Online petition for a public inquiry into the transfer of Afghan detainees despite warnings of torture

It's time for the Canadian public to know everything about this mess.

Here is the link to the petition.

H/t to thwap.

EDIT (December 1, 2009): The House of Commons has voted 146-129 in favour of a public inquiry. H/t to Impolitical. As I have opined before, it's unlikely that the Conservatives will call a public inquiry unless it's right before an election in order to avoid discussing the topic on the campaign trail. Still, the Opposition is on the right track.

The so-called "climategate" cover-up

It's pretty common knowledge by now that there is one particularly embarrassing e-mail hacked from the CRU: one where a "trick" (which is, in mathematics, engineering, or science, just a way to refer to a neat solution to a problem) is used to "hide the decline" (referring to the divergence of tree ring proxy data from the measured temperatures starting in 1960).

So, is this a case of covering up some nefarious giant conspiracy? It's actually extremely easy to find out if one is a university student. I'll now go through papers through ISI Web of Knowledge [v4.7] - Web of Science as though I was a new graduate student who new to a lab that studies climate change.

Here is thus (dun dun dun!) my first live blog of any event: me reading through research articles! Think of it like reality TV, except through blogging, with fewer insults, and a lot more exciting! ;)

1) Search "climate change" in the Topic field.

Become incredibly depressed at the fact that I have no clue what anyone is saying in most papers. Realize that despite all that hard work in undergraduate studies has done little to prepare someone for actual research. (No, I actually didn't do this, but trust me, this is what every new graduate student feels like. Eventually, though most grad students do make good use of the work habits and some skills learned from undergrad.)

2) Search "Mann M*" in the Author field, "Nature" in the Publication Name field, and 1998 in the Year Published.

Since Dr. Michael E. Mann is the one being targeted, I'll look at his paper.

Well, the name of the paper is "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries". That already screams out the reason why direct temperature records are insufficient, unless there was a worldwide record of temperatures dating back to 1400.

Mann et al. are already discussing "multiproxy" records (i.e. data from multiple sources, including tree ring data, ice core samples, coral, etc.). Direct temperature measurements are available only from 1902 onward. (In this paper, the data ends at 1995.)

So far, much of the paper goes into describing assumptions necessary to reconstruct the temperature record before 1902. Assumptions of largely linear relationships (you'll see this in many papers), that a sparse number of proxy data sets that are widely distributed will be enough and will capture out-of-measuring range events (such as the El Nino/Southern Oscillation), and that variations in proxy data will have analogues to variations in the temperature records from 1902-1980. Due to the duration of the multiproxy data (600 years), it is safe to assume that statistical reconstruction methods will be sufficient since most temperature cycles occur over the span on the order of a decade (hence, there will be multiple repetitions of temperature cycles over 600 years).

Now, he describes what causes the variations in the multiproxy data. There are five sources that account for 30% of the variations. The first is obviously the overall global warming trend (modern day). The second is the El Nino/Southern Oscillation. The third is the North Atlantic Oscillation. The last two are multi-decade variations in El Nino and the Atlantic basin.

Now, it seems to me that this "hiding the decline" is silly. If one looks at the "hockey stick graph" (Figure 5b), the plot shows the mean of the ACTUAL MEASURED NORTHERN HEMISPHERE TEMPERATURE DATA from 1902-1995 (mostly a mess with the reconstructed, reconstructed 50-year low-pass, and error lines, but still clearly visible after the reconstruction line ends at year 1980). Surprise, surprise, but the mean of the actual recorded temperature is going up.

Also of note is the reconstructed 50-year low-pass line: low-pass doesn't mean "lowering the temperature displayed" or anything like that. It refers to a low-pass filter to get rid of the noise in the data (since noise is high frequency and will not pass through the filter). Just to get that out of the way.

What probably happened was that Dr. Mann was faced with an incomplete data set for the tree-ring proxy data after 1960, given that the extrapolated temperature from the tree rings diverged from the data obtained from other proxy sources (as well as, you know, the actual temperature). As such, Dr. Mann just filled in the blanks with the actual temperature so that he could finish the demonstration of his technique.

To me, this paper is mostly about introducing the technique of using multiple proxies to extrapolate the temperature record. The temperature reconstruction itself is almost secondary. The tree-ring data could be replaced with some other proxy source if desired, and a new reconstruction could be made using the multiple proxy technique.

Scientists have already expanded on Dr. Mann's work with more extensive temperature reconstructions using far more proxies in far more locations. Other scientists have gone on their own way with other techniques. Guess what? Despite variations in the reconstructions, the one consistent theme is the rapid increase in modern day temperature.

-------------------------------------------

That's it for now, I guess. It's pretty easy to refute the "hide the decline" claims by just looking at Figure 5b (with the mean of the ACTUAL MEASURED TEMPERATURE plotted from 1902-1995). Furthermore, the tree-ring data is only one proxy source, with other proxy sources (such as the ice core samples and coral growth) used for the temperature reconstructions. I'm still happy that I read the entire paper, though. Learning new things is never a bad thing.

Still, the paper is over a decade old (even though it is a high-impact paper). Perhaps I'll live blog yet another paper reading one day... a newer one with the latest science.

Peace and long life.

War is the ultimate failure

Death, destruction, disease, horror... that's what war is all about, Anan. That's what makes it a thing to be avoided. But you've made it neat and painless - so neat and painless, you've had no reason to stop it, and you've had it for five hundred years. - James T. Kirk in "A Taste of Armageddon"

People have the ability to communicate and cooperate with one another to solve problems facing humankind as a whole. In light of this, the leaders of a nation must consider war as the ultimate failure, regardless of eventual outcome:

1) failure to preserve the lives of a nation's citizens (which includes military personnel)

2) failure to preserve the lives of the opponent's citizens (all lives are important)

3) failure to preserve the world's limited resources (used for destructive instead of constructive ends, not to mention destruction of resources and infrastructure due to fighting)

4) failure to use time for better purposes (time is wasted on destroying, when the world's problems go unsolved)

5) failure to communicate with or understand the opponent, as well as sowing seeds of mistrust and hatred, thus increasing the likelihood of future failure at communication

As Kirk once said to the mirror universe Spock in "Mirror, Mirror", the problem with war is the "illogic of waste". War must always be remembered as failure, a dark and lasting blemish in history.

-------------------------------------------

It is downright bizarre how some view war. For example, the Conservative government increased the combat role of Canadian troops in Afghanistan shortly after it came to power. This significantly increased the likelihood of Canadians killing Afghans and increased the likelihood of Canadians being killed. This was supposed to bolster Canada's standing in NATO somehow (for some obviously misguided reason).

War is glorified when it should be abhorred. In real life, war should not be a game with a scorecard with spectators cheering at from the sidelines far from the action, yet this is exactly what happens.

It takes a certain level of bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it should never have to happen. Some politicians (and some "spectator" citizens), colloquially known as "chickenhawks", are far too willing to take advantage of the reflected "glory" of winning a war without taking any risk to themselves, the way the Moon's brightness is just the reflection of sunlight.

And I really mean without taking any risk. Most wars that Canada and the U.S. have participated in have been/are fought on faraway continents, far beyond the reach of any significant counterattack. Fighting a war, at least to those at home, is largely neat and painless.

This is why people must remember the people on the other side and the reasons why war is a failure.

It takes bravery to be a soldier in a warzone, but it also takes bravery for a government to be willing to work with another government, overcome differences, and be willing to be challenged. It's easy (in fact, cowardly) to send someone else to kill others due to challenges that one is not willing to work to overcome.

A military should simply be a deterrent, never to be used unless all else has failed.

Peace and long life.

Take Harper's "hard ball" and run with it

The Conservatives have their preferred witness that they wish to present to the Afghanistan Special Commons Committee flying back to Canada. David Mulroney is supposed to be ready to testify on Thursday regarding the handing over of Afghan detainees by the Canadian military. Unfortunately, the committee is unprepared due to the lack of documents from the Conservatives. Right now, the committee is refusing to hear testimony from David Mulroney precisely because they are unprepared.

Unfortunately, it plays right into hands of the Conservatives, who wish to make it seem like the opposition is only looking to discredit the Conservatives by cherry-picking witnesses. Already, certain media headlines (though not necessarily the content of the articles themselves) are already sensationalizing this crooked sleight of hand.

One way out is to take the ball and run with it, as suggested by Mike-D's comments to the "Harper's last stand" post at Dawg's Blawg. Then, follow up David Mulroney's testimony with testimony from expert witnesses from Amnesty International or the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission (for example).

Regardless, the opposition must push hard for a public inquiry.

Drawing on simple analogies commonly used in Star Trek, consider a situation where a police officer is approached by a person who says that there was a murder and that he knows where the body is. The officer asks another nearby person, who says that he was not aware of any such murder and that the first person was making stuff up. One would hope that the officer would at least check out the claim to see if there is anyone reported missing, or perhaps see if there is a body where the first person claimed.

It's the same here. If the government cared about the issue and was interested in getting to the bottom of these "serious allegations" (as Peter MacKay would put it), the Conservatives would be more cooperative. The Conservatives say they will do as the committee asks, but they are making it as hard as possible for the committee.

Perhaps it's just my cynicism showing, but I don't believe for a second that a public inquiry will be called until just before an election call. I also don't believe that things can't improve in Afghanistan in any meaningful way anymore (whether there has been any meaningful improvement at all in most parts of the country since the war began is still up to debate) with Canada's continued presence while politicians rage on against one another.

Not much real hope right now... but hope for a better future is all that is left.

Peace and long life.

The gradual dissolution of democratic discourse, and health-care reform

The August town hall meetings regarding health care reform are already infamous for their unruliness, with people resorting to shouting others down in order to deny them their freedom of expression. A town hall meeting in Illinois, where a woman is heckled while trying to relate her story of the death of her daughter-in-law, is just the most recent example.

Firstly, the same as I was in the summer, I am astonished by the lack of empathy. Furthermore, even ignoring the crassness of the hecklers, the obvious attempt to prevent democratic discourse is evident. Ideas cannot be discussed. This is just a tiny step above silencing dissenters with force.

The leader of the hecklers (colloquially referred to as "teabaggers") claimed that the woman's story was simply derailing debate about the actual health care bill. However, when consistent with the larger body of evidence, anecdotes give a human face to a problem, and this is the case here. There is no denying that 47 million people have no health care coverage in the United States due to their low income.

Finally, why the heck was it necessary for the teabaggers to be hurtful to another human being? Just let her finish, and then continue with the debate (if that was what they were truly interested in). Sheesh.

The public option is far from perfect. It will offer coverage to only 31 million of those 47 million uninsured. It acts only as an alternative to other health care insurance plans and doesn't enable universal health care. There is also that silly amendment that denies coverage to low-income women who require abortions.

There is plenty to debate. Unfortunately, instead of debating the actual pros and cons of the bill, though, too often it is the misinformation that gets tossed about. (The hysteria is unbelievable when the solution is so simple. Don't like the public option and can afford a better plan? Then buy a better plan from an insurance company! Heck, you can do that in Canada!)

-----------------------------------------

I have no idea on how to restore the democratic discourse to a useful level. As such, I turn to Star Trek.

In the Star Trek episode "Miri", Kirk has to negotiate with nearly-ageless children for the communicators that they stole from him. As he tries to talk, they keep chanting "blah blah blah" loudly to drown him out (sound familiar?), until Kirk snaps and yells "No blah blah blah!" (hence my username). Eventually, after beating Kirk for a bit with clubs, they listen to him. Why?

In the episode, the reason was due to contrition and the realization that they were being as brutal as the "grups" (grown-ups) that had terrorized them before the grups died from disease... plus the episode was coming to an end, and two-parters were not common in the 1960's... but what if all the ageless children did was shout down Kirk? Would they have ever become contrite and listened?

As far as I can tell, as long as the hecklers aren't violent, they will see themselves as being correct in their actions (despite their obvious crassness and lack of empathy). All the while, they will be eroding the democratic discourse... and eventually end up being the poorer for it.

Peace and long life.

How can one man supposedly be the cause of so much evil?

The theory of evolution is, like any other scientific theory, simply an attempt to understand how a part of the universe works based upon observation. No more, and no less. It was an explanation built around data and has been corroborated by more data as time went on.

Evolution has been pretty consistent with the workings of the little part of the universe that it describes, just like general relativity, quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, etc.

During the theory's existence, evolution has been derided and demonized by a very vocal opposition. As of late, this demonization has only increased. Terms like "Darwinists" and "Darwinism" are thrown around to make it seem as though mainstream biologists are following the cult of a single personality. (The current understanding of evolution, of course, is the culmination of the work of many biologists over many years.) In particular, Ray Comfort's recently-released abridged version of Origin of Species has an added introduction (written by Ray Comfort himself) that links Darwin to the most infamous atrocity of modern times: the Holocaust.

Evolution does not describe a human way of life just because it is based upon observations of life in nature. It does not tell people how to treat other people. "Social Darwinism" was a flimsy excuse used by those who supported the abuse of greater power (such as those who supported European imperialism) by trying to give their cruelty the legitimacy of science.

Ray Comfort is simply going the other way. He attempts to remove the legitimacy of evolution by tying it to those who used their power for cruelty. At the same time, he ignores the death and destruction people have inflicted onto other people for as long as history has been recorded.

Here's an analogy: consider a crime where a man murders a child. This evil act mirrors an action that happens in nature: adult male lions and bears often kill cubs. The murderer is the one who is responsible for the crime, not biologists who publish research articles on the behaviour of lions and bears. In the same way, how can evolution be blamed for the actions of people who can think for themselves?

Adolf Hitler was evil. Enough said.

-----------------------------------------

In the second season of Star Trek, there was an episode called "Who Mourns for Adonais?" in which Captain Kirk says to Lieutenant Palamas:

... we're the same. We share the same history, the same heritage, the same lives. We're tied together beyond any untying. Man or woman, it makes no difference. We're human. We couldn't escape from each other even if we wanted to. That's how you do it lieutenant, by remembering who and what you are: a bit of flesh and blood afloat in a universe without end. And the only thing that's truly yours is the rest of humanity.

There is a great diversity of people across the world, to the point where wars have been fought over these differences (and not just competition for scarce resources). Yet, from the scientific study of genetics, people across the globe really are not all that different from one another. We are one big family. That is enough reason for us to work together for a better future for all of us.

Peace and long life.

"Out there, thataway!"

Captain Kirk was starting the newly-refit Enterprise's first full shakedown cruise, but it also applies to where my attention is most of the time: in some vague, undefined location.

No bloody A, B, C, or D... but there will be plenty of F's, given my lack of blogging experience. Hopefully, whoever bothers to read this blog will enjoy their stay.

Peace and long life.