October 2009 Archives

Facts, values, and cultural lenses

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Scientists tend to view disagreements as matters of fact and theory that can be settled by data and logic. If the data are consistent with one view and inconsistent with another, that's the end of the story. We often complain when the public doesn't understand or doesn't get it. We figure that if we just explained ourselves more clearly, the facts would speak for themselves.1

If you've been reading this blog for more than a couple of weeks, you know that I don't buy that view of the world.

The editors of Nature agree. From yesterday's issue:

The public reception of scientific ideas depends largely on two factors: people's ability to grasp factual information and the cultural lens through which that information is filtered.
And this:

The lesson for today's scientists and policy-makers is simple: they cannot assume that a public presented with 'the facts' will come to the same conclusion as themselves. They must take value systems, cultural backdrops and local knowledge gaps into account and frame their arguments accordingly. Such approaches will be crucial in facing current global challenges, from recessions to pandemics and climate change. These issues will be perceived and dealt with differently by different nations -- not because they misunderstand, but because their understanding is in part locally dependent. (emphasis added)

Canadians thinking ahead

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Newspapers are dying, and the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University is suspending its program in environmental journalism. At a time when the greatest challenges facing us -- global climate change, loss of biodiversity, emerging infectious diseases, nanotechnology, energy -- are centered on science and technology, the science division of CNN shut down its science division late last year and the number of science journalists is decreasing. The task of covering issues with a large scientific/technological component increasingly falls to general beat reporters who don't have specialized training in science. They're often very smart, but they aren't experts, and they could use some help.

Which is where our friends north of the border are ahead of us (source).

The Science Media Centre of Canada will help journalists cover stories in which science plays an important part.

...

More than two dozen organizations from the private, public and corporate sectors have donated $5,000 to become Charter Members of the SMCC and are recognized on the Centre's website (www.sciencemediacentre.ca). This support is allowing us to push ahead aggressively in these areas:

  • Governance models, location, start-up funding and long-term financing have all been examined by Halifax Global and that Business Plan is posted on the Centre's website.
  • Formal application has been made to incorporate the SMCC federally as a non-profit corporation.
  • A project manager will be engaged shortly to help the Steering Committee identify "Champions" of greater public engagement with science and to raise funds for the start-up and initial year of operations, estimated at $1 million.


Here's hoping that the Centre is successful and that it inspires a similar effort in the United States.1 In the meantime, journalists in the U.S. may have to hope that

non-Canadian non-science reporters who suddenly have an assignment on, oh, the relative merits of biofuels made from krill or algae, or a giant comet aimed straight at our Moon, or a finding that tuna are fully sentient, can call up something called the Science Media Centre of Canada for a tip on what to do and what's this about anyway. (source)

More on the letter to Congress

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
A week ago leaders of 18 scientific organizations released a letter to Congress restating the consensus view on climate change. The letter has not been widely noticed, but there are a few people who noticed. The ones I know about are:

If you happen to run across others, let me know, either in an e-mail or in comments here.

NOVA on evolution

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
nova-evolution.pngThe PBS documentary series, NOVA, has produced many, many useful programs on evolution and the history of life. Now many of those resources are collected into a single, comprehensive web site, NOVA evolution. The site provides a variety of resources for students, teachers, and everyone who's interested in learning more. It looks like a tremendously valuable resource, and they asked Carl Zimmer to come up with his list of the ten biggest developments in evolutionary biology over the last dedade. Check it out.

Global cooling -- NOT!

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

WASHINGTON -- Have you heard that the world is now cooling instead of warming? You may have seen some news reports on the Internet or heard about it from a provocative new book.

Only one problem: It's not true, according to an analysis of the numbers done by several independent statisticians for The Associated Press.

...

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina. (Seth Borenstein, Associated Press)

'Nuff said.

From a recent comment

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
Commenting on my Happy Birthday wishes to DotEarth Danny Bloom writes:

But one thing, dear blogger here at UConn. Let's not play the same ugly game Rush plays and wish for his head to explode! That's the same sickness and ugliness that Rush plays by and you should have more class, sir. Please remove or edit that part to sound more humanistic. Something like [edit] "And you might take a moment to see how Rush Limbaugh attack Andy in a very ugly way {here LINK]."

Point taken. I could try to explain why my words are less offensive than Rush's, but it would be more of an excuse than an explanation. I won't remove what I wrote, not because I'm proud of it, but because I don't believe in hiding my warts.

Monday Pen

| 2 Comments | 1 TrackBack
namiki-falcon.jpg I've had my Namiki Falcon for nearly 10 years. It, along with my Pelikan 400 and a couple of other pens I haven't featured yet, is my favorite pen. In fact, of my four favorite pens, it's the only one with a fine nib.1 It also has the most flexible nib of any fountain pen I own. It's the only one I have that wrote smoothly from the moment I started using it. Others took awhile to break in. As it says in the Fahrney's blurb:

Touch the Namiki Falcon's 14K gold nib to paper and enjoy a response you've never experienced before. Black resin barrel has gold-plated clip and trim. Uses cartridges or converter.
I use the converter and bottled ink, as I do with nearly all of my fountain pens.

Besides revealing my addiction to the world, there's another danger in making these posts. I have to search for illustrations of the pens I write about. In looking for a photo of my Namiki Falcon, I discovered that there's now a Namiki Falcon 2.
namiki-falcon-2.jpg
I'm afraid I may have to buy one. The resin barrel on my Falcon is nice, but I really like the looks of that red Falcon 2, and the barrel is metal. Here's what Fahrney's has to say about it:

A perpetual favorite with serious fountain pen users, the Falcon offers one of the very best flexible nibs on the market. The Falcon 2 gives you the same exceptional writing with a new bold look - the barrel and cap have been redesigned in high quality metal in four distinctive colors: Sapphire Blue, Chocolate Brown, Black or Burgundy. Rhodium-plated accents add a contemporary yet timeless appeal. The Falcon 2 fountain pen has a stellar 14K gold and rhodium nib that delivers ink in a smooth and controlled manner assuring an exceptional writing experience. Its outstanding responsiveness allows you to create thick and thin characters as you vary the pressure on each stroke.

The impact of climate change

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
the-effect-of-climate-change.pngClimate change is real, but it's hard to grasp the impact it will have on our daily lives. The graphic above brings it home. It's from an interactive climate change map put together by the Science Museum in London.

The map shows the impact of an average 4C rise in global temperature, which John Beddington, the government's chief scientist, said would be "disastrous". A study by the Met Office last month said that such a 4C rise could come as soon as 2060 without urgent and serious action to reduce emissions. (source)
Disastrous indeed.

Happy 2nd birthday, DotEarth

| 5 Comments | 1 TrackBack
1961988h4t3uj1kad.gifDotEarth, Andy Revkin's blog at the New York Times, is two years old today. If you aren't familiar with DotEarth, shame on you. You should be. If you are familiar with it, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's an extraordinarily valuable resource.

Please join me in wishing Andy a happy second birthday! Read him regularly. It's worth your time.

And you might make Rush Limbaugh's head explode in the meantime. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read this entry from DotEarth in which Revkin responds to Limbaugh's suggestion that he, Revkin, commit suicide.

Some quick advice on communicating science

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
The paragraph below comes from this week's Nature. It's an excerpt from an interview with Robert Gifford, who co-authored a report from the American Psychological Association on psychology and global climate change.

What five elements make up an effective message?

First, it has to have some urgency. Second, it has to have as much certainty as can be mustered with integrity. Third, there can't be just one message: there must be messages targeted to different groups. Fourth, messages should be framed in positive terms. Evidence from a recent thesis I co-supervised shows that people are less willing to change their behaviour if you tell them they have to make sacrifices. If you tell them they can be in the vanguard, be a hero, be the one that helps -- that works. Fifth, you have to give people the sense that their vote counts and that their effort won't be in vain.

There you have it. The advice comes in the context of communicating about global climate change, but I'm going to paste that paragraph somewhere where I see it frequently, because the advice applies to communicating any message.

Numbers don't lie

| 1 Comment | No TrackBacks
pew-global-warming.gifHouston, we have a problem. Jon Stewart thinks cap and trade is boring. And as if that weren't bad enough, a new survey out from the Pew Research Center for People & the Press tells us

There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem - 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

As the graph at the left shows, the decline is independent of political affiliation. There's been a decline in the number of people who think there's good evidence for climate change among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats. In 2006, over 90% of Democrats agreed that there's good evidence for global warming. Now only 75% agree.

That decline occurred in the face of ever-mounting evidence that climate change is real and that humans are contributing to it. To quote from the letter to senators released a couple of days ago: "[C]limate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

Clearly we have a problem here, and the problem isn't lack of data or lack of evidence. It's lack of communication. I wish I knew how to solve the problem, but I don't. Suggestions welcome.

From Michael Zimmerman

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
As many of you may know, Michael Zimmerman is founder of the Clergy Letter Project, "an endeavor designed to demonstrate that religion and science can be compatible and to elevate the quality of the debate of this issue." On Wednesday, I received an e-mail from him that included a description of some recent events at his home institution, Butler University. According to Zimmerman, "Butler has now become the first university in the nation to file a lawsuit against on-line speech."

You'll find the text of Zimmerman's letter on the next page.

Destination Copenhagen

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
destination-copenhagen.jpg
The United Nations Climate Change Conference opens in Copenhagen on the 7th of December. This week's issue of Nature has a special feature covering the challenges that face negotiators trying to reach an agreement. You'll need a personal or institutional subscription to read most (maybe all) of the material at the site. Here's a summary of what you'll find when you visit.

With the UN Climate Change Conference just six weeks away, Nature assesses how much - or little - progress is being made on tackling climate change. The latest round of negotiations shows that the gulf between rich and poor nations is as great as ever, and hopes of a strong agreement are rapidly fading. Raúl Estrada-Oyuela, a diplomat who guided the Kyoto negotiations, argues that success in Copenhagen will depend on the skills of the lead negotiator. Meanwhile, Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, comments on the Indian negotiation stance, while Jiahua Pan, of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, examines the Chinese perspective on reducing global emissions. Finally, a pair of news features take us around the world to look at efforts to adapt to climate change in Bhutan, and a project in Peru to monitor forest carbon.

On 19 October Andy Revkin had a hopeful report in the New York Times. Yesterday's report from John Broder didn't sound as good. Andy has a short report on DotEarth collecting reactions to the stories.

More on bluefin tuna

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
Bluefin-big.jpgI mentioned a couple of days ago that the United States has joined the European Commission in supporting Monaco's proposal to list the Atlantic bluefin tuna on appendix I of CITES. Here's a key excerpt from Jane Lubchenco's1 statement concerning the decision.

[W]e are sending a clear and definitive statement to the international community that the status quo is not acceptable.


According to Lubchenco's statement, populations of bluefin tuna have declined more than 70% in the last 40 years. Lubchenco holds out the possibility that the United States will withdraw its support for Monaco's resolution if November meetings of the international body managing bluefins adopts measures that would halt the decline, i.e., sustainable quotas for the fishery.

Given that the November meetings will involve the same cast of characters that have allowed bluefins to be overfished already, I would bet that the U.S. will continue its support for petition to list them on appendix I of CITES.

A letter to Congress

| No Comments | 2 TrackBacks
Update, 22 October: Joe Romm noticed the letter. His conclusion? "Kudos to all those scientific organizations who did sign on!"

Earlier today the leaders of 18 scientific organizations delivered a letter to senators restating the consensus view on climate change.

[C]limate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.
We1 do not take a position on any particular legislation or policy proposals in this letter, although we do point out that "[i]f we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced." Instead,

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your
deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.
If you'd like to read the whole letter2 and see the signatures, you can download the PDF. AIBS has also issued a press release about the letter.3 Here's a brief notice from ScienceInsider.

The decline of environmental journalism

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
I've written before about the death of newspapers. And as Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum describe in their recent book, Unscientific America, science and environmental journalism seems to be suffering disproportionately. Here's more evidence that Chris and Sheril are right, from the Columbia Journalism Review:

For the first time since it was created fourteen years ago, Columbia University's highly regarded dual-degree graduate program in environmental journalism will not be accepting applications for next academic year.

In a letter to faculty at the Graduate School of Journalism, the Department of Environmental Sciences, and the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, the program directors cited falling employment in the field, the rising costs of education, and a lack of financial aid for students as the reasons for their decision.
At a time when the environmental challenges we face are enormous and when the need for good environmental reporting is greater than ever, it is very sad to learn that environmental journalism will no longer be available as a specialty in one of our leading schools of journalism.

Listing Atlantic Bluefin Tuna under CITES

| No Comments | 2 TrackBacks
Bluefin-big.jpgIn early September, the European Commission backed an effort under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) to suspend international trade in bluefin tuna from the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Specifically, the Commission voted to co-sponsor a resolution a proposal by Monaco to list Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin on appendix I of CITES.

Of the three appendices to CITES, appendix I imposes the tightest obligations on signatories. Here's how appendix I is described on the CITES site:

Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants (see Article II, paragraph 1 of the Convention). They are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species except when the purpose of the import is not commercial (see Article III), for instance for scientific research.

In catching up on my e-mail recently, I came across this announcement from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service:

WASHINGTON, DC - Today [14 October], Tom Strickland, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, announced that the United States supports a proposal submitted by the principality of Monaco to list the Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in Appendix I of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES). CITES Appendix-I listing affords a species stringent protection and prohibits all international commercial trade.  The fifteenth regular meeting of the CITES parties is scheduled for March 13-24, 2010 in Doha, Qatar (CoP15). Strickland will lead the United States' delegation to CoP15, on behalf of the U.S. government (news release from FWS).
That's very good news. The Monterey Bay Aquarium sums the situation up bluntly: "Bluefin tuna are severely overfished in all oceans."

Avoid bluefin tuna--they're severely overfished and fishing gear used to catch them entangle sea turtles, seabirds and sharks and endanger their populations.

Bluefin tuna provide the world's most valuable sushi and the high demand for this fish has taken its toll. The Atlantic population has declined by nearly 90% since the 1970s. Bluefin are slow to mature and, unfortunately, many young fishes are caught before they have the chance to reproduce.

Please remember that the next time you're ordering sushi.

Monday Pen

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
rotring-600-fountain-pen.pngMy Pelikan 400, my Cross Townsend, and my S. T. Dupont are all fairly formal pens. I use them either for writing in my journal (the Pelikan) or for signatures (the Cross - when I have it with me - and the S.T. Dupont). My next good pen wasn't a pen at all. It was a pen and pencil set from Rotring (fountain pen above, mechanical pencil below). I use them -- each a Rotring 600 with lava finish -- as working instruments, especially the mechanical pencil.

Both have a solid metal body with good weight and a hexagonal shape that sits securely on a desk without rolling off. The fountain pen has a stiff nib that is perfect for detailed work, whether correcting papers or drawing diagrams. The mechanical pencil comes in models taking different lead diameters. Mine takes 0.5mm, which is perfect for scratching out derivations on a notepad or sketching crude diagrams or figures. I used the fountain pen frequently, until I got myself a Namiki Vanishing Point fountain pen. You'll hear about that one in a few weeks.
rotring-600-mechanical-pencil.png


A guide to trees

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
51jFQLglh4L._SS500_.jpg
If you're like me, you have a well-worn copy of Sibley's Guide to Birds sitting on a windowshelf next to a pair of binoculars. I also have copies of both the smaller eastern and western versions that I often take with me when I'm travelling.

Yesterday I learned1 that Sibley has now produced a guide to trees. I haven't had much of a chance to look at it yet, but my first impression matches what Ed Wilson has to say about it in a cover blurb: "A beautiful, masterful, and much-needed work that will henceforth be our guide to the North American trees."

As you would expect from Sibley, the illustrations are wonderful, and like his bird guide, the illustrations include examples of how individuals belonging to the same species may differ from one another. I don't like to admit it, since I'm president of the Botanical Society of America, but I'm lousy at telling trees apart.2 With Sibley at my side, maybe I'll finally learn how to tell more of them apart.

Here's a link to Sibley describing the book.2

Blog Action Day 2009

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
It is not just about what governments do; we all have to take responsibility to cut emissions from our homes, our cars and our places of work. (See below for the source of this quote.)

We will always have climate change couch potatoes with us, but let's not let them stop the rest of us from making progress on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The IPCC synthesis report concluded that not only will the global average temperature rise significantly as a result of climate change, but the frequency and magnitude of extreme events will increase. Among other things, the report pointed out that

  • it is very likely we'll see increases in the frequency of heat waves and heavy precipitation,
  • it is likely we'll see more tropical cyclones, i.e., hurricanes, and
  • there is high confidence that many arid and semi-arid areas will have fewer water resources than they do now.
From December 7 through December 18 representatives of nations from around the world will converge on Copenhagen to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto protocol. Today more than 9300 bloggers around the world, including UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, are making posts like this one1 urging world leaders to action as part of Blog Action Day 2009. Gordon Brown has good people working for him, and rather than to suggest something of my own, I'm just going to quote a little of his post today:

I will go to the talks in December if it means we will get an agreement and I am urging other leaders to join me. But it must be the start of something not the end.

And it is not just about what governments do; we all have to take responsibility to cut emissions from our homes, our cars and our places of work.

Sarah and I are trying to do our bit. In Downing Street, we are composting, recycling, using energy-saving light bulbs and buying locally-sourced and sustainable food whenever possible. It's little things like this which will make a big difference if we all do them.

Creationism in science classes

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
An Act Relative to Protecting the Religious Freedom of Students.

"Students are discouraged from any conversations about religion," said Poirier, who also is a co-sponsor of the bill. "Perhaps in science class, when evolution is discussed, a student would be able to bring up creationism." (source)

Louisiana? Kansas? Mississippi? Nope. The bill was presented to the legislature by Representative Viriato Manuel deMacedo, of Plymouth, and Representative Elizabeth Poirier is from North Attleboro, Massachusetts.

According to the Cape Cod Times, "No one testified against the bill, which has bipartisan support and is expected to pass favorably through the Joint Committee on Education." You can read the text of the bill here.

The tragedy of the commons

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Update 5:00pm: I just noticed that ScienceInsider has a nice post on the Economics Nobels. Here's a very brief summary of how Ostrom found communities could get around the tragedy of the commons:

Ostrom found that individuals will cooperate if, among other things, they are able to participate in governance, monitor the compliance of others, and punish cheaters. "When people have trust that others are going to reciprocate, then there can be cooperation," she says. "When there is no trust, there is no cooperation unless people are facing the gun."


More than 40 years ago, Garrett Hardin described the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons develops in this way. Picture a pasture open to all. It is to be expected that each herdsman will try to keep as many cattle as possible on the commons. Such an arrangement may work reasonably satisfactorily for centuries because tribal wars, poaching, and disease keep the numbers of both man and beast well below the carrying capacity of the land. Finally, however, comes the day of reckoning, that is, the day when the long-desired goal of social stability becomes a reality. At this point, the inherent logic of the commons remorselessly generates tragedy.

As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component.

1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1.

2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1.

Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. (emphasis added)

The conclusion seems inescapable. If each of us pursues our "own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons" our common heritage will be despoiled. I say "seems inescapable", because a lot of people have been trying to find a way out of the tragedy of the commons for a long time.1

Well, the the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics was shared by Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University "for her analysis of economic governance, especially the commons."

Monday Pen

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
dupont-sterling-silver.jpg
My next good pen was a sterling silver S. T. Dupont with a guilloche pattern similar to the one at the left. I got it a little over 10 years ago, and it appears that my model is no longer available.1

Mine tapers to a rounded head, rather than having the flat top like this one, but it has the same broad nib, 14K gold and rhodium. I bought it at a Colorado Pen Company store when there used to be one in Westfarms Mall. Unless I'm mistaken, there's a Mont Blanc shop there now.2

Like my Cross Townsend, it has a metal body and a substantial weight to it. It's broad nib leaves a beautiful line, especially with bright blue ink. I pull it out when I need a "signature" pen for important letters. It's always with me when I have my pen cases with me3, but I don't use it that often. It has a very nice line and it writes well, but it's filled with blue ink for signatures, and I use black ink in my journal. I don't know why I decided to use black ink for my journal, but I did, and I'm a creature of habit. I don't like the idea of switching ink colors, and I like the idea of mixing blue and black even less. Unless I adopt a new signature pen, this one will remain a nearly constant companion infrequently used.
Before we get started, I have to make a disclaimer. I'm not a climatologist. I haven't read the tree ring construction papers McIntyre criticizes, nor have I read his detailed critiques. I can't argue the merits of using one method of climate reconstruction from tree rings versus another. I can argue that Mr. McIntyre doesn't seem to be following normal scientific practice in "publishing" his critiques.

Whew! Now that that's over. Let's get down to business.

Earlier this week Andy Revkin at DotEarth reported about recent exchanges between McIntyre and several climate scientists including Thomas Crowley, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and the folks at RealClimate.org. Here's a brief description of the controversy (see McIntyre's post and RealClimate's response for details).

McIntyre regularly challenges the broad scientific consensus reflected in the 4th IPCC report that recent warming of the earth's climate is unusual. In the post linked to above, he challenges a particular data set used for reconstructing climate history -- tree ring data from nortwhestern Siberia, the Yamal data set. McIntyre burrowed into the details of the data set and found what he claims are large inconsistencies. He further claims that climate reconstructions depending on the Yamal data set are not robust and could be misleading.

The folks at RealClimate.org have a detailed response. They argue, among other things, that McIntyre's claim of inconsistencies is flawed and that even if the Yamal data set were flawed, paleoclimate reconstructions depend on several different proxies and the likelihood that errors in any one of them would have a large impact is small.

Fine. Sounds like a normal scientific controversy doesn't? Well, it would be, except that it's all playing out in the blogosphere, not in scientific journals. Why does that matter?

Another dumb idea from Oklahoma

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
When I've written about dumb ideas from Oklahoma before, they were from James Inhofe, Oklahoma's senior senator. Today's dumb idea comes from Tom Coburn, Oklahoma's junior senator. What is it?

Senate Amendment 2631 to House Resolution 2847. Scroll down the page to find it in context. If you don't feel like clicking through to Thomas (or if the link isn't working), here's the text of the amendment:

At the appropriate place in title III, insert the following:

Sec. __. None of the funds appropriated under this Act may be used to carry out the functions of the Political Science Program in the Division of Social and Economic Sciences of the Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation.

That's right. Coburn is proposing to eliminate funding for research in political science at the National Science Foundation.

Among the items Coburn cites as an example of misspending by NSF is the funding they provided to support some of Paul Krugman's research. His evidence that the money was misspent? Well, NSF congratulated 2008 Nobel Prize winners who had received NSF funding. Paul Krugman was among those congratulated, and the paragraph describing him mentions that he is "a well-known columnist for The New York Times and one of the country's foremost liberal commentators on economic, political and policy issues", and that's the only thing Coburn cites.1 He doesn't bother to mention that the preceding paragraph in the NSF statement provides a pretty compelling case for the importance of Krugman's contributions.2

Krugman's work on international trade and economic geography represents a paradigm shift in research on global economics. Beginning in 1979, Krugman proposed a new model that provided a theory for the effects of globalization and free trade. It offered a better explanation than the well-established theory of foreign trade that certain countries have a comparative advantage over others in more effectively producing particular goods based on factors such as climate, natural resources or supplies of labor or capital. Krugman recognized that the traditional theory did not fully explain modern trends that showed international trade becoming increasingly concentrated among smaller numbers of producers and nations. His work shed light on key economic issues such as why countries import and export the same goods, how companies decide where to locate, how people decide where to live and why dense urban areas become centers of economic activity while existing alongside sparsely populated rural areas.

Dan Drezner (a political scientist) sums it up pretty well.

Basic research in the hard sciences or the social sciences is a public good -- these things tend to get underprovided in a perfectly free market.  It's not clear to me at all why Coburn thinks that the $9 million spent on poli sci is a waste but the gazillions from the public trough spent on the hard sciences are not a waste when private corporations, industrial associations, scientific publications, universities, and private citizens couldn't fund this stuff.
I'd say that money spent on learning how to implement public policies effectively and on uncovering the factors that influence the ways in which individual, institutional, and societal preferences and values affect the choice among public policies is money well spent. Coburn's right that

CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, the print media, and a seemingly endless number of political commentators on the internet ... pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.

But by Coburn's logic we could eliminate the National Institutes of Health, because there are thousands of web sites providing "a myriad of viewpoints" on health options. Me, I'm glad we have the National Institutes of Health, and I'm glad that the National Science Foundation funds research in political science (and economics and other social sciences).

You learn something new every day

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
Warning: Very geeky post follows. You have been warned!

I know very little about Turing machines.1 In fact, all I know about them can be summed up in this sentence:

A universal Turing machine is an abstract computational device that can perform any computation that can be performed by any actual or theoretical computational device.2

OK. I exaggerated. I know one more thing about Turing machines. I know that they can perform only very, very simple computations.

So who cares? Well, I didn't particularly care until I ran across this post from Daniel Lemire. He introduced me to something called the strong Church-Turing thesis, which claims that the universe is a Turing machine.3

OK. That's fairly wierd, but get this. If the strong Church-Turing thesis is correct, and so far no one has produced a counter example, then

  1. There is no problem solvable by a human brain that cannot be solved by a machine. In particular, creativity and intuition are computable. Philosophically, we have no soul (not anymore than a PC).
  2. We all live within a discrete computer simulation. Physics is digital. Continuous functions (such as f(x)=sin(x)) are approximations to the discrete functions governing nature, and not the reverse. We all live in the Matrix.
I'm not quite sure what to make of that, and I'm not sure I like the idea that I'm living in a discrete computer simulation, but it's certainly a thought provoking idea.4

Five easy lies

| No Comments | 1 TrackBack
Climate change couch potatoes employ a variety of tactics to delay action. They sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt. They claim that dissent is being suppressed and that the evidence for climate change isn't clear.1 I don't know whether Talking Squid had climate change couch potatoes in mind when he illustrated how to change a clear trend
5lies00.gif
into a graph designed to sow confusion. but take a look at the graph above and the one below and ask yourself, "Doesn't this remind me of the obfuscation typical of climate change couch potatoes?" To quote the (sarcastic) conclusion:

Evidence is your friend. More evidence means more cutoffs to choose from, more trends to analyse, more phases to count, more outliers to discover, and more confusion to sow. Be careful to disguise the fact that you and not the data are the source of the confusion.
5lies04.gif

What do Pacific Gas & Electric, PNM Resources, Exelon, General Electric, and Nike have in common? They all withdrew from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its stand on climate change. Here's a bit of the story from yesterday's New York Times on Apple:

"We strongly object to the chamber's recent comments opposing the E.P.A.'s effort to limit greenhouse gases," wrote Catherine A. Novelli, the vice president of worldwide government affairs at Apple, in a letter dated today and addressed to Thomas J. Donohue, president and chief executive of the chamber. Click here to read the letter.

"Apple supports regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and it is frustrating to find the chamber at odds with us in this effort," Ms. Novelli continued.

And you didn't believe me

| 2 Comments | 1 TrackBack
When I said I was boring, too literal minded, and a lousy storyteller. Well, now I have evidence to prove it.1 Wired has a short test you can take online to test your autism quotient.Here's how they describe it:

Psychologist Simon Baron-Cohen and his colleagues at Cambridge's Autism Research Centre have created the Autism-Spectrum Quotient, or AQ, as a measure of the extent of autistic traits in adults. In the first major trial using the test, the average score in the control group was 16.4. Eighty percent of those diagnosed with autism or a related disorder scored 32 or higher. The test is not a means for making a diagnosis, however, and many who score above 32 and even meet the diagnostic criteria for mild autism or Asperger's report no difficulty functioning in their everyday lives
OK, so average is 16.4, and 80% of those diagnosed with autism score 32 or higher. My score? 31.

'Nuf said.

Monday Pen

| No Comments | No TrackBacks
pelikan-indian-summer.png

I planned to write about another one of the pens I own this week, but the new catalog from Fahrney's was in my mailbox when I got home Friday night. The Pelikan Indian Summer pen shown above is on the back cover,and it's simply too beautiful to ignore. I have a Pelikan Niagara Falls special edition that will show up in a later entry. The Indian Summer is part of the same series exploring "the fascinating natural wonders of the world."

The newest release is perhaps the most beautiful of all - Indian Summer. Experiencing the extended mild weather and spectacular colors of a true Indian Summer is a wondrous event. The autumn leaves change and glow in breathtaking yellows, oranges and reds. This unrivaled play of color begins in August in parts of Alaska and the mountainsides of Canada and continues through November, spreading across most of the United States. The term "Indian Summer" is rooted in the proud culture of the native Americans. It describes their love of bold colors and the final hunting season before the onset of winter, when warm temperatures tempt animals out of their quarters one last time. Using only the finest materials, Pelikan crafts the Indian Summer writing instruments to perfection. The focal point is the multi-colored, lacquered and polished metal barrel with elaborate silver engravings of leaves and mountains. It flows into the dark brown, high-grade resin cap and pen ends. The fountain pen has an 18K gold nib with rhodium accents that is masterfully formed, polished and carefully hand-tested.

Wow! I don't need another fountain pen, but this one is really hard to resist.1

Science communication and science policy

| No Comments | 2 TrackBacks
I may not be very good at reaching a broad audience, but thanks to Randy Olson's Don't Be Such a Scientist, I have a good idea of the skills I need to develop if I'm ever going to do it. In their recent book, Unscientific America, Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum argue that scientists are partly to blame for science's lack of prominence, relevance, and influence, precisely because we haven't paid attention to the skills that Randy describes.

They won't get an argument from me on that point. In fact, that's the point I argued in my presidential address to the Botanical Society of America a couple of months ago. Here's how Mooney and Kirshenbaum put it:

[W]e need a nation in which science has far more prominence in politics and the media, far more relevance to the life of every American, far more intersections with other walks of life, and ultimately, far more influence where it truly matters -- namely, in setting the agenda for the future as far out as we can possibly glimpse it. (emphasis added)
Houston, we have a problem.

Mooney and Kirshenbaum gloss over a distinction that's as hard to communicate as it is important to understand, the difference between what scientists can conclude about the world as scientists and what science-informed policies should be adopted. Science should inform the agenda for the future, but science alone can't set it.

Take climate change for example.
I can think of no one else whose filmmaking has done more to illuminate the wonders of the natural world than Sir David Attenborough. From grand vistas to tiny insects, he and his film crews have been everywhere and filmed everything. The images are gorgeous, and the narrations are packed with information. I don't know if they'd fit into Randy Olson's scheme for films that reach a mass audience. But for biologists, they have no equal.

Now the BBC is making many clips from the films available at the BBC Wildlife Finder. I've only had time to poke around a little, but it looks like a fabulous resource.

Blog Action Day 2009

| No Comments | No TrackBacks


On October 15th bloggers around the world will discuss climate change. When I signed up a few minutes ago, there were 3,404 blogs from 114 countries with nearly 10 million readers already registered. From the blogactionday website:

Climate change affects us all and it threatens more than the environment. It threatens to cause famine, flooding, war, and millions of refugees.

Given the urgency of the issue of climate change and the upcoming international climate negotiations in Copenhagen this December, we think the blogosphere has the unique opportunity to mobilize millions of people around expressing support for finding a sustainable solution to the climate crisis.

Pages

  • images
OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Nature Blog Network
Creative Commons License
This blog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from October 2009 listed from newest to oldest.

September 2009 is the previous archive.

November 2009 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.