Fearmongering against vaccines

It's worrying, but the anti-vaccination movement has had a significant impact on vaccination rates in the U.S. I don't believe that herd immunity has been compromised yet, but it must be getting dangerously close to that point. Herd immunity is probably a major reason why people can get away with not vaccinating their children (and then possibly heralded as evidence that vaccinations don't help). Once that's compromised, though...

The main problem is that the risks of something bad happening as a result of a vaccination is not compared to the risk of something bad happening with contracting a preventable disease. Vaccines are released for consumption only after they meet the requirement that only 1 in 100000 people will suffer adverse effects. For example, a batch of faulty H1N1 vaccine was recalled when 1 in 20000 people suffered severe allergic reactions. The H1N1 influenza had a death rate of 3 in 10000 people (0.03%), so even the faulty vaccine was safer than being infected by H1N1.

Frankly, a disease that is roughly as harmless as a vaccine wouldn't strike enough fear into the public for anyone to bother with making a vaccine in the first place (with regards to the "profit as a motive for pushing vaccines").

Still, the image of some horrible allergic reaction or autism (despite follow-up studies failing to find any statistical correlation) is enough to make people fear one of the greatest (in terms of benefiting the health of the species as a whole) medical achievements in human history.

Information and misinformation glut: leading to a glut of problems

Introduction

I've been wondering for about the problems with regards to public perception that science (especially climatology) have been suffering for the last little while. Here are my thoughts.

Information glut

A long time ago, I read about the concept of information glut in Neil Postman's book Technopoly. Basically, people are deluged with so much information that the information ceases to be useful due to: 1) the inability of most people to absorb such large quantities of information, 2) the oversimplification of concepts in order to increase the volume of information delivered, and 3) the less important (even irrelevant) information dug up in order to boost the aforementioned volume of information.

The end result is the retention of less information, as well as less understanding of what actually is retained.

Misinformation glut

The problem with having an information glut is that it becomes easier to add misinformation to the mix. With less understanding of actual information, it is more difficult to separate information from misinformation. For example, realistic-sounding technobabble (as opposed to the more obvious and ridiculous-sounding "Treknobabble") starts to sound like legitimate scientific terms to an untrained person.

Does "giant magnetoresistance" sound like something real? Is it real? (It actually is real, by the way.)

Some misinformation is unintentional or simple misunderstanding. Some misinformation is driven by those with ulterior motives. With regards to evolution, the Discovery Institute comes to mind. There are plenty of groups trying to discredit climate scientists and climate change.

Unintentional misinformation is unavoidable, but the intentional addition of misinformation to the information/misinformation glut is a major problem. A key reason is the fact that we live in democratic societies, where government decisions are influenced by the populace, which would ideally be informed rather than misinformed. (The unfounded claim of WMDs in Iraq is a particularly depressing political example of misinformation leading to horrific consequences.)

Misinformation about information

Science is twofold in its purpose: to gain a deep understanding of how the universe and its constituent components work, and to be able to make accurate predictions about the universe and its constituent components. (I say "constituent components" because, for example, biology is not a direct study of the universe but of something within the universe. Furthermore, it is currently impossible to study outside the known universe, although some scientists are trying to come up with experiments.)

The key strengths of science are its ability to make predictions based upon existing understanding and observation, and its self-correcting nature. Predictions based upon misinformation will not be accurate (barring occasional flukes, I suppose). Misinformation is also not self-correcting, aside from possibly trying to sound "scientific". In fact, deliberate misinformation is often very consistent because one of science's strengths is also yields weakness in fighting misinformation (at least in the eyes of the general public).

With regards to science, the fact that science is self-correcting is seen as a weakness. This is often argued to be "wavering" in position by those who intentionally spread misinformation. For example, with regards to evolution, biologists debating over finer details of evolutionary theory is often argued to be a "controversy" by creationists. (Some creationists go even further by claiming that the only reason why "evolutionists" stand by evolution despite the "controversy" is due to ideology.)

Another (indirect) strength of science can also be turned against science. People (rightfully) credit science for a great number of medical and technological successes, but human knowledge across different fields of science vary. Knowledge in some disciplines may be incomplete for the time being. In this sense, the successes from one field of science can be used against another field of science (as in, "is this field valid, given that another field of science is so much more complete?"). For example, with regards to cosmology, scientist are able to predict the expansion of the universe with dark energy using the "cosmological constant", but there is currently little (if any) understanding of dark energy itself. Some creationists use this incomplete knowledge to attack the credibility of cosmology in general (due to the acceptance of the Big Bang Theory).

Sometimes, imprecision is used to question accuracy, especially with regards to climatology. (Yes, there is a difference between precision and accuracy. A prediction can be accurate and imprecise if there is a large predicted range. A prediction can be accurate and precise if there is a small predicted range. Ideally, both accuracy and precision are desired, but that is not always possible given the lack of data for certain variables.)

With regards to climatology, weather is effectively only noise with regards to climate (and not even significant noise). Weather is difficult to predict partly due to the atmosphere's turbulent nature but mostly due to insufficient computing power (which requires simplified to be used models). The well-known method for reducing noise (from a mathematical standpoint) is to use larger time scales so that the noise "averages out"... which bodes well for climate studies. Despite this, the false argument that the inability to predict weather implies an inability to predict climate is often made (as in, "you can't even predict the weather beyond a few days... how can you predict the climate?"). Here, there is also conflation between meteorology and climatology, as well as oversimplification of a topic.

A final strategy often used to question science is what I call the "eternal whys". Ask "why" (or "how") enough times about anything (not just related to science), and even the most experienced of experts will end up flustered. This strategy also has related forms, e.g. for every two transitional fossils, creationists demand for yet another transitional fossil between the two fossils of interest.

Putting misinformation on equal footing to information

Notice a common theme yet? The first part of any intentional misinformation campaign is to attempt to discredit information by raising as many questions as possible.

The second part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to provide a false alternative to information: the misinformation itself. If crafted properly, it will sound as though there is legitimate debate about the topic at hand. The more complex the topic (such as climate), the easier it becomes to raise questions (legitimate or not) and craft a good-sounding "argument".

Of course, one may ask what differentiates legitimate and illegitimate debate. After all, if one asks a valid question, is it not the start of a valid debate? Well, the answer is two-fold. Firstly, a commonly-accepted theory is often the one that is the best predictor. Unless there is an actual alternative that improves the accuracy and/or precision of the predictions, the commonly-accepted theory will remain. Secondly, a scientist should already be aware of (and working to solve) the drawbacks in any existing theory. As such, raising questions is only raising questions. A real debate requires a real alternative to be offered.

(Additionally, I should note that there is a certain support for the "underdog" mentality that seems to stem from the individualism in our society. "Maverick scientists" are given too much credit due to the appeal of an individual making a difference. In reality, science develops reasonably slowly, and individuals' work are based upon the work of their predecessors. For example, Einstein's general theory of relativity has replaced Newton's law of gravity due to the more accurate predictions made by Einstein's theory, an actual example of one firmly-entrenched theory being replaced by another. Despite the amazing work accomplished by Einstein, one must ask whether Einstein would have developed his theories of relativity without Hendrik Lorentz's transformations or Riemannian geometry?)

The third part of an intentional misinformation campaign is to establish oneself as a "trusted" source of alternative "information" while discrediting the sources of actual information. While it may seem detrimental to resort to a logical fallacy such as an ad hominem, it actually works because much of our society is dependent upon appeals to authority (another logical fallacy, but due to necessity). For example, I have a degree from an accredited university, and I have been judged by professors who have degrees from other universities. When I apply for a job, I rely on my degree as evidence that I can perform the applicable work. I've basically appealed to the authorities of my university, my professors, and my professors' universities all in one go.

In society, the work of experts are supposed to be trusted. I can talk about four-stroke engines and camshafts, but if you want your car fixed, you should find an actual automotive technician. The same goes for any field of expertise, including science. By chipping away at that trust, the information provided by such experts becomes less certain to the public eye. It's a logical fallacy, but again, in a society where appeal to authority is required to work, attempting to discrediting experts also works. Most commonly, those spreading misinformation accuse scientists as being a group of close-minded ideologues unwilling to give a "fair opportunity" to other ideas.

One must remember that the goal of a number of misinformation campaigners (such as lobbies for the oil industry against effective climate change legislation) is simply to split public sentiment. It is unnecessary for a majority of people to believe in the misinformation. As long as there is a split public sentiment, there will be the corresponding indecisiveness and status quo in government.

Fighting misinformation: where we are at

Going back to the information glut, it is difficult to get across a message quickly and effectively to combat misinformation. News organizations often give equal time to both scientists and misinformation campaigners. Sound bites and short debates are often reduced to scientists confidently saying that the "science is sound", appealing to the authority of science while misinformation campaigners keep raising questions that can be asked quickly but cannot be answered quickly, trying to discredit that authority.

The necessary dirty work comes from raising questions about the credibility of those intentionally spreading misinformation, or else they may only grow in credibility. (That is to say, ignoring them and hoping that they'll go away is not enough.)

Unfortunately, the result of such exchanges only results in people believing who they feel is more credible, which may or may not turn out favourably. Rarely is there time to discuss the actual topic due to the topic being too complex to actually debate in a short time span.

Given the limited time, it has been suggested by some that the mainstream media deny time to the spreaders of misinformation in order to remove the "false balance" created by the apparent necessity for mainstream news to present two opposing viewpoints. The Internet, however, provides another avenue for other arguments and is becoming increasingly relied-upon as a source of information. Denying time on mainstream media for misinformation in the past has only lead to cries of being suppressed from misinformation spreaders, appealing to the public's sense of "fairness".

Another solution may be to sufficiently interest people into performing their own studying on various topics in order to educate themselves. This gives them time to absorb material as well as gain an understanding of the topics of interest. While this is the ideal case, there are also problems with this approach. There could possibly be mistakes made on the way (who has ever understood everything that they have tried to learn?). Furthermore, the Internet is sufficiently vast that it is conceivable that instead of presenting all arguments in detail, it allows those with preconceptions to find like-minded individuals without allowing time for learning about opposing arguments. Again, this goes back to the existence of a misinformation glut in conjunction with the information glut.

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

The problems are significant, and there are no ideal solutions. Personally, I think that inspiring people to educate themselves, as well as epistemology (theory of knowledge) courses in schools, are the start of the correct path. It is especially important for more people to learn about epistemology, as they will gain an understanding of how knowledge is acquired, the first step to becoming a rational and critical thinker.

Peace and long life (and sorry for going on for this long...).

Typo taken as fact?

Mistakes happen, especially when one is trying to compile information from a huge number of sources. Such a mistake seems to have turned up in the IPCC's 2007 assessment of climate change.

The mistake was made with regards to the disappearance of glaciers on the Himalayas. Apparently, a paper from 1996 estimated that the ice on the Himalayas (ranging from 200 to 400 metres thick) would be gone by 2350. New Scientist had an interview from 1999 with glaciologist Syed Hasnain which gives a date of 2035, which is likely a typo (or misreading) of the 1996 paper. Regardless, the mistake made its way into the IPCC's report.

Make no mistake, though. This doesn't invalidate the existence of global warming. If one thinks about it, losing an average* of nearly a metre of glacial ice thickness per year (covering the large expanse of the Himalayas) is a staggering amount of ice loss. It's just that global warming isn't enough to result in the loss of 11 metres of ice thickness per year (from 2007 to the supposed 2035 date). ;)

Given the reaction to the hacked and stolen CRU e-mails from late 2009, though, I am going to guess that climate change deniers are going to have a field day with this.

Peace and long life.

*EDIT: I should note that the loss of ice would not be constant over three centuries. The average ice loss would also probably increase with time as global temperatures rise. Regardless, it does provide evidence of increasing global temperatures.

Take many small steps quickly... Copenhagen or bust

Today, I discovered a blog on the BBC written by Justin Rowlatt: the Ethical Man blog. Mr. Rowlatt and his family tried to reduce their carbon usage for a year for a television program.

One issue covered in Mr. Rowlatt's post is potential opposition against wind farms in Britain, supported by arguments by Dr. David MacKay. Dr. MacKay estimates the power produced by a wind farm per unit area for an average 6-m/s wind as 2.2 W/m^2 (of land area). The wind potential calculated for those winds is 140 W/m^2 (of swept area). (I kind of wish he integrated the instantaneous power to calculate the energy produced instead, making use the histograms shown here, though. It would have been more accurate.)

Dr. MacKay believes that wind power is insufficient to supply enough energy to cover enough of Britain's total energy usage (not just electricity, but also heating and transportation) to be worthwhile, especially considering Britain's small area and relatively large population. He is known to advocate a massive move toward nuclear power in order to significantly reduce carbon emissions now (while figuring out how to deal with radioactive waste and more environmentally-friendly solutions later). It is not an outright horrific idea anymore (which in itself is depressing), considering that potential catastrophic climate change is likely to occur before the 22nd century rolls around. At the same time, wind power helps. A lot of steps need to be taken together to make a real difference. (Plus nuclear waste is a major negative... and it's not like we have infinite uranium reserves either...)

One thing I should note is that Mr. Rowlatt says that wind power is a "very dilute energy source". True, but one must note that the only reason fossil fuels seem like a concentrated energy source is due to hundreds of millions of years of geologic processes. As Dr. David Suzuki once said, fossil fuels are a one-time gift from the planet, and we're burning it all up (and it's not taking us a hundred million years to do so).

As for Canada, we're in the opposite position of Britain. We have a relatively small population and a huge country. Furthermore, we have some awesome wind potential (based on swept area) in Canada as shown on this wind map. At 80 metres high, Canada has plenty of regions that easily surpass 1000 W/m^2 of wind potential based on swept area (most notably around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador). Even in the heart of coal-addicted Alberta, there is some decent wind potential (most notably in the Rockies, and a region near Edmonton). Yes, Canada has huge areas having more than seven times the wind potential in Britain.

Even if some locations are off-limits due to ecological concerns, there is still a huge area that can be considered. (Did I mention that Canada is huge?)

The Conservative government has sent representatives to Copenhagen with Canada now viewed as one of the "bad guys" with regards to climate change. The Conservatives (and Ignatieff) regard, at least outwardly, the tar sands as a crucial part of Canada's future and economy. Despite what the tar sands generate, the future does not lie in fossil fuels, and tying Canada to an anchor that's going to be tossed off the side of the boat eventually is silly. Heck, Alberta produces most of its electricity by burning coal (so yeah, electric cars might be worse for the environment in Alberta). The worst part is that inaction will not affect the worst polluters first. It is the people who live on small islands, like the Maldives, who will suddenly find their land disappearing rapidly as ocean levels keep rising.

Instead of thinking about how Canada is blessed with the money-making tar sands, remember that Canada is blessed with so many more resources, as the previously-linked wind map shows. Take advantage of the economic depression, and spend some government money on starting up some green industries, or start some government projects like setting up wind farms (or concentrated solar collectors or whatever). This will rebuild and diversify our economy, reduce our reliance on oil, and reduce our carbon emissions. Many small steps can taken quickly.

The rest of the world is probably looking at Canada and wondering why we seem unwilling to step up when it is quite possibly the easiest for us to step up. Britain wishes it had Canada's size and wind resources for their wind farms.

Peace and long life.

Handy list of other indicators of global warming

Here is a nice list of non-temperature indicators global warming (and potential consequences of delaying action).

H/t to Mentarch.

Depressed about the state of the world... (rant)

Yesterday, I really needed that tribute to "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". On the whole, "Star Trek" (the original series), "Star Trek: The Next Generation", and the Star Trek films pushed a positive humanist vision of the future: any problems can be solved rationally by people, and anyone we meet in space will mostly be rational. Working together, people can create a utopia. Personally, I needed that detour into what may be...

... because "what is" sucks. I have three examples illustrating the point. (I have many more examples, but this will have to do for today.)

Responses to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre:

Going back to the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, read this for some accounts of disturbing reaction to the 20th anniversary. In short, some people were celebrating the killer rather than remembering the victims. The killer was, for all intents and purposes, a terrorist before the term became popularized: he tried to achieve some societal or political gain (trying to stop the inroads women were making into a male-dominated world) through violence. What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about celebrating a terrorist? What would these people who celebrate the killer feel about denouncing remembrance of a terror attack?

The problem with these people who celebrate the killer is that they don't see the murdered (and injured) women as people who lost their lives in a meaningless attack. These people who celebrate the killer see the victims only in terms of being detrimental to their political beliefs. This in itself speaks volumes... and it doesn't paint a very flattering picture (to put it extremely mildly).

To put it less mildly, it is sickening... absolutely disgusting.

The vitriol shown toward feminists (and just women in general) is disturbing... Beyond just remembering those who died in the Ecole Polytechnique massacre, the fight against misogyny must continue.

Climate change "controversy":

I wanted to write about the unrelenting attacks on scientists, and how I would have felt if I was in their position. Unfortunately, I couldn't even fathom my reaction. It's already hard enough getting back standard reviewer responses to a submitted paper (and they are usually pretty tough). Also being attacked by those less qualified (not saying that they can't be qualified if they did the sufficient work and research... but generally, they don't) would be unbelievably stressful. And when those who attack have vast resources, it just becomes just that much more difficult.

It becomes even worse when pseudo-science is thrown out to fight legitimate science. One example that comes to mind is the "warming Sun" theory. It is indeed true that the Sun will on average radiate more energy over time as it depletes its hydrogen and converts it into helium; however, the Sun's rate of change is not nearly rapid enough to explain the rise in temperatures over the past century or so. This is shown by observed stratospheric cooling accompanying tropospheric warming: the same amount of energy is delivered to the ground, but the greenhouse gases trap more energy in the troposphere rather than allow the energy to radiate away into the higher levels of the atmosphere.

Here is a reminder of the "manufactured doubt" industry, and how it fought hard against links between smoking and lung cancer, links between CFC emissions and the ozone hole, and links between fossil fuel burning and global warming.

Heck, even "climate change" seems to be a construct of those who don't like the phrase "global warming".

It's depressing how people are happy to accept the fruits of science and engineering when they result in nice toys and gadgets and conveniences. When scientific findings imply that people have to change their ways for the better of the planet and the longer term, scientists are dismissed as being part of some great "conspiracy" and the like. So, are retreating glaciers, thinning and retreating Arctic ice, giant icebergs breaking off of Antarctica, and rising ocean levels (amongst many other indicators) the result of warmer or cooler temperatures? It seems pretty obvious.

Afghan detainee transfer by Canadian soldiers:

Politicians fight hard for their jobs rather than try to find out whether something is going wrong and trying to prevent future war crimes from happening. Outright lies are spewed. These people are supposed to represent Canadians.

As usual, the Conservative government will ignore the passed motion for a public inquiry. It would, however, be possible for a non-confidence motion to be passed, a coalition government to be established, and then a public inquiry to be called. (It would be highly unlikely, though, given the general lack of cooperation between the opposition parties.)

The American populace, according to a survey, now condones torture by a slim majority, which is absolutely disgraceful. Hopefully, Canada is not on the same path.

Well, I'm done ranting for a day, even though there is much more inequality and injustice in the world. Much work has to be done for a better future...

But right now, as far as I can tell, our world looks like it is the road to Star Trek's mirror universe. Don't make it so.

Peace and long life.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) for home

Historically, electrical power generation on a large scale has relied on getting a turbine to rotate, which in turn rotates a connected armature (wire windings) within an unchanging magnetic field (typically permanent magnets). (In motor terms, the armature would be the rotor, and the magnetic field would be provided by the stator.) Getting the turbine to rotate often involved (in fact, still involve) the burning of fossil fuels in order to boil water. Steam then pushes the turbine. Later the steam is collected later in the loop, allowed to cool, and then returned to the water reservoir. More modern and renewable alternatives are found in hydroelectric dams and wind turbines.

A major exception that comes to mind is solar power generated through photovoltaic cells. Instead of taking mechanical power and turning it into electrical power, photovoltaic cells absorb photons to excite electrons (assuming the photons are of sufficiently high frequency). Commercially-available solar panels tend to be of relatively low efficiency (<20%), although far more efficient solar panels are being researched and developed.

Concentrating solar power (CSP) takes us back to our heat-a-fluid-and-then-have-it-flow-around-in-a-loop roots. Well, not exactly, and not always. Steam turbines are indeed used for solar thermoelectricity, but CSP has also been used on air turbines, photovoltaic cells, molten salts, and Stirling engines (described surprisingly well in Wikipedia). CSP is also being looked at as a way to desalinize ocean water into freshwater (very necessary as freshwater supplies continue to dwindle and ocean levels continue to rise).

In general, concentrating solar power is still more efficient than solar power from photovoltaic cells (ignoring possible future next-generation photovoltaics). Given the noisiness of a wind turbine in an urban setting, and the low efficiency of commercial solar panels (combined with the fact that this is Canada, with limited hours of sunlight already), I've always wanted a miniature CSP generator to play around with.

Amazingly, Sopology has a portable parabolic trough-style CSP generator. Additionally, they have a rooftop-mounted product as well.

Equally cool (or hot) and infinitely cheaper, if one is looking simply for a solar-powered heater to help keep costs down during a Canadian winter, is a self-made heater made partially from old soda cans.

Finally, I'm not sure how many people know this, but the bottom curve of a soda can is typically parabolic in shape. As such, if one can find soda cans that are not dinged up, a person could hypothetically polish the bottoms of soda cans until they are reflective and then build an array of parabolic mirrors. You never know what you could build... just think MacGyver...

Peace and long life.

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.

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.