Yet another reason to not be a Republican....

I have had some epic rants about the anti-science strain currently inhabiting the modern Republican party, but this National Journal article is just plan demoralizing...

If you repeat it, it makes it true.....

I have a problem with the modern version of the Republican party it can be summarized with this clip of Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) talking about funding abstinence education in Texas and its consistent dismal record on teen pregnancy.



The repetition, and the lack of an demonstrable facts to support his assertions. This is a prime function of movement Conservative thought. Steve Benen adds this point:

In a case like education and lessons on sexual health, the left tends to look at this in terms of results: what works in preventing teen pregnancies and the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases? For the right, the question is philosophical: what’s consistent with their morality.

I will go further, then that. It is a feature, not a bug, of this day and age to disregard relevant statistical data in favor of ideology. If it does not comport with your philosophy it is simply not true.

The stupid...it burns....

-Cheers

Flying.....

Caught this video that is part of the TED series:


The music is cheesy but, that looks pretty close to flying to me.

-Cheers

You might be an idiot if.....

You carry around a sign that says:


I implore people to go out to vote, because you can damn well be sure this idiot will be. Also I hope this person does not have children.

----------

On a lighter note, though I have been disappointed with the Administration on a number of issues (and it is not because they didn't get everything I wanted or wished for, but maybe because they capitulated on virtually every issue and echo many of the rights talking points, and rarely make the case for progressive causes. Also they hurt my fee-fees when they called me "whinny" for not being ecstatic by their list of achievements), but this does my science loving heart some good.

-Cheers

Better Living Through Science

I saw this article and thought it was mighty nifty. I will be back to political kvetching later this afternoon.
But I thought this was a nice, feel good, distraction for a Monday.

Basically it is a pouch used to transport grain foodstuffs and once it is emptied, it can be used as a solar power water purification device.

Ingenious.


-Cheers

Getting that stop sign out of the closet...

I am sure Andy will be pleased if this should happen.....



Not quite the zombie apocalypse....

-Cheers

No seriously, you don't know your limit.....

It is interesting how people always overestimate their capabilities. This graph I found pretty interesting:

In the dark bars up there are the number of drinks the college students thought they would have to drink in order to have the adverse consequences listed. The white bars are the ACTUAL number of drinks they'd have to have.

And what it shows is that college students (shockingly) don't really learn from their previous mistakes. They aren't learning their alcohol limits effectively. In addition, the students that overestimated their limits the worst, were the ones that were undertaking the most risky drinking practices.

It turns out that this is not abnormal. People who experience the negative aspects of drinking more often are more likely to exhibit risky drinking behavior in general. Basically, even when risky drinkers have experienced the negative consequences of drinking heavily, it doesn't stop them from doing it again.

And there are people who really want to re-create the "30 bar mega bar crawl"!

-Cheer

A New Nerdy Post...

So maybe I am the only person who would find this article interesting but over at the New York Times they have a series starting, in which they talk about calculus.

In middle school my friends and I enjoyed chewing on the classic conundrums. What happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Easy — they both explode. Philosophy’s trivial when you’re 13.

But one puzzle bothered us: if you keep moving halfway to the wall, will you ever get there? Something about this one was deeply frustrating, the thought of getting closer and closer and yet never quite making it. (There’s probably a metaphor for teenage angst in there somewhere.) Another concern was the thinly veiled presence of infinity. To reach the wall you’d need to take an infinite number of steps, and by the end they’d become infinitesimally small. Whoa.

They had me at this picture:


-Cheers

The Future of Reading....

Caught this over at Ezra Klein's blog, and was instantly intrigued.



I have to say that is some pretty nifty tech.

-Cheers

Letting your nerd out....

A friend sent me this link, it is described as a way of giving people a sense of scale about the universe.

So kind of nifty.

Also got God of War 3 and a PS3 the other day. To say I am enjoying it, just doesn't do it justice. Don't be shocked if you see "around town" and "buddy" pictures of me and my PS3. I've named him Clark. We are going to be best buddies.

But here is a trailer so you can see how I intend to spend my time.


-Cheers

The Death of Science.....

The fact that articles like this have to be written is proof positive that we are doomed. Watching Fox News or many of the right blogosphere, it is indisputable, that since winter still exists that disproves Global Warming.

I know they have seized on the "warming" part of the Global Warming, which is an entirely accurate statement the globe as a whole is warming. However at no point does that mean that all points on the globe are warming uniformly. What it says, is that in the aggregate (big word!) the temperature is rising, this has effects on the climate. Any cook will tell you, that you can dissolve way more salt in warm water then in cold water. Air works in the same way. Warm air can hold more moisture then cooler air can. So the natural extension is that if you have slightly warmer global temperatures. More water will evaporate and get trapped in the air. Then all you need is suitably chilly temperatures to generate snow. The more moisture the air carries the bigger the snowfall.

This is basic science. Not that any scientist is blaming this wholly on Global Warming/Climate Change. There is also the well known and defined el Nino effect.

The thing that gives the lie to this ideological assault on science are that these things are never mentioned, here and here.

Weather is not climate.

-Cheers

Cars 2: Electric Boogaloo

As a brief respite I thought I would share this video on electric cars (h/t Brad Plumer via Ezra Klein), and as some what positive post. We talk about where to invest for the future, this video mentions a number of different options that could both yield jobs and better the environment.

I know there are those that think Climate Change is an elaborate hoax propagated by those DFHs out there. But really why isn't this a good idea. Energy independence and possibly millions of new jobs.

Looks like a win-win to me.

-Cheers

That one post that was all science-y

With the sad news that the moon landing budget is being slashed, I thought some links with a science tinge would be warranted.

• Humanity almost didn't make it!
• Global Warming doesn't mean no more winter!
• How to fall 35k feet...and survive!

I know a lot of people think that trying to go to moon again is a waste. I think they are gravely mistaken, I know there are terrestrial problems that are pressing and need solutions/money. But the mission and purpose of NASA is more then just a monetary issue. NASA's purpose is to inspire. Not to turn a profit. It is an argument to our better angels, what we can be, and what we hope to be.

Also it is a chance for me to get super-powers.

-Cheers

You can't expect them to know anything.....

But this cartoon pretty much sums up my feelings on most media analysis, of well, anything even remotely complex.

-Cheers

Climategate

I have stayed away from this topic as of late. Not for any particularly good reason. It just makes me unreasonably angry.

Basically for those that are unaware, the CRU research group had e-mails hacked and published.
These e-mails as Brad Plumer details showed a variety of things.

The final straw from me was Sarah Palin getting Op-ed space to burnish her Luddite credentials. That was just a bit too much for this old horse to take. Luckily I did not have to blow a casket and break 8 keyboards, Marc Ambinder over at the Atlantic did an impressive job of fisking Mrs. Palin's drivel. In particular this bit was the most resonating:

Now -- the scientists may be guilty of misconduct for manipulating the UK's freedom of information act procedures. There is no excuse for that; that is not how normal science works. Let's assume, for the moment, that their actions do cast doubt on their data, because, perhaps, their motivations are suspect. The global warming consensus minus the East Anglia contributions is still a strong consensus, one that has been regularly, repeatedly and independently verified.

There is just a lot to unpack on this subject, from the "missing" data to just the lack of understanding of basic scientific procedures denialist exhibit.

Again, in a follow up piece Brad Plumer continues to put this kerfuffle in proper context. Also in case it is not clear enough. Climate Change studies and analysis are cross discipline. If there is a grand conspiracy out there explain these guys.

Until AGW (anthropogenic global warming) deniers produce some dis-positive analysis. They should be shunned.

-Cheers

The two articles you should read

If Democrats/liberals/progressives read one article this year, it should be this one by Tim Ferholz at the American Prospect.

Basically Mr. Ferholz takes on Peter Bienart over the direction a "big tent" coalition should take. Mr. Bienart makes the case for smart centrists policies to prolong the large majority. I tend to agree with Mr. Ferholz when he says (emphasis added mine):

Believers in the Big Tent, like Peter and myself, have to be very careful about the compromises they make. If you lose track of what the point of politics is -- what you leave behind -- then you risk betraying the entire progressive agenda. If Peter thinks today's progressives should choose economic issues over other ones, he should make that case explicitly. But he shouldn't pretend that it's a normatively good choice. There's going to come a time when this Democratic majority has the chance to do something so big and important that it will destroy itself by alienating its conservative and moderate members. Maybe it will be gay marriage, maybe it will be the Freedom of Choice Act, who knows. I hope the leadership at the time has the principles and the guts to pass the law and blow up their majority. That's what it's there for, after all.

This is by definition what leadership means. Sometimes you will pay a price for your decisions. Even if they make for a better society in the long run, there are always consequences in the short. Accepting that, and being thoughtful yet bold are what those moments are made for.

And secondly, if you have not seen it. There is a snowball that survived a little longer in Hell today. Sean Hannity apologized to Jon Stewart last night about this piece that run on the Daily Show the other night. And here is a nice summation of what Stewart actually did by Will Bunch, and why it is so embarrassing for the mainstream media organizations.

One final article for the science oriented of you out there.

-Cheers

One and done....

Got a couple of posts percolating in my brain, but I read the most interesting take down of new book "Superfreakonimics".

Now there are many facets to this argument. But I must say Elizabeth Kolbert has perhaps the best one. With this passage standing out:

But what’s most troubling about “SuperFreakonomics” isn’t the authors’ many blunders; it’s the whole spirit of the enterprise. Though climate change is a grave problem, Levitt and Dubner treat it mainly as an opportunity to show how clever they are. Leaving aside the question of whether geoengineering, as it is known in scientific circles, is even possible—have you ever tried sending an eighteen-mile-long hose into the stratosphere?—their analysis is terrifyingly cavalier.

There are some other well thought out and thorough take downs here, here and here.

-Cheers

That is a Coincidence...

Interesting article in the Times about anti-aging research.

Some thought provoking stuff in there. But because of my interest in population levels. I found this line a fair bit more then interesting,

In caloric restriction, mice are kept on a diet that is healthy but has 30 percent fewer calories than a normal diet. The mice live 30 or 40 percent longer than usual with the only evident penalty being that they are less fertile.

Now there are a lot of moving parts here, and anyone with even a passing familiarity with Daniel Quinn's writings might guess where my thinking is going on this.

So I will not bore you with the massive exposition on the subject I will simply state, what to me is obvious. Of course they are less fertile, they have less raw material to be fertile with!

-Cheers

The Science Crucible....

Anyone who knows me, knows that I have very strong feelings about science in the public square and the the teaching of science in school. Over the weekend there were a couple of different stories which dealt with this issue.

As some of you know, I feel that science and technological subjects get short shrift in our general discourse. Actually more to the point, the public at large is poorly informed about scientific subjects and the pervasive political culture holds scientists in disdain as "ivory tower intellectuals", or the ever popular "elitists".

So here are a few articles that caught my attention the first two are quite old, but still illustrative of something that absolutely annoys me. When someone no background in a subject critiques/dismantles a scientific subject on purely ideological grounds.

Gregg Easterbrook on String Theory.

An impressive rebuttal by Jason Rosenhouse.

Now I am no expert on String Theory. But then I am not writing on its virtues or inequities. I honestly feel some issues are complex enough that merely picking up a book on the subject is not enough. Sometimes, some subject matter relies on a lifetime of experience and expertise to adequately discourse on the subject. An example of this exchange would be this:

Easterbrook:

Maybe string theory eventually will prove out; maybe the apparent vibrating nothing on which we are based is but a slice of some far grander reality. But string theory seems to contain significant helpings of blather designed to intimidate nonscientists from questioning the budgets of physics departments and tax-funded particle accelerator labs. And consider this. Today if a professor at Princeton claims there are 11 unobservable dimensions about which he can speak with great confidence despite an utter lack of supporting evidence, that professor is praised for incredible sophistication. If another person in the same place asserted there exists one unobservable dimension, the plane of the spirit, he would be hooted down as a superstitious crank.

Rosenhouse:

Right. All of that mathematics that string theorists talk about is just meant to scare away the nonscientists. Real particle physics is something you should be able to explain to a child.

Understanding string theory is difficult and requires years of study and mathematical training. Easterbrook has neither the time nor the brainpower to undertake such a task. So rather than just confess ignorance and concede that he's not really in a position to assess the merits of the subject, he uses the very difficulty of the theory, judo-like, against it. Every profession is a conspiracy against the laity, right? This is a useful technique for cranks wanting to play with the big boys. Creationists frequently make use of it for that reason. But it's not the sort of garbage I would expect from a reputable journal of opinion.

But those last few sentences are really just too much. Easterbrook is merely resorting to word games in likening the extra dimensions of string theory to some mysterious “plane of the spirit.”

The extra dimensions of string theory are spatial dimensions just like the three we know about. Physicists are hypothesizing more of the same, not anything fundamentally new. They are led to hypothesize them because they are a consequence of a promising mathematical theory that just happens to provide a solution to the biggest problem in physics: a theory of quantum gravity. They would also point out that there is nothing in current physics to suggest that such dimensions don't exist.....

.....Easterbrook may as well argue that the Pope should go to prison because he has many convictions. That's the level he's at....

Hopefully that conveyed the point I was trying to make. Here you have an example someone who understands the subject matter versus someone who does not.

Not really much to follow up with on that. Just wanted to get that out of my system. But here are a couple more articles on science and scientists.

Salon did a nice article on "Why America is flunking Science" (may have to watch a small ad).

Also Pew Research Center released and interesting poll about scientists. The poll is interesting in that, I completely agree with Kevin Drum and Steve Benen, it gives both sides exactly what they want. Scientists by large have become increasingly liberal in their affiliations over the past few decades. Echoing a complaint of some on the right, as well as, showing the widening gulf between the GOP and scientists based on a perceived hostility towards their profession.

Some interesting stuff. I can only hope this decade breeds a better relationship between the public and its scientists.

-Cheers

"It's a strange world.....Lets keep it that way."

Thought a change of pace might be nice. Came across an interesting Newsweek article that I found to be absolutely riveting.

It is another log on the eternal Nature vs. Nurture debate.

Don't Blame the Cavemen.

On jealously:

Let's not speculate on the motives that (mostly male) evolutionary psychologists might have in asserting that their wives are programmed to not really care if they sleep around, and turn instead to the evidence. In questionnaires, more men than women say they'd be upset more by sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity, by a margin of more than 2-to-1, David Buss of the University of Texas found in an early study of American college students. But men are evenly split on which kind of infidelity upsets them more: half find it more upsetting to think of their mate falling in love with someone else; half find it more upsetting to think of her sleeping with someone else. Not very strong evidence for the claim that men, as a species, care more about sexual infidelity. And in some countries, notably Germany and the Netherlands, the percentage of men who say they find sexual infidelity more upsetting than the emotional kind is only 28 percent and 23 percent. Which suggests that, once again, it depends: in cultures with a relaxed view of female sexuality, men do not get all that upset if a woman has a brief, meaningless fling. It does not portend that she will leave him. It is much more likely that both men and women are wired to detect behavior that threatens their bond, but what that behavior is depends on culture. In a society where an illicit affair portends the end of a relationship, men should indeed be wired to care about that. In a society where that's no big deal, they shouldn't—and, it seems, don't. New data on what triggers jealousy in women also undercut the simplistic evo-psych story. Asked which upsets them more—imagining their partner having acrobatic sex with another woman or falling in love with her—only 13 percent of U.S. women, 12 percent of Dutch women and 8 percent of German women chose door No. 2. So much for the handy "she's wired to not really care if I sleep around" excuse.

Interesting stuff there.

-Cheers