Physics, the science of science, marches on. Not only has it cured aids, but it has also found a new element! I’ll be sure to talk to science about its recent discoveries if I get a chance.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/…
An open letter to the candidates
The following email was sent to the campaigns on April 18, 2008
Dear (campaign manager),
We understand Senator (Clinton, McCain or Obama) has been invited to attend a nationally televised conversation in Oregon about science and technology policy issues.
We are writing to strongly urge you to accept this invitation for the good of our nation and the planet, as well as your campaign.
This is not a science quiz; nobody cares if the candidates know scientific details or have memorized specifics, and such a forum should not take undue preparation. This is a serious policy discussion about the candidates’ vision for solving many of America’s most serious challenges, the majority of which revolve around issues of science and technology, and an opportunity for candidates to focus on big ideas and express their vision for how our country will remain innovative and competitive in the future. We understand the questions will be provided to you in advance.
The dates proposed for this event are either of May 2, May 9, or May 16, to be held at Portland State University in the midst of the Oregon mail-in primary. The format is entirely flexible. It could be a forum similar to the “Compassion Forum” the candidates recently held on faith issues, or a debate as originally proposed. But it is important that you attend. Science and technology present issues the American people care deeply about because they recognize their direct link to our country’s economic wellbeing, health, and the environment. Unfortunately, they have not gotten much attention so far in this campaign.
This proposal has the backing of PBS and three of the nation’s premier public television stations: WGBH in Boston, WNET in New York, and Oregon Public Broadcasting, and would be jointly sponsored by NOVA, NOW, the AAAS, the National Academies, the Council on Competitiveness, and Science Debate 2008. We believe PBS through its 350 member stations is an ideal platform since the network has tens of millions of viewers that are extremely interested in science, technology and their link to our nation’s future.
Sincerely,
Craig Barrett, Chairman, Intel; Chairman, National Academy of Engineering
David Baltimore, Chairman, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Past President, Caltech; Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1975
Peter Agre, Director, Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute, Bloomberg School of Public Health; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2003
Harold Varmus, President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; past director of the National Institutes of Health; Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1989
Richard Schrock, Frederick G. Keyes Professor Of Chemistry, M.I.T.; Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2005
David Gross, Director of the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, U.C. Santa Barbara; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
John Mather, Project Scientist, James Webb Space Telescope; Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People, 2007; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2006
David Politzer, The Tolman Professor of Theoretical Physics, CalTech; Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004
Leon Lederman, Past Director, FermiLab; Pritzker Professor of Science, Illinois Institute of Technology; Nobel Prize in Physics, 1988
Carter Roberts, President & CEO, World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
and the blackout continues…
The most recent political book I’ve read is Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture on loan from Blog of Bile’s very own xyz. It is a collection of short essays in the field of anthropology and sociology. Each essay attempts to shatter preconceived notions and explain in greater detail human actions which the author has deemed befuddling. Amongst the topics discussed are cows as sacred animals, pig lovers and haters, primitive warfare, the idea of an aggressive male, extreme consumption and extreme donation, cargo cults, a history of messiahs, the violent origins of Christianity, early witchcraft and witch trials, and the contemporary resurgence of disdain for objectivity.
The book is a relatively easy and quick read, only slowing down at the end where the author feels it necessary to defend himself from the hordes of sandal-wearing druggies that are going to attack him. The author is selling his theories as to why certain anomalies in culture exist. Unfortunately due to the imperfect nature of his science the results are quite subjective. Despite Mr. Harris’ ardent pleas for objectivity at the end of the book I find some of his explanations to be lacking in sufficient evidence to support his claims of causation.
On a positive note, he does an excellent job of introducing the history surrounding these topics. There is a lot of good information in the book, mostly revolving around things that are not easily disputed such as recorded history. This book is an excellent catalyst for debate.
Rather than go through each topic, here are some of the highlights that stick in my mind:
Here are some problems I had with the book:
Biologist Karen Krebbs used to study bats in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument on the Arizona-Mexico border. Then, she got tired of dodging drug smugglers all night.
“I use night-vision goggles, and you could see them very clearly” - caravans of men with guns and huge backpacks full of drugs, trudging through the desert, Krebbs said. After her 10th or 11th time hiding in bushes and behind rocks, she abandoned her research.
“I’m just not willing to risk my neck anymore,” she said.
Across the southwestern U.S. border and in northern Mexico, scientists such as Krebbs say their work is increasingly threatened by smugglers as tighter border security pushes trafficking into the most remote areas where botanists, zoologists and geologists do their research.
“In the last year, it’s gotten much worse,” said Jack Childs, who uses infrared cameras to study endangered jaguars in eastern Arizona. He loses one or two of the cameras every month to smugglers.
Scientists, especially those working on the Mexican side of the border, have long shared the wilderness with marijuana growers and immigrants trying to enter the United States illegally. But tension is rising because of crackdowns on smugglers by the Mexican military, increased vigilance in the Caribbean Sea, new border fences, air patrols, a buildup of U.S. Border Patrol agents and a turf war between cartels.
Drug use is a medial issue and a friends and family issue. You can only legislate very casual usage of things away. Those who really wish to get a hold of something will and by prohibiting it you only raise the stakes you don’t stop the game. Because you throw barriers up you get runoff in unexpected places like biologist being threatened for being in the smuggling lane. This war on drugs is a war on the citizens. It will never stop and will only continue to fill the prisons with non-violent individuals and ruin lives.
If a scientific paper appeared in a major journal saying that the planet has warmed twice as much as previously thought, that would be front-page news in every major paper around the planet. But what would happen if a paper was published demonstrating that the planet may have warmed up only half as much as previously thought?
Nothing. Earlier this month, Ross McKitrick from Canada’s University of Guelph and I published a manuscript in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres saying precisely that.Where was the press? A Google search reveals that with the exception of a few blog citations, the only major story ran in Canada’s Financial Post.
There are several reasons why the press provides so little coverage to science indicating that global warming isn’t the end of the world. One has to do with bias in the scientific literature itself. Theoretically, assuming unbiased climate research, every new finding should have an equal probability of indicating that things are going to be more or less warm, or worse-than-we-thought vs. not-so-bad.
But, when someone finds that there’s only half as much warming as we thought, and the story is completely ignored, what does this say about the nature of the coverage itself? Somehow, you’d think that would have been newsworthy.
And yet some people honestly believe that people like myself who question the popular opinion are out of line? That there isn’t some weird mob rule thing going on at best and a cover for pushing a socialist platform at worst. This is what’s wrong with the scientific method. Humans.
For those who would like to attack Mr. Michaels you can start here for your ammo. I would like to ask however that for whoever you decide to quote please include all funds, private and public, which they receive to do their research. To claim that the government funding these pro-global warming scientists is somehow less bias than any private firm seems laughable to me given the amount of corporatism and special interest money we have their.
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007.
Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated.
“Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote.
I’m a skeptic of everything… especially of those things which “everyone agrees” on. It has always bother me that the counter evidence and research in regard to global warming or global weather change or whatever they like to call it has been not only ignored but often hostilely dismissed and ridiculed. There has been this whole culture that was created around “global warming denial.” You show an ounce of skepticism about the whole thing and people jump down your throat. People seem to willfully ignore the data and refuse to hear it. They believe the headlines and Al Gore and not the meat of the research. They fail to understand the impracticality and dangers of knee jerk reactions to the supposed issue.
What really drives me nuts however are those who don’t want to make any sacrifices for what they believe to be for the benefit of the planet unless the government forces them to do so. Like that guy I fought with in a local Thai resturant who wanted people to stop driving gas guzzlers but wouldn’t get rid of his SUV until the government mandated it because it wasn’t fair otherwise. Or replace his incandescent bulbs because he preferred the light they gave off.
Well he will probably get his wish. The Congress passed and Bush signed a new energy bill with aims to counter global climate change. It’s all kinds of bad but the worst are the phasing out of incandescent bulbs and ethanol subsidy increases. The ethanol increases will push up the cost of food, cost tax payers more in taxes or future tax payers in loans, and ethanol actually gets less miles per gallon and some say pollutes more in some ways than gasoline so the mandatory increase in gas millage will be that much difficult.
 |
|
|
|
