Sunday, 27 July 2008 by CVM.

I am somewhat bemused by the alignment of political affiliation with opinion about global warming, an ostensibly scientific question. Obviously Republicans are much more likely to question the scientific consensus about global warming and its causes than are Democrats. Why is that? (I should think that drumming up the occasional dissenter on global warming is hardly more convincing than drumming up the occasional Duesberg on AIDS). Of course Republicans are much more likely to question the scientific consensus on evolution than are Democrats, and that is clearly because Republicans are (much) more likely to be fundamental Christians. Unlike the typical blogger (the Detailed Balancer excluded, of course) or talk radio host, respectable folks do not indulge in ad hominem arguments, so just because Republicans are more likely to believe in evolution (which, let us grant, is a benighted position) does not mean Republicans are wrong, nor Democrats right, about everything, or even about global warming. Still, why the remarkable alignment?

My guess is that Republicans have a sense that academics, including scientists, are generally Democratic and have liberal leanings. This is actually correct. There is an interesting positive correlation between education and affiliation with the Democratic party, a correlation that holds even in the sciences, so it is not because of brain-washing by the post-modern lit-crit crowd. Still, this can hardly lead one to assume that all scientific (educated, Left/East Coast pointy-heady professor elite) consensus is driven by a liberal agenda. For example, there is a scientific consensus about dietary trans fat that has led California and New York City to ban trans fats in restaurants (in both cases, the ban was spearheaded by [moderate] Republicans). This is an area I know something about, and I am highly skeptical about the consensus, don’t even get me started about the laws (I’m against them). Why aren’t the Republicans pro-trans and the Democrats anti-? On the other hand, the scientific consensus on aging research has been challenged by many crackpots, including Aubrey de Grey, and (having some expertise in this area as well) I have had no compunction in deflating these anti-establishment positions. Why don’t the Republicans rail against the liberal gerontologists?

Finally, I should say that though I am willing to provisionally accept the scientific consensus about global warming, and therefore I reject the implicit position of the Detailed Balancer (and, I gather, the Republican consensus), my personal position is: bring it on. Global warming is indeed hardly more than an inconvenient truth. Of far greater threat to civilization is the long-overdue ice age. A somewhat secondary threat, but far greater than global warming, is the depletion of fossil fuels. Both threats will be delayed by global warming (the latter because global warming will increase energy available for, .e.g., wind and hydroelectric).

Posted in Politics & Society, Science, General | Print | 13 Comments »

Thursday, 24 July 2008 by bbbeard.

I promised myself that I wouldn’t use this blog to hammer the genteel Mr. Obama. But this is, well, weird. In a highly-publicized interview in Israel, he stated

Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon.

The weird thing is that Obama is not on the Senate Banking Committee.

HuffPo says he “misspoke”. I heard the soundbite to this, though. It doesn’t sound like a verbal tic.

In fact, Mr. Obama was one of three Democrat pols to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, so he apparently thinks of it as “his” bill. But he seems to have a tenuous grasp of the difference between a bill and a committee. Indeed, he appears to be fuzzy on the whole “duration of the Presidential term under the 22nd Amendment” thing, fuzzy on the number of states in the Union, fuzzy on the whole map thing, fuzzy on the calendar thing, fuzzy on the order-of-magnitude thing, and on and on.

As the title of this post suggests, BO is a gold mine of misstatements.

Well, at least he has his judgment to fall back on.

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »

Saturday, 19 July 2008 by bbbeard.

A post by an editor of the American Physical Society has triggered a round of denials and repercussions.

The inflammatory sentences were

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO₂ emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.

This was reported in the Daily Tech, among other sites.

Apparently this was too much for the American Physical Society, which issued a denial of the denial. They cited the APS National Policy statement adopted only last November.

Sorry, no permalink of the denial at the APS site, but here is the statement:

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS.  The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.”  This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.

In the meantime, the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, author of a global-warming-critical report published on the APS P&S site, notes that his work has been red-tagged. Minus headers, I quote nearly the entirety of his letter to the APS (thank you, Jonah Goldberg):

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American
Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008
edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be
expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon
dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to
all of the reviewer’s requests for revision (see the attached
reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for
physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC
evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself
clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately
after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC’s viewpoint. Some
days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following
appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website
of Physics and Society:

“The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its
conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the
world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society
disagrees with this article’s conclusions.”

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had
submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically
reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points
requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and
published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been
offered or having requested any honorarium.

The punchline is lovingly crafted and scalding in its implication:

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have
the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to
it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text
to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur’s findings and
ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings
were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of
the text of the Council’s decision, together with the names of those
present at the meeting. If the Council has not scientifically evaluated
or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific
justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo,
that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had;
secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no
evidence) to be the “overwhelming opinion of the world scientific
community”; and, tertio, that “The Council of the American Physical
Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions”? Which of my
conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific
grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an
apology?

Now, I have occasionally been a member of the APS, but am not currently, since my interests have drifted away from nuclear physics and toward rocket science. I missed the news that the Council had endorsed the IPCC position. My personal opinion is that the case on anthropogenic climate change is not closed, that the much-touted consensus is fragile at best, and that much of the science is hastily publicized and of sub-standard quality. On the other hand, the rise in CO2 concentration is real, it is anthropogenic, and the risks of deliberate ignorance are substantial, even if the optimum course turns out to be patience and research. If you need a label, I am a skeptic, not a denier.

In short, this is not the same situation that we face with creationists and evolution. Monckton’s argument is clearly a scientific one and should not be cast aside in favor of an artificial and ill-conceived political consensus.

(h/t Jon Woolf and Rand Simberg)

Posted in Politics & Society, Science | Print | 1 Comment »

Thursday, 10 July 2008 by bbbeard.

The DHS is reportedly looking into disciplining airline passengers with electric shocks.

The Washington Times reports that a “senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security” has expressed great interest in a newfangled bracelet for air travelers. The stylish bracelet conveniently acts as your boarding pass and ID — no more juggling your ticket folder and wallet as you shuffle sock-footed through the security line! And the bracelet will also help you keep track of your luggage. And it also gives your location, which may not seem helpful to you but is bound to make those surly TSA agents seem just a bit less caffeinated. Oh, and I almost forgot — it doubles as a shock collar. Everyone will want one.

A quick Google search for “EMD bracelet” shows this story has been circulating for some months now, but it apparently only surfaced in the MSM today, assuming Wired is not part of the MSM. (Instapundit linked to it, h/t.) So I’m not going to get real worked up over it, but…

Inquiring minds want to know: isn’t this kind of device really easy to defeat if you intend to? Does DHS even know that plastic is an insulator? I would bet that even a lined airsickness bag has enough insulation to mitigate a shock.

And: wouldn’t a hijacker (with a piece of plastic to protect himself) try to gain control over the “laser activator that can activate any bracelet as needed by simply pointing the laser at the bracelet”? Wouldn’t this minimize the risk to the terrorist that the passengers will revert to pack, rather than herd, behavior in a tense situation?

And: is it any wonder people think the DHS is run by idiots?

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | No Comments »

Tuesday, 8 July 2008 by bbbeard.

The Times has a relatively balanced discussion of Obama’s strategy for Berlin.

The London Times, that is. Roger Boyes writes,

Berlin, a city torn apart by war, is the perfect setting for an American president preaching peace. Ronald Reagan famously stood metres away from the Brandenburg Gate and called on the Soviet Union to tear down the Wall dividing Europe. And President Kennedy used a Cold War visit to the once and future German capital to declare: “ich bin ein Berliner!”

Now Barack Obama, the presidential candidate, wants to grandstand there too. But a simmering row between the German Government and the local Berlin authorities could rob the Democratic politician of a photogenic moment at the Brandenburg Gate and derail his flagship tour of Europe this month.

Mr. Obama is in desperate need of symbolism that creates the appearance of foreign policy savvy. Navigating the tricky warren of streets that spread out from the Brandenburg Gate might be just the touch of savoir-faire that the press needs to convince itself that this guy’s for real.

His EuroTrip arrives on the front pages just as a devasting meme is circulating: that BO had a total of 143 days of Senate experience before beginning his run for the Presidency. As Cheri Jacobus points out, “I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer than that.” As of right this instant, Google reports 23,300 hits for the phrase “143 days of Senate experience”. Maybe Obama should trademark the phrase and send out C&D letters to the blogosphere.

As it happens, the Brandenburger Tor was undergoing renovation when I was in Berlin a number of years ago. Here’s my snap:

Ironically enough, the wily Berliners had covered the gate with a trompe-l’oeil drape. (Astute readers will have noted that the Eiffel Tower is not within viewing distance of the B’Gate.) But this photo is arguably fitting for a candidate known principally for his style rather than his substance.

Of course, the most notably stylish Prez to visit the B’Gate was Saint JFK. JFK’s gaffe-that-wasn’t had to do with a particular kind of jelly donut known as a “Berliner”.

It remains to be seen whether the spectacularly gaffe-prone candidate will emerge from this adventure intact. The European press is rumored to be less forgiving of error than the American press, at least when it comes to covering for Democrat politicians.

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »

Saturday, 5 July 2008 by bbbeard.

Two schoolboys in Britain have been punished for refusing to participate in a Muslim prayer ceremony. 

No, really.

As the Blogfather remarked, “You can’t make this stuff up. And, sadly, you don’t have to.”

The term for this is Dhimmitude.

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | No Comments »

Saturday, 5 July 2008 by bbbeard.

John Warner wants to slow us down.

Talleyrand said of the restored Bourbon dynasty, “They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing.” Warner should have waited until the Republican Restoration to bring up the 55-mph speed limit. Bringing it up now is only guaranteed to alienate the Republican base — who seem ready to drill in Yosemite, if need be, to reduce oil prices. Reminding voters that even Republicans can channel Jimmy Carter is a bad idea. Maybe Warner is angling for a spot in Obama’s cabinet….

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »

Friday, 4 July 2008 by bbbeard.

Jesse Helms has gone to meet his maker.

I don’t have a lot to add to the stream of encomia and obloquy that accompanies the passing of Senator Helms.  In many senses he defined conservatism for a generation, for better or for worse, even more so than Ronald Reagan. I admired his strength and his frank immunity to the opinions of the self-appointed guardians of political correctness. I didn’t always agree with his views or his methods, but he was a great man and a great leader. I wish we had such leaders today.

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »

Thursday, 3 July 2008 by bbbeard.

Tom Maguire skillfully deconstructs Larisa Alexandrovna’s delusions about Jonah Goldberg.

If I haven’t lost you with that lede, let me hasten to point out that this little tempest has to do with patriotism and the diversity of meaning it has for the left and right. It seems that Jonah wrote about BO’s patriotism problem, Larisa took exception to Jonah’s definitions, and Tom gutted Larisa’s analysis.

What we have here is a microcosm of the century-old divide between the nationalist right and the internationalist left. This schism traumatized our country during the Era Of Concern About Communism (otherwise known as the Red Scare). In the ’20’s, ’30’s, and ’40’s, the left saw the salvation, and the future, of this country in the Soviet experiment. I believe the sincerity of those who felt they were being true patriots — lovers of America — by spying for Stalin, although history has shown they were monstrously mistaken.

Perhaps the kindest term for this is “utopian patriotism”. The utopian patriot is so obsessed with the idea of perfecting this country that they believe any act that undermines the existing order is a good thing, and that any evil on the part of its enemies is leverage worth exploiting. Typically, the utopian patriot takes criticism of the enemy as propaganda by opponents of progress, who are imagined to have any of a variety of cryptic motives. Ironically, some of these symptoms fit with a diagnosis of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD; DSM-IV 301.81).

In this same way, I think Larisa feels she is being the truer patriot than Jonah, by undermining our military, repeating anti-American propaganda, rejecting symbols of “nationalism” like our flag, and generally treating our country like a crack baby. She just wants us to be better. In fact she wrote

A mother of a heroin addict, for example, is critical of her child’s drug abuse and wants it to stop. The mother wants only the best for her child. Does the mother’s criticism of the child’s actions in any way illustrate that she does not love her child? On the contrary, it is because the mother loves her child and is devoted to her child that she wants her child to be better, greater than he/she is.

When someone is critical of their country and especially when their country strays from its course, it does not mean the person is not patriotic. It means that the person loves their country enough to want only the best for it. They want it to be greater than what it already is or they want it to be as great as it once was. But criticism of a country is not akin to being un-patriotic.

It is emblematic of how far the loony left has strayed that they think that comparing our country to a heroin addict somehow conveys their love of country.

Larisa’s attitude reminds me of a comparison made by failed-comic-turned-tragic-politician Al Franken. I’m recalling this from memory… he wrote that conservatives love their country like children love their mommy, while liberals love their country like grownups love their spouses — they are able to see all their faults clearly, and to criticize (with the expectation of improvement). It struck me after reading that peculiar insight that if I were married to Franken and he criticized me like he criticizes this country, I would file for divorce.

[h/t Instapundit]

UPDATE: added paragraph on Utopian Patriotism Disorder.

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 2 Comments »

Wednesday, 2 July 2008 by bbbeard.

Christopher Hitchens once again shows physical courage far beyond mine.

Several folks have pointed to Hitchens’ recounting of his experience as a volunteer target for waterboarding.  There is a lively discussion in the comments at Ann Althouse’s blog.

I have been a great fan of Hitchens ever since he turned tables on Sid Blumenthal. I even got all the way through Love, Poverty, and War, and though he still can’t quite shake his youthful infatuation with Trotsky and his opposition to the Viet Nam war, he is a man of formidable intellect and acuity. As far as I know, he is still the only journalist to visit all three members of the “Axis of Evil”.

Despite the selective publicizing of juicy quotes from this essay, it is a very nuanced piece of work. Like waterboarding itself, it appears to me that Hitchens lands in a gray area, somewhere between shaken and damaged.  He’s willing to admit that there are worse things than waterboarding. And after a few minutes recovering from his first panic, he even volunteered for a second go. But as the title of the essay says, “Believe me, it’s torture”.

There are a number of ways to frame the dilemma that American torture represents. Some have advocated applying the strictures of the Geneva Convention to all detainees, that is, the questioning stops after “name, rank, and serial number” (which, in the case of Al Qaeda, boils down to “name”). At the other end of the spectrum, some contemplate the nuclear scenario, with imminent, massive, loss of life, ostensibly preventable by suitably harsh interrogation, and tell us they are willing to countenance even graver methods than waterboarding. Others counter that coerced information is unreliable. Still others point to the U.S. prosecution of war crimes against foreigners who used water torture in various forms against our soldiers, and claims that this makes our soldiers prosecutable under the same provisions.

My first observation is that it is probably deleterious to apply the Third Geneva Convention to all comers. The Convention is explicitly and thoughtfully constructed to provide incentives for contracting parties to adhere to certain standards of warfare, not just POW administration, such as the wearing of uniforms, the open carrying of arms, and general adherence to the laws of warfare laid out in the other conventions. Now, it should go without saying that Al Qaeda rejects such Western niceties. They are probably not swayed by incentives of application or suspension of the Geneva Convention in any case. But I think it is important to maintain the principle that those incentives represent, that the idealistic treatment of prisoners of war is a reward, and not an entitlement.

Personally, I have no trouble endorsing the position that folks who join Al Qaeda need to be brought around to the view that joining Al Qaeda was the worst mistake of their lives. The day that Al Qaeda renounces barbarism and attacks against civilians, I will reconsider.

Regarding the efficacy of torture, it strikes me that simple questioning over drinks or card games also has no guarantee of generating reliable intelligence. It could be argued that torture bypasses some of the rational calculation of the prisoner, and thus conceivably generates more reliable information than less severe methods. The opposite view is that the individual concerned for his life will invent information to please his captors. Ultimately I’m not convinced either way. Our soldiers will do what they think necessary. Sometimes it works.

I am less convinced of the argument of hypocrisy. The case of Yukio Asano, convicted in 1947 by a war crimes tribunal, is often cited by waterboarding opponents. Does Asano’s case really parallel those who interrogated Khalid Sheik Mohammed? Waterboarding interrogation was part of the indictment. In his case, he was interrogating soldiers who were clearly covered by the Geneva Convention, unlike KSM. Waterboarding was cited as part of a larger pattern of abuse, which included burning with cigarettes and beating with a club. One can invent scenarios in which we might forgive Asano his sadism, for example, if he believed his captives held secrets that would have prevented the incineration of hundreds of thousands of his fellow countrymen. But American attacks on Japanese civilians were not on trial in 1947. So one is still left with an uneasy feeling of inconsistency in matters too grave to be left to lawyers.

So how viable is the nuclear scenario? The essential weakness of this argument is its apparent strength — given the prospective death of millions, what behavior would not be allowed? Could we torture American civilians? Could we chop off fingers and toes? Grind up pets? Execute loved ones? I have to say that this reductio ad absurdum is problematic at best, even if it does surface the seriousness of the threat.

If you’ve read this far, you are probably getting the idea that there are no neat answers.  But I have to thank Christopher Hitchens for once again throwing himself in harm’s way for the general good. Interestingly, his experiences echo the perils of Kari Byron, the bustiest Mythbuster, who underwent the “Chinese water torture” (not waterboarding) in the name of science. It didn’t end well, unless you enjoy seeing beautiful geeky redheads strapped to a table, crying. But that’s a post for another day.

[h/t Instapundit]

Posted in Politics & Society | Print | 1 Comment »