Skeptico

Vox Keeps His Readers In The Dark

Via the Bad Astronomer I read this absurd post from a blogger called Vox who seems to think that dark matter and dark energy are outside the scope of science which means that secular societies are “arguably insane”.  Of course, Vox’s argument is unarguably retarded.  He’s saying that because we don’t know exactly what dark matter and dark energy are, they’re outside the realm of science. But that’s obviously false: it’s only through science that we even know that dark matter and dark energy exist. There is nothing in the bible about the universe being 72.1% dark energy and 23.3% dark matter. Nor does it say on which day God created them.  They don’t exist, according to the nomadic goat herders who wrote the bibble.  Furthermore, if we are ever to understand dark matter and dark energy, that will only happen through the process of science, not by assuming it’s too complex and so Goddidit.  Vox's silly argument is just another lame Science Doesn't Know Everything appeal.

I did post a comment on Saturday, asking the assembled loons who support the blog’s author, what other method they would use to try to understand dark matter and dark energy. Unsurprisingly they had no reply.

ALF Terrorists

Well, they did it. In November I wrote about how the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) flooded the house of a scientist who was involved in animal research. They said they really wanted to torch the house, but just flooded it instead. What heroes. Via BPSDP to Blue Collar Scientist, I just learned they came back on February 4^th and set an incendiary device on her porch. I’m not sure how much damage was caused, but the device apparently did ignite and cause some damage. 

Morons.

Denialism Blog has more. 

PETA Hypocrisy

You may have read recently how the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) recently caused $20-30,000 damage to the house of a scientist, because the scientist’s work includes animal testing. Actually, the scientist was lucky: the ALF really wanted to burn the house down but settled instead for merely flooding the place. Nice.

This is the same ALF that PETA co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk wrote about approvingly in her book Free the Animals! The Untold Story of the U.S. Animal Liberation Front and Its Founder, ‘Valerie’. According to Amazon.com, Newkirk "is one of the few people with firsthand knowledge of the ALF and is personally acquainted with the organization's founder."  Furthermore, Newkirk:

…gives interviews to ALF’s publications, supports the legal defense efforts of ALF criminals (with PETA’s money), has been subpoenaed in regard to her ALF connections, and has even been accused in court documents of participation in the ALF arson of a Michigan State University research lab.

I think it’s safe to say that Newkirk would have approved of this recent terrorist attack on a scientist’s home. Newkirk is so strongly opposed to animal research that she has said:

even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, "we'd be against it"

So she’s uncompromisingly opposed to animal testing. Well, as it turns out, not so much. Not when she needs modern medicine, at any rate. You see, recently she broke her wrist:

Just as I was setting out to launch my new book, Let’s Have a Dog Party!, I met a wet floor and went splat, neatly snapping the bones in my wrist. Ooh, the pain! Thank goodness for IV drips.

Thank goodness for IV drips. IV drips. That would be those same intravenous anaesthetics that were tested on rats, rabbits, dogs, cats and monkeys. Apparently she’s not opposed to that animal testing. So unopposed that she thanks "goodness" for it.

Now, you may say, Newkirk didn’t have a choice in this matter, or that Newkirk believes animal testing was unnecessary to develop these medications and procedures. Well, if you think that, I’ll just refer you to PETA’s Animal Testing page, that unambiguously states:

Send back items that you have from companies that test on animals...

From the comments to the PETA blog, I think we can assume that Newkirk is now aware that her painkillers were, in fact, tested on animals. So can we assume that she will now refuse (“send back”) any more painkillers? Or will she, like PETA Vice President and insulin (tested on dogs, rabbits and mice) dependent diabetic Mary Beth Sweetland, continue to enjoy the benefits of animal testing while supporting terrorist acts on the scientists who provide them?

I think we should be told.

Radio Observatory faces closure

I’ve just been reading this Wash Post story about the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico, which is apparently the largest and most sensitive radio telescope on Earth:

..among astronomers, Arecibo is an icon of hard science. Its instruments have netted a decades-long string of discoveries about the structure and evolution of the universe. Its high-powered radar has mapped in exquisite detail the surfaces and interiors of neighboring planets.

And it is the only site on the planet able to track asteroids with enough precision to tell which ones might plow into Earth - a disaster that could cause as many as a billion deaths and that experts say is preventable with enough warning.

This is the observatory featured in the movie Contact. If you read the whole article, it describes more of the real science performed there. Unfortunately it faces closure due to a funding shortfall.

The National Science Foundation, which has long funded the dish, has told the Cornell University-operated facility that it will have to close if it cannot find outside sources for half of its already reduced $8 million budget in the next three years - an ultimatum that has sent ripples of despair through the scientific community.

It seems a shame that the only observatory able to warn us of a disastrous asteroid impact (not to mention all the other science it performs), may have to close for the want of only $4 million (that’s million with an “M”). They are looking for other funding, so I’m hopeful it will stay operational.

In other news, federal money given to religious groups is in excess of $2 billion (that’s billion with a “B”) annually. Phew - that’s a relief. Because I’d be concerned if money that could be spent on science was instead being wasted on pointless superstitious nonsense unrelated to anything happening in the real world.

Science Blogging Anthology

Bora has just released the Science Blogging Anthology – 50 great science blog posts (from 218 considered) in one book. You can order it online either as a pdf download or as a hard copy book. My review of the absurd What The (Bleep) Do We Know!? film is included, placing my post with posts by actual scientists (which I’m not).

Some good links

I haven’t written much recently, but I thought I would share some links to what I thought were some especially interesting recent skeptical or science blog posts.

First, Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer has a superb explanation of what makes a year (sidereal or tropical) in Happy New Year Arbitrary Orbital Marker! :

Yay! Tonight at midnight it’s New Year!

But what does that mean, exactly?

The year, of course, is the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun, right? Well, not exactly. It depends on what you mean by "year", and how you measure it. This takes a wee bit of explaining, so put down the champagne, take the lampshade off your head, and hang on.

Phil gives a really good explanation of the astronomical factors at play – and it’s not as simple as most people think. Of course, the Earth’s “wobble”, and the resulting difference between the sidereal and the tropical year is the reason that most astrological charts, and therefore your sun sign used by most astrologers, is wrong. Not that it would make any difference if astrologers used the sidereal instead of the tropical zodiac – astrology is crap either way.

Next, Orac writes about how Andrew Wakefield was paid to undermine MMR vaccine.

ANDREW WAKEFIELD, the former surgeon whose campaign linking the MMR vaccine with autism caused a collapse in immunisation rates, was paid more than £400,000 [$780,000] by lawyers trying to prove that the vaccine was unsafe.

Of course, the fact that he was paid does not in and of itself prove Wakefield was wrong, although the conflict of interest clearly means we should examine his data more skeptically. However, the anti-vax crowd routinely use this kind of conflict of interest to smear anyone who disagrees with their position. It will be instructive to see how they handle this piece of news.

Next, John Lynch of Give Seed, Get Seed Stranger Fruit gives us ID in 2007 - from the horses mouth – a list of developments in ID that we almost certainly won’t be seeing. My favorite:

A theory of how the Designer-Who-Shall-Not-Be- Named did the designing.

Don’t hold your breath.

Then there is Ben Goldacre’s review of the year in bad science. Sample:

And what a great year for scares. The Times reported on its front page that cocaine use among schoolchildren had doubled when it had done nothing of the sort (they simply misinterpreted the report). The media’s anti-MMR campaign continued unabated as the Telegraph, Mail and Times all reported on unpublished research claiming to show a link between the vaccine and autism, even though the research was from a man with a history of making such claims as far back as 2002, which he still hasn’t published. Over the year, at least two fully published studies showing a negative result for almost the exact same experiment were inexplicably ignored by all newspapers.

Finally, I liked RealClimate’s 2006 Year in review, which starts:

Best highlight of the gap between the 'two cultures':

Justice Scalia: 'Troposphere, whatever. I told you before I'm not a scientist. That's why I don't want to have to deal with global warming'.

I’m sure you don’t.

Yeah, this’ll stop illegal drugs

I noticed that PZ Myers has already commented on this story in Wired about how the Feds are cracking down on people with home chemistry sets and the like. Apparently there is a danger that kids might hurt themselves with chemicals; also terrorists might get hold of them. But another reason to ban people from owning chemistry glassware is that they might make crystal meth with it. 

PZ has already gone into how this discourages kids from getting involved with science – read his post and the wired article for more details. I just had to comment on how the useless paranoid war on drugs has once again interfered with the lives of otherwise law abiding people. First, do they really think this will stop people making meth? I’m sure determined cooks will find a way round this somehow. Secondly, the crackdown on availability of the precursors has already pushed most meth production to Mexico anyway: 

This deadly drug is now a growth industry for Mexico's deadly drug cartels. They're replacing small U.S. kitchen labs with Mexican super labs. The cartels are smuggling ephedrine from China, India and Europe and cooking up huge quantities of cheap meth — including an especially potent variety, Mexican Ice. Then the cartels smuggle it north to U.S. users.

"They're making quite a lot of money off of meth," Gonzalez said. "They are pretty much using the same routes that they've used in the past with cocaine and with marijuana."

By some estimates, as much at 80 percent of the meth on U.S. streets comes from Mexico.

The war on drugs has been successful only in promoting the outsourcing of drug production. The resultant cost reductions have promoted increased drug use. Behold, the market in action.

Katrina and Global Warming

From the very day after Katrina hit the gulf coast, environmentalists and other leftists seemed almost delighted to tell us that this was the result of global warming, even to the point of claiming Katrina’s name actually was “global warming”. The Spiegel Online produced a summary of claims from various environmental groups, of which this by Jürgen Trittin, a Green Party member, was a sample:

The Bush government rejects international climate protection goals by insisting that imposing them would negatively impact the American economy. The American president is closing his eyes to the economic and human costs his land and the world economy are suffering under natural catastrophes like Katrina and because of neglected environmental policies.

I’m no Bush supporter but this seemed a little presumptuous to me. It seemed a little too soon to be determining the cause of such a monumental disaster affecting so many people.

But the opposite side sprang pretty quickly to debunk the claims, notably this from the blog EU Rota that produced some handy graphs from the NOAA showing that the number of hurricanes was not increasing. No increase in the number of hurricanes = Katrina not caused by global warming, yes? Case closed. Well, I’m not a climate scientist but this also seemed a little glib. What if the number of hurricanes stayed the same but their intensity had increased?

Well, the guys at Real Climate are climate scientists and they have an interesting article about it. And yes, they talk about the increase in intensity of the storms as well as in the simple number:

Some past studies (e.g. Goldenberg et al, 2001) assert that there is no evidence of any long-term increase in statistical measures of tropical Atlantic hurricane activity, despite the ongoing global warming. These studies, however, have focused on the frequency of all tropical storms and hurricanes (lumping the weak ones in with the strong ones) rather than a measure of changes in the intensity of the storms. As we have discussed elsewhere on this site, statistical measures that focus on trends in the strongest category storms, maximum hurricane winds, and changes in minimum central pressures, suggest a systematic increase in the intensities of those storms that form. This finding is consistent with the model simulations.

(My bold.)

Hum, so the intensity of storm has increased. But is this due to global warming?

The correct answer… is that there is no way to prove that Katrina either was, or was not, affected by global warming. For a single event, regardless of how extreme, such attribution is fundamentally impossible. We only have one Earth, and it will follow only one of an infinite number of possible weather sequences. It is impossible to know whether or not this event would have taken place if we had not increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere as much as we have.

They go on to provide an interesting analogy to try to explain how global warming might increase the statistical likelihood of more intense storms:

…we can indeed draw some important conclusions about the links between hurricane activity and global warming in a statistical sense. The situation is analogous to rolling loaded dice: one could, if one was so inclined, construct a set of dice where sixes occur twice as often as normal. But if you were to roll a six using these dice, you could not blame it specifically on the fact that the dice had been loaded. Half of the sixes would have occurred anyway, even with normal dice. Loading the dice simply doubled the odds. In the same manner, while we cannot draw firm conclusions about one single hurricane, we can draw some conclusions about hurricanes more generally. In particular, the available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make - and possibly already is making - those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been.

The tendency is for statistically more intense (but not more frequent) hurricanes. Climate Science concludes, in the cautious language of good scientists, that “it would be premature to assert that the recent anomalous behavior can be attributed entirely to a natural cycle”. However they conclude:

The current evidence strongly suggests that:

(a) hurricanes tend to become more destructive as ocean temperatures rise, and
(b) an unchecked rise in greenhouse gas concentrations will very likely increase ocean temperatures further, ultimately overwhelming any natural oscillations.

Or in plain language, global warming is likely to result in more not less Katrina-like hurricanes in future years.

Billions and billions

Carl Sagan’s “Cosmos” series has been digitally remastered and is showing now on the Science Channel in the US: 6.00pm (Pacific) through 11.00pm (with presumably more to come next week), although you can be sure it will be repeated.

Of course, “Cosmos” is on my list of recommended DVDs (see the link in the left hand column).  Although I have the DVD I'm still watching it.

(I know Sagan never said “billions and billions” – he does say "billions" a lot though.)

Good Bad Astronomer

Superb piece today from Phil Plait the Bad Astronomer. It’s a landmark article on why scientists provide real information while astrologers, homeopaths etc provide nothing useful.