George Will has responded to the accusations of falsehoods in his recent article on global warming. However in the classic style of a crank, he misrepresents the information, and quotemines the correction issued by the organization he misrepresented in the first place.
Recall that Will took a statement from the Arctic Climate Research Center about Arctic ice levels on January 1st, and proclaimed it true of Arctic ice levels as of his article date, February 15th. However, the statement was not true then (this frequent change in data is why short term trends are irrelevant to the AGW hypothesis), as the ACRC made clear:
"We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined."
And how does the ever-honest George Will represent the ACRC's response? As follows:
So the column accurately reported what the center had reported. But on Feb. 15, the Sunday the column appeared, the center, then receiving many e-mail inquiries, issued a statement saying "we do not know where George Will is getting his information." The answer was: From the center, via Daily Tech. Consult the center's Web site where, on Jan. 12, the center posted the confirmation of the data that this column subsequently reported accurately.
There you have it: classic quote mining. Will plucked out the one sentence, left out the content that demonstrated objectively that he was wrong, and repeated the falsehood.
Looks like the cult of AGW denial has claimed another victim: George Where-did-my-credibility-go Will and whoever is foolish enough to trust what his columns say. Apparently Will has been rotating crank talking points on Global Warming for quite some time, oblivious to the ever-changing nature of science. And the science-deniers wonder why the rest of the world is leaving them behind.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Teh Stupid Runs Deep in the McDowell Family
Looks like Sean McDowell is following in dear old Dad's footsteps and dishing out heapings of stupid. The most recent edition has him blaming the recent near-fatal chimpanzee attack on...wait for it...Charles Darwin:
"Nevertheless, we need to ask a basic question: How could something like this happen? How is it that we live in a culture where people think it's safe to have a chimpanzee as a pet? Where do people get the idea that we ought to take a wild animal and treat it like a human being? The chimp owner treated the animal like a son who ate at her table, slept in her house, and even drove her car.
Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there is one culprit for the idea that human beings and chimps are really not that different and should be treated that way: Darwinism. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always taught that humans and chimps are different in terms of kind (Genesis 1-2). While animals are a good part of God's creation, it is uniquely humans who bear the image of God. Many animals are wild and should be kept that way. On the other hand, Darwin propagated the idea that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and only differ in terms of degree (See Darwin's The Descent of Man). If humans and chimps are really not that different, then why not expect chimps to act civilly? After all, ideas have consequences.
Last week the world celebrated Darwin's 200th birthday. Universities placed tributes to Darwinism on their home page (examples include Oxford and Cambridge) and major networks such as BBC ran extensive programs devoted to Darwin's great contribution to the world.
Yet, ironically, this week we witness a brutal act that seems to logically follow from Darwin's ideas. You may be wondering how I can possibly link Darwin to this atrocious event. But think about it, if humans are deeply related to chimps then why not expect them to act that way?"
Ahem, evolution says chimps and humans seperated soem 4-8 million years ago, and that dramatic genetic changes can occur in such a time. So McDowell is grossly mistaken to say that evolution predicts chimps will act like people. On the other hand, it is McDowell's holy book that says man has dominion over the animals, and that they all, predators and all, got along on the ark for 40 days. After all, Ken Ham would have us believe Tyrannasaurs were once coconut eating friendlies. So if anywhere there is the implication that keeping a chimp as a pet is fine, it's the Bible.
As usual with a McDowell, watch your irony meter when they use the term "logic". It's a neon sign saying "gross ignorance and stupidity to come". Personally I'm waiting for someone to come up with an argument for how Darwin is responsible for the economic disaster, terrorism, and American Idol.
"Nevertheless, we need to ask a basic question: How could something like this happen? How is it that we live in a culture where people think it's safe to have a chimpanzee as a pet? Where do people get the idea that we ought to take a wild animal and treat it like a human being? The chimp owner treated the animal like a son who ate at her table, slept in her house, and even drove her car.
Ideas do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, there is one culprit for the idea that human beings and chimps are really not that different and should be treated that way: Darwinism. The Judeo-Christian tradition has always taught that humans and chimps are different in terms of kind (Genesis 1-2). While animals are a good part of God's creation, it is uniquely humans who bear the image of God. Many animals are wild and should be kept that way. On the other hand, Darwin propagated the idea that humans and chimps have a common ancestor and only differ in terms of degree (See Darwin's The Descent of Man). If humans and chimps are really not that different, then why not expect chimps to act civilly? After all, ideas have consequences.
Last week the world celebrated Darwin's 200th birthday. Universities placed tributes to Darwinism on their home page (examples include Oxford and Cambridge) and major networks such as BBC ran extensive programs devoted to Darwin's great contribution to the world.
Yet, ironically, this week we witness a brutal act that seems to logically follow from Darwin's ideas. You may be wondering how I can possibly link Darwin to this atrocious event. But think about it, if humans are deeply related to chimps then why not expect them to act that way?"
Ahem, evolution says chimps and humans seperated soem 4-8 million years ago, and that dramatic genetic changes can occur in such a time. So McDowell is grossly mistaken to say that evolution predicts chimps will act like people. On the other hand, it is McDowell's holy book that says man has dominion over the animals, and that they all, predators and all, got along on the ark for 40 days. After all, Ken Ham would have us believe Tyrannasaurs were once coconut eating friendlies. So if anywhere there is the implication that keeping a chimp as a pet is fine, it's the Bible.
As usual with a McDowell, watch your irony meter when they use the term "logic". It's a neon sign saying "gross ignorance and stupidity to come". Personally I'm waiting for someone to come up with an argument for how Darwin is responsible for the economic disaster, terrorism, and American Idol.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Volcano Monitoring? GOP Anti-Science Streak Continues in Jindal Speech
I've been trying for days to put into words what I thought of Bobby Jindal's god-awful response to President Obama's not-state-of-the-union speech. It was one of those events that left me jaw-dropped, waiting for Alan Funt or Ashton Crutcher to walk in and let us all in on the joke. Take Mr. Rogers' mannerisms and speaking style, add a touch of televangelist, give him an awesome tan, and you'd have it. It was insulting, offensive, and hilarious at the same time. I haven't felt like this since, well, you know when.
But the worst part of the speech was the continuation of the GOP anti-science streak. Again, when a Republican chooses to talk about wasteful spending, it's always the science, and they always get it wrong. First it was McCain's grizzly bear DNA, then Palin's French fruit flies, and now Jindal has his volcano monitoring.
But unlike McCain's and Palin's remarks, this one doesn't require much scientific expertise to appreciate. Volcanoes kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of property when they erupt. Having a monitoring system that warns people of such an event ahead of time has obvious benefits, the same sort of benefits science has for areas destined for flooding problems were they hit with a huge hurricane.
You'd think Jindal of all people would appreciate this, yet he used Katrina as an example of how government can't be much use in such situations. Now that's what we call chutzpa: Republicans fucking up FEMA with cronyism, totally botching Katrina, and then using that as an argument that government can't do anything right. That's like a child murdering his parents and then pleading for leniency on the grounds that he is an orphan.
Historically, when the GOP has lost with a middle-of-the-roader like McCain, their reaction was to contract right, and so far it looks like they are repeating that history. The new leaders of the party: Jindal, Steele, and (ugh) Palin, are completely out of step with the country outside the 28% that think invading Iraq was a good idea. They'd better be careful, or that's all the votes they are going to get.
But the worst part of the speech was the continuation of the GOP anti-science streak. Again, when a Republican chooses to talk about wasteful spending, it's always the science, and they always get it wrong. First it was McCain's grizzly bear DNA, then Palin's French fruit flies, and now Jindal has his volcano monitoring.
But unlike McCain's and Palin's remarks, this one doesn't require much scientific expertise to appreciate. Volcanoes kill a lot of people and destroy a lot of property when they erupt. Having a monitoring system that warns people of such an event ahead of time has obvious benefits, the same sort of benefits science has for areas destined for flooding problems were they hit with a huge hurricane.
You'd think Jindal of all people would appreciate this, yet he used Katrina as an example of how government can't be much use in such situations. Now that's what we call chutzpa: Republicans fucking up FEMA with cronyism, totally botching Katrina, and then using that as an argument that government can't do anything right. That's like a child murdering his parents and then pleading for leniency on the grounds that he is an orphan.
Historically, when the GOP has lost with a middle-of-the-roader like McCain, their reaction was to contract right, and so far it looks like they are repeating that history. The new leaders of the party: Jindal, Steele, and (ugh) Palin, are completely out of step with the country outside the 28% that think invading Iraq was a good idea. They'd better be careful, or that's all the votes they are going to get.
High Fiving Chimps Clue to Our Communicative Past
Recent studies of apes suggest that our language didn't evolve from grunts, but from gestures. Chimps and bonobos use a complicated set of gestures to communicate, showing an understanding of context, and even developing regional dialects. Ed Yong has a nice summary:
"All primates can communicate with each other through facial expressions, body postures and calls, but humans and apes are unique in their use of gestures. These go beyond simple postures or walking patterns - they are movements of the hand, limbs and feet, specifically directed at another individual.
We think of language as mainly spoken or written but gestures play an enormous, often overlooked role. After all, isn't a speaker who waves their hands animatedly more engaging than one who stands motionless behind a podium? Gestures are such an intrinsic part of the way we communicate that a blind speaker will naturally make them even when speaking to a blind audience. And babies use gestures long before they learn their first words.
Chimps and bonobos also differed considerably in their vocabulary of gestures, with each species having its own 'gesture culture'. The two groups of bonobos even used slightly different sets of gestures to each other."
"All primates can communicate with each other through facial expressions, body postures and calls, but humans and apes are unique in their use of gestures. These go beyond simple postures or walking patterns - they are movements of the hand, limbs and feet, specifically directed at another individual.
We think of language as mainly spoken or written but gestures play an enormous, often overlooked role. After all, isn't a speaker who waves their hands animatedly more engaging than one who stands motionless behind a podium? Gestures are such an intrinsic part of the way we communicate that a blind speaker will naturally make them even when speaking to a blind audience. And babies use gestures long before they learn their first words.
Chimps and bonobos also differed considerably in their vocabulary of gestures, with each species having its own 'gesture culture'. The two groups of bonobos even used slightly different sets of gestures to each other."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Editor Arrested in India for Supporting Free Speech
The anti-free speech edicts courtesy of Muslim intolerance, continue to grow and cause tragic, sometimes comically ironic, incidents. Take this story of an editor arrested for suggesting such laws are a bad idea. It's the apostasy circle writ large: criticism of the idea of apostasy makes the critic guilty of apostasy. See a more detailed discussion here.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Nations by Religious Fervor
Another piece of data that shatters myths about atheists and believers is worldwide religious belief, which you can see here:
Two correlations are immediately obvious in this worldwide data that were so in national data as well: religion dominates among the poor and the less educated, which are themselves correlated. It also far from clear that there is any criminal correlation, except perhaps in the opposite direction the Christians like to claim, though because criminality is also correlated with economic and educational factors, it is difficult to eyeball it. Still, it most certainly does not support the contention that religiousity brings morality and peace.
Two correlations are immediately obvious in this worldwide data that were so in national data as well: religion dominates among the poor and the less educated, which are themselves correlated. It also far from clear that there is any criminal correlation, except perhaps in the opposite direction the Christians like to claim, though because criminality is also correlated with economic and educational factors, it is difficult to eyeball it. Still, it most certainly does not support the contention that religiousity brings morality and peace.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Definition of Christianity
If you want to see naked ignorance laid bare, check out these comments, where the good evolution deniers treat us to idiocy of rare proportion. You'll also find this fabulous definition of Christianity appeared courtesy of Cowdemon:
"Chistianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your lord and master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
"Chistianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your lord and master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
