Winging On Kyle

Kyle Wingfield had such a promising start.

Oh well.

One aspect of the climate-change debate which we ignore too often is the potential benefits — and whether they might outweigh the potential consequences.

The benefit here is the potential economic development of Greenland. What Kyle ignores in his "weighing" is Greenland has a population of 57,600, whereas Bangladesh, already the victim of massive flooding during the monsoon season, has a population of 162 milllion.

How long before Kyle turns into a silver haired know nothing who petulantly spouts half truths every friday?

Winging On Kyle

Finally, Wingfield gives me something to work with!

Of course, it would be a denial of global warming.

The latest sign that the “consensus” about global warming is falling apart: The BBC is finally reporting that global temperatures have leveled off since 1998, and that there maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably, theoretically, hypothetically, probably-not-but-you-never-know, could be explanations for changes in temperature that don’t involve mankind and carbon dioxide.

Welcome to the right's favorite stalking horse. The tactic goes a little like this - you can't trust the press/science because they have an agenda, therefore you must trust us, because unlike them, we only care about the truth.

It works so well with the press because arguably the press does have an agenda (that agenda, however, does not match the conservative mythos, but let's set that aside for the moment). But when it's applied to science, it becomes a little nutty. These "conservatives" would have you believe that the overwhelming majority of scientists are jury rigging (thereby essentially destroying) their life's work in order to implement some sinister world-wide socio-economic plan.

The consensus is nowhere near falling apart. Yes, there has been some data recently which indicates we could be in for a decade or two long cooling period. Just as we were from the late 40s to the early 70s. Does that mean we were wrong about anthropogenic global warming? Absolutely not.

Let me provide you with a part of the article, Kyle would like you to ignore.

In addition, say Met Office scientists, temperatures have never increased in a straight line, and there will always be periods of slower warming, or even temporary cooling...What is crucial, they say, is the long-term trend in global temperatures. And that, according to the Met office data, is clearly up.

Global warming (and indeed science itself) is not based on individual pieces of evidence. It is always based on the story all the evidence tells. Scientists look at everything and they usually look at it over a long time. Pundits, on the other hand cherry pick what is convenient, spin up a tale of fancy, then move on to the next target.

If we're picking between pundits and scientists on truth-telling, I believe I'll stick with the boys and girls in the pocket protected white lab coats.

My Wingfield Something Something

Have you heard? There's a new kid in town. His name is Kyle Wingfield. He's Wooten's replacement and he's put me into a terrible dilemma. He's reasonable and doesn't provide me much ammunition. Also, I can't think of a clever name for a series about him.

Until today.

I have one firm rule in life. If you tell me you believe the Earth is 6,000 years old, I will stop listening to you as I will assume anything which comes next will be just as insane.

I have a more flexible rule regarding logical fallacies - if you use them frequently, I'll probably stop listening to you. I need flexibility on this one because if it were applied rigidly, I'd have to stop paying attention to politics.

Kyle Wingfield tackles Cap and Trade today and shockingly, I agree with most of his points.

Cap and Trade is a Rube Goldberg affair which likely won't accomplish its goal - can't disagree there.

It will likely be used for nefarious gain by greedy politicians - if it can be leveraged, a politician will grab the nearest lever.

A straight carbon tax would be fairer - A conservative calling for a tax? Both shocking and correct.

Unfortunately, to get to these meaty and worthy topics, you have to traverse the following:

One does not have to doubt, as I do, claims that the complex science of the Earth’s climate is “settled” to see that this bill is a sham.

Well, hello Mr. Strawman wrapped in a cloak of incredulity.

Climate science is certainly not settled and no one claims it is. What has been described in layman's terms as "settled" is the overwhelming evidence that man is impacting the climate in an adverse manner.

And that leads us to the argument of incredulity. It's a personal favorite since it is so frequently used by creationists. The simple version is someone states something is so complex it can never be understood therefore any conclusions must be wrong.

Life is so diverse, therefore we can never understand it, so evolution cannot possibly explain it. The weather, atmosphere or whatever trope of the month is used to describe climatology is so complicated, climate scientists could never explain its actions.

Any scientist, if he or she didn't immediately apply my 6,000 year old rule, would reply, of course it is complex but that does not mean we cannot understand it nor should we stop trying.

Kyle, your writing reminds me of the old Jim I so frequently miss. It is well reasoned, worthy of conversation and certainly on the track of "common sense conservatism".

It would be a shame if so early in your run you decide fast fallacy is necessary to amplify steady reason.

Now about that name...maybe something with Winging in the title?

Our Little Ida

Let's have a pretty picture.

That's Ida.

You can read more about her here.

The best part? She's got the creationists in a hissy.

Evolution Ping Pong In Florida

The Florida House passed its version of the infamous "evolution bill". It now goes back to the Senate where so far the more reserved body has refused to let through similar legislation.

The bill requiring that teachers present a "scientific critical analysis" of the theory of evolution just passed the Florida House on a 71-43 vote, despite concerns from opponents who say it isn't necessary and will allow the teaching of religious theories like creationism and intelligent design in public schools.

The Sunshine State leg is in its last week and now looks to the upper house to use procedural magic to disappear the more controversial issues - politics which should sound very familiar to Georgians.

Lewis Black On Evolution

And Georgia does not escape the snark.

Also don't forget Ben Stein's little fairy tale opens tomorrow.

For oodles of information visit Expelled Exposed.

h/t: PZ

Let's Talk A Little Science

Any reader knows here in the Grift we occasionally divert on to side roads of music, weather and even science. But primarily the focus is on Georgia politics. Well, because of the video you see above, we are all going to head on to the scientific off ramp a bit more frequently in the future.

No, I'm not turning this into a science blog. There are many, mostly scientists, who do that deal much better.

But with Ben Stein's latest adventure, all who understand science and particularly evolution are required to speak up.

I was talking with an Emory chemistry professor last night and I posited that Kitzmiller vs Dover had effectively hamstrung the intelligent design movement. He responded, "but ironically they always find a way to evolve."

Expelled is indeed an adaptation of an earlier tool in the creationist array - appealing to a public who has little knowledge of the way science works and why the understanding of evolution is so vital. It is a tactic which tragically creates a vicious cycle of maintaining that ignorance by continually using their own "knowledge" to re-inforce that ignorance. We Americans continue our spiral into the sea of stupidity while nations as small as South Korea rise to new heights.

While it is true Edwards vs Aguillard a generation ago and Kitzmiller in this new century put to rest many large questions regarding creationism in our public schools, brushfires such as the one in Florida continue.

Stein and his ilk propose to fan these fires to re-ignite the conflagaration -which means the virtual bucket brigade has to be formed again. Scientists and layman together must grab a pail and dip some water.

UPDATE: MTheory clarifes his position at his blog. And just so there's no misunderstanding I agree with him. We just muddied the details a bit.

Teach The Children

This is not a Daily Show clip.

For advocates of vouchers, until you show me how this can be prevented I cannot cross over to your side.

h/t: PZ

A Question To Ask

Here we go again.

I really wanted to attend the most recent hearings at the State Capitol on Global Warming. Unfortunately, I could not but if I had been present there is one question I would like to have posed.

Dr. Harold Brown, professor emeritus from the University of Georgia, urged caution, saying that the human impact on climate is difficult to ascertain. He also pointed out that climate experts were predicting a new Ice Age as late as the 1970s and demanding government action to “warm up” the planet.

And my question.

Dr Brown, isn't it true, sir, that the prediction of global cooling actually was reported in a Newsweek article, not a scientific journal, which was based on a paper tracking a minor cooling trend in the 40s and 50s and isn't it also true that after seeing the rather alarmist nature of the mainstream article, the authors of the original paper were quick to clarify they were in no way predicting a new ice age? Also, sir, do you not do a disservice to your fellow scientists by continuing to promote the myth portraying them as chicken little alarmists who hysterically warn of catastrophe based on error riddled theories?

Now wouldn't that have been fun?

Dover and Darwin

We seem to be all over the place today but this is just too good to pass.

In 2004, the tiny town of Dover, Pa. became the latest battleground in the evolution wars. The result of the school board's decision to require science teachers to read a statement including the specious "evolution is just a theory" argument along with a recommendation for students to read the Intelligent Design screed "Of Pandas and People" was a monumental estasblishment case in Federal Court.

PBS Nova has produced a documentary which not only tells the better than fiction tale of the case but gives one of the best lay explanations of both evolution and science I have ever seen.

It's two hours long but it is worth every precious second. Watch it. Make your friends watch it. Make your children watch it.

Many might see Dover as the highwater mark of the ID movement, but it all it takes for the scurrilous beast to rise again is ignorance.

Watch the videos here.

Speaking Of Shellfish

Scientists may have found evidence of the first oyster dinner, pushing the notion of "culture" a few thousand years earlier than previously thought.

Waters Woes

Way down upon the Appalachicola, river that is, not seaside hamlet, there sits three species of endangered freshwater mussels. If you listen only to right wing outlets, you would believe the demon spawn Army Corps of Engineers are intent on making our current drought worse by continued release of water to save these cuddly molluscs. Well, they're are right. At least as Obi-wan Kenobi once said, from a certain perspective.

Here are the perspectives they are leaving out. Without a certain level of fresh water flow into the Gulf, the oysters of the Apalachee Bay also die. The difference between these molluscs and their freshwater cousins is the salt water branch of the family creates a $1 billion dollar industry for Florida's panhandle region.

But even if we stop the flow of water and let all the little Floridian slime balls die (for the moment, we'll ignore the interstate commerce lawsuit we will surely lose) where does that leave us? Solves the problem right? Not quite. Most estimates say that without some drastic action to address the water problem, the continued astronomical growth of the Atlanta region will exhaust the available supply within the next 50 years. Some say as low as 30 years.

But it will always be easier to pick on a few worthless shellfish than to pick on multi-million dollar development projects even if they pour endless streams of goop into our drinking water.

So in this case, the liberals must have it right! Not quite.

Georgia Senators Chambliss and Isakson are currently attempting to pass an exception to the Endangered Species Act in order to force the Army Corps of Engineers to stop saving above said shellfish.

There are some who would use our moment of crisis to advocate the destruction of the act. Here's the problem with that position. Yes, at first glance a freshwater mussel might appear to be useless but not so much if one considers how biospheres work. Maybe that mussel is the primary food of a certain heron. And maybe that heron is a food source of a certain species of fox. And maybe that fox is also responsible for keeping the squirrel population at a manageable level. And maybe those squirrels have the potential to carry bubonic-plague laced fleas.

It's a lot of maybes but that's the way things work in nature. Species do not operate in isolation. The elimination of one might provide short term relief but trip the domino effect which leads to devastation for our grandchildren. We should never view extinctions in such small slivers of perspective. With nature, one must always take the long view.

However the other side of the biological equation is things die. And many times there is nothing we can do about it. In fact, many times things should die. After all, how did we get here? Certain niches opened in the ecosystem and mammals rose to prominence. If not, dinosaur-men might be filling technorati with new blogs and we mice-men might be scurrying somewhere underground looking for worms.

It cannot be ignored that approiximately 10,000 years ago, our ancestors eliminated 99% of the mega-fauna in North America, probably causing temporary paroxyms in the biosphere, yet we not only survived, we flourished.

We spend an inordinate amount of time trying to save things. It is literally part of our nature. There is compelling evidence that our need to preserve caused our ancient mothers to stop cavalierly dropping babies on the plains of Africa to wander away towards the next shiny object while the next generation wailed in abandonment. This new instinct led to families, tribes and eventually civilization as we know it.

However, the cruel side of the evolutionary equation is an advantage can soon turn to a disadvantage. Self-sacrifice got us here and it could take us out. Most species eventually fail and probably should. Yet, we continue to try to save every last one. We just don't like to watch things die. One day, mother nature might turn the joke around on us and decide we've reached our own twilight.

This is not to say we should worry about a sudden attack of the sea turtles, but it is to say there are times where we should understand we are masters of our niche and that niche needs to be defended. A good time to bow up and get a little protective of our turf might be when our water sources are turning to mud. Even if it's our own fault.

It's enough to make the water deprived head spin. We cannot save the mussels without hurting ourselves. We also can't solve our problems by killing the poor, helpless, immobile blobs of goo. We certainly cannot return to eating nuts and berries in mud huts. But neither can we afford to believe throwing up a million more condos on the 'Hooch has no greater consequence.

These are complicated times and many are offering simple salves. And although mother's kiss certainly helps a boo-boo, it still needs bactine and band-aids. And the most severe water crisis of our generation needs solutions; comprehensive solutions which address every part of the hurt. Not just those that are politically convenient for our own political niche.

An Inconvenient Blah

As I have feared for a long time, Al Gore's little movie may cause more harm than help.

Call it the Kent Hovind effect.

About Those Climate Scientists...

There has been much hoo-hah over Rep. Jeff Lewis convening a panel on global warming titled "Climate Change: Fact Or Fiction". For his panel Rep. Lewis, recruited three climate scientists who supposedly fall in the category of global warming dissenters. Let's take a look at these gentlemen shall we?

First, the credentials and they are impressive.

Patrick Michaels - Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

John Christy - Director of the Earth Science System at the University of Alabama. He also won an award from NASA for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.

Joel Schwartz - Scientist and fellow at the American Enterprise Insititute.

Well now. Surely, if such honored men doubt this whole global warming bunk, we should as well. Or do they? And should we?

Let's look at each gentleman's actual position on global warming.

Patrick Michaels - Believes in man made climate change. His "disagreement" with the evidence is that he believes the change will be on the low end of projections by the IPCC.

John Christy - Believes in man made climate change. In fact he has been quoted as saying "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way". Also falls into the camp of impact will be on the lower end of the scale.

Joel Schwartz - Believes in man made climate change. But believes the cure would be worse than the disease.

Well my goodness gracious me! It seems there's a dirty secret hiding at Rep. Lewis' hearing. All the scientists actually believe man is causing global warming! How about that? The only disagreement they have with their scientific brothers and sisters is the scale, impact and ultimate result of global warming.

Disagreement among scientists is not uncommon. A significant portion of good science hinges on disagreement and discussion. However, as anyone who witnessed the evolution/creation wars understands, when consensus begins to reach larger conclusions, the ideologues afraid of losing their last tenuous grasp on reality latch onto any dissent in order to paint the whole as suspect. Even when the dissenters actually agree with the whole.

Senator Shafer Responds on Stem Cells

This past April, in response to a column by the AJC's Jim Wooten and a post by Peach Pundit's Erick Erickson regarding the passage of Senator David Shafer's Saving the Cure bill and the defeat of Senator David Adelman's bill to create a repository for current unwanted embryos, I asked what I believed was a simple question. What do we do about the excess embryos that currently exist?

Via email, Senator David Shafer (R-Alpharetta) author of Senate Bill 148, Saving The Cure, responds:

I am not sure if Jim or Erick answered you, but my answer is that we should explore techniques that do not create unwanted embryos in the first place. For example, in Germany, fertility doctors produce no more than three embryos at a time, implant them all and, except under limited circumstances, are not allowed to freeze them. There are probably less than 100 frozen embryos in the entire country and no "problem"about what to do with them.

I reject the notion that ethics are somehow incompatible with progressive science or medicine. In vitro fertilization can be accomplished without producing thousands of "unwanted" embryos and stem cell research can be conducted without harming human life at any stage of development. There are ethical alternatives that, in many cases, are better science and better medicine.

The goal of my legislation earlier this year (http://www.savingthecure.com/) was to advance the types of stem cell research which are ethically noncontroversial and, in many ways, more medically promising.

Let the discussion begin.

Gettin' Some Action

Not a real time image. Courtesy of NOAA.

Due to a stubborn Bermuda High, the Intertropical Convergence Zone has been forced south for the first 6 weeks of the 2007 hurricane season. Since the zone is a key ingredient in the witches brew of tropical storms, its being forced into the South American coast has created a lull in cyclonic development.

Well, no more. The high is relenting and the ITCZ is slowly moving north. Already there is something brewing just south of Puerto Rico.

Last year's relatively quiet season, i.e. little Gulf of Mexico activity, combined with this years slow start might bring on complacency. It shouldn't. We are now just entering peak hurricane season so it would be a good time to check all your preparations.

This morning's science moment brought to you by the letter H and the number 42.

Baby With The Bathwater

I don't like Michael Moore.

It's not that I disagree with his politics (although I mostly do). It's not because I think he's a bad film maker (actually I admire his skill with the craft). It all comes down to this. He fights like a creationist.

In the creation/evolution wars, the most frequent tactic of the young earth absolutists is to take the smallest nit, then throw it into a cloud of nits in an effort to obscure a greater truth. People like Kent Hovind and Duane Gish will find a very minor disagreement in the evidence then shout, "AHA! It must all be wrong which means we must be right!"

Moore is currently quite upset with CNN for a report by Dr. Sanjay Gupta on his new movie "Sicko". In the report Dr. Gupta states Moore "fudges the facts". As you can see in this Larry King segment last night, who has the "right facts" is a matter of source and perspective. It is also elucidating to note in Moore's point by point rebuttal of the CNN report on his website the fudging boils down to such shocking disagreements as $6000 vs $7400 and 77.5 vs 77.6. Nits.

Of course, all of this presents an opportunity for Moore to turn to another frequent creationist tactic. Persecution and paranoia. Instead of a reasoned response of exploring the differences and discussing the greater truth, Moore chooses to accuse CNN of being bribed by HMOs and the pharmaceuticals. Disagreement, no matter how mild, is sinister and heretical.

Moore does do a great service. Once again, he has sparked a national conversation. We should be talking about health care. It may be the most important and most complex issue facing our generation.

But no matter how important the conversation, Moore with his burn at the stake tactics will never win the conversion.

John Edwards Blog Interview

Summertime means travelling, so let's head north to our neighbor North Carolina. My friend Coturnix who runs the science blog A Blog Around The Clock has an exclusive interview with Presidential candidate John Edwards.

I do believe that science is the key to innovation in the American economy, the key to improving our standard of living. We see the impact of science everyday--from biotechnology to smart bombs, from satellite Global Positioning Systems to the Internet.

Read the entire interview here.

Geek Moment

I never thought I would live to see Neal Stephenson's Metaverse fully realized.

I may have been very wrong.

Geek Moment: Google Street View

Google is starting to roll out the new feature Street View on Google Maps.

Instead of me telling you about it, go play with it yourself. Explore Miami, Denver, Las Vegas, San Francisco or New York.