This doesn’t sound like a huge legal victory for the administration. It only postpones an actual ruling until later this summer.
Category Archives: Science And Society
Climate-Change Communications
The strategy of hyping certainty and a scientific consensus and dismissing decadal variability is a bad move for communicating a very complex, wicked problem such as climate change. Apart from the ‘meaningful’ issue, its an issue of trust – hyping certainty and a premature consensus does not help the issue of public trust in the science.
This new paper is especially interesting in context of the Karl et al paper, that ‘disappears’ the hiatus. I suspect that the main take home message for the public (those paying attention, anyways) is that the data is really really uncertain and there is plenty of opportunity for scientists to ‘cherry pick’ methods to get desired results.
Apart from the issue of how IPCC leaders communicate the science to the public, this paper also has important implications for journalists. The paper has a vindication of sorts for David Rose, who asked hard hitting questions about the pause at the Stockholm press conference.
It’s a good, and necessary first step.
“Skeptics”
Why they hate climate skeptics:
As described above there were a number of factors and incidents that brought the skeptics movement to where it is today. Under different circumstance skeptical heroes might have included Freeman Dyson, Michael Crichton, Matt Ridley, Bjorn Lomborg, and Michael Fumento instead of Carl Sagan, Michael Mann, Bill Nye, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
The forces for group cohesion can be powerful. Within the skeptic community voices that dissented in any way (or even just said “I don’t know”) tended to become more and more marginalized. Those who might dissent now have for the most part left, shut up or deferred to “science” and their places have been taken by those who believe. I once asked on a skeptical forum, why the group responded so harshly to any statements challenging climate fears, but no one ever commented or challenged any statements no matter how ridiculous exaggerating climate fears. I was told that false statements against the climate understandings represented real threats, but little harm could come from overstatements of climatic risk. No one on that forum took issue with that position and that’s when I figured I could not learn much more there. This is a group on a mission that is not accepting of distractions.
I subscribed to the Skeptical Inquirer back in the eighties, but I quit when Schermer took over, it started to veer left, and to a dogmatic atheism.
Treating The “Transgendered”
Are they different than LGBs? It does seem like a different situation, in that there is no “treatment” required for LGBs. And the treatment seems to be extreme, and in the long run, perhaps not helpful, or it makes things worse.
And no, it’s not “bigoted” or “phobic” to ask the question.
[Thursday-morning update]
[Bumped]
Treating The Obese Like Smokers?
The worst thing about this piece is this:
Americans are fat because we eat large portions, and because we eat foods that are high in sugar and fat. Americans are fat because we eat large portions, and because we eat foods that are high in sugar and fat. Perhaps it’s time for the surgeon general to put scary warning labels on sugary and fatty foods.
That is a profoundly ignorant statement, nutrition wise. People don’t get fat from eating fat.
The American Physical Society
Still seems to have ethical and integrity issues on the subject of climate research.
Climate Change
…has done more good than harm, and will likely continue to do so.
Crap Nutrition “Science” In Journals
I wish I believed that the situation was much better than this in climate science, but really, I have little reason to.
Discussing Science
No, Senator Whitehouse, it isn’t racketeering; it’s free speech.
Neil Stephenson
Discusses his new novel, and the role of science fiction.
He is one of the few authors whose books I always look forward to reading, though I was a little disappointed with Anathem. But this looks like a fun read.
I should also note that one of the points I make in my book (and in op-eds) since, is that our unwillingness to use the hardware we have on hand to get into space is an indicator of how utterly unimportant human spaceflight is (a point that is accentuated by the relatively poor sales of a well-reviewed book). Stephenson describes a scenario in which it suddenly becomes very important to become as spacefaring as possible, as soon as possible, and how society reacts.