
Just kidding...I'm not debating him, but I am appearing on a panel with the famous deputy director of the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, this Friday at the "Bioethics and Politics" conference in Albany, New York. The panel set-up could lead to debate-like exchanges, certainly. Guess I'd better brush up on stem cells; I've been focused on climate for so long I suspect I'm a bit rusty. So anyway, here's a set of Google links on Doerflinger. Just like we've done with Ron Bailey and Tom Bethell in the past, I'd appreciate your reactions...
Today right in my backyard, at the Mariott Wardman Park Hotel in DC, the Center for American Progress's campus branch is having its 2006 National Student Conference. I'm pleased to say that the event will include a panel on the "war on science" from 2:45 to 4:00 pm, and I'll be on that panel. Details here. Just as was the case with Yearly Kos last month, these "war on science" panels really seem to be popping up everywhere--science is "on the agenda," so to speak. And to me, that's very heartening....
For those in DC, I'm appearing on a panel tonight about new media and the future of science reporting, held at the wonderful Koshland Museum of the National Academy of Sciences. It starts at 6 pm; more details here. As a kind of warm up, I'd love to hear any thoughts from you folks as to how blogging, podcasting, etc are changing the communication of science--either scientific results themselves, or their societal meaning and interpretation. Fire away...
As Matt Nisbet has already noted, the flagship journal of the American Institute of Biological Sciences has a very important editorial in its latest issue about the importance of scientists learning framing devices. The piece appears to have been inspired by a joint presentation that Nisbet and I did before the AIBS a few months back. Here's a snippet:
The frames concept recognizes that facts are not enough to win popularity; emotional responses need to be excited as well. Scientists may find that notion alarming, because scholarly communications must be forthright about the uncertainties of…
I thought he was a real football hero. Guess I was wrong.
Every team I have rooted for during this World Cup--USA, Netherlands, England, Germany, and finally France--has gone down almost as soon as I switched to supporting them. I have no good record of picking winners.
Still, thanks to Zidane, I thought France was a safe bet. He seemed like a man on fire. I could have sworn that I saw a polished veteran who not only knew how to put the ball in the net when it matters, but whose stellar example had lifted his entire team to another level.
Oh well, never mind.
For the record, on some level I…
I never thought I'd find myself recommending, as reading to you folks, something put out by the Competitive Enterprise Institute. But it turns out that, while I find its conclusions a bit biased, this lengthy 1997 study (PDF) by Robert Balling nevertheless gives quite a thorough overview of how the battle over global warming and hurricanes played out during the 1990s. The issue, of course, wasn't nearly as high profile then; and some folks have since changed positions and/or sides. But it's a very interesting read.
Apart from Tropical Storm Alberto, the 2006 North Atlantic hurricane season has been pretty slow so far. That's not unexpected; June is never exactly a rockin' month for hurricanes, although last year, July was a rockin' month. So far it's not clear what to expect; I find the best source of day-to-day information on what's happening in the tropics is Jeff Masters' WunderBlog, which I encourage you to check out.
Meanwhile, despite the season's relatively slow start, one of the leading forecasting groups, Professors Mark Saunders and Adam Lea's Tropical Storm Risk, continues to predict an…
Not only did they give a journalism award to Michael Crichton for State of Fear. Now, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) is asking its members to comment on a draft "card" stating the group's position on climate change that is designed to be given out to the general public. The card apparently says, "All of the principal causes of climate change are beyond the control of human beings." Given this statement, which is wildly out of whack with scientific consensus, I'm not surprised that the AAPG website discussion of the card also says this: "The reviewers made several…
As I told you all before, I saw An Inconvenient Truth, and though I am not a scientist, being pretty familiar with much climate science I felt that most of what I saw was accurate. However, I was most troubled by the treatment of the hurricane issue. Not because there isn't an issue, but because the film--and apparently Gore--did not include the appropriate caveats, such as the following:
1. Global warming doesn't "cause" storms; though it will surely change the typical environment in which they form.
2. There is considerable debate over the extent to which global warming has already…
I was supposed to stay and chat at the Clark Community Network after my posting went up earlier today, but I goofed...so I'm coming back tonight at 7 PM ET for an hour of chatting. Come on over and ask questions...I see that a number have piled up already....
I have a guest posting up on the Clark Community Network about the Supreme Court deciding to hear a global warming case. You can read my take here. I'll be answering comments over on that site....but you can leave them here as well.
I've always known that spammers are big losers. But I've been surprised and a bit offended to learn recently that spammers apparently think that blog readers are big losers as well.
Let me explain. I screen all blog comments to weed out all the spam; and lately I've been detecting a pattern. Here are some samples of the kind of comments that the spammers have been leaving:
I've just been hanging out not getting anything done. What can I say? I've basically been doing nothing worth mentioning, but pfft. Not that it matters. Pretty much nothing exciting happening to speak of. I haven't been up…
For reasons that will remain obscure, I was recently reading a 1978 volume of the journal Oceanus, published by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. And in light of the tripe we often hear about how in the 1970s scientists were worried about a New Ice Age, one passage in particular stuck out to me. It's from a paper by one John Imbrie, a Brown University oceanographer, entitled "Global Perspectives on our Changing Climate" (p. 65-70, Number 4, Fall Issue 1978, "Oceans and Climate"). Here's what it had to say about this subject:
...there is no doubt that the 40 year cooling trend…
Well, here's what he said yesterday:
In the White House, only hours after that old elm had fallen, Bush was addressed by a reporter, thus: "I know that you are not planning to see Al Gore's new movie, but do you agree with the premise that global warming is a real and significant threat to the planet?"
"I have said consistently," answered Bush, "that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused. We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary ... to be good stewards of the environment, become less…
The famous physicist once remarked: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." What do you think he meant by this? I'm thinking about using the quote in the new book to underscore two different views of science--a deductive approach based upon theory and a Baconian inductive approach based upon the collection of data--but I'm not sure if I'm interpreting Rutherford the right way....
Well, I was thrilled last night when my very first ever New Orleans event was totally packed. I estimate about 80 people showed up at the Garden District Book Shop uptown for wine, food, and then a lecture by yours truly. I had actually had a beer beforehand, breaking one of my cardinal rules of public speaking, but it seemed appropriate for a New Orleans crowd. In my audience were old high school teachers, high school friends, and their familes, as well as members of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which helped cosponsor the event.
Now it's off to Houston, where I'm speaking…
I am doing my southern talks starting today: Details here. New Orleans tonight; Houston tomorrow night. I'm trying to think of regionally specific humor to use for New Orleans but also Houston in particular, so feel free to post any suggestions. You know, something along the lines of, when in Michigan make fun of Ohio State, when at Ohio State, make fun of Michigan....
There is still a lot of chatter about my Science Friday debate with Tom Bethell last week. Apparently it made some waves, so I'd like to make sure that anyone who hasn't heard it yet gets a chance to. If you'd like to listen with Real Audio, click here; for Windows Media Player, click here; and for the Podcast, click here.
Meanwhile, I'm psyched that BoingBoing has plugged the debate; click here for their take. They cite my "radio-show ninjitsu"....
I just arrived in New Orleans this morning, where I'll be hanging out for about a week. I'm laying low for a while to do some writing, but this coming Wednesday I'll be speaking for the very first time in my hometown. (Details here). Interestingly, tomorrow night my brother Davy, the jazz ace, is also having his first show in New Orleans since Katrina forced him to flee and relocate in Brooklyn ten months ago. So it's an important span of time for the Mooneys here in New Orleans; we're doing double homecomimgs. I'll let you know how it goes....
Well folks: The debate on NPR's "Science Friday" is today, starting around 3:15 ET. There will be a fair number of listener calls, I believe; remember, you can call in at 1-800-989-8255. To find a way to listen live, click here.
Meanwhile, I'm continuing to prepare, and want to thank you all very much for your help on the subjects of evolution and climate change. To further my prep, I also went to see Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth last night; I thought it was very powerful. True, there were a couple spots where Gore's presentation could have misled viewers into incorrectly thinking that…