I recently finished reading one of the most famous scientific works of the modern age, Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species. I'm not sure what I was expecting, but I'll have to say it is a pretty impressive piece of scholarship. His prose is generally quite readable, though some parts are rather slow going, especially towards the beginning where he goes into fairly exhaustive detail about his and others research with pigeons and various plants. Still, the general reader (assuming a modicum of intelligence and education) will have no problem following the majority of it. His arguments are very well laid out, and I was particularly impressed by his effort to anticipate all the possible objections to his theory, and do so in a very modest way ("a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader..."; "objections which might be justly urged against the views maintained in this volume..."). He discusses his theory from almost every possible angle, and even given that we know far more now than we do then (he didn't know about genetics or DNA, for example), his arguments are still very much valid -- if anything, many have since been strengthened by later research.
Perhaps a brief recapitulation of Darwin's theory is in order. Briefly put, variations are common among individuals of all species, and all of these individuals engage in a struggle for existence, both with members of their own species and with other species. If some variations among individuals prove advantageous in the struggle for existence, they will tend to be preserved among later generations, and by a slow, gradual process will accumulate to the point that new species arise. Darwin called this "Natural Selection", in something of analogy with artificial selection used by humans in breeding dogs, horse, pigeons and other animals and plants (the term "survival of the fittest" did not originate with Darwin, though he did add an approving reference to it into later editions of The Origin of Species).
Darwin explains how, given sufficient time, natural selection (or evolution, as we would say now -- Darwin didn't use this word either, though the very last word in his book is the verb form of it, "evolve") can cause varieties to develop within a particular species, and how these varieties can eventually differentiate into separate species (he points out that in his day there were many cases where naturalists, i.e., biologists, couldn't agree whether a particular form was a variety or a species -- a situation that still arises often today -- illustrating that species are simply more clearly defined varieties). He shows that natural selection can even create such specialized organs as wings or eyes, though he acknowledges that this is counter-intuitive, saying "to suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances..., could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." But, as he explains, what seems impossible at a glance can be shown to be very much possible.
Darwin then goes on to discuss the geological record, which as he points out is very incomplete and therefore cannot be expected to show every step in the evolutionary process. What it does show, however, tends to support his theory. He also spends two chapters discussing geographic distribution, including issues such as how two widely separated areas can end up with the same species living in them, how various plants could have been transported to islands (he did a number of experiments with seeds showing that many of them can survive for long periods in salt water), and so forth.
Finally he talks about how groupings of different species and morphology provide evidence for evolution. For example, the reason different kinds of felines (lions, tigers, and other cats) are similar in many ways, having particular features in common, is because they are in fact related to each other. He makes the point that a given modern species will not be descended from any other related modern species, but the two will have a common ancestor, one which will be in a certain sense intermediate between the two, but not exactly intermediate, just as a grandparent of two cousins will have certain features that both cousins have inherited, some that were inherited by only one, and others that neither has. This is why people who think that evolution means humans "descended from apes" have clearly failed to grasp the concept. People are not descended from any of the modern apes; rather, we all have a common ancestor, one which in some ways resembled apes, in other ways resembled humans, but in yet others neither (it is worth noting, however, that in The Origin of Species Darwin does not talk about humans, simply leaving readers to draw their own conclusions about what his theory means for human origins -- though he did address the subject in a later book).
As mentioned above, Darwin does a good job of anticipating objections to his theory and explaining why they are not fatal to it, as well as showing that his theory is the best explanation for many of the things we observe in nature. He spends little time attacking the traditional view, except for a pointed passage in the final chapter, which he concludes by saying "although naturalists very properly demand a full explanation of every difficulty from those who believe in the mutability of species, on their own side they ignore the whole subject of the first appearance of species in what they consider reverent silence." As he says, this refusal to even discuss the details of their own ideas is not scientific: "it is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as the "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact." As The Origin of Species clearly shows, natural selection is the only theory that provides a real explanation for why life on Earth exists in the forms that it does, a fact that is if anything even more true today than it was in Darwin's time.
One minor quibble I had with the book had nothing to do with the content, and may not even have been Darwin's fault, namely the excessive use of commas. There are many commas that obviously don't belong, particularly before restrictive clauses. I don't know if Darwin himself put them there (perhaps people tended to use more commas in his day?) or if it is a problem with the particular edition that I read. However, this takes nothing from the value of the work as a whole.
While I wouldn't necessary recommend The Origin of Species to anyone who is looking for an entertaining read, I would certainly recommend it to anyone who wants a fuller understanding of the theory of evolution, or to anyone who is interested reading a master work in the history of science. By all accounts, this is probably the most accessible of all the great, revolutionary science books, certainly more so than books like Isaac Newton's Prinicipia Mathematica, which is said to be almost unintelligible to all but a few. Certainly anyone who presumes to attack Darwin and his theory should at least make the effort to understand what he actually said, though as he himself stated, people with preconceived notions about such things are not likely to be swayed by any arguments, no matter how rational or how clearly in accordance with the facts they are.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Saturday, January 23, 2010
The Fate of Health Care Reform and Corporate Elections
The big political news in the past week was the Massachusetts special election for the US Senate. Because the loss of the seat held by Teddy Kennedy means the loss of the Democrats' supermajority, there has been endless analysis, discussion, spin, etc. on what the election means in terms of the electorate's attitude towards the Democrats, the Republicans, and Obama; the fate of Obama's agenda, and most particularly, the fate of health care reform. As far as the overall "meaning" of the election, as usual I think some people may be reading too much into it. Sure, it's not a particularly good sign when a Republican wins in a place like Massachusetts, but it's not like they never win state-wide races there (Mitt Romney was their governor), and Brown, while definitely to the right of the average person in Massachusetts, is not as conservative as most Republicans. Furthermore, the Democratic candidate ran a rather bad campaign, to put it mildly, not even bothering to do much campaigning until it was too late. And the economy probably had as much to do with the result as anything, though of course the Republicans are at least as much to blame for that as the Democrats (perhaps the ultimate problem was, as usual, a intellectually-challenged electorate -- though that's not to say that the Democrats are such a brilliant choice, particularly this one).
However, there is no question that this result is damaging as far as the President's agenda. As far as health care reform goes, things are looking fairly bleak. But the problems for health care reform didn't start with this election. In fact, though bills were passed by both the House and Senate, neither of them was a particularly good one. I am not entirely convinced that what has been passed so far would be better than nothing at all, especially in the case of the Senate bill, which lacks even a weak public option. As for the House bill, though it is clearly superior to the Senate bill, the restrictions on abortion spending are a bit much to swallow, and the public option is about as weak as it could be. Now things are even worse, as one of the few options open to the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, to eliminate the need for another Senate vote that the Republicans with the addition of Brown can block. Then Americans would be stuck with the Senate bill, under which people will be required to buy insurance from the monopolistic private insurance companies that have helped block more substantial reform, without even an expansion of Medicare. Another option might be to use reconciliation to pass a modified bill in the Senate, but that may involve some political risks. Yet another possibility that some have considered is to pass a scaled down reform bill containing only provisions that even Republicans will find it hard to oppose (though they might oppose such a bill just for the sake of obstructing Obama). Finally, the Democrats could just give up, though that's not really much of an option either, considering how much political capital they and Obama have already spent (wasted?) on this issue.
I'm still not sure what I'd prefer to see happen myself. As I said, I'm not sure that the current bills are better than nothing. If passing the Senate bill was the only choice, I'd be tempted to say forget the whole thing, except for the possible damage to other parts of Obama's agenda, particularly the even more vital climate change legislation. Perhaps the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made was trying to compromise too much in an effort to get even a small amount of Republican support. The problem with trying to be bipartisan is that it takes two to tango, so to speak. The Republicans are clearly not interested in compromise on health care or most other issues, so there's not much point in compromising. That's not to say that the Democrats should be openly partisan (for that matter, some in their own party have caused problems as well). But Obama sometimes needs to just come out and say what the bottom line is, explain why (not that many people will really listen to actual logic) and simply ask all like-minded legislators to support his ideas, regardless of party. If no Republicans go along, so be it.
The other big story in American politics recently is the Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictions on corporate spending in elections, a ruling that has been widely decried, with critics including Obama himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_campaign_finance). Like so many other important cases in recent times, the ruling came in a 5-4 split, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote (in this particular case on the conservative side). As pointed out in one article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals), liberal critics have in this case complained of judicial activism, a common complaint made by conservative critics against liberal rulings. A more telling criticism of Scalia, Roberts, et al. would be blatant hypocrisy, as it is the conservative judges who talk so much about the need for judicial restraint, strict-constructionism, and so on. Roberts actually attempted to deflect such criticisms by asserting that a failure to rule as they did would have been "judicial abdication". So no doubt he believes that the so-called Founding Fathers that strict constructionists like himself hold in such high esteem would have whole-heartedly approved of his ruling giving corporations more power in elections. Perhaps we can get something of a clue from this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
One of the biggest absurdities here is the assertion that corporations should be treated as persons and therefore their political speech should be protected. Granted, at least one commentator made some good points defending the ruling: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/ . However, while I agree that corporations already have so much power in American "democracy" that this may not really add much to that power, that there are definite problems with the loopholes in the laws, and that there are some risks inherent in any restrictions on political speech, in the end I still think the ruling is indefensible. I am dubious about the idea that the laws in place substantially restricted groups like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, if nothing else because these kinds of groups would never have the money to spend on advertising for or against individual candidates. Any money that they have for public relations is spent advocating their causes in a more general way (and not with television ads, generally, as they can't afford them). The groups most likely to benefit from this ruling are the ones mentioned in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis;_ylt=ArfHb.MZns4sneNX8XhtmGhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoajBnNG1sBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfYW5hbHlzaXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXN3aWxs , with the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has spent much of its recent efforts in opposing climate change legislation, in defiance of many of its own members) being particularly menacing examples. Of course the point that under rule of law we can't argue the constitutionality of a law based on its perceived positive or negative effects remains valid. But the real problem, of course, is the idea of corporate personhood. The concept makes sense if we are discussing the ability to sue or be sued in court, but when it comes to rights which were obviously intended for individuals (i.e., actual people), such as the right to be tried a jury of their peers, the right to vote, freedom of religion, and the right to free speech, the idea that corporations should also freely enjoy such rights is absurd.
However, there is no question that this result is damaging as far as the President's agenda. As far as health care reform goes, things are looking fairly bleak. But the problems for health care reform didn't start with this election. In fact, though bills were passed by both the House and Senate, neither of them was a particularly good one. I am not entirely convinced that what has been passed so far would be better than nothing at all, especially in the case of the Senate bill, which lacks even a weak public option. As for the House bill, though it is clearly superior to the Senate bill, the restrictions on abortion spending are a bit much to swallow, and the public option is about as weak as it could be. Now things are even worse, as one of the few options open to the Democrats is for the House to pass the Senate bill as is, to eliminate the need for another Senate vote that the Republicans with the addition of Brown can block. Then Americans would be stuck with the Senate bill, under which people will be required to buy insurance from the monopolistic private insurance companies that have helped block more substantial reform, without even an expansion of Medicare. Another option might be to use reconciliation to pass a modified bill in the Senate, but that may involve some political risks. Yet another possibility that some have considered is to pass a scaled down reform bill containing only provisions that even Republicans will find it hard to oppose (though they might oppose such a bill just for the sake of obstructing Obama). Finally, the Democrats could just give up, though that's not really much of an option either, considering how much political capital they and Obama have already spent (wasted?) on this issue.
I'm still not sure what I'd prefer to see happen myself. As I said, I'm not sure that the current bills are better than nothing. If passing the Senate bill was the only choice, I'd be tempted to say forget the whole thing, except for the possible damage to other parts of Obama's agenda, particularly the even more vital climate change legislation. Perhaps the biggest mistake Obama and the Democrats made was trying to compromise too much in an effort to get even a small amount of Republican support. The problem with trying to be bipartisan is that it takes two to tango, so to speak. The Republicans are clearly not interested in compromise on health care or most other issues, so there's not much point in compromising. That's not to say that the Democrats should be openly partisan (for that matter, some in their own party have caused problems as well). But Obama sometimes needs to just come out and say what the bottom line is, explain why (not that many people will really listen to actual logic) and simply ask all like-minded legislators to support his ideas, regardless of party. If no Republicans go along, so be it.
The other big story in American politics recently is the Supreme Court ruling overturning restrictions on corporate spending in elections, a ruling that has been widely decried, with critics including Obama himself (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_campaign_finance). Like so many other important cases in recent times, the ruling came in a 5-4 split, with Anthony Kennedy casting the deciding vote (in this particular case on the conservative side). As pointed out in one article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100123/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_conservatives_vs_liberals), liberal critics have in this case complained of judicial activism, a common complaint made by conservative critics against liberal rulings. A more telling criticism of Scalia, Roberts, et al. would be blatant hypocrisy, as it is the conservative judges who talk so much about the need for judicial restraint, strict-constructionism, and so on. Roberts actually attempted to deflect such criticisms by asserting that a failure to rule as they did would have been "judicial abdication". So no doubt he believes that the so-called Founding Fathers that strict constructionists like himself hold in such high esteem would have whole-heartedly approved of his ruling giving corporations more power in elections. Perhaps we can get something of a clue from this quote from Thomas Jefferson: "I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~ Thomas Jefferson, letter to George Logan. November 12, 1816
One of the biggest absurdities here is the assertion that corporations should be treated as persons and therefore their political speech should be protected. Granted, at least one commentator made some good points defending the ruling: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/22/citizens_united/ . However, while I agree that corporations already have so much power in American "democracy" that this may not really add much to that power, that there are definite problems with the loopholes in the laws, and that there are some risks inherent in any restrictions on political speech, in the end I still think the ruling is indefensible. I am dubious about the idea that the laws in place substantially restricted groups like the ACLU or Planned Parenthood, if nothing else because these kinds of groups would never have the money to spend on advertising for or against individual candidates. Any money that they have for public relations is spent advocating their causes in a more general way (and not with television ads, generally, as they can't afford them). The groups most likely to benefit from this ruling are the ones mentioned in this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_an/us_campaign_finance_analysis;_ylt=ArfHb.MZns4sneNX8XhtmGhH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTNoajBnNG1sBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2VfYW5hbHlzaXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMyBHBvcwMyBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDYW5hbHlzaXN3aWxs , with the NRA and the US Chamber of Commerce (which has spent much of its recent efforts in opposing climate change legislation, in defiance of many of its own members) being particularly menacing examples. Of course the point that under rule of law we can't argue the constitutionality of a law based on its perceived positive or negative effects remains valid. But the real problem, of course, is the idea of corporate personhood. The concept makes sense if we are discussing the ability to sue or be sued in court, but when it comes to rights which were obviously intended for individuals (i.e., actual people), such as the right to be tried a jury of their peers, the right to vote, freedom of religion, and the right to free speech, the idea that corporations should also freely enjoy such rights is absurd.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Haiti and Google
The big news of the week, of course, is the earthquake in Haiti. A big earthquake is always a terrible thing, but when it happens in a place like Haiti, it is even worse. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world, and the poorest in the Western Hemisphere. Its people have high illiteracy rates and low life expectancies, and there is a high level of infant mortality. The country has poor infrastructure and suffers from political instability. How its people are going to be able to cope with a disaster like this, I have no idea.
Of course the rest of the world has to do what it can. I have to admit that I haven't made any contributions yet myself, but I hope to do so soon, after I decide where it will do the most good. This is a tricky question, as there are lots of organizations taking donations, but it's hard to be sure which will make the most efficient use of them. This is is especially important in a place like Haiti, where all sorts of difficulties stand in the way of using money efficiently. A good local organization might be best, or else an international one with a long-time presence in the country, as they will have a clearer idea of what people need.
Unfortunately, a few people on the lunatic fringe have already managed to make absurd, insensitive and downright warped comments on the disaster. Of course I'm referring here to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If we are going to drag history into things, Pat, why not talk about how when the slaves revolted in Haiti and actually succeeded (the Haitian Revolution is often cited as the only successful slave rebellion in history), the US reacted by restricting trade with the new nation, partly because of racism and a fear among Southerners that their slaves might try to emulate the Haitians, thus helping ensure that Haiti got off to a bad start from which it never really recovered? Of course it had many other problems ("a pact with the devil", despite Robertson's absurd claims, was not one of them), but an unfriendly US certainly did not help, so the US has in some ways a special obligation to help. As for Limbaugh, his cynicism and insensitivity is just disgusting. What does he expect Obama to do, ignore the Haitians because he's afraid he might be seen as trying to score political points? He certainly can't do anything that's likely to please Limbaugh and his ilk. The suggestion (made either by Limbaugh or some other nutcase) that there was something wrong with Obama immediately holding a press conference about Haiti (where tens of thousands may have died, and hundreds of thousands will be in need of help) when he waited a few days to make a statement on the failed terrorist attack (which killed nobody) is absurd and shows a completely lack of any sense of proportion, or indeed any sense at all (and it's worth mentioning that it took Bush several days to comment on the shoe bomber whose failed attack was quite similar to this one). Even worse than his own politicization of the disaster, Limbaugh seemed to discourage donations to Haiti with his comment that Americans already gave money to Haiti by means of their income tax (presumably referring to US foreign aid to Haiti, which in fact is a tiny part of the federal budget). Fortunately, the only people likely to actually listen to Limbaugh are the selfish, xenophobic and racist types who wouldn't be willing to do anything for the Haitians anyway.
Another interesting piece of news recently was Google's threat to quit China. While some have pointed out that they should have stood up against Chinese censorship a long time ago, I'd say it's better late than never. Of course now they've got to follow through on the threat (unless the Chinese government backs down -- a very unlikely scenario). It is unfortunate for the Chinese that if Google pulls out they will be even more completely at the mercy of the government censors, but given the degree to which companies like Google were being forced to compromise in order to operate in China, I don't think their presence was really doing much good. It remains to be seen if other companies with more complicated investments in China will follow Google's lead (Yahoo issued a statement indicating support for Google's position without actually committing to act in the same way, and even that was criticized by their Chinese partner Alibaba).
Of course the rest of the world has to do what it can. I have to admit that I haven't made any contributions yet myself, but I hope to do so soon, after I decide where it will do the most good. This is a tricky question, as there are lots of organizations taking donations, but it's hard to be sure which will make the most efficient use of them. This is is especially important in a place like Haiti, where all sorts of difficulties stand in the way of using money efficiently. A good local organization might be best, or else an international one with a long-time presence in the country, as they will have a clearer idea of what people need.
Unfortunately, a few people on the lunatic fringe have already managed to make absurd, insensitive and downright warped comments on the disaster. Of course I'm referring here to Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh. If we are going to drag history into things, Pat, why not talk about how when the slaves revolted in Haiti and actually succeeded (the Haitian Revolution is often cited as the only successful slave rebellion in history), the US reacted by restricting trade with the new nation, partly because of racism and a fear among Southerners that their slaves might try to emulate the Haitians, thus helping ensure that Haiti got off to a bad start from which it never really recovered? Of course it had many other problems ("a pact with the devil", despite Robertson's absurd claims, was not one of them), but an unfriendly US certainly did not help, so the US has in some ways a special obligation to help. As for Limbaugh, his cynicism and insensitivity is just disgusting. What does he expect Obama to do, ignore the Haitians because he's afraid he might be seen as trying to score political points? He certainly can't do anything that's likely to please Limbaugh and his ilk. The suggestion (made either by Limbaugh or some other nutcase) that there was something wrong with Obama immediately holding a press conference about Haiti (where tens of thousands may have died, and hundreds of thousands will be in need of help) when he waited a few days to make a statement on the failed terrorist attack (which killed nobody) is absurd and shows a completely lack of any sense of proportion, or indeed any sense at all (and it's worth mentioning that it took Bush several days to comment on the shoe bomber whose failed attack was quite similar to this one). Even worse than his own politicization of the disaster, Limbaugh seemed to discourage donations to Haiti with his comment that Americans already gave money to Haiti by means of their income tax (presumably referring to US foreign aid to Haiti, which in fact is a tiny part of the federal budget). Fortunately, the only people likely to actually listen to Limbaugh are the selfish, xenophobic and racist types who wouldn't be willing to do anything for the Haitians anyway.
Another interesting piece of news recently was Google's threat to quit China. While some have pointed out that they should have stood up against Chinese censorship a long time ago, I'd say it's better late than never. Of course now they've got to follow through on the threat (unless the Chinese government backs down -- a very unlikely scenario). It is unfortunate for the Chinese that if Google pulls out they will be even more completely at the mercy of the government censors, but given the degree to which companies like Google were being forced to compromise in order to operate in China, I don't think their presence was really doing much good. It remains to be seen if other companies with more complicated investments in China will follow Google's lead (Yahoo issued a statement indicating support for Google's position without actually committing to act in the same way, and even that was criticized by their Chinese partner Alibaba).
Update - Here's a recent article that talks about France's historical responsibility for Haiti's poverty and also mentions the US's role in making Haiti the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100216/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/cb_haiti_earthquake
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Reid, Obama and Race
Once again, I'd like to briefly address a should-be-a-non-issue issue, in this case the revelation that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid once referred to Obama as "light-skinned" and said he didn't have a "Negro dialect", with the further implication that these facts made him more electable. Republicans and other public figures have denounced Reid's comments as racist and though Reid has apologized and Obama himself has dismissed the matter, some have called for Reid to resign. Republicans have accused the Democrats of hypocrisy, comparing their muted reaction to Reid's remarks to their strong criticism of former Republican Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott's praise of Strom Thurmond.
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Reid myself. For one thing, his efforts on behalf of the public option as part of health care reform were half-hearted at best. But while some might object to his use of the old-fashioned term Negro, all of what he said was true. What is worth discussing is why it is true, and what can be done to change it. While racism against African-Americans in general has not disappeared, despite Obama's election, it is also clearly the case that darker-skinned African-Americans with a more pronounced dialect (though it seems some dislike this term too, it is the correct one linguistically speaking) are more likely to be discriminated against. This is not by any means a new phenomenon, either, ultimately going back to the days of slavery. Back in the 1950s, blues singer Big Bill Broonzy commented on it in his song "Get Back - Black, Brown, and White", with the lines "If you's white, it's alright, if you's brown, stick around, but if you's black, oh, brother, get back, get back, get back."
The comparison to the Trent Lott case is far-fetched. In Lott's case, he expressed regret that South Carolina's long-term Senator Strom Thurmond failed in his 1948 presidential bid. This was an issue because Thurmond ran specifically as a segregationist, so Lott's comments were naturally interpreted as condoning segregation (a side note: the Daily Show's America textbook has a picture of Thurmond in the midst of his record-length filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, with the caption "The leading segregationist of his day, Thrumond's racist rhetoric so appalled the state of South Carolina that it reelected him to the Senate seven times"). Lott denied this, stating that, to his knowledge, Thurmond had renounced his segregationist views (though not all would accept that claim) and that he only said that Thurmond should have been president to make the old man happy (the occasion was Thurmond's 100th birthday party). In fairness to Lott, it is certainly possible that he really did not intend to condone segregation (though he is on record as making indisputably homophobic remarks), but nevertheless his remarks did (even if unintentionally) imply as much, so there can be no comparison with Reid's remarks, which did not in any way imply support for racism, just an acknowledgement of its existence.
Here's a piece on the web which makes essentially the same points: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1985462,CST-NWS-mitch12.article , and another which discusses the accuracy of Reid's remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-harry-reids-racial-remarks-truth-studies-critics/story?id=9535416&page=2
I can't say that I'm a huge fan of Reid myself. For one thing, his efforts on behalf of the public option as part of health care reform were half-hearted at best. But while some might object to his use of the old-fashioned term Negro, all of what he said was true. What is worth discussing is why it is true, and what can be done to change it. While racism against African-Americans in general has not disappeared, despite Obama's election, it is also clearly the case that darker-skinned African-Americans with a more pronounced dialect (though it seems some dislike this term too, it is the correct one linguistically speaking) are more likely to be discriminated against. This is not by any means a new phenomenon, either, ultimately going back to the days of slavery. Back in the 1950s, blues singer Big Bill Broonzy commented on it in his song "Get Back - Black, Brown, and White", with the lines "If you's white, it's alright, if you's brown, stick around, but if you's black, oh, brother, get back, get back, get back."
The comparison to the Trent Lott case is far-fetched. In Lott's case, he expressed regret that South Carolina's long-term Senator Strom Thurmond failed in his 1948 presidential bid. This was an issue because Thurmond ran specifically as a segregationist, so Lott's comments were naturally interpreted as condoning segregation (a side note: the Daily Show's America textbook has a picture of Thurmond in the midst of his record-length filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, with the caption "The leading segregationist of his day, Thrumond's racist rhetoric so appalled the state of South Carolina that it reelected him to the Senate seven times"). Lott denied this, stating that, to his knowledge, Thurmond had renounced his segregationist views (though not all would accept that claim) and that he only said that Thurmond should have been president to make the old man happy (the occasion was Thurmond's 100th birthday party). In fairness to Lott, it is certainly possible that he really did not intend to condone segregation (though he is on record as making indisputably homophobic remarks), but nevertheless his remarks did (even if unintentionally) imply as much, so there can be no comparison with Reid's remarks, which did not in any way imply support for racism, just an acknowledgement of its existence.
Here's a piece on the web which makes essentially the same points: http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/1985462,CST-NWS-mitch12.article , and another which discusses the accuracy of Reid's remarks: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senator-harry-reids-racial-remarks-truth-studies-critics/story?id=9535416&page=2
This whole brouhaha does remind me of a problem that has bugged me a little in the past, though in some ways I'm afraid even mentioning it might be taken by some the wrong way. That problem is how we define people as African-American. As most people know, the majority of African-Americans don't have purely African ancestry. Most of them have at least some European (white) ancestry as well. My question is, why do we still define people who evidently are no more than half African in ancestry as African-American or as "black"? Should Colin Powell, for instance, be considered African-American or European-American? In truth, he is clearly both, but generally he is labelled as African-American. Obama, of course, is biracial, being the son of a European-American (white) mother and an African father. His racial identity is often accurately given as biracial, but if he is identified as belonging to either race, he is always identified as African-American or black, never as European-American or white. Tiger Woods, who is also biracial, though in his case his other primary ancestry is Asian, was even criticized by some in the black community for emphasizing that he didn't consider himself exclusively African-American but also Asian-American.
This is all a bit ironic, given that it was the racist whites in the 19th century who established the "rule" that a person who had even a discernible amount of black ancestry should be considered black. While I'm certainly not saying that white people should attempt to "claim" Obama or Colin Powell or Douglas Wilder as one of their own, it doesn't seem logical to categorically label them as exclusively African-American either. They are biracial or of mixed race. Of course, to some degree, everyone is of mixed race. I recently learned that one of my own distant ancestors was probably partly of African descent, though that is so far back that if it is true I would still be less than 1% black. For that matter, though, if you go far enough back, everyone is of African ancestry, as that's where the human race came from. This all goes to prove that race shouldn't really matter, except as a neutral way to describe someone, like tall or short. Unfortunately, it still does matter, and until all African-Americans and other minorities can get completely equal treatment, we still have work to do.
While racism remains an important issue (as is discrimination in general, the problem at issue in the current Prop 8 trial), Reid's remarks in and of themselves don't deserve all the attention they are getting. For an issue that is not getting as much attention but is ultimately much more important, the following opinion piece is informative: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-youn10-2010jan10,0,1203910.story . Hopefully people will start paying more attention to this issue rather than what Reid said, so maybe something can be done to prevent the US from becoming even more of a pawn of big business than it already is.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Another year gone
So here we are, at the end of another year. Of course calendars and dates have no significance in and of themselves, but they are a convenient reference point. So while I've always been of the opinion that when it comes to a review of the recent past or resolutions for the future any time of the year will do, I'll admit that the end of a calendar year is a convenient time for doing such things. Be that as it may, I'm not going to attempt to present my choices for most notable events of the year, or best book, album, or song (I haven't been keeping up with things enough to do that), nor I am going to make a list of resolutions.
However, having managed to post entries in this blog several times a month for half a year now, I am starting to think about what I'll be doing with it in the future. I may simply keep on posting occasionally on whatever topic I am inspired to write (or rant) about. I may attempt to do a little more light hearted stuff on occasion (perhaps along the lines of "A Dialogue" from a few months back). I'm also thinking about starting up a new blog exclusively for music related posts (or even two, one for Western music and one for Asian music), though if I do that I may end up posting to this blog less often. Anyway, we'll see.
In conclusion, here are some links to a few amusing articles, videos and cartoons (though many are about serious topics). Most are from the top 10 lists from Time magazine (I don't need to bother making my own year-end lists if someone else has done it for me...).
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_deports_lou_dobbs
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_finally_gets_around_to
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1945913_1945911,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944478,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944490,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1945913_1945907,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944482,00.html
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-25-2009/cheney-predacted
However, having managed to post entries in this blog several times a month for half a year now, I am starting to think about what I'll be doing with it in the future. I may simply keep on posting occasionally on whatever topic I am inspired to write (or rant) about. I may attempt to do a little more light hearted stuff on occasion (perhaps along the lines of "A Dialogue" from a few months back). I'm also thinking about starting up a new blog exclusively for music related posts (or even two, one for Western music and one for Asian music), though if I do that I may end up posting to this blog less often. Anyway, we'll see.
In conclusion, here are some links to a few amusing articles, videos and cartoons (though many are about serious topics). Most are from the top 10 lists from Time magazine (I don't need to bother making my own year-end lists if someone else has done it for me...).
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_deports_lou_dobbs
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/u_s_finally_gets_around_to
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1945913_1945911,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944478,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944490,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1945913_1945907,00.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1945379_1944470_1944482,00.html
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-june-25-2009/cheney-predacted
Sunday, December 20, 2009
People in denial prevent action against climate change
As a follow up to my previous post, I'd like to say a little bit more about the climate change issue. First, as explained last time, I feel compelled to talk a little about something that really shouldn't be an issue, namely the reality of climate change. I'd be tempted to say that those who deny the reality of climate change are like people who claim the Earth is flat or that it's only a few thousand years old (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/sumerians_look_on_in_confusion_as). However, while the evidence for climate change is overwhelming, I'll grant that it isn't quite as completely overwhelming as the evidence against those ideas. A better analogy is the fact that smoking is harmful, something that many long tried to deny (and a few still do). This analogy is particularly appropriate as in the case of climate change as in the case of the health hazards of cigarettes, those with a vested interest in preventing action from being taken are most prominent among those attempting to sow doubt in the minds of the public regarding the scientific evidence.
The climate change deniers come in two camps, those who try to deny that global temperatures are increasing at all, and those who deny that the increase is due to human activity. There are also some who out of ignorance, stupidity or intellectually dishonesty (i.e., they are motivated by ideology to completely deny everything having to do with climate change), straddle both camps. Those who deny that there is a real warming trend tried to use the hacked emails from the climate research center in East Anglia to cast doubt on the temperature data. As I pointed out in my previous post, despite their desperation to find evidence that scientists were cooking the books, so to speak, the few things they did find were taken completely out of context and did nothing to disprove the science. What's more, this center is not the only place conducting climate research, nor is it the only source of such temperature data. Though it is one of the major centers for collecting global temperature data, there are several others, including NASA. All of these places have come up with the same results. Some attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all of these research centers despite the large amount of data they have, but when it comes right down to it, no one has reliable global temperature data that differs markedly from that of these centers, and in fact, as the video I referred to last time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY) points out, the few actual scientists who question the current consensus about climate change generally accept that there has recently been a warming trend (i.e., they are in the second of the two camps). So there is much less reason to question the credibility of all the mainstream climate research centers than there is to question that of their critics.
Some also cite "evidence" that seems to question global warming such as cold winters in particular areas, cooling trends in certain regions, and so forth. In fact, these misleading arguments are one of the reasons why "climate change" is now the preferred term. As is commonly stated by scientists, an increase in the overall global temperature has complex consequences around the world. While most places will warm up, some places will actually get cooler. Likewise rainfall patterns will change, so some places will become drier and others wetter, and so on. Also, a lot of people confuse weather and climate. Climate, roughly speaking, is average weather over a long period of time. So even if the climate warms somewhat, you can still have very cold days and even cold winters. The key is the overall climate, not weather on any given day in a particular location. This also why arguments like "they can't even be sure if it'll rain tomorrow, how can they tell if the Earth is warming" are ignorant. In fact, while modelling climates is not easy, it is a lot easier than predicting short-term weather (just as it's easier to predict certain things about a population than it is about an individual person). Of course the reverse is true as well. Some are far too ready to attribute every weather event (a hurricane, a drought, a hot spell) to global warming. While global warming may influence some such things, it's impossible to say for sure, and in many cases it's merely a short term variation unrelated to the overall climate. Basically, individual weather events are not good arguments either for or against climate change, unless they can be shown to be part of a trend.
An example of climate change deniers misleadingly citing local trends is Antarctica. Studies have shown that outlying parts of Antarctica are clearly warming, while the central part of the continent actually cooled slightly. Deniers cite the latter point as evidence against global warming, while ignoring the former. However, cooling in one region does not mean that the globe as whole is not warming. In fact, there are many reasons for such local variations. In this case, I have recently read that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica means a certain amount of heat that would otherwise be trapped is escaping, meaning that area has cooled slightly. So in this case, our previous disruption of the atmosphere is counterbalancing our ongoing disruption (though of course only a crazy person would suggest such a balance is a good thing, given the hazards created by the lack of an ozone layer). What's more, one of the scientists whose study of Antarctic temperatures has been cited by deniers as evidence against global warming has been quoted as refuting assertions that his work disproves global warming.
Then there is the recent claim that the globe has actually been cooling over the last decade. This claim (using the same temperature data that the deniers claim to doubt) is based on disingenuous use of the year 1997 as a starting point. That year,global temperatures were being affected by El Nino, which combined with the general warming over the 20th century made that year the hottest on record. This means, of course, that years since then, when there has been no El Nino effect, have not been as hot. However, if you use either 1996 or 1998 as a starting point, you still see a warming trend. So basically the "global cooling" claim is based on a highly misleading use of statistics, as was shown when statisticians were given the data without being told what it was and yet they still all agreed that the data showed an upward trend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). What's more, despite 1997 still being the hottest year (a record that is expected fall in the next few years), the decade that is just ending was still overall the hottest ever, hotter even than the 1990s (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate).
Another thing climate change deniers like to bring up is the fact that there was a period following the middle of the century when global climate actually cooled slightly. They point to a few articles in the mainstream media a few decades back talking about the possibility of a new ice age, and imply that climate scientists and the media are simply prone to exaggerate any recent trend in temperatures into a non-existent apocalyptic threat. They also seem to imply that the whole idea that the globe is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming, as it is called) is something that only appeared in the last couple of decades.
In fact, the idea that human industrial activity could lead to an increase in temperatures goes back over a hundred years. It was apparently first hypothesized by Svante Ahrrenius in 1898, when human production of greenhouse gases was a small fraction of what it is now (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_timeline;_ylt=Ai.JKlZRotSa4KFFyX2z7bxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aWNwa29sBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLWtleWRhdGVzYWJv). And by the 1970s, the predicted increase in temperatures over the first part of the 20th century had already been observed. A downturn in temperatures beginning in the 1940s which wiped out some of the increase had also been observed, but by no means all scientists agreed that a new ice age was the cause. Nor did this decrease cause them all to discard the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Isaac Asimov, best known as a science fiction writer but also a qualified biochemist, wrote a book on science for the general reader back in the early 1980s in which he briefly discusses global warming. He explains how humans were loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide at a rate 200 times that of the world's volcanoes. He then talks about the downturn in temperatures, which was still happening at the time. He suggests that it was caused by an increase in smog particles in the atmosphere which cut off sunlight, so "it would seem that two different types of human atmospheric pollution are currently canceling each other's effect, at least in this respect and at least temporarily." While I don't know if his explanation for the downward trend (which of course ended about the time he wrote this) is the currently accepted one, but this clearly shows that the idea of anthropogenic global warming was current among scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the slight downward trend in temperatures at the time.
Aside from the clear evidence of an upward trend in global average temperatures over the past centuries, there are plenty of other indications of a warming trend. One well known example is glaciers, which are retreating in many places around the world. Some deniers try to cast doubt on this evidence as well, claiming that some glaciers are growing, or that those that are shrinking are doing so for reasons other than global warming. No doubt a few glaciers are growing, because, as explained above, warming on a global scale can actually cause certain regions to cool, and also in some cases other factors may be at work (as in the cooling trend in some parts of Antarctica mentioned above). Likewise, in a few cases factors other than temperature may cause a glacier to shrink, such as a region becoming significantly drier. However, the fact that a majority of glaciers, in locations all around the world including the Alps, the Andes, Greenland and, most importantly the Himalayas (source of much of the water supply for Asian countries that are home to over a third of the world's people), are shrinking is a clear indication that more than regional factors are at work. Another worrying sign is increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet (which contains a substantial percentage of the world's fresh water) and of Arctic ice. There is no question that these phenomena are occurring, and they are clear indications of a warming pattern. What's more, if they continue, they will have dramatic effects on the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Given all the evidence (and I've only given an extremely cursory overview), there is no question that the average global temperature has been rising over the last century (except the above mentioned period between about 1950 and 1980) and that the warming has accelerated over the last two decades. As mentioned previously, this is even accepted by many of those few deniers who have real scientific qualifications. So the next question is whether this warming is a natural cycle or whether humans are responsible. Some people make the argument that the climate has fluctuated ever since the Earth and its atmosphere formed (i.e., since long before humans existed) and therefore any fluctuations are natural. On the fact of it, this argument is illogical. Yes, the climate has fluctuated throughout geologic history and previous fluctuations have been natural. That does not mean that this fluctuation must necessarily be natural, any more than the fact that you haven't died yet means you can't die. The fact that the climate can and does change without human help does not mean that humans can't affect the climate. Right-wing trolls will sometimes sarcastically comment regarding any mention of climate change in the Earth's geologic past or even other planets that environmentalists, liberals, Al Gore, et al. are no doubt concerned about the case of "global warming" being discussed, implying that because these groups believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change, they must think all climate change is anthropogenic. This is patently absurd. Climate change is like the course of a river; it can and does change naturally, but humans can also change it, and the fact that it happens one way (naturally or through human action) does not mean it can't happen the other way.
Those who claim that the present warming is not anthropogenic obviously have to come up with another explanation for the unusually rapid increase in temperature. A favorite is solar activity. The theory is that the sun has recently begun putting out more energy, and this has warmed up the Earth. It is true that in the past variation in solar activity has been responsible for global warming, and a number of scientists believe it may also be contributing to current warming. However, after repeated studies, the vast majority of researchers have concluded that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans are responsible for the majority of the current warming effect.
Others simply claim that since the climate has changed in the past, the fact that it is changing now (whether or not humans are responsible) is no big deal. They point out that the Earth will adjust and life will go on. Certainly it is true that any claim that the Earth itself is in any danger is complete hyperbole. The planet is no danger from humans. The same cannot be said for much of the life on it. Even though the carbon cycle will probably eventually compensate for an increase in carbon in the atmosphere and oceans by locking more carbon into limestone, this process takes tens of thousands of years. In other words, we'll be stuck with elevated temperatures and all the attendant effects for that length of time. While life on Earth couldn't be wiped out by anthropogenic climate change (unless we managed to push greenhouse gas levels high enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect like that Venus experienced), that doesn't mean that we should be casual about the effects. While nature will eventually adjust, many individual species are not likely to adjust fast enough to survive a rapid change in global climate. As for humans, while we are famously adaptable, it's not like we are still a relatively small population of hunter-gatherers who can just move if some regions become less congenial. There are six and half billion people in the world now, and hundreds of millions, even billions, will be negatively affected by climate change. They can't just pick up and move without causing massive disruption. So observing that life on Earth can survive major changes in climate is like observing that it can survive the Earth being hit by a sizable asteroid. It can, but is the extinction of large numbers of species and the death of millions of people (and possibly even the end of modern civilization, if the disruption is bad enough) a price we want to pay?
A review of some basic facts is in order. First, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases are greenhouse gases. That is to say, they all trap solar energy of certain wavelengths in the atmosphere, causing it to heat up. A certain amount of this is good; in fact if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The amount of warming caused by each gas also varies; carbon dioxide is not the most effective greenhouse gas. But too much of any greenhouse gas, including CO2, is definitely a bad thing. To see this, we need look no further than the nearest planet, Venus. Though it is a near twin to Earth in terms of mass, Venus has an average surface temperature of about 450 degrees Celsius, thanks to a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, the result of a runaway greenhouse effect which boiled any oceans the planet may once have had and baked all the carbon out of the rocks and into the air. So while carbon dioxide is not the only or even the most potent greenhouse gas, too much of it can create a hellish atmosphere.
Secondly, human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide but also others such as methane. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans at present is many times greater than that produced by natural processes, such as volcanic outgassing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and in the oceans as well) is increasing noticeably, and it is clear that the main reason is human activity.
Finally, as explained above, the average global temperature has increased noticeably over the past decades. So is there a connection between the human production of greenhouse gases and the increase in temperatures? Well, if many smokers get lung cancer but relatively few nonsmokers do, is there a connection between smoking and lung cancer? If people who have close contact with a sick person also get sick, is there a connection between their illnesses? It seems obvious to conclude that in the first case, just as in the other two, there is a connection. It would be nice to think there isn't, but there's no point in deluding ourselves (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html).
So where does that leave us? Basically, we can either act as if this is a problem that we need to solve or just ignore the issue and continue behaving the same way. Even if we believed that there was some room for doubt about the cause of global warming, it is clear that taking action is the logical choice. If climate change is being caused by us, drastic action is necessary to prevent the severe consequences of continued warming. If, as the deniers assert in the face of all contrary evidence, humans are not causing global warming, what would be the consequences of taking action against it? We would increase our use of cleaner energy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (simultaneously decreasing the attendant pollution -- and here I'm not talking about greenhouse gases but all the even more obvious pollutants), and become less profligate in our use of energy. Yes, there might be some temporary economic pain as we adjust our lifestyles and people have to switch from less environmentally sound professions to more sustainable ones, but in the long run we'd still be better off -- and that's even if there was no climate problem to solve. On the other hand, if we do nothing and continue as we are, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, other resources will be drained faster as populous nations like China and India start consuming energy at rates comparable to the developed world, and other types of pollution will become more and more of a problem. So even if climate change weren't an issue (which it clearly is), we are better off changing our ways now.
Unfortunately, there are many people with a vested interest in the current system (far more than could possibly have a vested interest in creating a false climate change scare, delusions about socialist conspiracies notwithstanding). Others simply don't want to change their bad habits, and will listen to anyone who assures them that they don't have to. While in most cases delusions about the way things are tend to be relatively harmless (such as superstitions, belief in the supernatural, or the idea that aliens visit Earth secretly), in this case these people can do real harm, as evidenced by Barack Obama's inability to commit the US to major cuts in carbon emissions at Copenhagen, which in turn resulted from the fact that he knows he would never get Congress to agree to major cuts, because it is filled with delusional people like James Inhofe (admittedly few are as bad as him, but they are bad enough). So while the conclusion that action is necessary is obvious enough, we still have to keep making the argument until the majority of people realize this and take action.
The climate change deniers come in two camps, those who try to deny that global temperatures are increasing at all, and those who deny that the increase is due to human activity. There are also some who out of ignorance, stupidity or intellectually dishonesty (i.e., they are motivated by ideology to completely deny everything having to do with climate change), straddle both camps. Those who deny that there is a real warming trend tried to use the hacked emails from the climate research center in East Anglia to cast doubt on the temperature data. As I pointed out in my previous post, despite their desperation to find evidence that scientists were cooking the books, so to speak, the few things they did find were taken completely out of context and did nothing to disprove the science. What's more, this center is not the only place conducting climate research, nor is it the only source of such temperature data. Though it is one of the major centers for collecting global temperature data, there are several others, including NASA. All of these places have come up with the same results. Some attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of all of these research centers despite the large amount of data they have, but when it comes right down to it, no one has reliable global temperature data that differs markedly from that of these centers, and in fact, as the video I referred to last time (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY) points out, the few actual scientists who question the current consensus about climate change generally accept that there has recently been a warming trend (i.e., they are in the second of the two camps). So there is much less reason to question the credibility of all the mainstream climate research centers than there is to question that of their critics.
Some also cite "evidence" that seems to question global warming such as cold winters in particular areas, cooling trends in certain regions, and so forth. In fact, these misleading arguments are one of the reasons why "climate change" is now the preferred term. As is commonly stated by scientists, an increase in the overall global temperature has complex consequences around the world. While most places will warm up, some places will actually get cooler. Likewise rainfall patterns will change, so some places will become drier and others wetter, and so on. Also, a lot of people confuse weather and climate. Climate, roughly speaking, is average weather over a long period of time. So even if the climate warms somewhat, you can still have very cold days and even cold winters. The key is the overall climate, not weather on any given day in a particular location. This also why arguments like "they can't even be sure if it'll rain tomorrow, how can they tell if the Earth is warming" are ignorant. In fact, while modelling climates is not easy, it is a lot easier than predicting short-term weather (just as it's easier to predict certain things about a population than it is about an individual person). Of course the reverse is true as well. Some are far too ready to attribute every weather event (a hurricane, a drought, a hot spell) to global warming. While global warming may influence some such things, it's impossible to say for sure, and in many cases it's merely a short term variation unrelated to the overall climate. Basically, individual weather events are not good arguments either for or against climate change, unless they can be shown to be part of a trend.
An example of climate change deniers misleadingly citing local trends is Antarctica. Studies have shown that outlying parts of Antarctica are clearly warming, while the central part of the continent actually cooled slightly. Deniers cite the latter point as evidence against global warming, while ignoring the former. However, cooling in one region does not mean that the globe as whole is not warming. In fact, there are many reasons for such local variations. In this case, I have recently read that the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica means a certain amount of heat that would otherwise be trapped is escaping, meaning that area has cooled slightly. So in this case, our previous disruption of the atmosphere is counterbalancing our ongoing disruption (though of course only a crazy person would suggest such a balance is a good thing, given the hazards created by the lack of an ozone layer). What's more, one of the scientists whose study of Antarctic temperatures has been cited by deniers as evidence against global warming has been quoted as refuting assertions that his work disproves global warming.
Then there is the recent claim that the globe has actually been cooling over the last decade. This claim (using the same temperature data that the deniers claim to doubt) is based on disingenuous use of the year 1997 as a starting point. That year,global temperatures were being affected by El Nino, which combined with the general warming over the 20th century made that year the hottest on record. This means, of course, that years since then, when there has been no El Nino effect, have not been as hot. However, if you use either 1996 or 1998 as a starting point, you still see a warming trend. So basically the "global cooling" claim is based on a highly misleading use of statistics, as was shown when statisticians were given the data without being told what it was and yet they still all agreed that the data showed an upward trend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). What's more, despite 1997 still being the hottest year (a record that is expected fall in the next few years), the decade that is just ending was still overall the hottest ever, hotter even than the 1990s (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091208/ap_on_sc/climate).
Another thing climate change deniers like to bring up is the fact that there was a period following the middle of the century when global climate actually cooled slightly. They point to a few articles in the mainstream media a few decades back talking about the possibility of a new ice age, and imply that climate scientists and the media are simply prone to exaggerate any recent trend in temperatures into a non-existent apocalyptic threat. They also seem to imply that the whole idea that the globe is warming due to human activity (anthropogenic global warming, as it is called) is something that only appeared in the last couple of decades.
In fact, the idea that human industrial activity could lead to an increase in temperatures goes back over a hundred years. It was apparently first hypothesized by Svante Ahrrenius in 1898, when human production of greenhouse gases was a small fraction of what it is now (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/climate_timeline;_ylt=Ai.JKlZRotSa4KFFyX2z7bxH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2aWNwa29sBHBvcwM1BHNlYwN5bi1yLWItbGVmdARzbGsDLWtleWRhdGVzYWJv). And by the 1970s, the predicted increase in temperatures over the first part of the 20th century had already been observed. A downturn in temperatures beginning in the 1940s which wiped out some of the increase had also been observed, but by no means all scientists agreed that a new ice age was the cause. Nor did this decrease cause them all to discard the idea of anthropogenic global warming. Isaac Asimov, best known as a science fiction writer but also a qualified biochemist, wrote a book on science for the general reader back in the early 1980s in which he briefly discusses global warming. He explains how humans were loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide at a rate 200 times that of the world's volcanoes. He then talks about the downturn in temperatures, which was still happening at the time. He suggests that it was caused by an increase in smog particles in the atmosphere which cut off sunlight, so "it would seem that two different types of human atmospheric pollution are currently canceling each other's effect, at least in this respect and at least temporarily." While I don't know if his explanation for the downward trend (which of course ended about the time he wrote this) is the currently accepted one, but this clearly shows that the idea of anthropogenic global warming was current among scientists in the 1970s and 1980s, despite the slight downward trend in temperatures at the time.
Aside from the clear evidence of an upward trend in global average temperatures over the past centuries, there are plenty of other indications of a warming trend. One well known example is glaciers, which are retreating in many places around the world. Some deniers try to cast doubt on this evidence as well, claiming that some glaciers are growing, or that those that are shrinking are doing so for reasons other than global warming. No doubt a few glaciers are growing, because, as explained above, warming on a global scale can actually cause certain regions to cool, and also in some cases other factors may be at work (as in the cooling trend in some parts of Antarctica mentioned above). Likewise, in a few cases factors other than temperature may cause a glacier to shrink, such as a region becoming significantly drier. However, the fact that a majority of glaciers, in locations all around the world including the Alps, the Andes, Greenland and, most importantly the Himalayas (source of much of the water supply for Asian countries that are home to over a third of the world's people), are shrinking is a clear indication that more than regional factors are at work. Another worrying sign is increased melting of the Greenland ice sheet (which contains a substantial percentage of the world's fresh water) and of Arctic ice. There is no question that these phenomena are occurring, and they are clear indications of a warming pattern. What's more, if they continue, they will have dramatic effects on the climate of the northern hemisphere.
Given all the evidence (and I've only given an extremely cursory overview), there is no question that the average global temperature has been rising over the last century (except the above mentioned period between about 1950 and 1980) and that the warming has accelerated over the last two decades. As mentioned previously, this is even accepted by many of those few deniers who have real scientific qualifications. So the next question is whether this warming is a natural cycle or whether humans are responsible. Some people make the argument that the climate has fluctuated ever since the Earth and its atmosphere formed (i.e., since long before humans existed) and therefore any fluctuations are natural. On the fact of it, this argument is illogical. Yes, the climate has fluctuated throughout geologic history and previous fluctuations have been natural. That does not mean that this fluctuation must necessarily be natural, any more than the fact that you haven't died yet means you can't die. The fact that the climate can and does change without human help does not mean that humans can't affect the climate. Right-wing trolls will sometimes sarcastically comment regarding any mention of climate change in the Earth's geologic past or even other planets that environmentalists, liberals, Al Gore, et al. are no doubt concerned about the case of "global warming" being discussed, implying that because these groups believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change, they must think all climate change is anthropogenic. This is patently absurd. Climate change is like the course of a river; it can and does change naturally, but humans can also change it, and the fact that it happens one way (naturally or through human action) does not mean it can't happen the other way.
Those who claim that the present warming is not anthropogenic obviously have to come up with another explanation for the unusually rapid increase in temperature. A favorite is solar activity. The theory is that the sun has recently begun putting out more energy, and this has warmed up the Earth. It is true that in the past variation in solar activity has been responsible for global warming, and a number of scientists believe it may also be contributing to current warming. However, after repeated studies, the vast majority of researchers have concluded that greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere by humans are responsible for the majority of the current warming effect.
Others simply claim that since the climate has changed in the past, the fact that it is changing now (whether or not humans are responsible) is no big deal. They point out that the Earth will adjust and life will go on. Certainly it is true that any claim that the Earth itself is in any danger is complete hyperbole. The planet is no danger from humans. The same cannot be said for much of the life on it. Even though the carbon cycle will probably eventually compensate for an increase in carbon in the atmosphere and oceans by locking more carbon into limestone, this process takes tens of thousands of years. In other words, we'll be stuck with elevated temperatures and all the attendant effects for that length of time. While life on Earth couldn't be wiped out by anthropogenic climate change (unless we managed to push greenhouse gas levels high enough to create a runaway greenhouse effect like that Venus experienced), that doesn't mean that we should be casual about the effects. While nature will eventually adjust, many individual species are not likely to adjust fast enough to survive a rapid change in global climate. As for humans, while we are famously adaptable, it's not like we are still a relatively small population of hunter-gatherers who can just move if some regions become less congenial. There are six and half billion people in the world now, and hundreds of millions, even billions, will be negatively affected by climate change. They can't just pick up and move without causing massive disruption. So observing that life on Earth can survive major changes in climate is like observing that it can survive the Earth being hit by a sizable asteroid. It can, but is the extinction of large numbers of species and the death of millions of people (and possibly even the end of modern civilization, if the disruption is bad enough) a price we want to pay?
A review of some basic facts is in order. First, carbon dioxide, methane and other gases are greenhouse gases. That is to say, they all trap solar energy of certain wavelengths in the atmosphere, causing it to heat up. A certain amount of this is good; in fact if it weren't for the greenhouse effect, Earth would be too cold for life. The amount of warming caused by each gas also varies; carbon dioxide is not the most effective greenhouse gas. But too much of any greenhouse gas, including CO2, is definitely a bad thing. To see this, we need look no further than the nearest planet, Venus. Though it is a near twin to Earth in terms of mass, Venus has an average surface temperature of about 450 degrees Celsius, thanks to a thick atmosphere of carbon dioxide, the result of a runaway greenhouse effect which boiled any oceans the planet may once have had and baked all the carbon out of the rocks and into the air. So while carbon dioxide is not the only or even the most potent greenhouse gas, too much of it can create a hellish atmosphere.
Secondly, human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is currently producing large amounts of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide but also others such as methane. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans at present is many times greater than that produced by natural processes, such as volcanic outgassing. The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and in the oceans as well) is increasing noticeably, and it is clear that the main reason is human activity.
Finally, as explained above, the average global temperature has increased noticeably over the past decades. So is there a connection between the human production of greenhouse gases and the increase in temperatures? Well, if many smokers get lung cancer but relatively few nonsmokers do, is there a connection between smoking and lung cancer? If people who have close contact with a sick person also get sick, is there a connection between their illnesses? It seems obvious to conclude that in the first case, just as in the other two, there is a connection. It would be nice to think there isn't, but there's no point in deluding ourselves (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/johann-hari-i-wish-that-the-climate-change-deniers-were-right-14587028.html).
So where does that leave us? Basically, we can either act as if this is a problem that we need to solve or just ignore the issue and continue behaving the same way. Even if we believed that there was some room for doubt about the cause of global warming, it is clear that taking action is the logical choice. If climate change is being caused by us, drastic action is necessary to prevent the severe consequences of continued warming. If, as the deniers assert in the face of all contrary evidence, humans are not causing global warming, what would be the consequences of taking action against it? We would increase our use of cleaner energy, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (simultaneously decreasing the attendant pollution -- and here I'm not talking about greenhouse gases but all the even more obvious pollutants), and become less profligate in our use of energy. Yes, there might be some temporary economic pain as we adjust our lifestyles and people have to switch from less environmentally sound professions to more sustainable ones, but in the long run we'd still be better off -- and that's even if there was no climate problem to solve. On the other hand, if we do nothing and continue as we are, we will eventually run out of fossil fuels, other resources will be drained faster as populous nations like China and India start consuming energy at rates comparable to the developed world, and other types of pollution will become more and more of a problem. So even if climate change weren't an issue (which it clearly is), we are better off changing our ways now.
Unfortunately, there are many people with a vested interest in the current system (far more than could possibly have a vested interest in creating a false climate change scare, delusions about socialist conspiracies notwithstanding). Others simply don't want to change their bad habits, and will listen to anyone who assures them that they don't have to. While in most cases delusions about the way things are tend to be relatively harmless (such as superstitions, belief in the supernatural, or the idea that aliens visit Earth secretly), in this case these people can do real harm, as evidenced by Barack Obama's inability to commit the US to major cuts in carbon emissions at Copenhagen, which in turn resulted from the fact that he knows he would never get Congress to agree to major cuts, because it is filled with delusional people like James Inhofe (admittedly few are as bad as him, but they are bad enough). So while the conclusion that action is necessary is obvious enough, we still have to keep making the argument until the majority of people realize this and take action.
Update -- For those who try to use the recent winter weather in North America to question the reality of global warming, the following article from Time entitled "D.C. Snowstorm: How Global Warming Makes Blizzards Worse" should be required reading: http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100210/hl_time/08599196229400 . As for the minor, though embarrassing, errors in the IPCC report on climate change, as explained in this report (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100210/ap_on_sc/sci_climate_report_woes;_ylt=AviWT1kIzu4HYei22ptbobqHgsgF;_ylu=X3oDMTJrYm5kZ3FlBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMjEwL3NjaV9jbGltYXRlX3JlcG9ydF93b2VzBHBvcwM4BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N0X3BvcHVsYXIEc2xrA3NjaWVudGlzdHNzZQ--), they have no affect on the underlying science on global warming.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Climate change deniers manufacture controversy
Sometimes I feel compelled to comment on something that is not really worthy of comment or even any real attention at all, simply because everyone persists in talking about it. Likewise, I sometimes feel that I simply have to present arguments on an issue, even when the reality of the situation is so blindingly obvious that anyone who is arguing for the other side is clearly so hopelessly dense (or ideologically committed) that no argument is going to sway them (e.g., Obama's birthplace). I sometimes think I shouldn't say anything about such issues, because in some ways deigning to discuss them perpetuates the idea that they are worth discussing, or that there is something to debate. The problem is that in some cases the underlying issue or a related one is actually important, and allowing the idiots and crazy people to go without any response might conceivably influence more ignorant people in the middle. One instance of this is the "controversy" over the hacked emails written by climate scientists, and the overall issue of human-induced climate change.
Before we get into the "controversy" itself, I'd like to address something else, and that's the name that some people have attached to the hacked email issue, namely "Climategate". Can we give the "something-gate" thing a rest already? Yes, Watergate was a big deal, but does that mean we have to attach the second half of the name of a Washington hotel to every new political scandal since then on to the end of human civilization? We've already heard names like "Contragate", "Monicagate", and who knows how many more. Thankfully most of them are not the most common names for the scandals in question, but they still appear far too often. While we're at it, why not go back and name every political scandal in history whatever-gate? The Teapot Dome scandal, for instance, could be Teapotgate, and so on.... Enough already with the "gates"! [Update: Apparently I'm not the only one who can see the absurdity of this. A March 1, 2010 New York Times article entitled "In Paterson's Attempt to Reassure the Public, a Flashback to That '70s Show" that discusses parallels between Watergate and NY governor David Paterson's interference in an aide's domestic violence case includes a reference to "the enduring journalistic tic of mindlessly attaching the suffix “-gate” to every scandal that comes along."]
As for the emails themselves, for any who don't know, hundreds of private emails were hacked from the University of East Anglia in the UK, home of one of the top climate research centers, and posted on the web. Conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers (those who deny that average global temperatures are rising, or insist that any such warming has nothing to do with human activity) went through these emails and claimed that they came up with evidence that climate scientists were fudging data, engaging in conspiracy to silence opponents, and so forth. Many more sensible people have noted that they were cherry-picking, but it deserves reemphasis. There were hundreds of emails, and yet these people have been harping on no more than half a dozen sentences. That's half a dozen sentences, not even entire emails, out of hundreds of emails, some quite lengthy. This alone shows how desperate they were to find anything they could use.
While a few of the sentences that the nuts (sorry, but it's a convenient shorthand, and it's hard to give these people the respect due to those who have honest questions) dug out may look a little bad to people who don't really think about them, none of them amount to much at all, and that's even more the case considering that they were taken completely out of context. The one most commonly cited is the line "I've just completed Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [from 1981 onward] and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." One word here that the people who want to cast doubts on the science focus on is "trick". Now as we all know, the verb "trick" means to cheat or deceive, and that's what these people want us to think the word implies. But anyone with even a modicum of grammatical knowledge can see that the "trick" in "Mike's trick" is a noun. While the noun trick sometimes can refer to an action involving deception, it also has many meanings that have nothing to do with deception, such as a specialized skill ("tricks of the trade") or a clever act (as in "my dog can do tricks"). Even taken out of context, it is clear that that is what is meant here. The other part of this sentence that these people seized on was "hide the decline". I will say that "hide" was a poor choice of words, but it's not really relevant. The real question is what decline is being discussed. Is it a decline in actual temperatures? Even out of context, it's clear that it isn't, as the writer (Phil Jones) suggests using the "real temps", that is the actual temperatures, to "hide" the decline in question. As explained on this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY), the reference is to tree ring data, which matched up well with actual temperatures earlier in the 20th century but then began to diverge from actual temperatures. Why this might be is still something of a mystery, but since the problem the world needs to focus on is the actual temperatures, it is relatively unimportant. In any case, in context it's obvious that this sentence is not referring to any attempt to deceive the world about the real climate situation.
Another example of a sentence taken completely out of context was "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a travesty that we can't.", which as the abovementioned video explains, is simply an expression of frustration with the inadequacy of certain models. Another sentence I saw cited a few times was pme in which Jones says "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right." On the face of it, this is not a statement of someone who thinks that the science shows anything other than that global warming is occurring. At most, it might seem to show a little doubt that the science that he clearly believes in will be borne out by events, but it's more likely to be a somewhat cynical hope that more dramatic warming in the near future will erase any doubts (except among the lunatic fringe). Perhaps not the best thing to be hoping for, but perfectly understandable.
An element of the emails that even some who are not climate change deniers focused on was the apparent effort of Jones and others to prevent papers by climate change deniers from being published in journals, and to keep data out of their hands. Apparently they wanted to keep two papers they found objectionable out of the IPCC report (the massive international set of research by a body of international scientists -- winners of the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore -- that concluded that the Earth is warming and that it is highly probable that human activity is a primary cause). While they were wrong to do so, the reports in question apparently did end up being included, and have since been shown to be flawed. The scientists also discuss their irritation at a journal which published a paper from a climate change denier, and threaten to refuse to treat it as a respectable journal as a result. While this may look bad on the surface, it is actually understandable. If a "scientific" journal chose to publish a paper claiming that the Earth was flat, would scientists be expected to continue to treat it as a reputable journal? While that may seem like an extreme example, to many mainstream scientists, some of the more extreme deniers are little better than flat earthers. It is worth mentioning that an editor at the journal in question also quit over its decision to publish the paper the East Anglia scientists criticized.
As for attempts to keep data out of certain people's hands, that was more clearly a case where Jones and any who went along were wrong, but even this is somewhat understandable. After all, look at the absurd liberties some people took in taking the content of these emails out of context. While data should be available to all, it is easy to comprehend the temptation to want to keep it from people who will deliberately twist it. And climate deniers are already well known for that, an example being the attempt to claim the world has been cooling over the last decade, which they only manage by taking a particular year (1997, which due to the effects of El Nino was the hottest on record) as their starting point. This misuse of statistics is debunked in a set of AP reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). So it's easy to imagine why some scientists would be inclined not to let these people get their hands on their data. Likewise the desire expressed in an email to punch out one of the more persistent deniers. While not a laudable desire, it's not hard to understand the level of frustration some climate scientists may feel towards these people. Of course they should only express such emotions privately, not in a public email (oh, wait, these were private emails that their senders didn't expect to be made public...).
A lengthy AP analysis by several people of all these emails (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails) also came to the conclusion that there was nothing in them that through doubt on the science, though in an attempt to be even-handed (bending over backward to be so, really), they did criticize the scientists for being a little too petty. But the fact that scientists aren't always rational and unemotional should be no surprise to anyone who knows the history of science, and the petty sniping between scientists such as Isaac Newton and Gottfried von Leibniz, or palentologists Edward Cope and Othniel Marsh, or indeed many scientists holding opposing views on some scientific question. If anything, scientists can be even more childish than many other people, perhaps in some cases due to a certain lack of emotional maturity (though perhaps I should cast aspersions, since I can't claim to be perfect in that area myself).
Regarding why the climate change deniers (at least the more extreme ones) are hardly more worth debating than flat earthers, birthers or people who claim the Moon landing was hoax, I'll have to save that for a subsequent post. But regarding this imaginary controversy, here are a few final thoughts. One, some critics claim the climate scientists' emails show that they are overly dogmatic about their belief in global warming. This may be true to some extent (as just noted, being dogmatic about cherished theories is hardly unknown among scientists), but if mainstream scientists who believe climate change is happening and is caused by humans are dogmatic, then what are their opponents? Secondly, the more extreme commentators who try to claim the emails show a conspiracy to mislead the public are, as demonstrated above, obviously brainless, insane or dishonest (remember that out of hundreds of emails which the senders didn't expect to be made public, the best they could come up with was these few sentences, none of which shows anything like a blatant cover up), but if there's any doubt, I actually saw two of these people go so far as to claim that climate change was part of a conspiracy to create a new socialist world order. One actually fingered the UN as being behind it, which is even more absurd, given that the UN has such a small budget and is so paralyzed by contrary factions that it has trouble managing even realtively small operations, let alone taking over the world. The idea that the huge number of scientists who say global warming is happening (in the wake of this email affair, 1700 UK scientists signed a letter reaffirming their conviction that climate change is real) are all part of vast conspiracy or are only being politically correct to get government grant money (a particularly bizarre claim to make about US scientists, seeing as until recently the US had an administration that preferred to pretend climate change wasn't happening) is ludicrous. If anyone has a major financial stake in manufacturing anything regarding climate change, it's the energy companies that would prefer to deny that their products are causing global warming.
So why should we even pay attention to these people who try to manufacture controversy about the science behind climate change? One reason, unfortunately, is that some of these people are in the US Congress, which is currently one of the biggest obstacles, if not the biggest, to a global climate agreement at Copenhagen. The worst offender is in the Senate, namely James Inhofe, R-OK, but there are also some in the House (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing). People like this may end up preventing the rest of the world from solving this very real problem. So until their constituents wise up and vote them out of office, more sensible people will have to go on wasting time demolishing their absurd claims.
Before we get into the "controversy" itself, I'd like to address something else, and that's the name that some people have attached to the hacked email issue, namely "Climategate". Can we give the "something-gate" thing a rest already? Yes, Watergate was a big deal, but does that mean we have to attach the second half of the name of a Washington hotel to every new political scandal since then on to the end of human civilization? We've already heard names like "Contragate", "Monicagate", and who knows how many more. Thankfully most of them are not the most common names for the scandals in question, but they still appear far too often. While we're at it, why not go back and name every political scandal in history whatever-gate? The Teapot Dome scandal, for instance, could be Teapotgate, and so on.... Enough already with the "gates"! [Update: Apparently I'm not the only one who can see the absurdity of this. A March 1, 2010 New York Times article entitled "In Paterson's Attempt to Reassure the Public, a Flashback to That '70s Show" that discusses parallels between Watergate and NY governor David Paterson's interference in an aide's domestic violence case includes a reference to "the enduring journalistic tic of mindlessly attaching the suffix “-gate” to every scandal that comes along."]
As for the emails themselves, for any who don't know, hundreds of private emails were hacked from the University of East Anglia in the UK, home of one of the top climate research centers, and posted on the web. Conspiracy theorists and climate change deniers (those who deny that average global temperatures are rising, or insist that any such warming has nothing to do with human activity) went through these emails and claimed that they came up with evidence that climate scientists were fudging data, engaging in conspiracy to silence opponents, and so forth. Many more sensible people have noted that they were cherry-picking, but it deserves reemphasis. There were hundreds of emails, and yet these people have been harping on no more than half a dozen sentences. That's half a dozen sentences, not even entire emails, out of hundreds of emails, some quite lengthy. This alone shows how desperate they were to find anything they could use.
While a few of the sentences that the nuts (sorry, but it's a convenient shorthand, and it's hard to give these people the respect due to those who have honest questions) dug out may look a little bad to people who don't really think about them, none of them amount to much at all, and that's even more the case considering that they were taken completely out of context. The one most commonly cited is the line "I've just completed Mike's [Mann] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years [from 1981 onward] and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." One word here that the people who want to cast doubts on the science focus on is "trick". Now as we all know, the verb "trick" means to cheat or deceive, and that's what these people want us to think the word implies. But anyone with even a modicum of grammatical knowledge can see that the "trick" in "Mike's trick" is a noun. While the noun trick sometimes can refer to an action involving deception, it also has many meanings that have nothing to do with deception, such as a specialized skill ("tricks of the trade") or a clever act (as in "my dog can do tricks"). Even taken out of context, it is clear that that is what is meant here. The other part of this sentence that these people seized on was "hide the decline". I will say that "hide" was a poor choice of words, but it's not really relevant. The real question is what decline is being discussed. Is it a decline in actual temperatures? Even out of context, it's clear that it isn't, as the writer (Phil Jones) suggests using the "real temps", that is the actual temperatures, to "hide" the decline in question. As explained on this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY), the reference is to tree ring data, which matched up well with actual temperatures earlier in the 20th century but then began to diverge from actual temperatures. Why this might be is still something of a mystery, but since the problem the world needs to focus on is the actual temperatures, it is relatively unimportant. In any case, in context it's obvious that this sentence is not referring to any attempt to deceive the world about the real climate situation.
Another example of a sentence taken completely out of context was "We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it's a travesty that we can't.", which as the abovementioned video explains, is simply an expression of frustration with the inadequacy of certain models. Another sentence I saw cited a few times was pme in which Jones says "I would like to see the climate change happen so the science could be proved right." On the face of it, this is not a statement of someone who thinks that the science shows anything other than that global warming is occurring. At most, it might seem to show a little doubt that the science that he clearly believes in will be borne out by events, but it's more likely to be a somewhat cynical hope that more dramatic warming in the near future will erase any doubts (except among the lunatic fringe). Perhaps not the best thing to be hoping for, but perfectly understandable.
An element of the emails that even some who are not climate change deniers focused on was the apparent effort of Jones and others to prevent papers by climate change deniers from being published in journals, and to keep data out of their hands. Apparently they wanted to keep two papers they found objectionable out of the IPCC report (the massive international set of research by a body of international scientists -- winners of the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore -- that concluded that the Earth is warming and that it is highly probable that human activity is a primary cause). While they were wrong to do so, the reports in question apparently did end up being included, and have since been shown to be flawed. The scientists also discuss their irritation at a journal which published a paper from a climate change denier, and threaten to refuse to treat it as a respectable journal as a result. While this may look bad on the surface, it is actually understandable. If a "scientific" journal chose to publish a paper claiming that the Earth was flat, would scientists be expected to continue to treat it as a reputable journal? While that may seem like an extreme example, to many mainstream scientists, some of the more extreme deniers are little better than flat earthers. It is worth mentioning that an editor at the journal in question also quit over its decision to publish the paper the East Anglia scientists criticized.
As for attempts to keep data out of certain people's hands, that was more clearly a case where Jones and any who went along were wrong, but even this is somewhat understandable. After all, look at the absurd liberties some people took in taking the content of these emails out of context. While data should be available to all, it is easy to comprehend the temptation to want to keep it from people who will deliberately twist it. And climate deniers are already well known for that, an example being the attempt to claim the world has been cooling over the last decade, which they only manage by taking a particular year (1997, which due to the effects of El Nino was the hottest on record) as their starting point. This misuse of statistics is debunked in a set of AP reports (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_bi_ge/us_sci_global_cooling and http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091026/ap_on_sc/us_sci_global_cooling_methodology). So it's easy to imagine why some scientists would be inclined not to let these people get their hands on their data. Likewise the desire expressed in an email to punch out one of the more persistent deniers. While not a laudable desire, it's not hard to understand the level of frustration some climate scientists may feel towards these people. Of course they should only express such emotions privately, not in a public email (oh, wait, these were private emails that their senders didn't expect to be made public...).
A lengthy AP analysis by several people of all these emails (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091212/ap_on_sc/climate_e_mails) also came to the conclusion that there was nothing in them that through doubt on the science, though in an attempt to be even-handed (bending over backward to be so, really), they did criticize the scientists for being a little too petty. But the fact that scientists aren't always rational and unemotional should be no surprise to anyone who knows the history of science, and the petty sniping between scientists such as Isaac Newton and Gottfried von Leibniz, or palentologists Edward Cope and Othniel Marsh, or indeed many scientists holding opposing views on some scientific question. If anything, scientists can be even more childish than many other people, perhaps in some cases due to a certain lack of emotional maturity (though perhaps I should cast aspersions, since I can't claim to be perfect in that area myself).
Regarding why the climate change deniers (at least the more extreme ones) are hardly more worth debating than flat earthers, birthers or people who claim the Moon landing was hoax, I'll have to save that for a subsequent post. But regarding this imaginary controversy, here are a few final thoughts. One, some critics claim the climate scientists' emails show that they are overly dogmatic about their belief in global warming. This may be true to some extent (as just noted, being dogmatic about cherished theories is hardly unknown among scientists), but if mainstream scientists who believe climate change is happening and is caused by humans are dogmatic, then what are their opponents? Secondly, the more extreme commentators who try to claim the emails show a conspiracy to mislead the public are, as demonstrated above, obviously brainless, insane or dishonest (remember that out of hundreds of emails which the senders didn't expect to be made public, the best they could come up with was these few sentences, none of which shows anything like a blatant cover up), but if there's any doubt, I actually saw two of these people go so far as to claim that climate change was part of a conspiracy to create a new socialist world order. One actually fingered the UN as being behind it, which is even more absurd, given that the UN has such a small budget and is so paralyzed by contrary factions that it has trouble managing even realtively small operations, let alone taking over the world. The idea that the huge number of scientists who say global warming is happening (in the wake of this email affair, 1700 UK scientists signed a letter reaffirming their conviction that climate change is real) are all part of vast conspiracy or are only being politically correct to get government grant money (a particularly bizarre claim to make about US scientists, seeing as until recently the US had an administration that preferred to pretend climate change wasn't happening) is ludicrous. If anyone has a major financial stake in manufacturing anything regarding climate change, it's the energy companies that would prefer to deny that their products are causing global warming.
So why should we even pay attention to these people who try to manufacture controversy about the science behind climate change? One reason, unfortunately, is that some of these people are in the US Congress, which is currently one of the biggest obstacles, if not the biggest, to a global climate agreement at Copenhagen. The worst offender is in the Senate, namely James Inhofe, R-OK, but there are also some in the House (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/sci_climate_hearing). People like this may end up preventing the rest of the world from solving this very real problem. So until their constituents wise up and vote them out of office, more sensible people will have to go on wasting time demolishing their absurd claims.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Religion vs. country, defining a "terrorist", and more
Though I realize I'm a little late in doing so, I wanted to make a brief comment on some of the rhetoric that came out of the rampage by Army major Dr. Hasan in Ft. Hood some time back. Some conservative commentators complained that there was too much psychoanalysis of Hasan's motives going on, as they felt this amounted to excusing what he did. Of course there is no excusing what he did, and if anyone was really doing so, they were wrong. However, this does not mean there was anything wrong with examining the factors which motivated him, including stress and perceived discrimination. When something like this happens, it is obviously necessary to understand it as thoroughly as possible, as only by doing so can we reduce the chance of similar incidents occurring in the future, even if only by a slight amount.
I have to say I didn't bother to read every article published on this story, or indeed more than a few, as I find the media's tendency to obsessively dwell on this sort of thing to be annoying. But I did note that several articles quoted Hasan as telling others that he was a Muslim first and an American second. This was cited as evidence that he was "unpatriotic", even as something that that should have tipped authorities to the fact that he might do something like what he did. Right-wingers apparently focused on it, judging from one of the subtitles at the bottom of the screen from the Sean Hannity show featured in this hilarious Daily Show clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-12-2009/sean-hannity-apologizes-to-jon), which claim Hasan "taunted" classmates by saying he was a Muslim first. Now, first of all, I'm not big on the whole "patriotism" concept (a topic which deserves a separate essay), but even for many of those who think of themselves as very patriotic, what Hasan supposedly said should not really be such a big deal. Most conservatives in the US, for instance, consider themselves devout Christians. Are they going to say that they put a higher priority on being patriotic toward the US than on God and Jesus? Are they Americans first and Christians second? If they are being as true to their faith as most of them claim to be, then they should be Christians first and Americans second. So this supposed statement by Hasan should hardly be regarded as shocking coming from a truly religious person.
Then there is the efforts to label this a "terrorist" attack. Joe Lieberman is one who used the term, and as can be seen from the above clip, convicted felon Oliver North is another, with some prompting from Hannity, who obviously concurs. But as this blog (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24894) so accurately points out, these people seem confused about the definition of terrorism. Terrorism involves attacking civilian populations in order to terrorize them with a political goal in mind, usually getting the population to in turn pressure their government to change or abandon certain policies or efforts. Until it is shown that Hasan went on a rampage with some specific political goal in mind, such as getting the US to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then his actions, while still murderous and reprehensible, can't be called terrorism. Even if he personally wanted the US to pull out of those countries, his attack can't be said to have made specifically with that goal in mind unless he made a statement to that effect before or during the assault (you can't terrorize people into doing something if you don't tell them what you want them to do).
It seems that in fact these people who call Hasan a "terrorist" are in fact equating "terrorism" with "violent, radical Islam". In other words, a radical Islamist is a terrorist, and terrorists are all radical Islamists. This is of course absurd, as there have been and are many non-Muslim terrorists, including the IRA and their Unionist enemies in northern Ireland, the Zionists who bombed that Jerusalem hotel to force the British out of Palestine in the post WWII period, the fundamentalist Christians that murder doctors who perform abortions, and arguably the Allied leaders who approved the firebombing of Dresden in WWII, just to name a few. So while there is no excuse whatever for Hasan's actions, the rhetoric of the right wing regarding them shows once again how completely irrational they can be.
I have to say I didn't bother to read every article published on this story, or indeed more than a few, as I find the media's tendency to obsessively dwell on this sort of thing to be annoying. But I did note that several articles quoted Hasan as telling others that he was a Muslim first and an American second. This was cited as evidence that he was "unpatriotic", even as something that that should have tipped authorities to the fact that he might do something like what he did. Right-wingers apparently focused on it, judging from one of the subtitles at the bottom of the screen from the Sean Hannity show featured in this hilarious Daily Show clip (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-12-2009/sean-hannity-apologizes-to-jon), which claim Hasan "taunted" classmates by saying he was a Muslim first. Now, first of all, I'm not big on the whole "patriotism" concept (a topic which deserves a separate essay), but even for many of those who think of themselves as very patriotic, what Hasan supposedly said should not really be such a big deal. Most conservatives in the US, for instance, consider themselves devout Christians. Are they going to say that they put a higher priority on being patriotic toward the US than on God and Jesus? Are they Americans first and Christians second? If they are being as true to their faith as most of them claim to be, then they should be Christians first and Americans second. So this supposed statement by Hasan should hardly be regarded as shocking coming from a truly religious person.
Then there is the efforts to label this a "terrorist" attack. Joe Lieberman is one who used the term, and as can be seen from the above clip, convicted felon Oliver North is another, with some prompting from Hannity, who obviously concurs. But as this blog (http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/24894) so accurately points out, these people seem confused about the definition of terrorism. Terrorism involves attacking civilian populations in order to terrorize them with a political goal in mind, usually getting the population to in turn pressure their government to change or abandon certain policies or efforts. Until it is shown that Hasan went on a rampage with some specific political goal in mind, such as getting the US to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then his actions, while still murderous and reprehensible, can't be called terrorism. Even if he personally wanted the US to pull out of those countries, his attack can't be said to have made specifically with that goal in mind unless he made a statement to that effect before or during the assault (you can't terrorize people into doing something if you don't tell them what you want them to do).
It seems that in fact these people who call Hasan a "terrorist" are in fact equating "terrorism" with "violent, radical Islam". In other words, a radical Islamist is a terrorist, and terrorists are all radical Islamists. This is of course absurd, as there have been and are many non-Muslim terrorists, including the IRA and their Unionist enemies in northern Ireland, the Zionists who bombed that Jerusalem hotel to force the British out of Palestine in the post WWII period, the fundamentalist Christians that murder doctors who perform abortions, and arguably the Allied leaders who approved the firebombing of Dresden in WWII, just to name a few. So while there is no excuse whatever for Hasan's actions, the rhetoric of the right wing regarding them shows once again how completely irrational they can be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
