Providing Data for a world that makes decisions based on beer can labels
Reimagined and Revamped. Fighting the spread of nonsense often feels like a Sisyphean task. However, the joy is in making the information available, not the hope of conversion.
I'm not sure my writing has improved since I started blogging. I hope so. I hope today that I can write eloquent enough and with the same zest and enthusiasm that I actually feel for the subject. Today I am writing about how amazing people are.
Some people are perhaps more simple than I am and only require a single target for what they are thankful for. Its so much easier to point your gratefulness at one thing than to spread it around effectively. Today I hope to spread it around effectively, even though none, save one, of these things have happened to me.
Some people may get into an airplane crash and survive...and thank god. If I survived a plane crash, I would thank aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, members of the national transportation safety board, who have literally worked decades to make air safety as incredible as it is. But it isn't just these folks is it? They have people who are directly helping them, with leadership, with amenities like food and health, they have people writing software and building computer hardware to help them do their job better and more effectively. They have installed programs to produce better quality parts, test subcomponents and get a great understanding of failure modes and create maintenance schedules. There is another layer, people who educated these people, people who raised the engineers and leaders and food service people. Then there is even a further layer, people who opened up the fields they work in, the Wright Brothers, Newton, Moore. The reason those people survived that plane crash is because thousands of people have put in millions of man hours to make planes as good and safe as they are now.
Some people survive a car accident.... and thank god If I got into a car accident and survived I would thank the engineers and safety experts that designed the car. I'd thank the quality control experts that check that all the part going into the car meet the correct specifications. I would thank the vendors to the car manufacturers for making sure that their parts meet specs before they ship them. I would thank the safety experts at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for testing that cars and challenging car companies to creating better and safer cars. I would thank various political administrations for creating these safety bodies and enforce their recommendations. But then I would also thank the software engineers that developed the FEA software that allows engineers to create thousands of hours of simulations to get the right design for parts that meet stringent safety standards while trimming costs and weight. But there are more people to thank. For example the scientists the derived the laws by which the simulations could be done and the calculations and rules by which the engineers follow. There are the parents and educators that brought these engineers, scientists, safety experts, technical support and health and liveliness to the people who make cars safer and more robust every year. The reason those people survive a car crash is because thousands of people have put in millions of man hours to make planes as good and safe as they are now.
If I required surgery and lived though it without major impairment (or even with major impairment) I would first thank the EMTs who were trained and got me to the hospital. I would thank the incredible surgeons who fixed me in my time of great peril. I would thank the hospital staff and donors for making a facility that allows this incredible work to go on, work that has had tremendous effects on our lifespan. I would thank the medical pioneers who and the people who agreed to be test subject to advance medicine to a point where we can stop and start a heart, and replace it. We can fix problems in the brain due to millenia of trial and error. I would thank the medical institutions that teach new doctors to not only learn the tried and true methods but teaches them to be creative and improve on them and notice when something is wrong. I would thank Doctors who propose hypothesis that are not well accepted and then back up their claims with so much evidence that concensus must change. I would thank the parents and educators of these doctors and technician and administrators. I would thank the politicians who require oversight of healthcare workers. The reason those people survive dramatic surgery and disease is because thousands of people have put in millions of man hours to make surgery as good and safe as they are now.
People thank God for all sorts of things. They thank God for not being in an earthquake or typhoon that thousands of other people died in or are suffering from. They thank god for their children, for their opportunities and even their suffering. But its all people who are involved on both ends of all of these instances. Our love for each other, our desire to help each other our quest for understanding of the things around us, our awe and respect for powerful forces. Its all people.
I even find myself using the term "Thank God". Clearly for me its just a useful phrase that is meant to thank all the things I have mentioned. So I want to propose a new term, something that encompasses the unbelievable contributions man has made to allow us to be as capable, as magnificent, and as awe inspiring we are.
It has to be short. It has to roll off the tongue. It has to imply the contributions to the amazing event that billions of people for thousands of years have contributed to. So here we go, tell me if you like it.
Back in April (man I have a lot of posts backlogged!) I read this article in the Wall Street Journal Online. Its by Patrick Michaels, a member of the Cato Institute. I have not really paid much attention to what they put out. I am also not against libertarian ideology as long as it is data oriented and not faith based like so much of politics these days. However, Mr. Micheals opinion truly does not seem very valuable as he blunders through many red herrings, strawmen and causation/correlation fallacies.
Lets take this slowly.
President George W. Bush has just announced his goal to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions by 2025. To get there, he proposes new fuel-economy standards for autos, and lower emissions from power plants built in the next 10 to 15 years.
OK, so this is about Global Warming.
Pending legislation in the Senate from Joe Lieberman and John Warner would cut emissions even further – by 66% by 2050. No one has a clue how to do this. Because there is no substitute technology to achieve these massive reductions, we'll just have to get by with less energy.
Three problems here. First off, we know many ways to achieve these new standards, we have for years, and we haven't really bothered to try to push ourselves. Second, taking on a challenge rarely means that you know how to accomplish it. When we decided to go to the moon, was the answer obvious? Does this mean that if you were in charge we wouldn't take on challenges that we do not yet know the answer for? Shall we not try to cure AIDS or Cancer? Should we try not to extend lifespans? decrease poverty?
But what is really wrong with that paragraph (and we just started) is that developing (as Gore promoted back in 2000 when we voted for the Oil Candidate) new and renewable energy sources will make is so that we don't have to use less energy. If we do it right, and are successful,we could use more!
Compared to a year ago, gasoline consumption has dropped only 0.5% at current prices. So imagine how expensive it would be to reduce overall emissions by 66%.
Ahhh. An argument from incredulity. Wonderful tactics. You are really on your game there Mr. Micheals. He then goes into a short diatribe about how 0.31 degrees per decade rise isn't really anything to worry about, its "paltry". Then:
For years, records from surface thermometers showed a global warming trend beginning in the late 1970s. But temperatures sensed by satellites and weather balloons displayed no concurrent warming.
As I have mentioned before, why arent you aware of corrections made in satellite imaging or that there is a difference between expected stratosphere and troposphere temperature changes? (stratosphere is and is supposed to actually cool).
These records have been revised a number of times, and I examined the two major revisions of these three records....The two revisions of the IPCC surface record each successively lowered temperatures in the 1950s and the 1960s. The result? Obviously more warming – from largely the same data.
Does someone not understand how science works? Folks, if everything stays the same, its dogma. You get dogma in astrology, homeopathy and religion. Science on the other hand, accepts change with new data. Recently I found this article. Scientists accept observation and try very hard to explain inconsistencies. So when satellite data doesn't match expectations you have to check both the model used and the data acquisition devices. Same goes for each and every blip.
He then goes into other places where sensing systems were filtered out of the data due to high variance or poor performance (where he divuldges that he does in fact know about the warming satellite errors) and ends with this exclaimation
There have been six major revisions in the warming figures in recent years, all in the same direction.
Want to hear something worse Mr. Michaels? Even with all of this upward revisions, we are still too conservative in our predictions of temperature rise. Now I realize he is trying to suggest conspiracy, that the data is being massaged to match the prediction. But there are no reports of the satellites being uncalibrated. Plus he is simply dead wrong about the data always being massaged upwards. Here is another like minded conspiracy theorist. This data was combined and the average temperature data was adjusted lower, by the .01 degrees that it imposed (0.15C for the US alone).
The fact is its great that these folks are finding errors and inconsistencies. All in all this makes the global warming data stronger and stronger. In fact Mr. Michaels seems to fall for every mistaken assumption listed here. Many of his complaints have been addressed ad nauseum, like here.
He then goes into talking about the poor data from africa and the temperature monitoring stations there. He rightly points out that these stations may experience heightened decay. Then he jumps to this:
After adjusting for such effects, as much as half of the warming in the U.N.'s land-based record vanishes. Because about 70% of earth's surface is water, this could mean a reduction of as much as 15% in the global warming trend.
What? Adjusting how? where did you mention how many stations the UN had relative to all the station being used? What calculation was done to get the 15%?
The frequency of very warm months is lowered, to the point at which it matches the satellite data, which show fewer very hot months.
Wait didnt you just imply that the satellite data was massaged to meet the AGW theory? And your data matches the satellite data? Great! So your data also matches up with the AGW theory.
and then the whine...
At any rate, our findings have not been incorporated into the IPCC's history, and they probably never will be.
but alas, he must have already knew that his points were addressed 5 months earlier. Instead of actually modifying his discourse to include these criticisms he just repeated them to an audience that probably has not read the rebuttal. Sneaky.
He then goes into discussing Greenland. As most people know, the idea of losing both the land based ice in the antarctic along with greenland ice loss is alarming. I don't think that is disputed, what is disputed is whether or not that will happen. No one is predicting Noah's Flood like the 'skeptic's' like to imply. But any sea level rise is bound to cause suffering because much of the worlds population is based near the ocean.
He then talks about "warming island" and mentions that Greenland has seen its coldest period since the 19th century during the time from 1970 to 1995. I can't understand the point he is trying to make. Fine if we accept this, then it is warmer now in the last decade then during that period, so ice is now receding. Further, no one says that rising average temperatures doesn't allow for colder localities. so, I have no idea what his point is there. The worry is that as global temperatures rise, then this ice may get lost. He does nothing to dispute this claim.
The mechanism for the Greenland disaster is that summer warming creates rivers, called moulins, that descend into the ice cap, lubricating a rapid collapse and raising sea levels by 20 feet in the next 90 years. In Al Gore's book, "An Inconvenient Truth," there's a wonderful picture of a moulin on page 193, with the text stating "These photographs from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes now happening on the ice there."
Really? There's a photograph in the journal "Arctic," published in 1953 by R.H. Katz, captioned "River disappearing in 40-foot deep gorge," on Greenland's Adolf Hoels Glacier. It's all there in the open literature, but apparently that's too inconvenient to bring up. Greenland didn't shed its ice then. There was no acceleration of the rise in sea level.
First off, I can't find that picture anywhere on the internet. You'd think the Cato institute would post it for reference. Second, no one said that a single river will drain greenland of all its ice, its a multitude of the rivers, and increasing number or size of them that we are expecting. They were showing the mechanism by which the ice could leave. Explaining that there was a single river on Greenland when it was warm 50 years ago hardly qualifies as contradictory evidence.
Finally, no one seems to want to discuss that for millennia after the end of the last ice age, the Eurasian arctic was several degrees warmer in summer (when ice melts) than it is now. We know this because trees are buried in areas that are now too cold to support them. Back then, the forest extended all the way to the Arctic Ocean, which is now completely surrounded by tundra. If it was warmer for such a long period, why didn't Greenland shed its ice?
Really? no one (2002)? Why does he mention two separate localities (greenland and eurasia) as if the must be related, I'm not saying they aren't, I am not a climatologist. But is it abundantly clear that the Eurasian ice did in fact melt. So what is he trying to say?
This prompts the ultimate question: Why is the news on global warming always bad?
First off: Itisn't (hey, I haven't seen ozone hole good news in a while either!), this is a strawman. Second: Global warming is a bad thing. You know this. If the measured effect of the bad thing gets worse (as it does) you expect to see more of the effects of the bad thing itself. What he is asking is like asking: Why the death rate is rising when violent crime is rising?...its an expected result!
But as we face the threat of massive energy taxes – raised by perceptions of increasing rates of warming and the sudden loss of Greenland's ice – we should be talking about reality.
And the AGW skeptics call us alarmists! Mr. Micheals pretty much compiles every GW denier fallacy into one article. Here they are:
Confuse long term data with short term data
Confuse Global measurements with local measurements
Raise the scary spectre of lowered economy (despite the fact that leading in renewables would make our economy stronger)
Ignore recent data (or focus only on short term extremely recent data)
Ignore scientific mechanism of error correction (which he is perhaps unknowingly participating in)
Rely on anecdotal evidence (like I have a picture of a river from 1953!, its very similar to "Wow its freezing this year in Pensacola FL, GW must be wrong!)
ooh, Im sure there is more, but I am getting tired!
As I have mentioned before, I really like video games (I just recently turned 40 if you are interested). I don't play sports games, I hate Mario Bros. type games, I dont even like first person shooters (even though the graphics in those games tend to be spectacular). I enjoy Real Time Strategy games (currently I am playing Warhammer Mark of Chaos), RPG (like the Witcher), and MMORPG games (World of Warcraft). Our baby helped wean me off of a serious World of Warcraft addiction to the point where I only have some slight yearnings to return.
You see, these games create alternate worlds that you can explore, run around in, and meet with real live people (in the case of MMOs) and create stories in. Its like the feeling I got when I read Lord of the Rings or The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Reading those books took me there, to a magical land. These games to the same thing, but they really take me there!
Anyway, I mention this because I am eagerly awaiting a game called Spore. It just looks like it will be a great game to play. It looks like it combines many of the elements of all these genres that I loke (except the social aspect of MMOs). But the hype for it is driving me nutz! Look at the description:
An epic journey that takes you from the origin and evolution of life through the development of civilization and technology and eventually all the way into the deepest reaches of outer space.
Wait a second. There is a character editor that you can even buy separately! This is not evolution in anyway. This is Intelligent Design. Go ahead, google spore and the media following it, you will see the word evolution everywhere.
I'm not sure who to score one for, science or The pathetic Discovery Institute. It would seem that the DI wins this because the movie at the site starts out with a title screen that says "The science behind spore" and its an intelligent design game. At the same time, there ARE other dynamics in the game that are interesting and certainly there are a lot of sociological, physical, chemical and even biological models employed in the programming to help bring realism to the game.
That said, I still think that the DI can claim a small victory here. Weep.
I'm sorry folks. I have been away from writing because my computer has been down and a whole bunch of other events have prevented me from getting back in my blogging shoes.
Just saw this little list and had to make a snarky comment:
A friend of mine just had a baby. She is currently feeling all the awe, wonder, fulfilment, happiness, nervousness, and fallibility that goes along with having your first child. I experienced the very same thing. Its an incredible wonderful set of emotions that you have with a new child.
We got to talking about many subjects including diapers, baby poop, breast milk, and of course vaccinations. If you have read my blog before you probably know I am pretty consumed with assertions that require evidence. Its why I think "ancient chinese medicine" is nonsense, and claims from companies about their products, or God. If you make a claim, you should be prepared to back it up.
Granted I fully understand two things about the human species. First, we crave answers to our questions. Why did my son die? Why did my mother get cancer? Why did that bad person do something horrible to my friend? Many poeple are inclined to beleive in god's needs or challenges, but if you are not you may be prone to pseudoscientific answers from clods who look to gain from selling nonsense either to you directly or to news outlets, or as legal fees.
Second big thing is that no one likes to be wrong. So what happens when no evidence can be found to back up a claim, or worse, conflicting evidence arises (we will see both shortly), well you move goal posts and claim victory. Or you pull out anecdotal evidence. Or you claim conspiracy theories. All of these tactics are employed by people selling nonsense from the antivaccinationists to water dowsers, to astrologists, homeopaths and so forth.
I am no expert in immunology (and neither are most of the mercury militua) but I am pretty good at reviewing information and seeing weak arguments when they are made. This is the only sort of expertise I can offer with regard to my opinions about vaccines. There is a whole field of debunkings possible and I wont do everything in one post. At the end I will provide some links to other folks who have done a great job of tearing apart the claims of the mercury militia.
So lets get started: Claim: Mercury in Thimerisol causes autism Evidence: We have been vaccinating more people and the rate of autism has been rising. Debunking:Here is a study that tries to make this very claim. But that data in the study conflicts with its own conclusions. It shows the rise in autism rates, but sadly for him, and David Kirby the head of the mercury militia, thimerisol is no longer added to vaccines in the US as of late 2002. Its now 2008 and the rates continue to rise in california, and in the entire US, without even a blip in the rate when the thimerisol was removed.
If you take out the thing they claimed to be causing autism and the rates continue to rise, then it wasnt that thing.
Claim: Mercury is a toxic substance that should not be put into the body. Evidence:Heavy metal poisoning is real. Debunk: It sure is, but that is irrelevant. Look, sodium is an explosive metal, chlorine is a deadly gas, but that doesnt mean that salt will kill you. Thimerisol is a very good preservative. It forms ethylmercury, which does not bioaccumulate. It is easily confused with methylmercury, a different compound, that does bioaccumulate and is very poisonous.
Claim: chelating my kids makes them better. Evidence: Kids seem to improve while getting chelation therapy. Debunk:Chelation (kee-lay-shun), is a process of giving some chemicals to people to help remove heavy metals. This is pretty well debunked here. Basically we are at a place where the claim of the efficacy of the therapy has no evidence to support it, never mind deaths caused by it. But what about the fact that many parents think their kids got better from it? This is a form of confirmation bias. No parent of an autistic child chelates their kid and does nothing else. Most will do everything they think is possible in order to 'cure' their child. So they will use hyperbaric chambers, they will remove casein from their diet, they will try all sorts of stuff, including therapy of various forms. But if the kids get better, then they point to the 'alternative' method rather than point ot the fact the some kids just get better with therapy. Now we have good organizations, such as the CDC and NIH who are taking notes, they are grouping kids that have parents that are submitting their children to all these things, and they have groups of kids of parent who are just using therapy for the most part. Guess what....the improvement of symptoms is virtually the same in severity and in rates.
Double blind tests are difficult to do and expensive, but anyone claiming to have a cure, must go through this process to verify this. Here is a good synopsis of what has truly been studies and what has not. It is a disconcerting to see how far away we are from a treatment. But just because there isn't a proven treatment, that doesnt mean that some unprovent treatment with no basis for working is the answer either.
Claim: the rate of autism is increasing it must be something we are doing to our population. Evidence: The rate of autism is now 1 in 150, with some estimates even higher Debunk: Yes its true, but that certainly doesnt mean that it is vaccines. It could be flash photography. More importantly one must understand the extent of the spectrum of disorders. On the most mild side, there are perfectly capable members of society who may be a little weird, who may not look you in the eye who are now considered to have autism that were not before. These folks are added to the statistics of people with autism.
further, there has been changes in diagnoses. There are many poeple who, 20 years ago, were diagnosed with mental retardation, or a developmental language disorder, who are now recognized as autistic. This is known as diagnostic substitution.
Claim: People who don't have vaccines don't get autism Evidence: ? Debunk:The amish vaccinate. The amish get autism, albeit at a lower rate. If they are getting vaccinated and have a lower rate of autism, can we now say that its not the vaccinations? Again, maybe its flash photography or fluorescent lights? Can I start a new theory?
Claim: Kids get autism when they receive their 18 month MMR shot Evidence: Kids spike to a fever, then get autistic symptoms. Debunk: In the past diagnosis was not possible before age 3 or 4, then diagnosis became possible at 18 months. Some claim to be able to detect itas early as 6 months now. So once again, while the shot may cause some immunological response, its more likely the autism was there first.
There are a ton of other causation questions that make no sense from the mercury militia. As the data comes in that its not mercury they move the goal posts and focus on something else, or they change their definition of autism. Im not going to go into every iota of it here. There just isnt space. These reasons were enough for me.
Each of them will provide good clearheaded articles on autism and links to many more sites. I hope this was helpful. I hope it has alleviated some fears for my friend. I shared all those fears also when I had my daughter, believe me! We all want answers to this puzzle. Its likely there is a genetic factors plus some environmental one. Do you have autism in your family? If not I wouldnt worry about this too much.
It was a real doozy today on NPR. First, they profile a young womanbeing an 'intellectual rebel' by her quest to fall for every bit of conspiracy theory there is about Global warming. And yeah, I think its great that she is challenging those around her, yeah I think teachers (and news!) should understand the concepts well enough to be able to defend against this sort of stuff and I also think if she thinks something contrarian she should question those around her. Skepticism is great, denialism....not so good.
This may be incredibly cynical of me, but this looks like a ploy to raise money for college for her. Not that this is a bad thing....
75% of all contributions will be depositied in an irrevocable trust specifically for Kristen Byrnes... Kristen Byrnes Science Foundation may use no more than 25% of contributed funds
Well at least she doesn't plan on buying drugs and beer with it. Hey, if she can get some people to give her money for being snarky, I'm all for it. It sure pays better than anything I am getting from google ads.
Anyway, shortly after this NPR descended into a dire chasm of woo. They had a short piece on the utter nonsense of Zero Balancing. Get this, the practitioner thought acupuncture was too clinical. The entire episode was so filled with every cliche and metaphor that we hear from woo meisters it was ridiculous.
Zero Balancing (ZB) is a hands-on bodywork system designed to align your energy body with your physical structure. Simple yet powerful, it focuses on your whole person, even when addressing specific needs. Considered at the leading edge of body/mind therapies, ZB moves beyond Western scientific approaches to body structure by incorporating Eastern concepts of energy and healing What this does is enable a practitioner to work simultaneously with your structural and energy bodies to bring balance.
What energy? Mechanical? Electrical? Acoustic? electromagnetic? What wavelength? How do you know anything about any energy if you have no way to measure it. What structure? Muscular system? Ligaments? Skeletal? The building foundation? Here is how it is performed.
How Is ZB Performed?
Zero Balancing process generally takes between 30 and 40 minutes and is performed with you fully clothed. Sessions begin with you in a seated position, moving from there to a comfortable reclining position on your back. Using touch, the ZB practitioner evaluates your energy fields and energy flow in these two positions and balances the structures as needed. He or she may focus on body, mind, spirit, or all three, depending on where the fields are disturbed or the energy is blocked. Throughout the Zero Balancing session, attention is given to the skeleton in particular because it contains the deepest and strongest currents.
Let me get this straight. You take a patient, you seat them comfortably and then let them relax lying down. You play some nice music. You talk to them and touch them here and there? Sounds like study I recently read about at Oracs and at Science Based Medicine. In other words, ZB is yet another word for PLACEBO.
It was so disappointing to hear a really lame representation of a skeptics side. I don't have the transcript (yet), but the commentator Susan Barnett (that is part two, this was in part 3 of her flab to fit series) said something like this.
Skeptics don't believe in ZB because you can't see the energy they are talking about. ZB enthusiast say that you may not be able to see the energy, but you can see its effects, like gravity.
How utterly idiotic! Its NPR's responsibility to see through this nonsense and report the actual arguments, not strawmen. ZB is placebo. That analogy is false because we can measure gravity. What measurement, besides placebo effects, can you see from this ZB stuff? Anecdotal cures? Repeat customers? Just like every other brand of woo. It was a real shame to listen to this. You know that Woo Medicine is going to be the next bingo game I make.
The part that really got to me is that I do listen to WAMC a lot (its our local NPR outlet). They have some really great programming. Its too bad they have to deal out this sort of crap. It sure wasn't the first time.
However, at the end of the day, WAMC redeemed themselves. I'll quote it here:
Stephen E. Gottlieb
April 15, 2008: Manslaughter?
Are our public officials, the ones we put in office, responsible for what they do?
The usual rule for you and me is that we are responsible to act reasonably and if we don't, we are responsible for the damage we cause. We call the failure to act reasonably negligence. It's the rule for everything from car accidents to corporate misbehavior.
When behavior gets particularly bad and results in death, we call it manslaughter. Here is a definition used in the District of Columbia, though it is typical of most jurisdictions:
The essential elements of involuntary manslaughter, each of which the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, are: 1. That the defendant caused the death of the decedent; 2. That the conduct which caused the death was a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care; and 3. That the conduct which caused the death created an extreme risk of death or serious bodily injury."
Let's examine a few facts:
George Tenet told the president there was no connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq until he was pressured to change his story. He told the Congress that the CIA never did an NIE, a National Intelligence Estimate, on Iraq, before we invaded. In fact no one wanted one because it would have aired the doubts, criticisms and contradictions that had surfaced.
The Administration accepted the word of a captive about the Iraqi-al Qaeda connection even though the man he said had met with Iraqis had actually been in the hands of the FBI in Florida at the time.
Before the invasion, the State Department was trying to figure out what would be necessary to secure the peace. The rest of the Administration was uninterested. In fact, the President wouldn't meet with the Secretary of State unless the National Security Advisor arranged the meeting. The top staff of the Army told the Administration before the invasion that it was not providing the force needed to secure the peace.
Everyone except the Administration knew that invading Iraq was far worse than a can of worms. But some in the Administration decided that no information could be relied on, so no reliable information was necessary.
So the Administration set in motion the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, tied our military down, crumpled our reserves, crippled the officer corps, neglected to take care of the veterans and mortgaged our future to the Chinese.
So was the carelessness of the Administration or anyone in it negligence? Manslaughter? You decide.
Steve Gottlieb is the Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor of Law at Albany Law School and author of Morality Imposed: The Rehnquist Court and Liberty in America. He is also a member of the Board of the New York Civil Liberties Union and served in the US Peace Corps in Iran.
And I couldn't agree more. I would have added that this is what happens when you choose to make decisions that are not based on data and evidence. In fact its worse. It's making decisions and executing actions contrary to available data.
Well, I just finished a little project I have been working on for everyone. It kind of an experiment. After seeing Skeptico's bingo boards for psychics and ID debunking, I found myself really liking the idea of people playing bingo during presentations or movies or shows relating to this sort of nonsense.
The big drawback of his bingo games was that there wasn't a good set of descriptive texts that described why each box was ridiculous or woo. In his psychic one, he did explain it out, but it wasn't convenient format. Further it was not easily distributable. There was no good way to hand out bingo cards to a bunch of people, with the descriptive text. They were great blog entries, but I was hoping for something slightly more useful.
So, I made a program to do it. If this works out (i.e. people use it) I will make more bingo games for other areas where the level of discourse truly needs to advance further. I posted it at my new site. Please feel free to browse around, but you should know, only Creationist ID bingo is there (well there is a sample animals one there too for the kiddies). As time goes on, I'll put up more bingo games (I could use help, they are very time consuming to make, even with resources available like TalkOrigins).
You can go to the products page and download the bingo game, but also go to the topical bingo page to download the game files. Later I will introduce more bingo games. So far, everything is free, but I would appreciate token donations, any significant money that is generated will go to charity.
The software allows you to print out booklets with randomized cards on the front page. Or, you can just print out randomized cards. This way you can distribute them before dumb movies, or any presentation that a creationist may give. At least let them know, and the others around you (especially the blind followers) know that this has already been argued and debunked ad nauseum, by yelling out, good and loud "BINGO!" when you win.
Anyway, I hope you have fun with this. I hope someone uses it. I hope it helps to advance the discussion forward, even to a small degree. But I guess we will see.
Note: You need the .net framework to run the software. If you have vista you should be OK.
His results were impressive (particularly after a mention on PZ's site!). He raised thousands of dollars for her to be able to put UV filters on her windows so she could actually leave her room and live in her house.
Recently, and simultaneously, a group in Wyoming who I have been involved with, decided they needed help. The groups name is Stop Drilling - Save the Bridger-Teton National forest. They are a grassroots effort to try to prevent the oil and gas industry from digging up the BT national forest.
If you have ever been to this part of Wyoming, you know it is oneof themost spectacular areas we have in the United States. There are pictures all over the web of this area of the country. To think that we continue to dig up our world for fuel that will continue to hurt our climate is just the height of stupidity.
What do Berlzebub's efforts have to do with gas drilling? Well, his donation tool led me to this web application, sproutbuilder, which I have not seen before. It looked like a very flexible and powerful tool. So I made a sprout.
This is an introduction to the problem. SDSBT's website has far more information. Please join me in helping with their efforts. As you can imagine its a HUGE battle stacked heavily against them. Please donate and seed the sprout to spread the word.
I was listening to the radio today. Turns out one of the most ludicrous religious groups we have, the Southern Baptists are doing something good. They are finally starting to get on the ball with climate change. Perhaps I should say some of the Southern Baptists are getting on board. OK, Kudos to you guys for actually trying to rouse your own members to do something constructive, even if its for ridiculous reasons (you know like SkyDaddy gave you a planet, you better take care of it).
I dont care if Stephen Pinker writes off our actions towards global warming as simply moralizing an issue. The fact of the matter is that there is tons of data there to support the theory, and lots of conflicting data to prevent other theories from coming into play. I first wrote about it here and wont rehash global warming in this post.
One their declaration page, they discuss why members should pay attention and act towards climate change. After a bunch of bible stuff they come to this:
We have recently engaged in study, reflection and prayer related to the challenges presented by environmental and climate change issues. These things have not always been treated with pressing concern as major issues. Indeed, some of us have required considerable convincing before becoming persuaded that these are real problems that deserve our attention. But now we have seen and heard enough to be persuaded that these issues are among the current era’s challenges that require a unified moral voice.
By "seen and heard enough to be persuaded" you mean "Science has provided you with enough data to be persuaded", don't you. Certainly God didn't tell you, did he? Was there something in the Bible about CO2 concentrations? Was there a letter from one of the disciples about greenhouse gasses? The only way you got 'enough' was from scientific observation, hypothesis generation and verification. This is the scientific method, in short, that you rail against in virtually every other aspect of our civilization.
There are four statements by which these folks support their responsibility towards caring for the earth. It is almost comical (if it weren't so sad) that these are required in order to convince their own members to start cleaning up after themselves and live in a way that doesnt increase suffering around the world.
The first statement is pretty much just fluff. It just goes along with the normal "God said it, I beleive it" sort of stuff, then they quote mine the bible to support the idea that the God followers have to care for an protect the planet.
The second statement has some fun stuff in it.
We recognize that we do not have any special revelation to guide us about whether global warming is occurring and, if it is occurring, whether people are causing it. We are looking at the same evidence unfolding over time that other people are seeing.
Once again, it is made clear that none of this effort is from some communication from God. The only 'evidence unfolding' is that from scientists and scientific observation.
We recognize that if consensus means unanimity, there is not a consensus regarding the anthropogenic nature of climate change or the severity of the problem. There is general agreement among those engaged with this issue in the scientific community. A minority of sincere and respected scientists offer alternate causes for global climate change other than deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
If consensus means unanimity, then we dont know anything. There is not one subject considered by man that has a unanimous consensus, there are always a few wackjobs out there. This includes interpretations of the bible, which has no consensus. So once again, points for correctness on how to recognize consensus and how consensus supported by evidence is not a bad thing.
Then, ping! Out to left field!
Unlike abortion and respect for the biblical definition of marriage, this is an issue where Christians may find themselves in justified disagreement about both the problem and its solutions.
There are no christians who support a womens right to choose? There are no christians who support the idea that the government should not be deciding religious matters? There are no christians who are gay? Laughable, but not really important or even on topic, so lets move on.
Yet, even in the absence of perfect knowledge or unanimity, we have to make informed decisions about the future. This will mean we have to take a position of prudence based partly on science that is inevitably changing. We do not believe unanimity is necessary for prudent action. We can make wise decisions even in the absence of infallible evidence.
Based partly on science? What is the other part? You already made clear that god has nothing to do with this except telling you to take care of the planet. For all you know, he meant he wanted you to plant apple trees everywhere to make up for the lost apple.
Though the claims of science are neither infallible nor unanimous, they are substantial and cannot be dismissed out of hand on either scientific or theological grounds.
More points for correctness. Note, with time, the claims of science become less and less fallible as both more evidence become available and scientific theories become more accurate. With more observation we do not see less unanimity, we see more. The global warming issues has now been around for a few decades, only in the last 20 years have we been able to use the observations we have assembled to throw out many hypotheses (including the "nothing is happening" hypothesis) and have a very very strong greenhouse gas emission theory.
Statement three is mostly more bible blather, however there is this part:
The consequences of these problems will most likely hit the poor the hardest, in part because those areas likely to be significantly affected are in the world’s poorest regions. Poor nations and individuals have fewer resources available to cope with major challenges and threats.
This is right on. The reason ignoring global warming is immoral is because it increases suffering around the world. Sadly, and this is why God is just a jokester, it acts exactly how the southern baptists describe, the hardest hit will be the poorest nations with the fewest resources (for the most part). Even in rich nations, the economies will suffer tremendously, and who gets hit the hardest with worsening economies? Yup! You guessed it, the poor and needy. What societal population around the world is the largest? Yup! once again, correct! The poor. Acting in a way that increases your personal and communal greenhouse gas emissions directly acts towards increased suffering around the world.
Statement four spends a bunch of time on abortion again (hello! abortion is primarily due to unwanted pregnancy, help stop that and you are doing more to stop abortion than any law can, focus people, focus!). The rest of the statement basically says the time is now and they must act personally and within their communities towards helping with climate change. Again mostly kudos to you for this effort. Here is a real moment of clarity:
We realize that simply affirming our God-given responsibility to care for the earth will likely produce no tangible or effective results.
That is right, just like praying doesnt do anything, neither does affirming that god gave you responsibility to take care of the earth. Its a moral, and human responsibility that helps our species (and many others!) to survive.
OK, so while I generally regard the southern baptists as the Taliban of American culture, this is a pretty good step forward.
Now since you have made the step forward with regard to climate change, how about making the same exact step forward with regard to evolution. Not only is the mechanism by which acceptance of it exactly the same, the evidence base is even larger and longer! If you can finally accept scientific evidence with regard to climate change, you can accept scientific evidence, period. Lets get on board with your evolution, your germ theory and vaccines, your stem cell use, your genetic research and your nanotechnology. Or is that asking too much at once?
