Scientific Integrity Editorial Cartoon Contest

Head over to Union of Concerned Scientists to see all the finalists for this contest. They are all pretty good...but this one is my favorite.

The personification of nature: a preface

With a post title like that, you might be expecting a long and well-written essay....well, as much as I'd like to do that right now, I have to have will power and keep working on "real" work (some deadlines are approaching fast and furious).


Instead, this post will be a short rant (and preface to a longer, more organized essay) about my dislike for these kinds of phrases:

"Mother Nature has been really cruel to our state the last four or five days."

This is a statement from Wisconsin governor about recent floods and the effect they've had on the people of that state. I really think that this personification of natural events should stop. We all do it, and I'm not excluding myself...I can think of a few instances where I've made similar remarks. Maybe you're thinking that this isn't such a big deal, that it's merely a colloquialism we use and there is no harm. Perhaps. But, I would argue that the practice of demonizing (and applauding) natural events or systems is unwise and, in the long run, a detriment to our advancement as a species.

But...I need to cut myself off before I blow off the work I'm supposed to be doing right now. If I start writing down my reasons for thinking this, then next thing I know, two hours will have elapsed! Hopefully I can come back to this topic very soon.

Why is this lady so against conserving energy?

Click here to read a short interview on CNN.com with a woman named Trilby Lundberg. She is the publisher of the Lundberg Survey, a survey of United States gasoline prices quoted regularly by news outlets and others.

The beginning of the question-and-answer report has some interesting insight and remarks about the complexity behind what determines the actual price at the pump. And then she says a few things regarding the outlook for fuel costs in the near term future (next 5-10 years) and the role of alternative fuels.

This is all fine and good. There's a few things I would quibble with and maybe disagree with, but no big whoop.

But then, the questioning turns to the notion of energy conservation. I'm just gonna clip the whole part here, as it is worth reading.

Q: As far as conservation, what are the trends you are seeing?

A: I'm hoping that consumers will see through the rhetoric about consuming less, demanding less, as faulty. It is not a given that consuming less will be good for our economy or for our personal freedom. It is not even established for our environment that we [should] deprive ourselves of gasoline for our personal mobility as well our commerce. And to suppose that it is good to do that, and pretend that we have consensus and put our heads together to deprive ourselves of this great product that makes the country go around, commercially and individually, I think is flawed. I'm hoping consumers and voters will see through that and be able to ignore some of the most extreme suggestions.

She then, of course, goes on a little diatribe about the great hoax of global warming. But, I don't want to focus on that here. What really floors me is this attitude that conserving energy means depriving ourselves of it. This is so illogical and I just don't understand it. Yes, I agree...it is a product that makes the country (and the world for that matter) go round. Shouldn't that be reason #1 to conserve it?! Why are some people so anti-conservation? I simply do not get it. We can be a nation of economic prosperity and continued high quality of life AND be much more energy efficient. It's not all or nothing....that's the biggest bunch of malarkey.

Whatever happened to the idea of a "penny saved is a penny earned"? The generation of Americans who actually lived through the Great Depression and had to conserve are all but gone.

And then there's this gem at the end.

...taking into account the many, many millions of people around the world that envy our way of life, it would seem more humanitarian to wish them the kind of plentiful petroleum products and vehicles ... that we enjoy ... to lift themselves out of [a] backward, poor way of life

Right.
Wake up to the 21st century, lady.

A two-hour and twenty-three minute GM commercial

I really didn't expect a movie from Michael Bay to be anything but the cheesiest cheese that Hollywood has to offer but I didn't expect Transformers to be a commercial.

These days movies have a lot of product placement and the like, but this one really takes the cake. All the vehicles, especially the good ones (Autobots), were GM....Chevy and Pontiac cars and GMC trucks. Any chance they got....I mean any....they had a close-up of the logo on the grill of the car/truck. It wasn't even subtle.

I was a kid in the '80s, had the Transformers toys, and watched the cartoon. One of the favorite characters was an old yellow Volkswagen bug, named "Bumblebee". This movie of course couldn't have a German car in it...so, they made Bumblebee a damn Chevy Camaro!! What!? He's supposed to be a cute little VW bug!! A#@holes!

The commercial....er, I mean movie....takes any chance it gets to have the leading girl lean over the car in her skimpy outfits. It looked like the cover of one of those hot rod magazines you see in the gas station on the road during a geology field trip.

Does GM really think this is gonna help their sales? Perhaps they oughtta work on designing and building cars Americans actually want to buy, instead of spending money on pushing the same junk. Anyone who goes out to buy a new Camaro simply because it was featured in this movie is the only customer GM has left.

We have crossed the line from movies that have a lot of ads in them to an advertisement that is disguised as a movie. The end is coming.


image above from Movieweb

Diabolical propaganda

Depending on your mood, this will make you laugh or it might make your skin crawl.

On Rush Limbaugh’s radio show Tuesday, a 13 year old caller named Patrick complained that he was forced to read “liberal magazines like Time and Newsweek” in school which explained the globe was getting warmer. The caller said he was skeptical of the science because “my parents have always been skeptical of it.” Limbaugh then offered the following encouragement to the caller:

RUSH: Patrick, this will be a good lesson. There are liberals everywhere. You may think that just because your town is conservative — there are liberals. They’re hiding in the shadows, and they are lurking there, and they’re around and the odds are that many of them are in the school system. You’ll probably at some point probably have to watch [Al Gore’s movie], unless your parents and other parents find out about it and demand, “If you’re going to show this movie, you better show the Great Global Warming Swindle and put the other side to our kids out there.” Well, congratulations. I’m glad you called and told us this. This is the kind of thing that gives us all encouragement for the future. Here you are at 13, already aware of when you’re watching propaganda. That’s great.

How Orwellian is that!? Denounce propaganda as you spew it. Hmmm....the "other side".... why are people so goddamn preoccupied with distilling every issue to "sides"? If an asteroid doesn't destroy our civilization, then this dangerously oversimplified dualistic worldview will.

Okay....back to work. I need to do some evil scientific research. I wonder if Rush considers Sedimentology a liberal journal?

via ThinkProgress

The media's anthropomorphization of Pluto

A quick survey of mainstream media reporting on Pluto this weekend reveals their continued (and incredibly annoying) obsession with turning Pluto into an conscious being with feelings.


Here a few examples. Note red circles (mine).

The San Francisco Chronicle mentions Pluto's pride. CNN claims the planetary body is suffering from indignity. I guess at least BBC said that Pluto's status suffered a blow, instead of the dwarf planet itself suffering.


What the hell is the problem? Big deal...we've reclassified Pluto. It's a damn label to help science better communicate. This is how it works. The general public (and apparently science reporters too) can't seem to grasp the concept of classification. This is a human-made abstraction to help us better understand natural phenomenon. There is no true organization...at least not in this simplified outline form. Classifications are supposed to be refined, changed, tweaked, tanked, overhauled, etc. over time. This is part of doing science!

Maybe you're saying - 'relax, they're just having fun'. I understand that...yeah, sure it's cute. But if this style of reporting misrepresents how science is done, then I don't find it so cute.

Besides, if people are really worried about the feelings of a planet (dwarf or otherwise), maybe they should ask Earth.







UPDATE: Add SEED magazine to the list too. Apparently Pluto "...got kicked out of the brotherhood of planets and demoted...". Sucks to be you Pluto! Oh wait, Pluto is an inanimate body of rock and ice.

End of Suburbia

I recently watched the documentary End of Suburbia and, inspired by Thermochronic's comments on gasoline prices, I figured it was a good time to post my thoughts about the film.

This documentary is essentially about Peak Oil, which is the notion that we are very close to producing half of the Earth's oil reserves (if we haven't already). What this means is that once we hit that peak, production will decline. Couple this decline in supply with an increase in demand over the next half-century and we have a recipe for global disaster...so say the most adamant peak oil theorists.

I'm not going to spend time on this post discussing peak oil as such. If you don't know much about peak oil, it behooves you to learn a bit about it before watching End of Suburbia. There are differing viewpoints from petroleum geologists as well as economists regarding the validity of global oil production being described by a bell curve, but let's save that for another time. So, for the rest of this post, i'm going to focus on the film.

This film discusses the theory, evidence, and implications of peak oil within the context of the American suburbs. This is what I like about this film. The information and commentary regarding this issue are woven into a narrative about the origin, rise, and predicted demise of the suburban landscape. Instead of a boring encyclopedic presentation of what peak oil is and what it means, the creators of End of Suburbia asks a key question: Is suburban living sustainable? The subtitle of the film is Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream so you can probably guess what they think the prospects are.

The American suburbs evolved from the combination of post-WWII prosperity and the rise of the affordable automobile. That is, everyone can have a car. Why? Because cars are relatively cheap? That's part of it for sure, but more important in this equation -- cheap and abundant fuel to run the cars. They do a great job in the film of emphasizing the underlying issue of peak oil: it's not about running out of oil in an absolute sense...it's about running out of cheap oil. It is an economic as well as geologic issue.


So, fast forward from the prosperous and enthusiastically pro-capitalism 1950s to the turn of the century. We now have a situation where many people drive over 100 miles a day to commute from their unnecessarily large (and poorly constructed) home in the suburbs to their place of work and back. The original suburbs of the 1950s/1960s feel like the inner city compared to these 'exurbs' that are far out on the fringes of a metropolitan area, the so-called suburban sprawl. These areas are designed around the automobile. This is the only way to get around. You know these places...we all do, that's where you can find Target, Chili's, Best Buy, and all the other mega-stores. Try being a pedestrian in this environment and you certainly risk your life.

So, now as Americans are feeling the effects of more expensive fuel it is getting more difficult to sustain this lifestyle. The film does a great job of painting a rather bleek picture of the future of this kind of life. Like most documentaries, End of Suburbia includes a combination of narration that presents the information and interview clips with various people for additional information and commentary.

The last part of End of Suburbia takes a turn from the thesis of a doomed civilization to more optimistic thoughts. They discuss the ideas of people returning to urban settings, sometimes referred to as 'new urbanism', where most of what residents need for everyday life is within walking distance (or at least a much shorter trip on public transportation or car). The filmmakers also touch on the idea of buying locally grown and produced goods to cut down on the ridiculous distances the stuff we buy and consume is transported (why do I need an apple from New Zealand in California?).

Personally, I loved this film. I was raised in American suburbia and didn't think about what it actually was and how it was set up until recently...that is what I knew. For me, these kinds of films (or books, essays, websites, etc.) are important for my own education and awareness.

Call me a pessimist, but I tend to think that it takes significant events to produce significant change. Will we need to experience a Great Depression II to collectively change our ways? I hope it doesn't come to that, but I fear it will. The best-case scenario in my opinion would be continued high fuel prices to wake the public up to the realities of our energy situation. I have set up my own lifestyle to anticipate the future higher gasoline prices (i.e, buying a high-MPG car, having only one car for two of us, taking the commuter train as much as possible, living in a neighborhood where we can walk to the market, taking the bus when we can, etc.).

Check out the trailer to End of Suburbia and then rent it.

Evolution and conservatism

I don't spend too much time with topics like this on this blog but I found this particular article interesting (there are several bloggers over at Scienceblogs that do put a lot of energy into these topics, so you should check it out if you want more).

Yesterday (May 5th), the New York Times science page published an article titled 'A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin'. I am certainly no expert in how Darwinism has been or is being invoked in the past or present by political/social figures. This article cites several books that might be a good sampling of how these ideas have evolved (pun intended).

The other night, the ten Republican presidential candidates were asked if they believe in evolution and three of them said they did not.

For some conservatives, accepting Darwin undercuts religious faith and produces an amoral, materialistic worldview that easily embraces abortion, embryonic stem cell research and other practices they abhor. As an alternative to Darwin, many advocate intelligent design, which holds that life is so intricately organized that only an intelligent power could have created it.

Maybe I am simple-minded, but what does the science of evolution have to do with abortion? This is a rhetorical question and I know the talking points, but this gets right to what I dislike about rigorous political ideologies: that one must agree with or adopt the entire spectrum of perspectives and beliefs to 'be on the team'. As for intelligent design, I'm not going to discuss that here as it has been, in my mind, thoroughly proven to not even be close to scientific practice. Period.

Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design — not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible’s Book of Genesis — that has led conservative opponents to speak out for fear their ideology will be branded as out of touch and anti-science.

Well, I think it's too late on that front. That ideology has already been branded as anti-science.

Some of these thinkers have gone one step further, arguing that Darwin’s scientific theories about the evolution of species can be applied to today’s patterns of human behavior, and that natural selection can provide support for many bedrock conservative ideas, like traditional social roles for men and women, free-market capitalism and governmental checks and balances.

I do like to bring up the concept of the free market with those who feel they have to be both fiscal and social conservatives. The purist view of a free market believes the system self-organizes into an efficient and collectively beneficial construct without the aid of a centralized authority (intelligent designer). This is accomplished through the balance of supply and demand, prices of goods/services, and other market 'forces' and sometimes nudged this way and that (e.g., tweaking of interest rates). There is no need for an intelligent designer! In fact, if you were to tell one of these very proud, so-called 'self-made' individuals that they are the product of the decisions of a centralized authority (intelligent designer) rather than the sum of their individual actions, decisions, and development (evolution) they would be pretty upset with you.

As for how natural selection explains traditional gender roles, I'm simply not versed in such ideas and really don't understand that. What do they mean by 'traditional'? Traditional as in the American family as portrayed on 1950s television, with the man going to work in a suit and the woman staying home wearing a dress and cooking/cleaning for him? What exactly does that have to do with natural selection? Perhaps the argument is that this is the contemporary version of the male venturing out to hunt/gather while the female stays behind to care for the offspring? There's probably a whole blog out there somewhere discussing that.

The technocrats, he [Mr. West, the author of “Darwin’s Conservatives: The Misguided Quest”, 2006] charged, wanted to grab control from “ordinary citizens and their elected representatives” so that they alone could make decisions over “controversial issues such as sex education, partial-birth abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research and global warming."

Apparently, a technocrat is one who wants government run by the highly educated. Okay. I always figured that should be give-in...raise your hand if you want ignorance running the government. I suppose the opposition would charge that "technocracy" is steeped in the amoral and materialistic worldview. But, then in that case isn't the government being designed intelligently?

Is that really what the technocrats want -- to "grab control" and make decisions alone? To me, it's about actually using science to guide us to make decisions. What West is doing here is probably my biggest pet peeve --- that it all comes down to all or nothing. The all-or-nothing viewpoint is pervasive in political thought...it is completely illogical and unusable but I tend to think it's an unfortunate result (strange attractor?) in the trajectory of how society debates complex issues. Unless it's simplified to a duality of "this vs. that", and whose team are you on, the public can't understand it? But, this is a topic for another time. It's also funny (and sad) how global warming is thrown in with this list of 'controversial issues'.

The institutions that successfully evolved to deal with this natural order were conservative ones, founded in sentiment, tradition and judgment, like limited government and a system of balances to curb unchecked power, he explains. Unlike leftists, who assume “a utopian vision of human nature” liberated from the constraints of biology, Mr. Arnhart says, conservatives assume that evolved social traditions have more wisdom than rationally planned reforms.

Really? I've never heard a conservative put it that way. And what if a particular tradition becomes rigid and outdated? Isn't resisting change not accepting that things are evolving?

To many people, asking whether evolution is good for conservatism is like asking if gravity is good for liberalism; nature is morally neutral. Andrew Ferguson in The Weekly Standard and Carson Holloway in his 2006 book, “The Right Darwin? Evolution, Religion and the Future of Democracy,” for example, have written that jumping from evolutionary science to moral conclusions and policy proposals is absurd.

Well said. Finally...that's a viewpoint that resonates with me. To beat down the ugly head of the all-or-nothingers, I would add that it doesn't mean we can't learn something by discussing these things...the point is to not make the leap.

Then there's a quote by Wiliam F. Buckley about how Darwinism led to the Nazis....are we still doing this? And this is a top thinker?

And then, finally...

Mr. West agreed that “conservatives who are discomfited by the continuing debate over Darwin’s theory need to understand that it is not about to go away”; that it “fundamentally challenges the traditional Western understanding of human nature and the universe.”

All is revealed. Western understanding of human nature and the universe is the concept of evolution. I think he has it backwards on what is being challenged.

Designed natural cycles...

One of the favorite arguments used by one type of global warming denialist goes something like this:

The Earth has experienced natural and significant climatic swings in the past; therefore the current climatic swing we are experiencing is likely natural (not human-made); therefore we don't need to take any action.

In this view, they accept the results of paleoclimate studies (the source of knowledge of the natural cycles). This argument is typically trotted out by those who are motivated solely by a economic/political paradigm. That is, they predict that the regulation of emissions will result in global economic recession at best or a complete and total economic catastrophe (i.e., the collapse of modern civilization) at worst.

I've always been bothered by the mixing of discussions about scientific conclusions (i.e., the data and conclusions regarding attribution) with discussions regarding policy (i.e., what or what not to do about it). The policy debate is the true and timely discussion to be having at this point. There are legitimate concerns about how to go about mitigating problems that have global reach (and whether or not what we do will even have an impact anyway with all the feedbacks in the system). But, those who have those concerns should discuss them within the context of policymaking. Instead...they bring out the lame since-it-was-natural-in-the-past-it-must-be-natural-now routine. Why not talk about what you really want to talk about?

Anyway...so, then I was thinking about where the intelligent design crowd would fit in here. They can't possibly believe the flucuations that have been interpreted from paleoclimate proxies (e.g., the last 600,000 years) are an 'accident' (i.e., not by design). Do they think the current climatic changes are designed? Does climate even fall into that paradigm? Where is the "boundary" between what gets designed and what is left to evolve naturally?

I'm not sure what my point is.
I haven't really used this blog as a record of my stream-of-consciousness thoughts....this is probably one of the first ones.

Sokal and Mooney Op-Ed in LA Times

See Chris Mooney's blog, The Intersection, for more introduction to this editorial that he and Alan Sokal co-authored in today's LA Times. It's titled Can Washington get smart about science?, and is a nice little piece of writing.

What I like is that Sokal has been known to criticize liberals and Mooney has a book about conservatives in government and their subversion of science. I like to see people team up like this and cut through the partisan crap. It's all too easy for people to stay on "their side", whatever that means. The partisan brain is a funny thing. People with strong partisan tendencies tend to automatically believe, agree, disbelieve, disagree with statements that have yet to be checked for its truthiness.

Sometimes when I stroll about the blogosphere I get severely turned off by ultra-partisan "liberals" spouting complete nonsense. Conservatives do the same, of course....I guess I don't find myself strolling about their internet neighborhoods though.

Anyhow....read Chris and Alan's article, it's good.

Commentary on commentary

Keep in mind, this is only one example of this kind of idiocy. Unfortunately, a lot of people get their "information" (opinion) from people like this. For those of you who don't know, Neil Boortz is a Rush Limbaugh-wannabe (sad). Apparently he and another author have written a very thoughtful book about tax reform that I hear good things about. I haven't read it yet, so I can't comment on that but that's not what this is about. This is about someone with a megaphone and a lot of loyal listeners (choir members) spouting stupidity about the recent IPCC report.

I neither have the time nor energy to deconstruct all of this...here's some of my favorite tidbits from his editorial titled "Why I Am Skeptical About Man-Made Global Warming"

A 21-page report from something called the "Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change" has been released today...in Paris, no less...and as expected, it's predictions are dire.

Sweet...right off the bat, we get some anti-French sentiment. Always a crowd-pleaser.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

The underlying motivation for being skeptical about this report is revealed in this introductory section of the editorial. It's not about science at all....it's about the anit-capitalist enviro-nazis...let's call them the ACENs. The ACENs have plotting to take over the world since the first Earth Day I think. This is key to understanding this point of view. By connecting "anti-capitalist" directly to the prefix "enviro" and then throwing in the evil noun "nazi" the stage is set.

He then goes into a bunch of bullet points that are weak, unsubstantiated, and have been torn down numerous times. But, remember, it doesn't matter because the connection between being "enviro", whatever that means, and anti-American has already been established. Let's look at a few of the points that actually mention climate science in some way or form (as fun as it is, we'll move away from the ACEN theories).

Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.

Hmmm....reference? Of course, an editorialist can't be bothered with citing. This claim, however, does not fall under opinion. To say something like this requires some backing. But, I will say this...at least he doesn't discredit the actual warming. There aren't many of those left. It's mostly about cause now.

It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?

The very same scientists. Who are they? He, of course, doesn't provide a list. He wants his followers to picture a small group that meet in undergound lairs (sensu Dr. Evil) plotting to take over the world. Here in reality, we know that this report is the summation of hundreds of scientists from around the world and across disciplines.

How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.

What an idiot. When the global average temperature was 5-6 degrees colder than now there was an ice sheet a mile thick sitting over my hometown in New York state

Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.

Please demonstrate the errors in this. Oh wait....all you have to do is assert that, I forgot. See this summary of the hockey stick graph debate.

Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.

Seek to punish. Seek to punish?

What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?

Oooh...juicy. Conspiracy. More here.

There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.

The great majority....what is that 70%? Reference? Of course not.

Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.

One of my favorite things people like this do is confuse the issue by constantly bringing up facts about the Earth's climatic fluctuations. What about rate of rise instead of magnitude, Mr. Boortz? If you look at the sea-level curves for the last 12,000 years you see the rate of rise slow until about 5,000-6,000 years ago. Since then the rate of rise is very small, hence we've been at a "stillstand" in sea level (see Lambeck & Chappel, 2001).

During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.

Another assertion with no reference.

Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?

I definitely want to know what scientist ever said they didn't want more data.....that's all we want! We can't get enough of it...give me a break.

There's a lot more of this kind of stuff in that particular editorial as well as out there on the airwaves, TV, and internet. The "great majority" of it is repetition of the same assertions that are, at best misconstrued and, at worst downright false. The fact that these assertions are seldom referenced by people like Boortz is because he knows by citing a particular study he is inviting rigorous scientific critique of his information (which has been done already). By doing this in an editorial fashion he doesn't have to reference and he continue preaching about the real message: that the anti-capitalist enviro-nazis (ACENs) are plotting to take over the world.


Lambeck, K., and J. Chappell, 2001, Sea level change through the last glacial cycle: Science, v. 292, p. 679-686.

The myth of the "opposing view"

"Condoms don't belong in school and neither does Al Gore."

I can't resist commenting on this article...even if no one reads it...and even though I should be working right now. Below are excerpts from the report (click on link above to see original) and then my snide remarks in this font.

After a parent who supports the teaching of creationism and opposes sex education complained about the film, the Federal Way School Board on Tuesday placed what it labeled a moratorium on showing the film. The movie consists largely of a computer presentation by former Vice President Al Gore recounting scientists' findings.

At least this reporter lays it out from the start the kind of person we are dealing with. I have to give them some credit for that.

"Condoms don't belong in school, and neither does Al Gore. He's not a schoolteacher," said Frosty Hardison, a parent of seven who also said that he believes the Earth is 14,000 years old. "The information that's being presented is a very cockeyed view of what the truth is. ... The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD."

Please re-read the last sentence again. That's right..."An Inconvenient Truth" does not sufficiently cover the details of the end times, which apparently gets even warmer. Hmmm....14,000 years old, what happened to 6,500 or whatever?

Hardison's e-mail to the School Board prompted board member David Larson to propose the moratorium Tuesday night.
"Somebody could say you're killing free speech, and my retort to them would be we're encouraging free speech," said Larson, a lawyer. "The beauty of our society is we allow debate."

What an absolute coward. What kind of school board member is swayed by someone who says that not including the details of the 'end times' in a documentary about climate change is cockeyed?

School Board members adopted a three-point policy that says teachers who want to show the movie must ensure that a "credible, legitimate opposing view will be presented," that they must get the OK of the principal and the superintendent, and that any teachers who have shown the film must now present an "opposing view."

Okay, here's where we start to get to the good stuff. Again...props to the reporter for putting "opposing view" in quotes. This is where the general public, or at the very least school board members, need to stop and think for a moment. I would like to know the details of the credible and legitimate opposing view. What exactly are they opposing? The fact that the climate is changing or that Al Gore made a movie. What am I missing here.

The requirement to represent another side follows district policy to represent both sides of a controversial issue, board President Ed Barney said.
"What is purported in this movie is, 'This is what is happening. Period. That is fact,' " Barney said.

Okay, I see...it's a controversial issue. What exactly is under controversy? In fact there is no controversy regarding the science. Yes, of course, there are numerous ongoing debates about the intricacies and workings of the climate system...but that would not change the foundation of this movie. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt...perhaps they are not saying that climate change itself is under question, but rather that human civilization is causing it.

Students should hear the perspective of global-warming skeptics and then make up their minds, he said. After they do, "if they think driving around in cars is going to kill us all, that's fine, that's their choice."

Again...what exactly is a 'global warming skeptic'? What are they skeptical about!?!? Why should students hear the opposing view? Should they start bringing in people that think the Earth is flat, or that the Earth is the center of the solar system, or that gravity does not exist? Oh wait...I think there's some opposing views about who killed JFK or who masterminded 9/11 circulating too...I wonder if this school board president would allow that. That last sentence is ridiculous...this is a school board president?

While the question of climate change has provoked intense argument in political circles in recent years, among scientists its basic tenets have become the subject of an increasingly stronger consensus.

Thank you (polite applause)

"In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations," states a 2001 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which advises policymakers. "Furthermore, it is very likely that the 20th-century warming has contributed significantly to the observed sea level rise, through thermal expansion of seawater and widespread loss of land ice."
The basics of that position are backed by the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences.

Last I knew, there were a few cockeyed scientists in those organizations (nearly 50,000 in AMS and AGU alone).

The incident started when Hardison (the end times guy from above) learned that his daughter would see the movie in class. He objected. Hardison and his wife, Gayla, said they would prefer that the movie not be shown at all in schools.
"From what I've seen (of the movie) and what my husband has expressed to me, if (the movie) is going to take the approach of 'bad America, bad America,' I don't think it should be shown at all," Gayle Hardison said. "If you're going to come in and just say America is creating the rotten ruin of the world, I don't think the video should be shown."

Bad America...sit America, sit...no, drop it....America!!
There we have it! It's not about science or policymaking at all with the parents that are the source of the complaint! It's about doing your patriotic duty and denying that America can do no wrong. So, I guess showing a movie with the opposing view would be.....Rocky IV!

The policy, titled "Controversial Issues, Teaching of," says in part, "It is the teacher's responsibility to present controversial issues that are free from prejudice and encourage students to form, hold and express their own opinions without personal prejudice or discrimination."
"The principal reason for that is to make sure that the public schools are not used for indoctrination," Larson said.

This is how they do it. The illusion of controversy...radio and TV talk show pundits spouting unfounded nonsense do not constitute a scientific debate. This is the myth of the opposing view. Otherwise, they would not be able to do this. It's the same with 'intelligent design' ... a subject for another time ... the proponents launched a massive campaign about opening children's minds to other viewpoints and "teaching the controversy". If you create a controversy, then you can teach it....perhaps they should have a class where they teach about teaching controversy and controversial that is.

Bottom line, Mr. Hardison -- this is a public school. Home-school your kids if you don't like it. You can teach them all the ridiculous things you like about the age of the Earth, the end times, etc.

The last comment below, however, offers some hope.

"I think that a movie like that is a really great way to open people's eyes up about what you can do and what you are doing to the planet and how that's going to affect the human race," said Kenna Patrick, a senior at Jefferson High School.

Gambling

www.caglecartoons.com

Why does it have to be water?

Okay, I know...another Mars post.
But, earlier today the news agencies picked up on a story about features seen on Mars that may have been formed by liquid water. The image at right is zoomed in on one of these deposits. The lighter-colored material is being interpreted as possibly the result of flowing water.

Why does water need to be involved at all? In fact, why does liquid need to be involved? Depending on the material that makes up this steep slope, it could simply be a gravity failure of loose, granular material that flowed and created this deposit. Sand dunes do this all the time. What is the gravity like on Mars compared to Earth anyway....how might loose, granular material behave?

My point is that water is not necessarily required to produce this feature.

What's worse is that once the words 'water' and 'Mars' are spoken in the same sentence, reporters and newspapers make giant leaps of inference and start talking about 'life on Mars'.

Granted, I haven't actually read the scientific report that is coming out....my guess is that the news is overstating what the authors may be implying in their work.

Those Founding Fathers ... dang, they were smart

Alright, the elections are over. The Democrats will have control over Congress. Will everything now be all peachy and wonderful? Of course not. There is still a lot of important things to take care of.

What is important is that now unchecked power will be checked. Checks and balances. Whether it be Republicans or Democrats...neither should control all branches of government for any lengthy period of time. Corruption will always result. This is the system our founding fathers envisioned. This is why we have mid-term elections in the first place.

The Republicans are gonna call the Dems "obstructionist" ... damn straight. If there is failed policy and plans to make more, then it should be obstructed. Hopefully both sides will practice what they are preaching this week and work together.

I agree with conservatives (at least this one)

This editorial from the magazine The American Conservative, called "The GOP Must Go", is one of the more succinct arguments against keeping one-party rule in the 109th Congress and how this election tomorrow really is a referendum on the executive branch.

Prominent conservative thinkers (with an emphasis on thinking ... not the Limbaugh, O'Reilly morons screaming nonsense to the masses) have important and relevatn things to say. This article is an example of that.

"On Nov. 7, the world will be watching as we go to the polls, seeking to ascertain whether the American people have the wisdom to try to correct a disastrous course. Posterity will note too if their collective decision is one that captured the attention of historians—that of a people voting, again and again, to endorse a leader taking a country in a catastrophic direction. The choice is in our hands."

Conservative, liberal, progressive, independent ... y'all should read it.

They work for us!

Imagine a company. The boss scolds her employee for doing a poor job. Pretty standard stuff...happens all the time. The employee performs poorly, they get told about it and, hopefully, they do a better job. I think everyone can agree that, in general, this is an effective way of communicating.

Now, what if the employee (the one who got scolded) turned around and had his boss arrested simply for telling him that he was doing a poor job. Hey man...just do your job, don't flip out.

You might have guessed where i'm going with this. The situation described above actually happened.

They work for us. They are our employees. If they are doing a crappy job, they should hear about it from us. They should hear about it from us now (before a law gets passed precluding us from doing what is our right). Find your employee here and tell them how they are doing.

Meanwhile...

Unfortunately, the story that should be discussed by everyone is getting buried by a waste-of-time, sordid, e-pedophile scandal.

Meanwhile, this last week we saw yet another small step toward the type of unitary executive power sought by those currently in power. As usual the bill that passed, the Detainee Bill is a misnomer, as it addresses issues far beyond detainees.

"In effect [the Detainee Bill] allows the president to identify enemies, imprison them indefinitely and interrogate them...beyond the reach of the full court reviews traditionally afforded criminal defendants and ordinary prisoners."

Yes, that includes American citizens that they deem as an 'unlawful combatant'. It doesn't matter how we define that, because it is up to the executive branch to decide who is and who is not an unlawful combatant. Awesome.

"Over all, the legislation reallocates power among the three branches of government, taking authority away from the judiciary and handing it to the president."

Some are calling this the death of habeas corpus, commonly attributed to the Magna Carta of 1215 (pictured above). Other constitutional law experts think this will be struck down by the Supreme Court in due time.

Here's the link for the quotes above.


"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty."
- John Adams, 1772

Breaking News!

I'm glad CNN is on this. Not a minute goes by that i'm not worried about a fringe celebrity and their matrimonial activities. Maybe this is why 40% of Americans still believe that Saddam Hussein orchestrated 9/11? Good job, media...keep it up!