Pangloss

I don't mean to change the subject, but I can't help but wonder what would have been the reaction of the scientific community had the shoe been on the other foot. Would we be assuming that all the other sources remain valid until proven invalid, or would we be screaming for the full light of public scrutiny to be shined on all sources? In fact I'm pretty sure we had that happen with EPA/NASA/NOAA whistle-bowers during the Bush administration. Something about the White House forcing changes to reports to make them less scary, if memory serves.

If you mean me, I don't think that they are, but there is a perception out there by a fair number of Americans that they are doing so with regard to health care reform and various other issues. The proposed re-allocation of TARP funds for stimulus purposes (when 95% of the stimulus funds haven't even been spent yet) might be another reason for this perception. I think that perception is incorrect because those are not far-left positions, they're just normal left-of-center positions typically referred to as progressive or liberal. My personal measure of what would constitute actual "pandering to the far left" would be the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops, an instant elimination of carbon emissions regardless of consequences, and an "Ed Begley, Jr. Edition" solar toaster-oven for every man, woman and child. Including illegal immigrants, of course. Some of what's being deliberated before Congress at the moment I don't agree with, but that's life in a democracy, and I have a voter registration card and a keyboard same as anyone, and I'm not one of those people who feels that they're not being heard if their preference isn't immediately turned into law (and besides, if anything my opinion seems to matter even more now that the center is brokering power again). No need for all the panic and hair-tearing Fox News seems to call for. My two bits, anyway.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/10/gop.congress/ According to this CNN poll out today, the country is now equally divided on whether the country would be better off run by Democrats or Republicans. I think this is mainly a sign of public response to Democratic leadership's failure to respond to the sudden and dramatic presence of the center in its midst. The back-and-forth on the abortion rule in the health care debate is a good example of this -- lack of unity, lack of planning. The GOP had the same sorts of problems when it acquired the majority and started pandering to the far right. I don't think the Dems are pandering to the far left (yet), but the general lack of cohesion at what is perceived as a time of crisis (partly of their own promotional making) is pushing people away. I don't think the GOP's efforts are the main reason for this change, though the rabble-rousing Fox/CTR crowd seems to be playing a prominent role, though exactly what role that is (other than perhaps 'spoiler') is unclear to me. What do you all think?

According to a Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll I just noticed on Google News, 54% of Americans now prefer that Congress do nothing on the issue (it was less than half in a poll by the same group six months ago). 57% oppose all current proposals to reform health care. Only one in three favor the current proposals. IMO this is our political system at work -- most people think the system is broken, but simply don't trust Congress to fix the problem. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,579945,00.html?test=latestnews

In an interesting editorial in the Wall Street Journal today, the paper's editorial board pointed out that unless research organizations begin to operate in a more open manner, they run the risk of not only creating more suspicion, but actually hurting the science itself. The piece accuses major organizations, including NASA, NOAA and NCDC, of resisting freedom-of-information requests as well as internal efforts by their own researchers to acquire data. On a more philosophical note, it's intriguing to me that politics is teaching science a lesson. Usually it's the other way around.

The only thing I've been able to find ANY time for lately are those goofy "social games" on Facebook, like FarmVille, etc. Really silly little games, but they can be fun for killing a few minutes if you have a bunch of friends playing. (I don't think I'd bother if it wasn't for my wife bugging me to hire her to work on my farm, or serve food in her cafe, or whatever nonsense everyone is playing this week.) (lol) On a more entertaining note (though not a LOT more), I've been managing a couple of student projects that may show up on XBox Live in the Indie Games section next quarter. They won't be anything really special but it's fun to watch and manage that process. They even fight and snip at each other, just like real game designers. I figure I'll let them release their game, and then give them all grades that are inversely related to their download numbers, just so that they'll understand exactly what it's like to work in the game industry.

Sure, it's the Wal-Mart channel. FNC is conservative-populist, not conservative-Republican. It reflects the Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck "popular revolt" perspective, not so much the Rush Limbaugh "GOP uber alles" perspective.

Interesting article from the Beeb focuses on possible improvements to the IPCC process that could indirectly result from the affair: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8387365.stm Some interesting quotes:

Ultimately what's probably most significant here is the fact that he's been able to make statements like that (which I now agree are completely off the chart) and the *public* has not demanded that he be taken off the air, e.g. advertisers called in outrage, etc.

A bit superficial for this crowd but I thought I'd pass it along just for the general interest of it. It's mostly stuff along the lines of "what do CERN scientists eat" and so forth, but hey you never know where motivation can come from. http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/0,39029552,49304408,00.htm?tag=mncol;txt My favorite bits:

The article seems light on evidence. This article quotes him as saying (with video clip): Sure he's hinting in that direction, but not actually calling for it. Still a bunch of nonsense, but no real departure from the usual nonsense. (shrug)

(Well I thought your reply was very clever!)

So next week we're going to get the Copenhagen interpretation of climate science. Do we call this story, then, the "many models" interpretation? (sorry)

As bascule suggests above, this dog seems to have legs, and is not limited to the domain of conspiracy theorists. Megan McArdle at The Atlantic talks about "the real problem" with the emails being the less-discussed issue of what this suggests about the validity of the climate models. http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/11/the_real_problem_with_the_climate_science_emails.php -------- On a side note, when all is said and done on this issue, even when we settle down and universally recognize the human contribution to this problem, I think scientific skepticism is going to take a well-deserved respect hit because of this. Skeptics should never be denounced as "deniers", and for skeptics themselves to rally religiously around a scientific problem that is not yet fully understood and declare any questioners to be somehow in violation is anathema to the very idea of skepticism. The Michael Shermers out there are going to get a comeuppance, and it's not going to be pretty.

Well therein lies the rub, because lack of science education means that people not only can't fathom what climate science is reporting, but they can't even evaluate the people who are doing the telling because they don't understand the process. Which I suppose puts an even higher burden on those who do understand to properly relate what's happening, and why.

If political influence did corrupt the integrity of global climate change science, what exactly would that look like, and how would we be able to identify that this was taking place?

What do you all think of this? The story "went wide" yesterday with a Washington Post article that actually likened it to the Pentagon Papers, and I counted almost 500 articles in Google News about it today, and there's also a Wikipedia article on it now. I've linked some articles below. The focus seems to be on two areas: 1) Some emails seem to show examples of scientists willing to subvert their scientific principles for a political agenda. Does this mean that the consensus on global warming is artificial and political in nature, rather than wholly scientific? Or is it just an example of individuals getting carried away? (But then what IS a social agenda, if it's not individuals leading a trend?) 2) Some emails also seem to suggest that important evidence was covered up or downplayed. Has science leaped to the wrong conclusion about global warming, or is this just a blip on the radar? Some articles on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climategate http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/21/AR2009112102186.html?hpid=moreheadlines http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-climate-hacker22-2009nov22,0,913036.story http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9C4OSH03 (I'm still ridiculously swamped with work and study, but I just couldn't resist taking a short break to post something about this. I spend a huge amount of time these days reading peer-reviewed journals, and "dwelling" in that world as much as I can (spending some time with the editor of an award-winning journal the last few weeks), and it's an interesting community, to say the least. For all its power and usefulness, it certainly has its flaws.)

I haven't had a chance to read this thread, and I'm afraid I'm only here for a moment (real life kicking my behind at the moment, but I miss you guys!), but I just wanted to dash off a quick reply. I do think Fox News is a valid news organization in the current context of what constitutes a valid news organization. Validity may be found particularly with regard to its Web reporting, which has uncovered stories lately that should not have been missed by more reputable organizations (ACORN). While it's unfortunate that these stories fall amidst clear indications of ideological bias, that bias is no worse than the bias carried by other organizations. The only real problem I have with Fox News is its 24/7 cable channel, which subjects viewers to distorted mashups of news and opinion and is even more extreme than the other outlets when it comes to sensationalism. But it's interesting that both the sensationalism and the bias are much less clear when it comes to the "printed" word in its Web reporting. I've wondered for some time now why that might be, but I think it's reflected in CNN and MSNBC as well. Might be an interesting subject for a separate discussion. That having been said, I don't necessarily have a problem with the poll results, since they may reflect an ideal rather than a reality. Nobody likes a biased news outlet, and two wrongs should not make a right. But I guess it depends on how you look at the original question -- there's what is, and there's what should be. Fox News is a valid organization in the current context, which is why it's treated like a peer by the other outlets (suggesting the poll answer should be "yes"). But none of them should behave as they all-too-frequently do (suggesting "no"). I chose not to answer. (I'll be back with you guys soon, I promise!)

"So, you listen to me. Listen to me: Television is not the truth! Television is a God-damned amusement park! Television is a circus, a carnival, a traveling troupe of acrobats, storytellers, dancers, singers, jugglers, side-show freaks, lion tamers, and football players. We're in the boredom-killing business!"

I think it's interesting that the Nobel Committee has changed political tactics and opened up about its ideological agenda. In the past they've denied that ideology has played a part in their decision, and people who accused them of having one (like me) were scoffed at and called right-wingers. Now they brag about it. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/10/the_nobel_committee_comes_clea.html The significance of this is debatable -- how can a peace prize not be political to some degree? But there are many ways to go about achieving peace, and legitimizing one path over others is a dangerous decision, especially with a weak decision that looks like form over substance. Like I said back in 2005, if they like this agenda so much then the committee should go chuck a couple of its medals on Neville Chamberlain's grave. (BTW I know I'm not around much at the moment. Real life's putting me through the wringer at the moment (but all's well). Hopefully I'll have more time to read & post soon!)

And missed! Dick Cheney wouldn't have missed hitting THE MOON. Of course he would have also hit three asteroids, a CNN satellite and a picket of environmental activists along the way.

Wait wait, the Nobel Peace Prize is politically motivated? No way! Say it ain't so, Alfred! Maybe the Nobel Committee just felt sorry for Conservative Talk Radio not having much to talk about this week. Or maybe they wanted to feed them something that would distract them from the upcoming congressional health care debates. This quote says it all: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iAekET4T1D_vzDMN4JW_xZyvgezAD9B7HUHO0

Alas, the Julian line died out a good eight or ten centuries ago.