Politics: A new beginning

[Say_hello_for_me]

Work is very, very busy.

United Airlines announced they are taking 600 unionized "furloughed" flight attendants back on the payroll. Were they part of the unemployment rate when they were on "furlough"?

This thing about Sistani makes me sick. How in the hell does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not have a plan to give a free Iraq direct elections, especially when the best-known leader of the religious majority has been calling for direct elections for months (with yours truly)? How long do they think people will listen to "there is no voter registration system, no electorate system, no blah blah blah" without people thinking "well, give them one". Its been something like 4 months with nary a word about how they will give Iraq a voter registration and electorate system. Throw me a bone and at least announce what they are doing to provide one. (I note that a voter registration/national ID system would also be useful for security purposes in putting all adults into a current database).

Don't know about murder rates so far this year, but I have not seen a single one in the Chicago press in weeks (though the police did kill someone in the first few days). The LA area got off to a violent start, and it seems like the Washington post "local" section has bodies every time they run the "crime and justice" portion.

Anyone following Judge Wolin and the asbestos wars (he handles 5 bankruptcies in the area)? I read that he was having ex-parte lunches and dinners with very well known asbestos plaintiff's lawyers, among other things. It's hard imagining how he will justify not recusing himself.

Y'all been fighting bout something? Sheesh, I step away for a week or two and next thing ya know you people are a bunch of naked children eating each other. Club don't go, please.

Hell(blessed is the agitator, for he shall inherit ___?)-oh!

[bilmore]

I read a good article on the hockey stick. One step more techie than Crichton's, much better credentialed, sets out what I was saying without the five-hundred page details that it would really take. Of course, if you're really interested, and a techie type, read the best article from Energy and Environment, here. Unless you were a soc major, of course . . .

(I'm pasting because the article is in a subscriber area. If someone protests, give them my name and number.)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Medieval Global Warming
A controversy over 14th century climate shows the peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate.

By Richard Muller
Technology for Presidents
December 17, 2003

Six hundred years ago, the world was warm. Or maybe it wasn’t. What’s the truth? Beware. This question has recently been elevated from a mere scientific quandary to one of the hot (or cold) issues of modern politics. Argue in favor of the wrong answer and you risk being branded a liberal alarmist or a conservative Neanderthal. Or you might lose your job.

Six editors recently resigned from the journal Climate Research because of this issue. Their crime: publishing the article "Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years," by W. Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

Without passing judgment on this particular paper, I can still point out that our journals are full of poor papers. If editors were dismissed every time they published one, they would all be out of work within a month or two. What made the Soon and Baliunas situation different is that their paper attracted enormous attention. And that’s because it threw doubt on the hockey stick.

If you don’t know what the hockey stick is, do a Google search, including the word “climate.” You’ll learn that it is the nickname for a remarkable graph that has become a poster child for the environmental movement. Published by M. Mann and colleagues in 1998 and 1999, the plot showed that the climate of the Northern Hemisphere had been remarkably constant for 900 years until it suddenly began to heat up about 100 years ago—right about the time that human use of fossil fuels began to push up levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The overall shape of the curve resembled a hockey stick laying on its back—a straight part with a sudden bend upwards near the end.

The hockey stick was turned from a scientific plot into the most widely reproduced picture of the global warming discussion. The version below comes from the influential 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The hockey stick figure appears five times in just the summary volume alone.


The “hockey stick”
(from the IPCC 2001 report)

Soon the graph acquired a very effective sound bite: 1998 was the warmest year in the last thousand years. This carried a compelling conclusion: global warming is real; humans are to blame; we must do something—hurry and ratify the Kyoto treaty on limitations of fossil fuel emissions. Yet some scientists urged caution, a go slow approach. As a wise man once warned, “do not let the merely urgent interfere with the truly important.”

There was a minor scientific glitch. The hockey stick contradicted previous work that had concluded that there had been a “medieval warm period.” In fact, it disagreed with a plot published by the IPCC itself a decade earlier (in its 1990 report) that showed pronounced warm temperatures from the years 1000 to 1400.

Such inconsistencies are common in science, and scientists love them. They mean more work, maybe a little public attention (which can’t hurt funding), and the excitement that comes with the effort to resolve uncertainty. The Soon and Baliunas paper was part of this process. Their paper presented all the data in favor of the medieval warm period.

The debate grew. Critics of Soon and Baliunas charged that their paper wasn’t balanced; because it consisted of a compilation of data showing warming at different locations at different times, the criticism went, the work was not a valid refutation of the hockey stick analysis, which had combined a much larger set of data. That was a valid concern, but it didn’t necessarily mean that the Soon and Baliunas results should be ignored. It simply meant that the issue was still open.

Meanwhile, critics excoriated Climate Research for allegedly failing to vet the Soon and Baliunas paper properly. The publisher, a German company called Inter-Research, agreed, leading to the resignation of the journal’s editor-in-chief and, eventually, five other editors.

Then last month the situation became even more complex. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of the original hockey stick work. They stated bluntly that the original Mann papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.” Moreover, when they corrected these errors, the medieval warm period came back—strongly. Mann, et al., disagreed. They immediately posted a reply on the Web, with their criticism of McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis.

The disagreement is not political; most of it arises from valid issues involving physics and mathematics. First the physics. An accurate thermometer wasn’t invented until 1724 (by Fahrenheit), and good worldwide records didn’t exist prior to the 1900s. For earlier eras, we depend on indirect estimates called proxies. These include the widths of tree rings, the ratio of oxygen isotopes in glacial ice, variations in species of microscopic animals trapped in sediment (different kinds thrive at different temperatures), and even historical records of harbor closures from ice. Of course, these proxies also respond to other elements of weather, such as rainfall, cloud cover, and storm patterns. Moreover, most proxies are sensitive to local conditions, and extrapolating to global climate can be hazardous. Chose the wrong proxies and you’ll get the wrong answer. The math questions involve the procedures for combining data sets. Mann used a well-known approach called principle component analysis. This method extracts from a set of proxy records the behavior that they have in common. It can be more sensitive than simply averaging data, since it typically suppresses nonglobal variations that appear in only a few records. But to use it, the proxy records must be sampled at the same times and have the same length. The data available to Mann and his colleagues weren’t, so they had to be averaged, interpolated, and extrapolated. That required subjective judgments which—unfortunately—could have biased the conclusions.

When I first read the Mann papers in 1998, I was disappointed that they did not discuss such systematic biases in much detail, particularly since their conclusions repealed the medieval warm period. In most fields of science, researchers who express the most self-doubt and who understate their conclusions are the ones that are most respected. Scientists regard with disdain those who play their conclusions to the press. I was worried about the hockey stick from the beginning. When I wrote my book on paleoclimate (published in 2000), I initially included the hockey stick graph in the introductory chapter. In the second draft, I cut the figure, although I left a reference. I didn’t trust it enough.

Last month’s article by McIntyre and McKitrick raised pertinent questions. They had been given access (by Mann) to details of the work that were not publicly available. Independent analysis and (when possible) independent data sets are ultimately the arbiter of truth. This is precisely the way that science should, and usually does, proceed. That’s why Nobel Prizes are often awarded one to three decades after the work was completed—to avoid mistakes. Truth is not easy to find, but a slow process is the only one that works reliably.

It was unfortunate that many scientists endorsed the hockey stick before it could be subjected to the tedious review of time. Ironically, it appears that these scientists skipped the vetting precisely because the results were so important.

Let me be clear. My own reading of the literature and study of paleoclimate suggests strongly that carbon dioxide from burning of fossil fuels will prove to be the greatest pollutant of human history. It is likely to have severe and detrimental effects on global climate. I would love to believe that the results of Mann et al. are correct, and that the last few years have been the warmest in a millennium.

Love to believe? My own words make me shudder. They trigger my scientist’s instinct for caution. When a conclusion is attractive, I am tempted to lower my standards, to do shoddy work. But that is not the way to truth. When the conclusions are attractive, we must be extra cautious.

The public debate does not make that easy. Political journalists have jumped in, with discussion not only of the science, but of the political backgrounds of the scientists and their potential biases from funding sources. Scientists themselves are also at fault. Some are finding fame and glory, and even a sense that they are important. (That’s remarkably rare in science.) We drift into ad hominem counterattacks. Criticize the hockey stick and some colleagues seem to think you have a political agenda—I’ve discovered this myself. Accept the hockey stick, and others accuse you of uncritical thought.

There are also the valid concerns of politicians who have to make decisions in a timely way. In 1947, Harry Truman grew so annoyed at the prevarications of economists that he joked that he wanted a one-armed advisor—who could not hedge his conclusions with the phrase “on the other hand.”

Some people think that science is served by open debate between left-handed and right-handed advocates, just as in politics. But the history of science shows it is best done by people who have two hands each. Present results with caution, and insist on equivocating. Leave it to the president and his advisors to make decisions based on uncertain conclusions. Don’t exaggerate the results. Use both hands. We cannot afford to lower our standards merely because the problem is so urgent."

----------------------------------

http://www.technologyreview.com/arti...ller121703.asp

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
(Maybe you can respond to my inquiry over when I ever actually accused you of being a grandpa-killer, before it becomes part of the Bilmore lore of this board, i.e., a false memory.)

No, you are correct on this point - that you never said those exact words. I was using the lazy approach of the code for all of the things that R's have been accused of here. I should have put it in quotes. My mistake.

But, as to the "distinction" that you want to draw between those kinds of accusations (racists, anti-kids, anti-poor, anti-butterflies-and-flowers, probably) and Club's "you all see it as a crime, not as a war" intended statement which came out as "you guys see it as a minor little crime" (he shouldn't have used "petty" - but I think he's proven himself deserving of a little slack for such a minor transgression), it's really back to the old joke of, we know what you do, now we're just talking about price. You're drawing an arbitrary line of insult - a line that you define based on your own reactions, I think - and it handily allows the "R's are racists/religious nuts/anti-intellectuals" while disallowing something aimed at you. I don't think that's fair.

If we want a board completely free of ad hominum, we can do that, I think - and I suspect that discourse would be more interesting in some ways, but less in others. I think you're overreacting to the 9/11 line, both facially, and in light of Club's past essentially decent behavior and argument technique, which, as I said, should suffice to give him a Get Out Of Jail card until his bad intent is shown. Likewise, I suspect that you think that I overreact to the anti-R insults. One man's grease is another man's blender, I guess.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Translation: U.S. Cattle Inc., U.S. Dairy Inc., U.S. Poultry Inc. (fat fat fat) basically run the USDA. So we (the Admin) had better denounce this. Who cares about what the CDC and the WHO say, the scientists of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association say otherwise. Not to be partisan, all three of these groups had the same control under Clinton.

Cool. So, the "fat is the root of all evil" thingie is completely and unquestionably accepted as gospel now? It had better be, in your world, 'cuz that's the basis for the WHO report.

But, wait! Seems not all is well in the anti-fat camp lately, is it?

(You're doing the knee-jerk thing again. Read some reports that show the real rise in obesity began when we "learned" (there's that damned word again!) that fat is evil, and if we can cut fat, we'll all be rail-thin and heart-healthy.)

(Later, we can talk about global warming. Damn those anti-Kyoto assholes!)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
That's not what I want either. But Atkins is sending everybody in the wrong direction.

Hmmm. 37 pounds down, cholesterol from 200 to 165, bp from 130/80 to 110/60, more stamina, higher liver function, no loss of lifting capacity, and steak whenever I want it? Yeah, I'm fucked.

[bilmore]

Final thought: hotels are boring.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think he's proven himself deserving of a little slack for such a minor transgression), it's really back to the old joke of, we know what you do, now we're just talking about price.

Club was trying to get at a valid point -- that the war on terrorism can legitimately been seen as a "war" or as a problem of policing -- and he said something stupid, for no apparent reason -- that Dems saw 9/11 not just as a crime, but as a "petty crime." He's said it was a rhetorical excess, so why don't we all just drop it. I think that the issue that he's getting at is an interesting one, although I don't see it as a partisan issue. I dimly recall that the British were successful in the 1950s in defeating an insurgency in Malaysia by treating it as a police problem rather than as a military one, and we can all see that our current approach to Iraq has, thus far, made the problem of terrorism worse, not better. So we can legitimately argue the point he was trying to get at.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
He's said it was a rhetorical excess

I don't recall him saying it was excess. I recall him saying it was rhetoric, or "just rhetoric," which doesn't really seem like much of a limiting adjective. I could claim to have raped his mother and then truthfully say that was just rhetoric.

Elsewhere, however, he flatly refused to apologize for the offense (this was where he called me a "whiny bitch" or some inexplicable misspelling thereof), or to recognize that this particular way of putting it was hugely offensive to us Democrats who see 9/11 as the greatest monstrosity ever committed on American soil, but who merely see little connection between that fact and the conclusion that the Bush administration can do no wrong.

I'm deeply ashamed of talking about someone whom I have on ignore, as this is the closest I have ever come to Being Paigow.

I'm sure I'll be less pissed off in a week or so. But not before. It remains one of the most jaw-droppingly offensive things I've seen posted by an otherwise legitimate poster.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Please ring me when you do comparative fruits and vegetables -- I don't want to miss that.

That analysis will be more appropriate to the FB, surely....

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Hmmm. 37 pounds down, cholesterol from 200 to 165, bp from 130/80 to 110/60, more stamina, higher liver function, no loss of lifting capacity, and steak whenever I want it? Yeah, I'm fucked.

Call me after the heart attack/cancer. Actually, don't.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/diet....eut/index.html

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. So, the "fat is the root of all evil" thingie is completely and unquestionably accepted as gospel now? It had better be, in your world, 'cuz that's the basis for the WHO report.

But, wait! Seems not all is well in the anti-fat camp lately, is it?

(You're doing the knee-jerk thing again. Read some reports that show the real rise in obesity began when we "learned" (there's that damned word again!) that fat is evil, and if we can cut fat, we'll all be rail-thin and heart-healthy.)

(Later, we can talk about global warming. Damn those anti-Kyoto assholes!)

Just b/c the latest fad is working for you in the short-run doesn't mean it's the most healthy option. You're being more knee-jerk than me. You chuggin' down ephedra too?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Just b/c the latest fad is working for you in the short-run doesn't mean it's the most healthy option. You're being more knee-jerk than me. You chuggin' down ephedra too?

First you took away my fenfluramine. Now you want to take away my 2 pounds of bacon?????? You sir are neither a scholar nor a gentleman!

aV

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by andViolins
First you took away my fenfluramine. Now you want to take away my 2 pounds of bacon?????? You sir are neither a scholar nor a gentleman!

aV

I woud never take away anyone's bacon. I eat bacon on my ice cream.

And to drink: meatballs.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Just b/c the latest fad is working for you in the short-run doesn't mean it's the most healthy option. You're being more knee-jerk than me. You chuggin' down ephedra too?

I think his point is more "the last fad (low fat) apparently didn't work in the long-run." The evidence appears to bear this out.

In any event, if lowered cholesterol and weight are not indicators of improved health, cardiac and otherwise, then the low-fat diets don't improve it, either. And, given that atkins people in practice apparently tend to eat significantly more fresh fruits and vegetables than the general population (or most people on low-fat diets, who tend to eat a lot of bread and starch, not to mention pre-packaged food provided by the lovely helpful diet industry, to fill the gaps), one can't really say which way the cancer risk will tip in the long term until we've seen, well, the long term.

BR(fwiw, there is not strong evidence that lowered blood cholesterol levels do, in fact, lower risk of heart disease - the connection is theoretical at this point, and there is increasing evidence that there is correlation but no causation (i.e.: lowering levels doesn't lower risk))C

The more I read about this debate the more I think the whole of the answer is "if you can't get off your fat ass and look in the mirror and decide it's time to take a walk and stop chowing on the Supersized Value Meals, then your premature death due to obesity is merely natural selection in action, fatty, don't you fucking whine to me." But I get testy like that.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
This thing about Sistani makes me sick. How in the hell does the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA not have a plan to give a free Iraq direct elections, especially when the best-known leader of the religious majority has been calling for direct elections for months (with yours truly)? How long do they think people will listen to "there is no voter registration system, no electorate system, no blah blah blah" without people thinking "well, give them one". Its been something like 4 months with nary a word about how they will give Iraq a voter registration and electorate system. Throw me a bone and at least announce what they are doing to provide one. (I note that a voter registration/national ID system would also be useful for security purposes in putting all adults into a current database).

Does anyone else feel like many in this country have kind of turned the focus of their attention away from the reality of Iraq over the past month or so? Maybe it was the capture of Saddam, maybe it was the holidays, maybe it was the distracting glory known as the NFL playoffs. It just seems less significant for some reason, right when, in my view, it should be becoming more significant.

But I do know that there are 47 GIs dead since SH was found, and that the admin plans to turn over the keys to the place in June. Seems like a daunting task already, so I would think that giving the leader of the largest religious group in Iraq the moral high ground in the soundbite war is not a good way to start.

As you implicitly observe, there may be real policy reasons for not producing some sort of plan for direct elections. But after the missteps thus far in the reconstruction of Iraq (i recognize YMMV on that) I am less than confident that there is any good reason (beyond an avoidance of public scrutiny) for our not having heard them.