Skeptico

Bio Fools

The world's population is forecast to rise to 9 billion by 2050. As I wrote nearly three years ago, one challenge will be to feed these extra people, but a bigger challenge will perhaps be to feed these extra 3 billion people without destroying forests and wildlands to grow the additional food. With the growth of biofuels – using the land to grow fuel as well as food – that challenge will be even greater. And increasingly, studies are showing that higher prices and subsidies of biofuels worldwide have resulted in forests and wildlands being destroyed to grow fuel, while actually increasing, not decreasing, greenhouse emissions.

From a recent study in the journal Science Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change:

Most prior studies have found that substituting biofuels for gasoline will reduce greenhouse gases because biofuels sequester carbon through the growth of the feedstock. These analyses have failed to count the carbon emissions that occur as farmers worldwide respond to higher prices and convert forest and grassland to new cropland to replace the grain (or cropland) diverted to biofuels. By using a worldwide agricultural model to estimate emissions from land-use change, we found that corn-based ethanol, instead of producing a 20% savings, nearly doubles greenhouse emissions over 30 years and increases greenhouse gases for 167 years. Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%. This result raises concerns about large biofuel mandates and highlights the value of using waste products.

How is it that the old studies didn't report this? For years, studies have attempted to determine if the energy obtained from biofuels was greater or less that the energy required to grow and process them. Some researchers concluded that biofuels were greener than fossil fuels; others disagreed. But as Time Magazine recently reported, all these studies – both pro and anti-biofuels – seem to have ignored one major factor:

There was just one flaw in the calculation: the studies all credited fuel crops for sequestering carbon, but no one checked whether the crops would ultimately replace vegetation and soils that sucked up even more carbon. It was as if the science world assumed biofuels would be grown in parking lots. The deforestation of Indonesia has shown that's not the case. It turns out that the carbon lost when wilderness is razed overwhelms the gains from cleaner-burning fuels.

See the picture on the right from the Time article, that perfectly illustrates what is happening. This all used to be Brazilian rain forest, but now only a sliver of wild forest is left. That can't be good.  I’m not really in a position to evaluate the green (or otherwise) credentials of biofuels in detail, and in any case the answers you get depend on what assumptions you start off with and which biofuels you are talking about. But it seems clear to me that it makes no sense to sacrifice wild land to grow fuel when we need to feed an increasing population and maintain our wild land. It was obvious this would result in an undesirable increase in monocultures, fertilizer run-off, higher food costs etc, even before we considered the additional cost of releasing more carbon into the atmosphere as the land is cleared. Studies like these recent ones just make the case against biofuels even stronger.

We’re only producing a small amount of our fuel requirements now via biofuels, but government subsidies and regulations are set to increase this considerably in the future. Fortunately the US congress has acted quickly to remove subsidies for biofuels as well as to rescind future requirements for increased biofuel production. Just kidding. The subsidies and requirements to increase biofuel production are still in place.

Skeptics’ Circle

The latest Skeptics Circle has just been posted at Mike’s Place – Mike’s Weekly Skeptic Rant. But watch out – Ben Stein’s guest hosting and you could be Expelled. (You listening PZ?)

Actually, it's called "Begging"

A Chihuahua has begun joining in daily prayers at a Buddhist temple in Japan.

He’s probably praying the monk stops the pointless ritual and feeds him already.  There's probably more chance that’ll come true than whatever the monk’s praying for.

Evolution Not Responsible for Hitler

This won’t be news to any rational people, but it may be news to creationists. And I know the subject has already been dealt with by numerous others, but this creationist post (also here – highlight the text after “spoiler” at the bottom), describing PZ’s recent expulsion from the creationist movie “Expelled”, describes some “specific content” of the film that I think needs a reply. It’s this:

Many scenes are centered around the Berlin Wall, and Ben Stein being Jewish actually visits many death camps and death showers. In fact, Nazi Germany is the thread that ties everything in the movie together. Evolution leads to atheism leads to eugenics leads to Holocaust and Nazi Germany.

Really creationists? That’s what you’re going with? Really? Well OK, if that’s the approach the religious creationists want to take, I’m happy to debate that point. There are (at least) three reasons why this isn’t a valid argument against evolution. Each one by itself is enough to sink this ridiculous creationist canard. They are:

1. So what?
2. Hitler wasn’t inspired by evolution
3. Hitler was religiously inspired

So what?

Really – so what? Even if it were true that wouldn’t mean evolution was wrong. The argument is just a fallacious appeal to consequences: the truth of something does not depend on the consequences of it being true; the truth of something depends on whether it is actually true or not. Nuclear weapons are terrible things, but that doesn’t mean that E does not equal M C squared. Even if Hitler was inspired by evolution, that wouldn’t mean evolution was wrong.

Even so, if it Hitler was actually inspired by evolution, that would be a bit of a black mark for evolution. But:

Hitler wasn’t inspired by evolution

Evolution is a process where favorable mutations are selected by nature – that is, mutations that make it more likely the organism will reproduce, will be passed to offspring. Although the phrase “survival of the fittest” has become popular, the idea that this means “only the strongest survive” or that living beings fight each other for survival (and so only the strongest survive), is false. “Fittest” actually means “most able to reproduce”. That sometimes means “the strongest”, but in social groups (such as primates), “fittest” can also mean “well regarded by the group”. For example, a rogue early hominid, who murdered his peers, might well have been excluded by the group and (therefore) would not have been able to reproduce.

Hitler’s solution was the opposite of allowing nature to select. Hitler’s approach was to artificially remove groups of people he didn’t like, from the gene pool, in what was undeniably a sickening version of selective breeding, as practiced by farmers for around 10,000 years before Darwin. If Hitler learned of the opportunities of such selective breeding from anywhere, it was from farmers’ knowledge and experience that predated Darwin. Which means that Hitler’s final solution was, if anything, an example of intelligent design.

So Hitler wasn’t inspired by Darwin. If Hitler was inspired by anything:

Hitler was religiously inspired

If you want to know what Hitler really believed, a good place to look would be what he actually wrote in his plan for the revival of Germany - Mein Kampf. Get a load of this:

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took to the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-and this against their own nation.

Not convinced? Try this:

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.

There’s a lot more of the same in Mein Kampf, and in other speeches Hitler gave, if you can stomach reading any more. It doesn’t sound to me as though Charles Darwin was much of an influence. In fact, I haven’t been able to find even one mention of Darwin or the theory of evolution in Mein Kampf. Not one. Now, isn’t that strange? Don’t you think that if Hitler had been influenced by Darwin that he would have mentioned it somewhere in his book? Why wouldn’t he? But not even once.

No. Hitler’s ideas of the superior Aryan race were quasi religious mythology based Christian and/or occult beliefs. This is what inspired the extermination of the Jews – not evolution.

Christians will say that Hitler wasn’t inspired by “true” Christianity (or even by a “True Scotsman”). Well, maybe not. But so what? They try to blame evolution for the Holocaust on much flimsier evidence. Actually no evidence – no link to Hitler at all apart from their own flawed understanding of evolution. But Hitler can be directly quoted using Christianity as a justification for his treatment of the Jews. It was clearly Hitler’s religious or quasi religious beliefs – not an over reliance on critical thinking and science – that inspired him. And these flawed beliefs were combined with an authoritarian streak that demanded respect and unquestioning obedience. Hum… religious or quasi religious, not backed by evidence, demanding respect and obedience it hadn’t earned…

… Remind you of anything? 

Christian creationists may live to regret opening up this particular can of worms. In future, every time they trot out this tired piece of propaganda they should have Hitler’s real Christian influence, rationally for the Holocaust and his exact words thrust back down their throats. Evolution wasn’t responsible for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was the result of the exact same kind of unquestioning groupthink that characterizes religion. Or, to paraphrase the creationist twit I quoted at the top: Religion leads to unquestioning belief in what you’re told by authorities, leads to acceptance of an authoritarian state, leads to eugenics, leads to Holocaust, leads to Nazi Germany.

I’m not necessarily saying that Christianity alone was responsible for the Holocaust. Without Christianity, Hitler would probably have found another excuse. But I am saying religious thinking was responsible. And Hitler’s own words lay the blame with Christianity, not evolution. Hey, I didn’t start this.

Other Reading

The Panda’s Thumb From Darwin to Hitler, or not? (spoiler – it’s “not”), and From Darwin to Hitler, or not? Part II

Talk Reason’s Creationists, Hitler and Evolution.

Orac’s Random dispatch from the road: More on Darwin & Hitler

A page of links about Hitler's Christianity

Red state Rabble writes Richard Weikart: Workin’ in a Quote Mine

Pharyngula’s List of Hitler quotes — he was quite the vocal Catholic

Orac’s amusing take on Hitler Zombie massacre over evolution!

Depleted Cranium today with more on Atheists, Nazis and Genocide, oh my!

The Moses Code

From PZ I learned about a new movie called The Moses Code – apparently it is the next stage after What The Bleep Do We Know and The Secret. I know, I know, you didn’t realize we needed a next step after those two wonderful pieces of science and inspiration drek. Didn’t they already cover everything we need to know about life the universe and everything? I guess not, because the Moses Code book is billed “The Most Powerful Manifestation Tool in the History of the World”. Note: in the history of the whole world! Wow! And they left this out of The Secret? No fair!

The list of featured speakers include some names I recognized, although not in a good way:

Dr. Michael Beckwith

Founder and Director Agape Spiritual Center, Minister, Speaker

One of the dopes featured in The Secret – although there he was billed as a (and I quote) “Visionary”. So no false modesty there. Although I did wonder about him being billed here as “Speaker”. What kind of title is that? Aren’t they all “speakers” by definition?

James Van Praagh

Medium, Author, Executive Producer “Ghost Whisperer”

Actually, fraud, and really piss-poor and obvious cold reader. Also total moron.

They’ve got James Van Praagh in this movie and they think this is a good thing.

Gregg Braden

Best-selling Author, Scientist

Haaaaaaa hahaha – “Scientist”? No, pseudoscientist and manipulator of the truth extraordinaire. Maker-up of bullshit while pretending it’s science. A real clown. Although I agree his books do seem to sell well to the credulous.

Dr. Joe Dispenza

Neurological Doctor, Author

Actually a chiropractor. I guess “Neurological Doctor” sounds better than “pseudoscientific back-cracker”. He appeared in "What The Bleep" where he pretended he literally creates his day with his mind.  I guess if he does that it's only a small additional step to pretend he's a doctor.

Yeah, this film promises to be a real gem.

Expelled from Expelled

Read PZ’s description about how he was not allowed in to see the new dumb creationist film “Expelled” – the one about how poor old Intelligent Design is being discriminated against in favor of Evolution because it (ID, not evolution), has not passed scientific muster. They wouldn’t let in PZ but did let in Richard Dawkins.  What morons.

Also read this account from a pro-ID person who supposedly witnessed the whole thing. Apparently he thinks that “anyone walking away from this film will be convinced that the merits of Intelligent Design should be on the same level playing field as Evolutionary Theory”. The comments to that post so far are critical (to be polite) of this guy, his account and his view of the film. Worth a read if only to marvel at the IDists' stupidity.

Chinese Medicine?

I was listening to NPR this morning and they had a story about a scientist in China called Doctor Who (sorry - couldn’t resist) Doctor Hu whose company is offering stem cell treatments for a variety of conditions.

Jena Teague and her husband Terry Williams are among these new visitors. They traveled to China to seek stem-cell treatment for their blind, 7-month-old baby daughter, Laylah.

[…]

the family traveled to the eastern Chinese city of Hangzhou, where Beike is based. They are spending $23,000 for Laylah to have infusions of stem cells harvested from umbilical cord.

[…]

The doctors have told Laylah's parents that the baby now sees light through one eye, while the other eye is dilating almost to the point where she can see light.

Of course, we can’t know if the treatment is really working. The Chinese scientists don’t know what method might be behind it, which isn’t encouraging. No clinical trials have been carried out and no research has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The risks are unknown. And doctors in the US are not recommending that patients go to China for this treatment.

Also, other scientists in China have their doubts:

Dr. Naihe Jing is the deputy director of one of China's top stem-cell research labs and a member of the prestigious Chinese Academy of Sciences. He fears Beike could ruin the reputation of China's entire biotech industry.

Still, whether it proves to be a breakthrough or not, one thing struck me – how ludicrous the labels of “western medicine” and “Chinese medicine” are. For example, the idiot Bill Maher on TV recently advised quintuple bypass survivor David Letterman to stop taking the pills his doctor had prescribed him, because this was “western medicine” - something Maher doesn’t accept. So was Maher suggesting Letterman visit China for stem cell treatment?  What is stem cell therapy anyway? It’s practiced in China – a country that also apparently has a biotech industry – so does that mean it’s not western? Perhaps Maher was warning Letterman off humors and bloodletting – western medicine for sure, although rather an unconventional treatment in Europe today.

Or perhaps Maher is just a confused idiot.

The truth is, ancient people, who did not understand how the body works or what really made people ill, just made stuff up about these things. The ancient Chinese made up stuff about meridians and chi. Ancient Indians made up stuff about chakras. Ancient Europeans made up stuff about humors. We now know better, and so have abandoned humors and bloodletting. The only mystery is why people still insist that chi and chakras are real. But whatever you believe is real, the distinction clearly is not between “western” and “eastern” (fill in your preferred country) therapies. The distinction is between therapies that work and those that don’t. Scientists in China are researching real medicine, and trying to find out what works and what doesn’t, just like scientists in the west. Maybe some have oversold their results, but scientific procedures, not ancient myth, will ultimately decide what works and what doesn’t

So can we now please abandon this pretence that doctors in the west practice something called “western medicine”, while the Chinese have access to some secret knowledge that “western science” still hasn’t yet caught up with? There is only medicine that works – or at least, is backed by reliable evidence that it does – and pre-scientific superstitious quackery that doesn’t. The East/West labels mean nothing. And the next time some twit like Maher intones gravely against “western medicine”, just say, “yeah, I don’t fancy bloodletting either” - and advise him to go visit Doctor Hu in Hangzhou. Preferably on a one-way ticket.

March 19 - Update

Steven Novella is even less impressed with this Chinese stem cell therapy than I was.

Asparagus Tips

A woman in England claims to be an Asparamancer – she tells fortunes using asparagus:

Ms Packington, from Worcester, throws the asparagus spears onto the floor and makes her predictions based on how they land.

She says she stumbled across her asparagus-predicting skills a few years ago by chance, after some stalks fell on the floor and she made a prediction which came true.

As good a method as any other I suppose. Which is to say, totally useless. Half-assed, you might say. As useless as an Astrologer. I doubt it’s the dawning of the age of asparagus. Er, that’s all I got.

Packington shouldn’t be confused with Sylvester Stallone’s mother, Jackie – she tells your fortune by looking at your ass.  Completely different thing.

 

I predict your pee will smell funny.

Skeptics’ Circle

The latest Skeptics Circle has just been posted at Happy Jihad’s House of Pancakes (HJHOP?). It’s the legend of The Skeptics’ Circle. Or something. A good read, anyway.

Homeopathic Drugs found in US Drinking Water

Following recent discoveries that prescription drugs - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones – have been found in drinking water across the U.S., it has just been revealed that another team has found homeopathic drugs in American tap water:

In the course of a five-month inquiry, our teams tested the drinking water supplies of 24 major metropolitan areas for numerous homeopathic remedies including Arsenicum Album, Belladonna, Kali Carbonicum and Aurum Metallicum. Despite multiple testing scenarios, and despite using the most advanced and sensitive equipment available, we were not able to find even one molecule of the homeopathic remedies in any of the tap water samples we examined. While this would not be a problem with conventional medicines, homeopathic remedies are stronger the more dilute they are. This means that samples of water we tested containing zero molecules of, for example Arsenicum Album, would be Arsenicum Album at the maximum strength possible.  Homeopaths believe this could present real risks to the American public who could be unknowingly consuming many different powerful homeopathic drugs combined in their morning tea or coffee.

How did no molecules of homeopathic drugs manage to get into the drinking supply? The exact reason is unknown, but it is thought that a big homeopathic corporation probably flushed some water down the sink. American waste water treatment plants remove all but trace contaminants from the drinking water supply, but currently they have no way to even recognize drugs at homeopathic dilutions, let alone to not remove the molecules they don’t contain. Even more shockingly, the federal government has not set safety limits for not containing no molecules of homeopathic drugs in drinking water. Only now are people asking, "why not?"

Homeopaths were quick to respond to the reports.  When asked what to do if you suspect your drinking water is contaminated with homeopathic drugs, a leading homeopath responded "whatever you do, don't dilute it, that'll only make things worse".  The Society of Homeopaths - the body responsible for policing homeopathic ethics - was quick to take action against the persons they considered responsible.  They immediately threatened to sue any internet Service Provider who allowed the story to be published. Out of habit, Netcetera told The Quackometer to remove all his homeopathy posts.

Many independent scientists are skeptical that pure water with no molecules of a drug, can cause any harm. Stephan Nouvelle, of the Neoroblogica website, was quoted as saying:

Such homeopathic notions have no basis in reality, and modern scientific investigations of homeopathic remedies, coupled with two centuries of science confirms the common sense idea that dilution weakens potency. The EPA is just trying to frighten the American public with this absurd story about zero molecules being potentized and dangerous.

But Nouvelle was in the minority.

However, it appears a solution may be to hand. A homeopath, writing in The Grauniad, noted:

The EPA seems to think that homeopathic remedies are prepared by diluting substances. They omit the critical component of shaking ('succussion') between serial dilutions. This means that for a homeopathic remedy to be potentized, it has to be shaken by a qualified homeopath who then charges you a lot of money for doing so. Without this shaking and.. er… the money going to the homeopath… it’s just tap water.

The EPA concludes from this that tap water is safe to drink - just as long as you  don’t let a homeopath near it or pay them any money. Which is good advice at any time.