am arguing is that science requires freedom
of thought, freedom of debate and freedom to doubt. If we lose these
liberties because
climate alarmists think it is crucial to silence any doubt, or deny its
very existence, you
can forget science.
I hope this clarification is helpful.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
-------------------
keywords: science, global warming, Peiser, debunking
Two ways to create categories in Blogspot
(Disclaimer #1: if you're not a blogger, or are one but don't use Blogger, then this posting redefines the Platonic essence of "boring." Enjoy!)
(Disclaimer #2: I'm not qualified to judge or write about one of these two methods for creating categories, but that's never stopped me before.)
Filing posts in various categories that one writes about often - science, politics, lack of dates, evading parole officers - can be a useful trick for finding old posts. Two of my favorite blogs, Deltoid and Brad DeLong, do this quite a bit. Blogger, who provides my host software Blogspot.com, doesn't provide this capability directly. Since this website is free for me I can't complain, but still.
So, two work-arounds. First, Smack describes a system where you set up a separate blog for each category, then aggregate the blogs together in an uber-blog using the RSS system that I've never bothered to figure out. Seems pretty good.
Second idea is what I'm doing - I've added Google searches of this website to the sidebar on the left, with a different Google search for different categories. I've started to add keywords to posts so they'll reinforce the Google search. Seems to work ok - the only problem is that site is archived a month at a time, so you don't immediately see the post you're searching for. That requires some other kind of fix, by someone better than me.
(Disclaimer #2: I'm not qualified to judge or write about one of these two methods for creating categories, but that's never stopped me before.)
Filing posts in various categories that one writes about often - science, politics, lack of dates, evading parole officers - can be a useful trick for finding old posts. Two of my favorite blogs, Deltoid and Brad DeLong, do this quite a bit. Blogger, who provides my host software Blogspot.com, doesn't provide this capability directly. Since this website is free for me I can't complain, but still.
So, two work-arounds. First, Smack describes a system where you set up a separate blog for each category, then aggregate the blogs together in an uber-blog using the RSS system that I've never bothered to figure out. Seems pretty good.
Second idea is what I'm doing - I've added Google searches of this website to the sidebar on the left, with a different Google search for different categories. I've started to add keywords to posts so they'll reinforce the Google search. Seems to work ok - the only problem is that site is archived a month at a time, so you don't immediately see the post you're searching for. That requires some other kind of fix, by someone better than me.
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Short posts
See what you'll never see - a few seconds from a filming of the last Tasmanian tiger (via Boingboing.net).
Vaguely related - videos of research on flying snakes.
Not related - a NY Times graphic on social mobility in the US. The Country-by-Country link doesn't look so hot for us.
Also not related - my favorite conservative website, The Volokh Conspiracy, hasn't said anything wrong about the environment in a while. They haven't said anything about the environment in a while. I'd give the various Volokh Corrections I've posted a low, but not zero, possibility of having affected this.
keywords: science, income inequality, Volokh Correction
Vaguely related - videos of research on flying snakes.
Not related - a NY Times graphic on social mobility in the US. The Country-by-Country link doesn't look so hot for us.
Also not related - my favorite conservative website, The Volokh Conspiracy, hasn't said anything wrong about the environment in a while. They haven't said anything about the environment in a while. I'd give the various Volokh Corrections I've posted a low, but not zero, possibility of having affected this.
keywords: science, income inequality, Volokh Correction
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The president is entitled to doodley-squat
I've seen way too many statements like "the President is entitled to his nominee for the post of U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations." People who say things like that forget what the job of the presidency is about.
Okay, it's going too far to say the president is entitled to squat - he's entitled to a living wage, good benefits, maybe even a retirement package. But the job isn't about him, it's about serving the American people, and they're entitled to the best person they can feasibly get for whatever job comes under the nomination microscope.
The president was elected democratically (probably), but so were the senators. Nowhere does the Constitution say "the people's will in selecting Senators must defer to the people's will in indirectly electing the president." The only reason a senator should vote for even a mediocre nominee is if, given who the president is, a denial of confirmation would only result in the nomination of yet another mediocre candidate while the position remains unfilled. In this case, serving the people's interest would be better served by confirmation. But it's not about the president's "entitlement."
I thought conservatives were against entitlements, anyway.
kewords: politics, Bush
Okay, it's going too far to say the president is entitled to squat - he's entitled to a living wage, good benefits, maybe even a retirement package. But the job isn't about him, it's about serving the American people, and they're entitled to the best person they can feasibly get for whatever job comes under the nomination microscope.
The president was elected democratically (probably), but so were the senators. Nowhere does the Constitution say "the people's will in selecting Senators must defer to the people's will in indirectly electing the president." The only reason a senator should vote for even a mediocre nominee is if, given who the president is, a denial of confirmation would only result in the nomination of yet another mediocre candidate while the position remains unfilled. In this case, serving the people's interest would be better served by confirmation. But it's not about the president's "entitlement."
I thought conservatives were against entitlements, anyway.
kewords: politics, Bush
Sunday, May 08, 2005
Saturday, May 07, 2005
I'm (briefly) attacked by a semi-prominent global warming denialist! Yahoo!
Really interesting post and comments (if I say so myself) over at Deltoid. Science magazine published an article by Naomi Oreskes describing how she surveyed all science articles mentioning "global climate change" in their abstracts, and found none rejected the consensus that humans are the primary cause of recent warming. Benny Peiser did another study that he claims found 34 articles rejecting or doubting the consensus, wrote a letter to Science that was rejected, and now claims a cover-up.
Peiser revealed his list of 34 abstracts to Deltoid. I and others go through the 34 in the comments and find they don't support his argument, mostly. Peiser attempts to defend his position, briefly attacks me as spouting a "canard", and then gets showed up by someone else for making yet another mistake.
I spent a lot of time on all that, but I figure being worth a condescending comment from a semi-prominent (apparent) denialist means it was well-spent.
UPDATE: my housemate adds that Peiser can "kiss her f***ing ass" and that she will kick his f***ing ass if he ever comes around here. She thinks her argument is more effective than mine.
keywords: global warming, Deltoid
Peiser revealed his list of 34 abstracts to Deltoid. I and others go through the 34 in the comments and find they don't support his argument, mostly. Peiser attempts to defend his position, briefly attacks me as spouting a "canard", and then gets showed up by someone else for making yet another mistake.
I spent a lot of time on all that, but I figure being worth a condescending comment from a semi-prominent (apparent) denialist means it was well-spent.
UPDATE: my housemate adds that Peiser can "kiss her f***ing ass" and that she will kick his f***ing ass if he ever comes around here. She thinks her argument is more effective than mine.
keywords: global warming, Deltoid
Friday, May 06, 2005
Iraq web resources
Here are a few:
Stats on Americans killed in Iraq, by month: This is a good way to see how things are going from the American perspective. Things got much worse last fall, got much better in February, and it's not clear what'll happen now.
Iraqi police/military killed: Another reliable stat, by month starting this year. Seven hundred so far this year.
Iraqi civilian deaths - information lacking, due to the US refusal to help get the information. Two possibilities:
1. Iraqbodycount.org - I don't trust their methodology and they don't count all deaths. They would be much more reliable as a source of information on trends, but they don't break their information down by time period.
2. Deltoid's discussion of The Lancet estimated death toll - A survey published in The Lancet estimate 8 to 196 thousand surplus deaths resulted from the Iraq war as of last fall, with 100,000 as a conservative estimate. This survey has survived repeated attempts to discredit it.
And finally, Juan Cole, reliable as always.
keywords: Iraq, Lancet
Stats on Americans killed in Iraq, by month: This is a good way to see how things are going from the American perspective. Things got much worse last fall, got much better in February, and it's not clear what'll happen now.
Iraqi police/military killed: Another reliable stat, by month starting this year. Seven hundred so far this year.
Iraqi civilian deaths - information lacking, due to the US refusal to help get the information. Two possibilities:
1. Iraqbodycount.org - I don't trust their methodology and they don't count all deaths. They would be much more reliable as a source of information on trends, but they don't break their information down by time period.
2. Deltoid's discussion of The Lancet estimated death toll - A survey published in The Lancet estimate 8 to 196 thousand surplus deaths resulted from the Iraq war as of last fall, with 100,000 as a conservative estimate. This survey has survived repeated attempts to discredit it.
And finally, Juan Cole, reliable as always.
keywords: Iraq, Lancet
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Chimeras on the loose
NY Times has an article on chimeras, where cells of two different species are mixed together to see what happens. They've already created a mouse whose brain was 1% human, and they've thought about upping the percentage. There are some obvious and not-so-obvious ethical questions, but I'm interested in one idea mentioned in passing, "monkeys with human larynxes."
I've thought that giving great apes larynxes so they could speak instead of just using sign language would help us intuitively understand the ethical implications of treating apes like any other animal. I'd like to hear someone who thinks it's okay to treat apes as fundamentally different from humans tell me why other types of chimeras are okay, but this wouldn't be. The Times says "Evidently the first rule of chimeric chemistry is not to make creatures whose behavior straddles the perceived division between the human and animal worlds," but that straddling may exist naturally where apes are concerned - the larynxes would just help us hear about it.
keywords: science, apes
I've thought that giving great apes larynxes so they could speak instead of just using sign language would help us intuitively understand the ethical implications of treating apes like any other animal. I'd like to hear someone who thinks it's okay to treat apes as fundamentally different from humans tell me why other types of chimeras are okay, but this wouldn't be. The Times says "Evidently the first rule of chimeric chemistry is not to make creatures whose behavior straddles the perceived division between the human and animal worlds," but that straddling may exist naturally where apes are concerned - the larynxes would just help us hear about it.
keywords: science, apes
Friday, April 29, 2005
Energy analysis - we're hosed
Great and pessimistic post on energy alternatives, reposted by Mark Kleiman. I think it's overly down on wind power which has some real if limited promise. Technology investment in solar could solve a lot of our problems, although I expect it will always be expensive. As compared to the consequences of alternatives, however, solar's expense could be worth the price.
As an analysis of the Bush energy policy, it's pretty devastating.
As an analysis of the Bush energy policy, it's pretty devastating.
Amazon replies to Choosetheblue.com
(See my post directly below this one. Doesn't really change anything from my perspective.)
Thank you for taking the time to write to us.
Amazon's PAC does not support either party nor does it support
candidates for president. Instead, it contributes to congressional
and state candidates from both parties whose views are supportive on
policy issues important to customer experience on the web. For
example, we recently supported candidates from both major parties who
were instrumental in passing anti-spam legislation and extending the
moratorium on Internet access taxes. Amazon also belongs to groups,
such as the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, that
seek to protect free speech and consumer privacy. Amazon advocates
legislation to protect such rights.
We value your thoughts and are sorry to hear that you may not want to
shop with us. We hope to have the opportunity to serve you again in
the future but, if you choose to shop elsewhere, please know that
we've appreciated your patronage and respect your decision.
Best regards,
(name)
Amazon.com Customer Service
http://www.amazon.com
UPDATE: as Kathy notes in the comments, there are other alternative, online booksellers,
Kepler's Books and Powells. I expect they both have good politics.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
An open email letter
Dear Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com Customer Service people,
I read on Choosetheblue.com, a website that lists and categorizes corporate political donations, that 98% of Barnes and Noble-affiliated political donations went to Democrats last year, compared 58% for Amazon.com-affiliated donations. Typically, entertainment-related businesses favor Democrats. My preference would be that no corporations give money to politicians, but if they are giving money, I want to see the general corporate bias towards Republicans balanced out as much as possible. My values and interests were more closely represented by Democrats than Republicans, so I intend to start purchasing from Barnes and Noble.
For what it's worth, I also have a small weblog called Backseat Driving. The website is
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/
I occasionally review books on my blog, and have started switching my hot links of book titles to Barnes and Noble. I also plan to publish this email at my website to encourage readers to use and act on Choosetheblue.com recommendations for purchases from your corporations and from others. Until we can get a fair system of campaign financing, individual efforts like my website and others will continue to push for Choosing the Blue.
I read on Choosetheblue.com, a website that lists and categorizes corporate political donations, that 98% of Barnes and Noble-affiliated political donations went to Democrats last year, compared 58% for Amazon.com-affiliated donations. Typically, entertainment-related businesses favor Democrats. My preference would be that no corporations give money to politicians, but if they are giving money, I want to see the general corporate bias towards Republicans balanced out as much as possible. My values and interests were more closely represented by Democrats than Republicans, so I intend to start purchasing from Barnes and Noble.
For what it's worth, I also have a small weblog called Backseat Driving. The website is
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/
I occasionally review books on my blog, and have started switching my hot links of book titles to Barnes and Noble. I also plan to publish this email at my website to encourage readers to use and act on Choosetheblue.com recommendations for purchases from your corporations and from others. Until we can get a fair system of campaign financing, individual efforts like my website and others will continue to push for Choosing the Blue.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
DU blues
After a heated conversation with a friend over my statement that anti-war groups were greatly exaggerating the effects of Depleted Uranium (DU) use by the US military in Iraq, I did some research. The information dump is below for whatever use you can have, but first, my conclusions:
1. It's not safe.
2. The war opponents have greatly exaggerated its danger.
3. It's probably a minor danger compared to say, lack of clean water due to infrastructure damage in Iraq.
4. DU used in weaponry needs to be cleaned up at least to some extent, and people need to be kept away from hot locations.
5. The US has done virtually nothing to clean up DU sites in Iraq, or even to warn people to keep their children away from blown-up tanks covered in DU dust.
6. Once again, our post-war Iraq management lies in the overlapping area between evil indifference and mind-numbing stupidity. I don't know or care which is the cause here.
7. The US should probably stop using DU in weapons, with the possible exception of anti-tank weapons. Use of DU in armoring US military vehicles is fine.
Info dump below:
1. It's not safe.
2. The war opponents have greatly exaggerated its danger.
3. It's probably a minor danger compared to say, lack of clean water due to infrastructure damage in Iraq.
4. DU used in weaponry needs to be cleaned up at least to some extent, and people need to be kept away from hot locations.
5. The US has done virtually nothing to clean up DU sites in Iraq, or even to warn people to keep their children away from blown-up tanks covered in DU dust.
6. Once again, our post-war Iraq management lies in the overlapping area between evil indifference and mind-numbing stupidity. I don't know or care which is the cause here.
7. The US should probably stop using DU in weapons, with the possible exception of anti-tank weapons. Use of DU in armoring US military vehicles is fine.
Info dump below:
From the World Health Organization:
"Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium
* Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a
negligible contribution to the overall natural
background levels of uranium in the environment.
Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will
follow conflict where DU munitions are used.
* A recent United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around
selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the
environment was localized to a few tens of metres
around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of
local vegetation and water supplies was found to be
extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant
exposure to local populations was considered to be
very low.
* A UN expert team reported in November 2002 that
they found traces of DU in three locations among 14
sites investigated in Bosnia following NATO airstrikes
in 1995. A full report is expected to be published by
UNEP in March 2003."
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
------
good collection of links here:
http://www.csmonitor.com/atcsmonitor/specials/uranium/
with this linked quote:
"But DU health concerns are very often wrapped up in
politics. Saddam Hussein's regime blamed DU used in
1991 for causing a spike in the cancer rate and birth
defects in southern Iraq.
And the Pentagon often overstates its case - in terms
of DU effectiveness on the battlefield, or declaring
the absence of health problems, according to Dan
Fahey, an American veterans advocate who has monitored
the shrill arguments from both sides since the
mid-1990s.
"DU munitions are neither the benign wonder weapons
promoted by Pentagon propagandists nor the instruments
of genocide decried by hyperbolic anti-DU activists,"
Mr. Fahey writes in a March report, called "Science or
Science Fiction: Facts, Myth and Propaganda in the
Debate Over DU Weapons."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0515/p01s02a-woiq.htm
-----
BBC:
BBC News Online environment correspondent Alex Kirby
says scientists disagree about the ability of DU to
cause the horrific problems that have been reported.
The World Health Organisation recommends cleaning
areas with high concentrations of radioactive
particles.
"There is real controversy, and real uncertainty," he
said.
There have also been various health warnings. A 1995
report from the US Army Environmental Policy
Institute, for example, said: "If DU enters the body,
it has the potential to generate significant medical
consequences."
Alex Kirby says the Pentagon claim that criticisms of
DU come only from Iraq and "other countries that are
not friendly to the US" is demonstrably untrue.
"To sum up, I guess the Iraqis have got much worse
things than DU to worry about in the immediate future,
and any risk to environment and health over the longer
term remains unproven and perhaps circumstantial.
"But that does not mean the risk is proven not to
exist."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2860759.stm
------
New Scientist:
During the Gulf war in 1991, the US and Britain fired
an estimated 350 tonnes of DU at Iraqi tanks, a figure
likely to be matched in the course of the current
conflict. In the years since then, doctors in southern
Iraq have reported a marked increase in cancers and
birth defects, and suspicion has grown that they were
caused by DU contamination from tank battles on
farmland west of Basra.
As the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence point out,
this claim has not been substantiated. Iraq did not
allow the World Health Organization to carry out an
independent assessment.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3627
(includes more back and forth)
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Lakoff responds to the Backseat Driver
Last night I went to hear George Lakoff, author of the book "Don't Think of an Elephant" that tries to reframe the left-right debate to help the progressive movement. (My review of the book is here.)
Lakoff's an excellent speaker, talking slowly and clearly but without the feeling of condescension I get from other speakers who "dumb down" whatever they're talking about. He took written questions from the crowd of 1,500, and one that he answered was mine, which went something like this:
Libertarians are found on both the left and the right, and as a libertarian sympathizer, I find myself rebelling against both of the parent models you've described. Is this evidence that the "nurturant parent/strict father" political model you've described is not all-encompassing?
Lakoff responded that the models are a metaphor, they don't map an adult parent- minor child relationship between society and individuals. He said that the nurturant parent cares about but does not control the adult child.
His response is fine if you're just trying to sell the progressive agenda to libertarians, but I'm not sure it really answers my question. If the progressive model works so well for libertarians, why are so many of them conservatives? I think the nurturant parent/strict father model works well as a metaphor for many but not all people. The libertarian/communitarian divide might also split people in a different direction that doesn't match left/right viewpoints. Environmentalism, to a lesser extent, also crosses traditional political divides.
I think Lakoff has some great points, which he can argue without trying to have the One Theory That Describes Everything.
UPDATE: Just wanted to add that Lakoff had a great reframing method for tort "reform": focusing on tort lawyers as the "police and prosecutors" of the civil justice system. That connotation will play favorably to moderate conservatives wondering if they should believe what BushCo people have to say.
keywords: Lakoff, politics, tort reform, libertarian
Lakoff's an excellent speaker, talking slowly and clearly but without the feeling of condescension I get from other speakers who "dumb down" whatever they're talking about. He took written questions from the crowd of 1,500, and one that he answered was mine, which went something like this:
Libertarians are found on both the left and the right, and as a libertarian sympathizer, I find myself rebelling against both of the parent models you've described. Is this evidence that the "nurturant parent/strict father" political model you've described is not all-encompassing?
Lakoff responded that the models are a metaphor, they don't map an adult parent- minor child relationship between society and individuals. He said that the nurturant parent cares about but does not control the adult child.
His response is fine if you're just trying to sell the progressive agenda to libertarians, but I'm not sure it really answers my question. If the progressive model works so well for libertarians, why are so many of them conservatives? I think the nurturant parent/strict father model works well as a metaphor for many but not all people. The libertarian/communitarian divide might also split people in a different direction that doesn't match left/right viewpoints. Environmentalism, to a lesser extent, also crosses traditional political divides.
I think Lakoff has some great points, which he can argue without trying to have the One Theory That Describes Everything.
UPDATE: Just wanted to add that Lakoff had a great reframing method for tort "reform": focusing on tort lawyers as the "police and prosecutors" of the civil justice system. That connotation will play favorably to moderate conservatives wondering if they should believe what BushCo people have to say.
keywords: Lakoff, politics, tort reform, libertarian
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
Volokh Correction #6
Eugene Volokh of the Volokh Conspiracy cites approvingly to the following quote:
Pre-Columbian peoples lived simply, to be sure, but let’s stop mistaking ignorance and poverty with harmony. It’s an utter myth –- we might say an urban myth -– that primitive peoples lived with nature harmoniously.
Nature devastated them. Nature battered them into early graves. Their ignorance of nature prevented them from achieving much material wealth. To dance to imaginary rain gods or to chant and pray for a child dying of bacterial infection is not to live harmoniously with nature; it is to live most inharmoniously. Nature is doing its thing -– failing to water the crops, growing bacteria within a child’s lungs -– while human beings who are as ignorant of nature as nature is of human beings, moan, chant, pray, dance, build totems, burn leaves and twigs, all in fruitless, inharmonious efforts to solve the problems. . . .
This is as ignorant as pretending that hunter-gatherers were a bunch of peaceful naked hippies. First, it's not clear that Volokh or the original author had a clear idea of what "primitive" peoples they're talking about - the pre-Columbian Incan and Aztec empires weren't primitive and weren't living simply. If we're just referring to hunter-gatherers, wherever and whenever they can be found, then their lifestyle beat agricultural and industrial lifestyles all the way through the early part of the 20th Century. Hunter-gatherers were healthier, better-nourished, and had longer adult life-spans than farmers and city-dwellers with their restricted food range and constant epidemics. Jared Diamond makes this very clear in Guns, Germs, and Steel. What hunter-gatherers did NOT have was numbers - farming could support ten times the population density, and ten malnourished farmers can outfight one healthy hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherers couldn't compete because of numbers, not because their lifestyle was inferior.
As for whether they understand nature, I will bet that a typical hunter-gatherer's understanding of how to hunt animals, where to find edible plants, and how to construct a shelter from natural materials far exceeds Eugene Volokh's understanding of natural sciences. Just a guess, but my money's going on the tribesman.
Saying "while human beings who are as ignorant of nature as nature is of human beings, moan, chant, pray, dance, build totems, burn leaves and twigs, all in fruitless, inharmonious efforts to solve the problems" includes a weird statement (nature is ignorant of human beings?). More relevant, it applies to our oh-so-modern society. Totems are every gigantic church and temple in American cities, sticks and leaves are what incense is made from, and the moaning etc. can be seen on cable television faith-healing channels any hour of the day.
This isn't intended to glorify hunter-gatherers, who could only maintain their low population density through inter-tribal violence and infanticide, but Volokh's post is not a different perspective - it's just wrong.
keywords: Volokh Correction, history
Pre-Columbian peoples lived simply, to be sure, but let’s stop mistaking ignorance and poverty with harmony. It’s an utter myth –- we might say an urban myth -– that primitive peoples lived with nature harmoniously.
Nature devastated them. Nature battered them into early graves. Their ignorance of nature prevented them from achieving much material wealth. To dance to imaginary rain gods or to chant and pray for a child dying of bacterial infection is not to live harmoniously with nature; it is to live most inharmoniously. Nature is doing its thing -– failing to water the crops, growing bacteria within a child’s lungs -– while human beings who are as ignorant of nature as nature is of human beings, moan, chant, pray, dance, build totems, burn leaves and twigs, all in fruitless, inharmonious efforts to solve the problems. . . .
This is as ignorant as pretending that hunter-gatherers were a bunch of peaceful naked hippies. First, it's not clear that Volokh or the original author had a clear idea of what "primitive" peoples they're talking about - the pre-Columbian Incan and Aztec empires weren't primitive and weren't living simply. If we're just referring to hunter-gatherers, wherever and whenever they can be found, then their lifestyle beat agricultural and industrial lifestyles all the way through the early part of the 20th Century. Hunter-gatherers were healthier, better-nourished, and had longer adult life-spans than farmers and city-dwellers with their restricted food range and constant epidemics. Jared Diamond makes this very clear in Guns, Germs, and Steel. What hunter-gatherers did NOT have was numbers - farming could support ten times the population density, and ten malnourished farmers can outfight one healthy hunter-gatherer. Hunter-gatherers couldn't compete because of numbers, not because their lifestyle was inferior.
As for whether they understand nature, I will bet that a typical hunter-gatherer's understanding of how to hunt animals, where to find edible plants, and how to construct a shelter from natural materials far exceeds Eugene Volokh's understanding of natural sciences. Just a guess, but my money's going on the tribesman.
Saying "while human beings who are as ignorant of nature as nature is of human beings, moan, chant, pray, dance, build totems, burn leaves and twigs, all in fruitless, inharmonious efforts to solve the problems" includes a weird statement (nature is ignorant of human beings?). More relevant, it applies to our oh-so-modern society. Totems are every gigantic church and temple in American cities, sticks and leaves are what incense is made from, and the moaning etc. can be seen on cable television faith-healing channels any hour of the day.
This isn't intended to glorify hunter-gatherers, who could only maintain their low population density through inter-tribal violence and infanticide, but Volokh's post is not a different perspective - it's just wrong.
keywords: Volokh Correction, history
Friday, April 15, 2005
What's your blood type?
I'm a big fan of Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene and other good science books. Just finished his latest book, The Ancestor's Tale, all 600-plus pages. Yet another good book if you're into that science/evolution kind of thing. A little heavier into the explanation of how science is done than I need, but some people will like those parts, and the rest of us can skip to what they learned as a result.
Some random thoughts:
*Do you have type A, B, or O blood? I have type A blood, determined by a certain gene in my DNA, a gene that has a shared common ancestor with everyone else with type A blood. If your gene gave you type B or type O blood, that gene is also related to me, but only in a far more distant common ancestor that diverged into the three types. Here's the fascinating thing Dawkins points out: chimps also have type A, B, and O blood. The divergence into different genes long preceded our species' divergence, six million years ago. As far as my type A gene is concerned, it's more closely related (maybe I'm more closely related) to a chimp with type A blood than a human with type B blood. Wrap your mind around that.
*Another relationship that's surprising: sharks, trout, and us - which two of the three are most closely related? George Bush and a rainbow trout have a more recent common ancestor than the rainbow trout has with Jaws.
*Dawkins describes an evolutionary arms race between species as a kind of treadmill where no one gets ahead: prey get faster, predators get faster. Predators develop venom, prey develop venom resistance. Dawkins says there is no way to call a truce in the race, according to the rules of natural selection. I'm not sure that's completely true though. At a certain point, the efficiency trade-off in the arms race is outweighed by putting effort in other directions that could actually reduce the arms race. Territorial predators spend energy and risk death by excluding and killing other predators, when the predators could be hunting prey and having more babies. The prey species, facing reduced pressure, survives by getting better at growing and reproducing, more so than by getting better at evading predators. Another example would be trees converting leaf-eating monkeys into fruit-eating monkeys, or parasites converting into symbiotes. I expect Dawkins wouldn't disagree with this, but just say it's obvious that no trend can go on forever.
One more thought about the arms race: to the extent it's true, you should expect populations of both species to decrease. It takes more energy to conduct a hunt at 40 miles an hour than at 20 miles an hour. Resources spent on the chase, on building heavier body armor or stronger fangs than one's ancestors have to come at a price - you either get worse at something else, or you have fewer babies. This seems like it should be a testable proposition over a broad range of species, at least in theory.
Anyway, an excellent book - check it out.
Keywords: evolution, Dawkins, apes
Some random thoughts:
*Do you have type A, B, or O blood? I have type A blood, determined by a certain gene in my DNA, a gene that has a shared common ancestor with everyone else with type A blood. If your gene gave you type B or type O blood, that gene is also related to me, but only in a far more distant common ancestor that diverged into the three types. Here's the fascinating thing Dawkins points out: chimps also have type A, B, and O blood. The divergence into different genes long preceded our species' divergence, six million years ago. As far as my type A gene is concerned, it's more closely related (maybe I'm more closely related) to a chimp with type A blood than a human with type B blood. Wrap your mind around that.
*Another relationship that's surprising: sharks, trout, and us - which two of the three are most closely related? George Bush and a rainbow trout have a more recent common ancestor than the rainbow trout has with Jaws.
*Dawkins describes an evolutionary arms race between species as a kind of treadmill where no one gets ahead: prey get faster, predators get faster. Predators develop venom, prey develop venom resistance. Dawkins says there is no way to call a truce in the race, according to the rules of natural selection. I'm not sure that's completely true though. At a certain point, the efficiency trade-off in the arms race is outweighed by putting effort in other directions that could actually reduce the arms race. Territorial predators spend energy and risk death by excluding and killing other predators, when the predators could be hunting prey and having more babies. The prey species, facing reduced pressure, survives by getting better at growing and reproducing, more so than by getting better at evading predators. Another example would be trees converting leaf-eating monkeys into fruit-eating monkeys, or parasites converting into symbiotes. I expect Dawkins wouldn't disagree with this, but just say it's obvious that no trend can go on forever.
One more thought about the arms race: to the extent it's true, you should expect populations of both species to decrease. It takes more energy to conduct a hunt at 40 miles an hour than at 20 miles an hour. Resources spent on the chase, on building heavier body armor or stronger fangs than one's ancestors have to come at a price - you either get worse at something else, or you have fewer babies. This seems like it should be a testable proposition over a broad range of species, at least in theory.
Anyway, an excellent book - check it out.
Keywords: evolution, Dawkins, apes
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The pro-evolution wedge, part 2
Following up on the previous post below, we have evidence that the wedge works for us - an internal battle among conservatives over a medium-prominent conservative blogsite, called Wizbang, partly because one of the site authors insists on creationism (backed up with a fair amount of dishonesty). Battleground shows up right here.
It's a problem for conservatives, not for us.
Via Pharyngula.
Keywords: evolution, wedge
It's a problem for conservatives, not for us.
Via Pharyngula.
Keywords: evolution, wedge
Monday, April 11, 2005
Evolution is OUR wedge, thank you
Creationism and its thinly-disguised counterpart, Intelligent Design, uses a "wedge" argument that refers to creating a wedge of doubt in the scientific consensus that evolution is as proven a fact as any scientific theory can be proven. On the scientific level, they've gone nowhere - two of my linked blogs, Chris Mooney and Carl Zimmer, talk about this in detail, along with many other great science websites. Some religious conservatives who hate science have clutched to the idea, however.
I have an alternative suggestion, that the evolution "wedge" belongs to those of us who want significant change in the progressive direction for American society, a wedge in the sense that George Lakoff might use the term. Here's the argument: America is more conservative than other western nations in large part because of religious conservatives who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Very few people on the progressive side of the spectrum have trouble with teaching evolution as a proven theory, but the conservative side is strongly split on the issue. To the extent we emphasize the evolution in debates against creationists, conservatives become split and progressives unite. To the extent that evolution wins that debate, which is pretty obvious that it does, then people cannot remain Biblical literalists. The evolution wedge opens people up to other ways of thinking, say regarding homosexual rights, that they might otherwise have ignored.
I'm not saying that being religious is wrong or inherently conservative, just that Biblical literalism tends to support conservative ideas. Evolution can open things up.
So what to do with this? I think movement conservatives may care less about teaching Intelligent Design in schools and more about minimizing ANY discussion of evolution in schools, for the exact reasons I've mentioned. One response would be to advocate "teaching the controversy", to set evolution theory against the mush that is I.D. and show how fantastically much better evolution is in explaining the world. The problem is most evolution advocates oppose teaching the controversy, partly because there is no scientific reason to teach I.D., and partly because any mention of I.D. would get distorted by religious conservatives in politically-conservative school districts.
I disagree and think the benefits of greater exposure to evolution would outweigh the costs, but still I have an alternative suggestion: design school curricula that focus heavily on evolution in ways that answer the bogus challenges from creationists, without ever using the words "Intelligent Design" or creationism. The curriculum could answer questions like "are there transitional fossils between different species" with perfect examples of transitional fossils, or explain why evolution is NOT like a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling an airplane, without talking about the religious motivations that lie behind these questions. This curriculum could be waved in front of the face of anyone who says their concerns about evolution are not being addressed. I know, they'll have bogus responses, but I believe it can help a great deal to move the debate in the right direction, and open up the wedge that we need.
keywords: evolution, wedge, Lakoff, homosexuality
I have an alternative suggestion, that the evolution "wedge" belongs to those of us who want significant change in the progressive direction for American society, a wedge in the sense that George Lakoff might use the term. Here's the argument: America is more conservative than other western nations in large part because of religious conservatives who believe in the literal truth of the Bible. Very few people on the progressive side of the spectrum have trouble with teaching evolution as a proven theory, but the conservative side is strongly split on the issue. To the extent we emphasize the evolution in debates against creationists, conservatives become split and progressives unite. To the extent that evolution wins that debate, which is pretty obvious that it does, then people cannot remain Biblical literalists. The evolution wedge opens people up to other ways of thinking, say regarding homosexual rights, that they might otherwise have ignored.
I'm not saying that being religious is wrong or inherently conservative, just that Biblical literalism tends to support conservative ideas. Evolution can open things up.
So what to do with this? I think movement conservatives may care less about teaching Intelligent Design in schools and more about minimizing ANY discussion of evolution in schools, for the exact reasons I've mentioned. One response would be to advocate "teaching the controversy", to set evolution theory against the mush that is I.D. and show how fantastically much better evolution is in explaining the world. The problem is most evolution advocates oppose teaching the controversy, partly because there is no scientific reason to teach I.D., and partly because any mention of I.D. would get distorted by religious conservatives in politically-conservative school districts.
I disagree and think the benefits of greater exposure to evolution would outweigh the costs, but still I have an alternative suggestion: design school curricula that focus heavily on evolution in ways that answer the bogus challenges from creationists, without ever using the words "Intelligent Design" or creationism. The curriculum could answer questions like "are there transitional fossils between different species" with perfect examples of transitional fossils, or explain why evolution is NOT like a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling an airplane, without talking about the religious motivations that lie behind these questions. This curriculum could be waved in front of the face of anyone who says their concerns about evolution are not being addressed. I know, they'll have bogus responses, but I believe it can help a great deal to move the debate in the right direction, and open up the wedge that we need.
keywords: evolution, wedge, Lakoff, homosexuality
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Volokh correction #5
Responding to Paul Krugman's argument that hard-science university professors are liberal-leaning partly because many conservatives are anti-science, Volokh contributor Zywicki writes, "my impression is that contra Krugman, most of those who are consistent evolutionary analysts tend to be libertarians and conservatives (often Hayek-influenced)."
"Evolutionary analyst" is a strange term, but I'd consider "most of those who are consistent evolutionary analysts" to be biologists, and 3 out of 4 identify themselves as left of center, so Zywicki's wrong. Then again, Zywicki may just be unclearly referring to certain economists, but that's not who Krugman was primarily referring to - the hard science academics. So he's still wrong.
keywords: Volokh correction, Krugman
"Evolutionary analyst" is a strange term, but I'd consider "most of those who are consistent evolutionary analysts" to be biologists, and 3 out of 4 identify themselves as left of center, so Zywicki's wrong. Then again, Zywicki may just be unclearly referring to certain economists, but that's not who Krugman was primarily referring to - the hard science academics. So he's still wrong.
keywords: Volokh correction, Krugman
Tuesday, April 05, 2005
"Deep Thoughts" posting
Male sea turtles spend several weeks of their lives as underground animals, several minutes as surface-living animals, and several decades as sea animals.
Yup, "Deep Thoughts" here in the Saturday-Night-Live sense. I was going to post something about creationism and political wedges, but I saw this CNN article about an injured male sea turtle beaching itself, and went deep.
Female sea turtles would add several dozen hours to the surface-living lifespan. That's not a deep thought, more of an aside. Just in case you're wondering.
Yup, "Deep Thoughts" here in the Saturday-Night-Live sense. I was going to post something about creationism and political wedges, but I saw this CNN article about an injured male sea turtle beaching itself, and went deep.
Female sea turtles would add several dozen hours to the surface-living lifespan. That's not a deep thought, more of an aside. Just in case you're wondering.
Thursday, March 31, 2005
Yet another "Don't Think of an Elephant" review
Lots of people have read and commented on Lakoff's book, Don't Think of an Elephant, which argues that "framing" left/progressive issues under the "nurturant parent" overall framework (as opposed to the "strict father" framework that unites righties), will help bring victory to liberal causes. Here's yet another comment.
Definitely worth reading - I think its description of the right works pretty well, but the description of the left not quite as well. It places "anti-authoritarian" personalities under the left nurturant parent framework, which doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Since that probably describes me the best, maybe I'm over-emphasizing the problem. It also places Nature-worshipping Deep Ecology types in the nurturant parent model. That works, I guess, but people like me who are deeply alarmed about environmental issues for merely rational reasons get left out.
Concepts of overall framing for an issue, of wedge issues that help drive your overall frame, and of building coalitions are all good.
Another interesting perspective, that environmentalism is a completely alternative framework to the nurturant parent/strict father dichotomy, is here. I'd say libertarian beliefs are also cross-cutting, and don't quite fit the left-right divide.
keywords: environment, Lakoff, wedge, framing
Definitely worth reading - I think its description of the right works pretty well, but the description of the left not quite as well. It places "anti-authoritarian" personalities under the left nurturant parent framework, which doesn't make a great deal of sense to me. Since that probably describes me the best, maybe I'm over-emphasizing the problem. It also places Nature-worshipping Deep Ecology types in the nurturant parent model. That works, I guess, but people like me who are deeply alarmed about environmental issues for merely rational reasons get left out.
Concepts of overall framing for an issue, of wedge issues that help drive your overall frame, and of building coalitions are all good.
Another interesting perspective, that environmentalism is a completely alternative framework to the nurturant parent/strict father dichotomy, is here. I'd say libertarian beliefs are also cross-cutting, and don't quite fit the left-right divide.
keywords: environment, Lakoff, wedge, framing
Monday, March 28, 2005
What advertising is doing to us
This is a great video clip from a British magician/hypnotist, Derren Brown. Stuff to watch out for...
(from Boingboing.net)
(from Boingboing.net)
Monday, March 21, 2005
Zen and the Department of the Interior
Something to meditate about:
They're beyond my understanding.
Sunday, March 20, 2005
9-11 and the semi-limits of evil
Last night I obnoxiously joined a group of people to watch a "9-11 was a big US government-run conspiracy" movie titled, The Great Conspiracy. I was obnoxious because I had little chance of believing the movie, and couldn't restrain myself from saying so afterwards.
I'd divide 9-11 conspiracy theories into 3 groups: 1. active conspiracy theories, like this movie, that say the US government or people therein were in charge of the attacks; 2. passive conspiracy theories that say that people in the US government knew Al Qaeda was going to cause 9-11 levels of destruction and deliberately chose to do nothing, and 3. negligent semi-conspiracies, where people in the US government knew they weren't doing enough to stop terrorism on US soil that could kill hundreds of Americans, but they either didn't care or thought it might benefit their right wing agenda. The categories can shade into each other to some extent.
The second and third categories are hard to prove or disprove. I personally believe the third category is quite possible.
The first category is a very different thing though, and I have two reasons for thinking it's wrong. First, none of the evidence seems very convincing, and many events do not fit the way I would have done things if I were in charge of a conspiracy to subvert American democracy and find a pretext to invade Iraq.
The second reason may be more convincing to me and less to others, but I do think there's a semi-limit to the evil that people in the US government will do. I say a semi-limit because there's no limit to the evil they'll cause, but if they can't hide the question from their conscience, "shall I unambiguously murder thousands of white, middle and upper class American citizens to advance my political agenda?" then they won't do it. Or at least there's not enough people who'd say "Sure!" to that question in the right places in government to pull it off.
Now using fake evidence to invade Iraq, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the death of 1,500 American soldiers (many of them white), now that's okay. Just like police are willing to use fake evidence to frame people they think are guilty. The rudimentary consciences of people in the Bush Administration doesn't stop evil from happening, but it does stop certain kinds of evil. Just my intuition of what they're like; your mileage may vary.
I'd divide 9-11 conspiracy theories into 3 groups: 1. active conspiracy theories, like this movie, that say the US government or people therein were in charge of the attacks; 2. passive conspiracy theories that say that people in the US government knew Al Qaeda was going to cause 9-11 levels of destruction and deliberately chose to do nothing, and 3. negligent semi-conspiracies, where people in the US government knew they weren't doing enough to stop terrorism on US soil that could kill hundreds of Americans, but they either didn't care or thought it might benefit their right wing agenda. The categories can shade into each other to some extent.
The second and third categories are hard to prove or disprove. I personally believe the third category is quite possible.
The first category is a very different thing though, and I have two reasons for thinking it's wrong. First, none of the evidence seems very convincing, and many events do not fit the way I would have done things if I were in charge of a conspiracy to subvert American democracy and find a pretext to invade Iraq.
The second reason may be more convincing to me and less to others, but I do think there's a semi-limit to the evil that people in the US government will do. I say a semi-limit because there's no limit to the evil they'll cause, but if they can't hide the question from their conscience, "shall I unambiguously murder thousands of white, middle and upper class American citizens to advance my political agenda?" then they won't do it. Or at least there's not enough people who'd say "Sure!" to that question in the right places in government to pull it off.
Now using fake evidence to invade Iraq, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis, and the death of 1,500 American soldiers (many of them white), now that's okay. Just like police are willing to use fake evidence to frame people they think are guilty. The rudimentary consciences of people in the Bush Administration doesn't stop evil from happening, but it does stop certain kinds of evil. Just my intuition of what they're like; your mileage may vary.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Short-term military duty - Teddy Roosevelt would approve
My latest idea that will go nowhere is this: let war supporters, not just Iraq war supporters but any war supporters, put their money where their mouth is by giving them a real option to serve in the war they support. Signing up for a two-year-plus stint in the military doesn't quite cut it - that's a little much to ask when the war could last a much shorter time, and the volunteer wouldn't even be able to guarantee she'd be serving in the war theater.
So my idea is enabling people to volunteer for 6 month periods, in the war zone, doing something simple but still in harm's way that requires minimal training. They wouldn't be an all-purpose soldier, maybe they wouldn't even carry a gun or be allowed to shoot someone. They could still be an extra pair of eyes standing sentry though, or do the simple aspects of construction grunt work that military contractors are getting paid big bucks to do because it's dangerous.
I got this idea listening to Teddy Roosevelt on a public radio program called The Thomas Jefferson Hour. Normally the Jefferson Hour has a historian who takes on the persona of Thomas Jefferson and answers questions that reveals Jefferson's ideas, but this time the historian played Teddy Roosevelt. I was initially struck by how similar Teddy's worldview was to our current president (expansionist beacon of freedom, blah blah blah) and wondered why conservatives don't play up the similarity. Then I found out why - Teddy said he'd never ask anyone to take a risk he wouldn't take himself. As a middle-aged man he volunteered for the Spanish-American War and served under dangerous conditions. He told his 3 sons that he'd disown them if they didn't serve in World War I, and one of them died. He begged his political enemy Woodrow Wilson for a military commission in the war as well, but was denied.
The contrast between Shrub and TR became pretty clear, and I started thinking about how the modern military could allow people to have Roosevelt's consistency on this one type of moral issue. Maybe people would be a little less warlike under a circumstance that realistically gives them a chance to serve.
UPDATE: corrected the number of sons from four to three.
So my idea is enabling people to volunteer for 6 month periods, in the war zone, doing something simple but still in harm's way that requires minimal training. They wouldn't be an all-purpose soldier, maybe they wouldn't even carry a gun or be allowed to shoot someone. They could still be an extra pair of eyes standing sentry though, or do the simple aspects of construction grunt work that military contractors are getting paid big bucks to do because it's dangerous.
I got this idea listening to Teddy Roosevelt on a public radio program called The Thomas Jefferson Hour. Normally the Jefferson Hour has a historian who takes on the persona of Thomas Jefferson and answers questions that reveals Jefferson's ideas, but this time the historian played Teddy Roosevelt. I was initially struck by how similar Teddy's worldview was to our current president (expansionist beacon of freedom, blah blah blah) and wondered why conservatives don't play up the similarity. Then I found out why - Teddy said he'd never ask anyone to take a risk he wouldn't take himself. As a middle-aged man he volunteered for the Spanish-American War and served under dangerous conditions. He told his 3 sons that he'd disown them if they didn't serve in World War I, and one of them died. He begged his political enemy Woodrow Wilson for a military commission in the war as well, but was denied.
The contrast between Shrub and TR became pretty clear, and I started thinking about how the modern military could allow people to have Roosevelt's consistency on this one type of moral issue. Maybe people would be a little less warlike under a circumstance that realistically gives them a chance to serve.
UPDATE: corrected the number of sons from four to three.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Volokh correction #4
From the Volokh Conspiracy blog, Juan Non-Volokh again describes the Bush Administration's Clear Skies Act as better than the current Clean Air Act, and criticizes enviro opposition to Clear Skies. He's wrong, mainly because he attacks the other side's evidence while providing no evidence to back up his own position.
His main argument relies on a Washington Monthly article stating:
John Kerry summed up the conventional wisdom on the left during his second debate with President Bush by observing that Clear Skies is “one of those Orwellian na- mes. . . . If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today—no change—the air would be cleaner than it is if you passed the Clear Skies Act.” In fact, this oft-repeated green bromide turns out to be false.
Clearing a path through the disorganization of that article eventually gets you to the heart of the argument. Enviros are relying on an EPA government document showing the current Clean Air Act is stricter than Clear Skies, but this document was supposedly, deliberately skewed to make the Clean Air Act look tough so that the power companies would support a version of the Clear Skies program. In effect the Clear Sky supporters are saying, "we lied to industry in this document to get their support, so you shouldn't hold us now to those numbers we used."
I'm not well-disposed to allow the government to casually lie and then change the lie when it suits them. We lawyers would say they should be "estopped" from doing that. But let's be generous and say it's possible this EPA document was exaggerated - the Washington Monthly article provides no evidence that Clear Skies is a better outcome. What should the document have stated? No answer from the article, or from the Volokhs.
Juan says "Compared against any set of realistic assumptions . . . Clear Skies would clearly result in greater emissions reductions." He provides nothing to back up this argument.
P.S. Here's the comparison from original EPA numbers. Let's see what numbers the anti-enviros can produce.
His main argument relies on a Washington Monthly article stating:
John Kerry summed up the conventional wisdom on the left during his second debate with President Bush by observing that Clear Skies is “one of those Orwellian na- mes. . . . If they just left the Clean Air Act all alone the way it is today—no change—the air would be cleaner than it is if you passed the Clear Skies Act.” In fact, this oft-repeated green bromide turns out to be false.
Clearing a path through the disorganization of that article eventually gets you to the heart of the argument. Enviros are relying on an EPA government document showing the current Clean Air Act is stricter than Clear Skies, but this document was supposedly, deliberately skewed to make the Clean Air Act look tough so that the power companies would support a version of the Clear Skies program. In effect the Clear Sky supporters are saying, "we lied to industry in this document to get their support, so you shouldn't hold us now to those numbers we used."
I'm not well-disposed to allow the government to casually lie and then change the lie when it suits them. We lawyers would say they should be "estopped" from doing that. But let's be generous and say it's possible this EPA document was exaggerated - the Washington Monthly article provides no evidence that Clear Skies is a better outcome. What should the document have stated? No answer from the article, or from the Volokhs.
Juan says "Compared against any set of realistic assumptions . . . Clear Skies would clearly result in greater emissions reductions." He provides nothing to back up this argument.
P.S. Here's the comparison from original EPA numbers. Let's see what numbers the anti-enviros can produce.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
Moderately wealthy v. the rich, part 2
Republicans again confront whether to choose the moderately wealthy or the rich, although none of the blog commentary that I've seen on the new bankruptcy bill focuses on this issue. For a good general post on the bill, see Kevin Drum's, although he doesn't hit on this issue either.
The new bill reduces bankruptcy protections, but only for those over the median income level. This seems to pit the Republican upper-class constituency against itself, but I don't think that's exactly the case. Instead it pitches bankrupts in the top half of median income against credit card company stockholders. Most of the "qualifying" bankrupts will be near the median income, so they'll just be moderately wealthy. I'll bet a shiny nickel that the most of the stocks will be owned by people a lot better off than the moderately wealthy bankrupts.
Even the moderately wealthy can't win against the wealthiest.
(The first wealthy v. the super rich battle concerned fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax v. making Bush's tax cut permanent. See here - scroll down to April 21 - for more.)
keywords: class warfare, AMT
The new bill reduces bankruptcy protections, but only for those over the median income level. This seems to pit the Republican upper-class constituency against itself, but I don't think that's exactly the case. Instead it pitches bankrupts in the top half of median income against credit card company stockholders. Most of the "qualifying" bankrupts will be near the median income, so they'll just be moderately wealthy. I'll bet a shiny nickel that the most of the stocks will be owned by people a lot better off than the moderately wealthy bankrupts.
Even the moderately wealthy can't win against the wealthiest.
(The first wealthy v. the super rich battle concerned fixing the Alternative Minimum Tax v. making Bush's tax cut permanent. See here - scroll down to April 21 - for more.)
keywords: class warfare, AMT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)