Another Pen for Western Culture

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Sum of the Square Roots of Any Two Sides of a Right Triangle is Equal to the Square Root of ... Man-Made Global Warming?

This article is copied from the Wall Street Journal Online:
"Yellow Science"

By JAMES KERIAN
June 25, 2008

In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism. By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.

Man has always had a healthy desire for knowledge, and it is the feeding of this hunger that ennobles journalism. Hearst and Pulitzer were acutely aware that man has a less healthy but no less voracious desire to believe that he has knowledge, particularly knowledge of something sensational. It is the feeding of this hunger that irreparably disgraced journalism, and a century later now threatens to do the same to science.

* * *
Scientists, like journalists, are called upon to plumb the depths of the unknown and to fairly and objectively report their findings to their own professional community as well as the general public. Scientists, like the journalists of yesteryear, have specific methods for ensuring that the public trust placed in them is not abused. The most fundamental of these methods is the well-known, if not so creatively named, scientific method. The essence of the scientific method is the formulation of hypotheses (ideas) and the using of these hypotheses to make predictions that can be experimentally tested. In the words of Sir Thomas Eddington in "The Philosophy of Physical Science," "Every item of physical knowledge must therefore be an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure."

Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of "an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure." Global warming may or may not be "the greatest scam in history," as it was recently called by John Coleman, a prominent meteorologist and the founder of the Weather Channel. Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an "item of physical knowledge."

Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: "The debate is over. It's time to discuss solutions." Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general's qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made. The first question that this raises is why have so many scientists chosen to ignore this glaring failure of the global warming hypothesis to meet the standards of their own profession? The second question is what, if anything, can be done about it?

The first, and most obvious, temptation for this sort of willful blindness is financial. Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."

* * *

The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.

In recent decades, the scorn of prominent scientists such as John Coleman has been similarly unable to stop the ascendancy of the global-warming hypothesis as the public has been increasingly drawn by its sensationalism. The scientific community as a whole is on the brink of acceding to Ban Ki-Moon's insistence that "the debate is over" and turning now to their grant applications.

Ultimately, it is only the public that holds the power to enforce professional standards, and therefore each of us must accept this responsibility. Most of us will not be able to comprehend the latest climatologic studies from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, but fortunately that is not necessary. However complex the information may be, the standards are quite clear. One need not be a Beltway newshound to know that whatever follows the phrase "unnamed sources in the capital" or "rumors in Hollywood are" is not real journalism. Similarly, one does not need an advanced degree in natural science to understand that whatever follows the phrase "most experts agree" or "no one can measure the exact effect but" is not real science. In fact, if there is no possible way that a statement can realistically be tested, it probably fails to meet the standards for any professional community and is of no real use to the public.

The long-term results of yellow journalism have probably been more devastating than the war it started. Journalists have lost the respectability of their profession, and the public has lost real journalism. We are in very real danger, as scientists and as a nation, of losing the respectability of a professional community that has done so much to make this country great in the past hundred years. If yellow science overcomes real science it will not only be on account of the greed, ambition, and cowardice of our scientists but also the sloth and cowardice of a public that is unwilling to stand up and demand professionalism. This is why, as the editors of the New York Press said in 1897, I "called them yellow because they are yellow."

Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

CHANGE


Tuesday, June 10, 2008

"Obama is a Rock Star" by Matt Friedman

Here's a great article that touches on the pros and cons of the world's fascination with Obama:

***********************************************

from One News Now: Matt Friedeman - 6/10/2008

. . . . America seems to be gushing over a candidate with a certain appeal that is viscerally emotional and hard to contain.

Contain? A San Francisco columnist appeared ready to do the New Age faint the other day. He wrote about Obama the "Lightworker." Yes, capitalize that word. And then pile on top of it "isn't really one of us," "powerful luminosity" and "a unique high vibration integrity." But the starry-eyed columnist wasn't even close to done. "Rare kind of attuned being," "these kind of people actually help us evolve," "they are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."

More. "There simply is no denying that extra kick ... There's a vast amount of positive energy swirling about ... this energy has now found a conduit, a lightning rod ... People and emotions and ideas of high and positive vibration are automatically drawn to him."

You read this stuff and you think, My goodness, some people have finally found their god. But then you wonder if this god won't reach under his chin after the election, grab the edge of the mask and yank off the façade to reveal himself as the man who told us in language we weren't listening to and a voting record that was obfuscated by a cult of personality that I am indeed the One.

The One who promised to raise your taxes; buddy up with our sworn enemies over a latte; grow government in an attempt to assuage every conceivable un-addressed woe; appoint to the courts "moderates" who reflect the most liberal justices we currently have (thus re-redefining moderation); push further the boundaries of life by supporting partial-birth abortion and even refusing to protect children accidentally born alive because the abortionist missed; and redefine marriage so that marriage doesn't matter much anymore.

And here's what is wrong. To some people in this nation, that kind of a leader is god-like. Not really just one of us. A rock star. Lightworker. Their daydream.

Come hither, you who are googley-eyed. Snap out of it. Remember the lines out of the movie Broadcast News years ago? It was a Hollywood, Left-coast production, so maybe you might.


Aaron Altman (played by Albert Brooks) is talking to best friend Jane Craig (Holly Hunter) about her new love interest.

Aaron: "You can't end up with Tom, because it totally goes against everything that you're about. I know you care about him ... so don't get me wrong when I tell you that Tom, while being a very nice guy, is the devil."

Jane (disgusted): "This isn't friendship -- you're crazy, you know that?"

Aaron (defensively): "What do you think the devil is going to look like if he's around? C'mon, nobody's going to be taken in by a guy with a long, red, pointed tail ... c'mon, what's he going to sound like? 'AAARRRGGGHHH'?"

"No ... he'll be attractive, he'll be nice and helpful, he'll get a job where he influences a great God-fearing nation. He'll never do an evil thing ... never deliberately hurt a
living thing. He'll just bit by little bit lower our standards where they're important ... just pokes along, flash over substance ... he personifies everything you've been fighting against."

The Candidate -- attractive, nice and helpful, just wanting to influence this great God-fearing nation. He pats his opponents on the head and tells them that yes, he understands their concerns. He mesmerizes the masses with speeches that the Hollywood crowd swears remind them of Kennedy and King. He is convincing; really likeable. People log on to their computers and can't help sending in millions. The light behind his head on the magazine cover produces that "powerful luminosity."

But bit by bit he lowers our standards. With his Lightworker, rock-star methods he slowly begins to change the way we think, feel, and act -- about everything.

It no doubt surprises some theological "progressives" that there are still people who believe in devils. Less astonishing is the fact that many of us recognize the reality of political devils -- specifically, those presaged in the words of a scriptwriter named Brooks.

***********************************************
Interesting P.S.--the article in the S.F. Chronicle, the hymn to Obama's New Age Goodness, a usually skeptical man's declaration that the energy and light is swirling about the Chosen One, as though he were Luke Skywalker, . . . well, that guy says JFK was killed specifically because he was one of those rare enlightened beings that step into our world from the more evolved future, and yearn to draw us toward the light. Or something:

JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

So JFK was another Messiah. Not very powerful, of course. Forty years later you can't point to any teachings or doctrine that are now regarded as gospel. His own party--his kid brother even--has departed from his comparatively conservative positions on economics and national security. But more to the point--if Obama is another mini-Messiah, what is his message? (Does anyone have any idea? Has he uttered a single concrete statement of policy?)

I like how the Real Messiah once put it:

"Be innocent as doves, but shrewd as serpents."