I find the way these candidates are wearing their religion on their sleeves distasteful. Now they seem to be in a fight to "out-Christian" each other. I think that religious faith is a positive aspect of a candidate, but religious tolerance is a "litmus test" issue to me. Further, I think that if a presidential candidate believes that the Earth is a few thousand years old, or does not believe that natural forces have in some way shaped life on Earth, then his scientific ignorance makes him unqualified for the office. That means you, Mr. Huckabee.
Huckabee's surge has the potential to be every bit as damaging to the GOP as Dean's was to the Dems last time around. I originally liked Romney. Now I find the campaign focus on religion driving me more and more into the Guiliani camp.
Update: Via Instapundit, Going Under In A Lexus.
RANDY FORSBERG, who died this month at age 64, left a remarkable legacy: She helped end the Cold War, the most costly and dangerous confrontation in world history. ... . In 1980, she invented the call to freeze the nuclear arms race, and this simple but compelling idea - essentially, a moratorium on new nuclear weapons as a prelude to gradual disarmament - became the rallying cry for millions of people sickened by the rush to develop and deploy new nuclear weapons and missiles, space weapons, stealth bombers, and all the other expensive, provocative gadgets of the arms industry.
Yes, that's exactly how it happened. The Soviet Union was brought down by the "nuclear freeze" people. I can't wait until the history of the Iraq war comes out, naturally attributing its end to the tireless efforts of Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, and the 9/11 Troofers.
- 2007 Gore and the IPCC: His Holiness Chicken Little and a self-appointed, self-aggrandizing pseudo-scientific bureaucracy.
- 2005 ElBaradei and the IAEA: More bureaucracy, dedicated to enabling and empowering dictators and despots.
- 2002 Jimmy Carter: For his philosophy easily summed up as "I never met at terrorist or autocrat I didn't like, except of course for George W. Bush."
- 2001 The UN and Kofi Annan: See 2005.
- 1994 Yasser Arafat: For grand theft and mass murder.
- 1990 Mikhail Gorbachev: For rolling tanks over the Baltic States, but not over Moscow, er... much. Like giving a prize to a guy for not beating his wife.
- 1989 UN Peacekeepers. Perverts, but so ineffective!
Who takes the Peace prize seriously anymore? At least they didn't give the prize to Gore in Physics. Remember the 1995 prize in Chemistry to the "Ozone Hole" guys? What? You don't even remember the "Ozone Hole?" It was the Religion before Global Warming.
We have determined that the observed increases in J2 are caused primarily by a recent surge in subpolar glacial melting and by mass shifts in the Southern, Pacific, and Indian oceans. When these effects are removed, the residual trend in J2 (-2.9 x 10^(-11)/year) becomes consistent with previous estimates of PGR from satellite and eclipse data.
J2 is the coefficient of degree 2, order 0 of the non-dimensional spherical harmonic representation of the mass distribution of the Earth system. It is directly related to the diagonal elements of the inertia tensor of the Earth by J2=-(Ixx+Iyy-2Izz)/(2Ma^2) where the z-axis is orientated along the rotation axis, M is the total mass, and a the mean radius.
A school officer found a Swiss Army knife in Chandler’s car’s console. Under the school’s zero tolerance policy it was an automatic suspension for Chandler. The next day, the Chandlers found out Will had also been charged with a felony. “We found out that my son, there’s a felony warrant out for him. It just seems like a nightmare. We’re still in shock,” said Sharon Chandler.
This kid's future (with a felony record) now hangs in the balance due to legislative stupidity. Calling the policies themselves "stupid" gives them more credit than they are due. The term "Zero Tolerance" literally means that no thought process at all is required. The ability to weigh the merits and seriousness of a case is essential to our legal system. I blame the existence of these laws on lefty anti-gun and anti-weapon zealots, and also right-wingers who support draconian anti-drug laws and seek to limit the discretionary power of judges and district attorneys. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Taiwan has the right to independence, just as we had. We should openly declare our support for this democratic nation and stand up to the brutal dictators in Beijing. Our behavior here, and our "never miss a chance to kiss China's butt" foreign policy is an offense against the ideals on which our nation was founded.
I work in a hospital. I see doctors working all the time. In general they are very pressed for time and must manage it wisely in order to get all of their duties done. When I hear about French doctors making house calls, I think to myself "Don't French doctors have anything better to do than run across town to wipe some kid's snotty nose?"
I don't want to split hairs or anything, but isn't there something missing here? A religion of roughly a billion people? And when did "transgender" become a philosophy?
The music makes it absolutely hilarious. I challenge you not to laugh when the hockey stick appears. Hat tip to the Reference Frame.
Despite the positive effect this will have on the economy around there, I couldn't help feel a little bit sad about it. The road now is just a lonely two-lane highway through relatively remote and desolate desert. When a modern freeway replaces it, something will be lost. I'm glad I got to see it before that happens.
Haven't we had enough of the "Dad/Husband is an Idiot" theme in commercials? Commercials having to do with health, home repair, or technology seem to be especially likely to run with this theme. Typically they show a wife and/or child getting things done despite lovable ol' dunderhead dad. There's one spot on now where Dad tells the family that 5x5 is 26.. "carry the one" he insists. Mom and kids know he's wrong of course. It's not that these are offensive per se, it's just that it's been done to death. Who is still amused by these? Enough already.
This is apparently the only video record of Clifford Brown in existence. There is a poignant message from Clifford's nephew to that effect in the clip's comment section. YouTube does serve a purpose.
I thought it would be fun to create a calculator to compute Global Warming. You can find it here: Global Warming Calculator. The method uses conservation of energy and the climate dynamics shown in the figure here, and in the Wikipedia article on the Greenhouse Effect.
The figure itself (by Robert A. Rohde, Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial License applies) is based on the work of Kiehl & Trenberth, in their well-known article "Earth's Annual Global Mean Energy Budget" Bull AMS 78(2) Feb 1997, 197-207. The baseline data for the calculator was also taken from Kiehl and Trenberth's publication.
The method works by finding the steady state corresponding to the percentages you enter into the calculator. The default values are the ones from Kiehl and Trenberth shown in the figure. The only "difficult" part is figuring out the total flux from the ground (Eg) as a function of incoming solar flux (Es). The formula is
where Pas is the portion of atmospheric radiation sent into space, Psg is the portion of solar radiation reaching the ground, and Pgs is the portion of ground flux radiated into space. Here "ground flux" includes radiation into space and the atmosphere, as well as energy transfer via evaporation, thermals, etc.
Although quite simple compared to other climate models, that doesn't mean it's not sound as far as the physics goes. Of course, it's only as good as the information you put into it.
It is interesting to see how sensitive the degree of warming is to changes in the percentages. Remember that the IPCC prediction of warming over the next 100 years is anywhere from 1 to 5 degrees.
- Observe some phenomenon in nature.
- Form a hypothesis to explain or model the phenomenon.
- Design an experiment to test the hypothesis.
- Carry out the experiment, recording all input data and output measurements.
- Analyze the results of the experiment.
- Determine whether or not the results support the hypothesis.
Suppose you are interested in determining the population of ancient Troy from its founding through it's abandonment. You consult historical records. You examine the ruins of the city, to determine its extent. Perhaps you conduct some experiments, carbon dating say, to determine the age of certain artifacts. From this collected data you make an estimate of the city's growth and decay. Is this science? In my opinion, it isn't. It's Quantitative History, but it isn't science. There is no experiment being made that can be verified with a new collected data set. There is no natural phenomenon that is being modeled and explained. While some of the steps in the Scientific Method fit to a certain extent to the process described, overall it doesn't really fit the working definition of science.
It is said that the "science is settled" about Global Warming. That the Earth has warmed 0.6C in the past century is practically written in stone. But was this conclusion based on science? In fact, it was based on the statistical analysis of temperature data taken at weather stations and ships at sea since 1860. It was not based on laws of physics from the theory of heat transfer and fluid dynamics at all. There was no repeatable experiment conducted. There is no ability to predict the future from the data; it is not even tied to an increase of greenhouse gasses. Like the analysis of Troy's population, this is quantitative history, not science.
The Earth may indeed have warmed over the past century. But when I hear that the "science is settled," I think to myself "what science?"
Creative Destruction: Should a professor require students to attend a teach-in?
I agree with him for the most part. What put this situation beyond what I think is reasonable was the requirement that students either pay the cost of attending or "earn" their attendance by working for the organizing group. It seemed just barely reasonable to me without that bit; I have doubts that this particular teach-in would provide a balance of views.
On another note, as I recall from earlier posts, C.W. has expressed his belief that as a professor, one of his roles is to provide views that his students would otherwise not hear. I agree with that, although my impression is that very few students will be willing to engage in a lively honest discussion with a decided professor on matters political. There is little incentive to do so, and in the mind of the student there is always the possibility that it will affect his or her grade. So in general, the idea that a professor who appears non-neutral on an issue can foster classroom debate seems a bit naive.
Pat Schroeder never seemed too bright to me. I once saw her lose terribly on Jeopardy, playing against Al Franken and another guy. Al tried to give Pat an opportunity to answer a question, under the category "Congress," pausing before finally giving his answer: "What is cloture?" He then paused and said "you know... one of us was actually in Congress..." Burnnnnn!
You can claim that T1 is a normalization of the data, accounting for local climate variations, or some such. It's clear that T can not be recovered from T1 without g. So your data is safe. However, it's also clear mathematically that the regression line through T1 will yield that same 0.6 number you obtained. Cryptography has allowed you to keep your data private, while permitting others to "verify" your results!
Update 9/8/2008 : more detail.
and Lubos Motl, on his "Reference Frame" blog:
regarding whether or not the marginal increase in global warming should lessen as more and more greenhouse gasses are added to the atmosphere. I made a few calculations on the subject for myself, eventually coming to agree with RealClimate that it need not. And yes, it pains me to say so. A slightly mathy write-up, in pdf format with spiffy imbedded links, is here:
Check it out if you are interested. It's intended to be self-contained for the most part.