Category Archives: Science And Society

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Who Are The Environment Correspondents?

43 Comments

Apparently, the people who have been reporting on climate change are as incestuous (and even more incompetent) as the people studying it. Color me unshocked. They’re likely economic ignorami as well.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Well, here’s one reporter who’s strayed from the reservation. A “saturated greenhouse” theory? If true, this would be huge. There are good reasons to wean ourselves from fossile fuels (if done in an economically sane manner), but climate change wouldn’t be one of them.

[Late morning update]

“AGW? I refute it thus.”

If there’s anyone left you know who STILL believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, you might want to show them this chart.

It’s pretty striking.

Business, Political Commentary, Science And Society

And So It Begins

24 Comments

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association is suing the EPA over Climaquiddick:

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association has filed a petition to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. to overturn the EPA’s recent greenhouse gas “endangerment” ruling.

The ruling states that gases believed to cause global warming pose a human health risk and is the first step toward their regulation by the EPA under the Clean Air Act. The NCBA and other producer groups fear the ruling could lead to lawsuits and new restrictions on the nation’s livestock industries.

…The cattle group points to Climategate, in which critics allege that e-mails stolen from Great Britain’s University of East Anglia show bias and manipulation of data by scientists on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The fact that the EPA relied on some of the IPCC’s data to make its finding makes the ruling questionable, Thies said.

Discovery should be quite enlightening. I expect this will go all the way to SCOTUS.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society, War Commentary

Double Standard Alert

66 Comments

He’s right:

If Romney had used the phrases “light-skinned” and “Negro dialect” his religion and his religion’s history in this matter would have been noted high up in every story.

But Romney is a Republican. It’s only Republican Mormons who are evil.

Really, Reid and Pelosi are embarrassments. I’m glad that they’ve become the public face of the Dems in Congress. Long may they reign, until November. Hang in there, Harry.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Gee, the Black Congressional Caucus is totally down with the “light-skinned Negro” thing. Who would have thought?

[Evening update]

Here’s a handy flow chart to parse and analyze pseudo-offensive racial (and sexual, and gender) statements.

[Monday morning update]

Can someone please explain to me exactly what it was that was so offensive about what Harry Reid said? At least to Barack Obama? Because I’m not getting it. If he owes anyone an apology, it’s the American voters that he slandered and implied were racists. Forgiveness from the president is meaningless.

[Update a few minutes later]

I agree with Roger Simon. Reid isn’t a racist — he’s a hack. And a fool.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

A New Science Movement

9 Comments

Did Climaquiddick set one off? If so, it’s not just a new, but a real (as opposed to politically ideologically driven) science, returning it to free inquiry.:

Remember these names: Steven Mosher, Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Jeff “Id” Condon, Lucia Liljegren, and Anthony Watts. These, and their community of blog commenters, are the global warming contrarians that formed the peer-to-peer review network and helped bring chaos to Copenhagen – critically wounding the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in the process. One may have even played the instrumental role of first placing the leaked files on the Internet.

This group can be thought of as the first cousins to Andrew Breitbart’s collective of BIG websites – obsessively curious, grassroots investigators that provide vision to the establishment’s blind eye. Peer-to-peer review is the scientific version of the undernews.

Call it Big Science.

[Update a few minutes later]

I liked this comment, which puts it all in perspective for those who remain willfully blind to the implications of the data dump:

Imagine for a moment that a high school student submitted a project for competition in which he offered up the hypothesis that tree rings gave a historical blueprint of climate change.

Competition Judge: “Ok, Johnny, this is a very interesting theory. May I see your data?”

Johnny McFibber: “I lost it.”

Competition Judge: “Hmmm. That will make it nearly impossible to win, Johnny. Can you duplicate it or give us a detailed description of what it showed”

Johnny M “Actually, I hid the parts that didn’t comport with my theory., in fact, showed the exact opposite of my theory,..and I emailed all my friends to do the same”

Competition Judge” “Johnny, that’s not the way we conduct ourselves in the sciences, you must be confused with your humanities classes. Over here, we strictly scrutinize the facts.

Johnny M: There’s a reporter here I would like to introduce you to…he wants to ask some questions about your first marriage.

Competition Judge: Great work on this project, Johnny. The science is settled. You win.

Moral? Research softly and carry a big hockey stick.

Fortunately, the hockey stick is broken, probably for good.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Climaquiddick

38 Comments

“You should be steamed.” Some thoughts from the former head of the Hurricane Center:

What do the skeptics believe? First, they concur with the believers that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. The cause of this warming is the question. Believers think the warming is man-made, while the skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic à la Al Gore.

Second, skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. Numerous field experiments have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Furthermore, carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Third, and most important, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly overpredicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide. We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world.

I always find the religious language amusing. The “believers” seem to take it on faith, because the high priests of Science have ordained, it, while the “skeptics” act like actual scientists.

[Monday evening update]

A call for Climaquiddick whistleblowers. I hope they get a lot. I think that the bastions have been captured.

Humor, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Popular Culture, Science And Society, Social Commentary

Some New Year’s Resolutions

23 Comments

…from Frank J.:

While continuing to trust science, let’s make sure the scientists we’re getting it from aren’t douche nozzles.

I like science — we all like science — but if we’re going to throw a huge wrench into our economy, let’s make sure it’s not on the advice of scientists who treat data like a used-car salesman treats an old Chevy.

Next time we pick a leader, let’s make sure he has more qualifications than a bunch of empty slogans of the sort you’d use to sell carbonated beverages.

Yeah, we won’t get a chance in the next year, but let’s try and do that at least once this next decade. It’s hard, but we can do it. Yes we can.

If we have another economic crisis, let’s not hand a blank checkbook to a bunch of Democrats.

Politicians love spending money — Democrats especially. If we had a problem of having way too much money and needed to get rid of it quickly, you’d be a fool to elect anyone other than Democrats. But if the problem is that we’re running out of money, it may be a bad idea to put Democrats in charge, because their solution to having too little money will inevitably be to spend more money.

He has more.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary, Science And Society

Punishing Us For Our Sins, Continued

105 Comments

Some readers may recall a sophomoric comment from an “Ethan” at this post. He persists, but I doubt if anyone is following it any more other than him. So I thought I’d start a newer thread to continue the discussion, and hopefully educate him. He last wrote:

“Mass economic dislocation, poverty, disease and death,” though, are all consequences of climate change. Sea level rise will send billions of people scrambling for higher ground, competing with the existing population for dwindling resources. The deserts will spread, and indeed are already spreading, destroying millions of acres of arable land in the southwestern United States and northern Africa.

Now, I am not suggesting solutions to this problem. Massive government intervention leaves a bad taste in my mouth, too. But it makes me sick to think that there is still so much doubt about climate change and its consequences among the general population, when the science is solid. My statement that 1 percent of scientists think climate change might not be human caused may be “argumentum ad verecundiam,” but it is nearly accurate…the number varies slightly from survey to survey, but in all the reports I could find it has never been above 4%. So we’re looking at, at worst, 97% consensus that climate change is a reality, and that human activity is the driving force behind it.

I have read the “climategate” emails, and frankly, there is nothing in them that suggests a vast conspiracy of scientists. They contained unprofessional language concerning doubters of climate change, but all of the quotes which seem to point to such a conspiracy were obviously removed from their proper context when reprinted by the media. In fact, I blame the media for the fact that so many people in the United States are not sure if climate change is a reality. That 1 – 4% of scientists is given equal time with the 97 – 99% who are positive climate change is happening, which creates widespread doubt when it should be minimal.

Now, again, I don’t know exactly what should be done about climate change. Action on a large scale is needed, and frankly I don’t know if people are ready for that. But the consequences of inaction will be very high, and will be seen in my lifetime. The consensus is that our emissions of greenhouse gases (e.g., our consumption of fossil fuels) must peak by 2015 for the temperature to stabilize at no more than 2 degrees Celsius above temperatures at the end of the last century. So I don’t know about you, but I’m probably going to buy an electric car when they hit the streets, and I think I’ll be doing my shopping at local farmers’ markets whenever possible. Even those little things (buying potatoes grown in your state instead of ones that were flown or trucked across country) make a difference. I just hope those little things are enough.

I’m kind of swamped today, but I trust other readers will set him on the road to wisdom. I would suggest though (because it’s not obvious that he did) that he start (as I suggested at the time) by reading the piece I wrote at PJM that the post was partially about.

Business, Satire, Science And Society, Social Commentary, War Commentary

“Because We Can”

5 Comments

Christopher Hitchens:

Why do we fail to detect or defeat the guilty, and why do we do so well at collective punishment of the innocent? The answer to the first question is: Because we can’t—or won’t. The answer to the second question is: Because we can. The fault here is not just with our endlessly incompetent security services, who give the benefit of the doubt to people who should have been arrested long ago or at least had their visas and travel rights revoked. It is also with a public opinion that sheepishly bleats to be made to “feel safe.” The demand to satisfy that sad illusion can be met with relative ease if you pay enough people to stand around and stare significantly at the citizens’ toothpaste. My impression as a frequent traveler is that intelligent Americans fail to protest at this inanity in case it is they who attract attention and end up on a no-fly list instead. Perfect.

It will continue until we demand our rights again. And unfortunately, this is a bi-partisan problem. This idiotic philosophy applied in the last administration as well. It’s a natural tendency of bureaucrats of any stripe.

Also, I was listening to some talk radio today in the car (Prager) and it occurred to me that people have this strange notion that “safe” is a binary condition. Something is safe or it is not. But it’s not. As I’ve said in other contexts (what a mess the human spaceflight program is), there is no safety this side of the dirt. Every decision you make, every action you take, carries some level of risk. Each one must be balanced against the expected benefit. When someone asks the president if it’s “safe to fly,” he should use it as a teachable moment. But he won’t.