Pope Cures Parkinson's?

Twenty-six days after his death, Pope John Paul II was put on the fast-track for sainthood. Although there is usually a five-year waiting period before you can even be considered as a candidate for sainthood, the current pope waived the waiting period, just as John Paul II had done for Mother Theresa. Today, it looks like John Paul II might be cashing in on that favor and joining the ranks of the saints in the near future.

One of the requirements of sainthood is that you grant people wishes after you die, and bend the laws of nature to do things that are otherwise impossible (at least to the satisfaction of a church committee). To fulfill this requirement, a French nun recently came forward claiming that the recently deceased John Paul II cured her Parkinson's disease after she prayed to him. Parkinson's is incurable through modern medicine, so this sounds like big news.

However, the San Diego Tribune reports:

"As many as 200,000 of the estimated 1 million people in North America who learn they have Parkinson's disease, a progressive disorder marked by tremors and slow movement, may be misdiagnosed because the condition requires special expertise to recognize and treat."

If 1/5 of the people diagnosed with Parkinson's never had it in the first place, then this looks like a far more likely explanation. I suppose that we'll be hearing more about this in the future, though.

Pat Buchanan on Evolution

Digby recently posted excerpts of interviews from several prominent conservatives asking their views on evolution. Pat Buchanan, pictured left, had some especially ridiculous things to say:

"Do I believe in absolute evolution? No. I don't believe that evolution can explain the creation of matter. ... Do I believe in Darwinian evolution? The answer is no."

Uh, the biological theory of evolution doesn't even attempt to try to explain the "creation of matter." Anyway, after this prelude, he unleashes his full ignorance:

"Evolution [has] been so powerful a theory in Western history in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and often a malevolent force--it's been used by non-Christians and anti-Christians to justify polices which have been horrendous. I do believe that every American student should be introduced to the idea and its effects on society. But I don't think it ought to be taught as fact. It ought to be taught as theory. ... How do you answer a kid who says, 'Where did we all come from?' Do you say, 'We all evolved'? I think that's a theory. ... Now the biblical story of creation should be taught to children, not as dogma but every child should know first of all the famous biblical stories because they have had a tremendous influence as well. ... I don't think it should be taught as religion to kids who don't wanna learn it. ... I think in biology that honest teachers gotta say, 'Look the universe exhibits, betrays the idea that there is a first mover, that there is intelligent design.' ... You should leave the teaching of religion to a voluntary classes in my judgment and only those who wish to attend."

Right off the bat, Pat goes out of his way to point out that evolution has been used to justify some horrible things in the past. But so has religion and nationalism, yet Pat hasn't turned away from those. Pat then goes on with the awful "it's a theory not a fact" talking point. Well it's both. Then he suggests teaching the biblical story of creation in science classes, even though it has consistently been ruled unconstitutional. Pat clearly has no idea what he's talking about on this one.

The War On Science

Microsoft Training Video

Boehner Requires Committee Members to Disagree With Mainstream Science View

It appears that Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) made global warming denial a requirement for Republicans seeking appointment to the House global warming committee. Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) was apparently not appointed by Boehner precisely for this reason:

"I said, 'John, I can't do that,' " Gilchrest, R-1st-Md., said in an interview. "He said, 'Come on. Do me a favor. I want to help you here.'"

Rep. Roscoe Bartlet (R-MD), a research scientist, was also not appointed. Neither was Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI) the first research physicist to serve in Congress.

Instead of appointing actual scientists, or people who refused to take such a stance against the majority of the scientific community, Boehner ultimately chose James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) as the ranking Republican member. Sensenbrenner, who apparently doesn't understand the difference between the words "eminent" and "imminent", made the following statement in a press release:

"Recent fluctuations in the Earth’s climates and temperatures have led to numerous sensational headlines describing an eminent doomsday scenario."

Boehner appears very happy with this appointment:

“I cannot think of a more qualified individual to tackle this complex subject matter and help the Congress craft common sense solutions to this challenge.”

Al Gore Testifies in Both Houses

Al Gore testified today in front of the House Energy and Science Committees, as well as the Senate.

Here is a video of his opening testimony in the House:


Here is a link to a video clip from his testimony in the Senate.

Here is the 9-point plan he proposed for dealing with climate change:

1. I think we ought to have an immediate freeze on co2 reductions and start from there.
   
   
2. We should use the tax code. What I'm about to propose I know is is very much outside the range of what is now politically feasible.
   
   I think we ought to cut taxes on employment and make up the difference with pollution taxes - principally CO2 taxes. Some countries are talking about it seriously.
   
   In the developed world our big disadvantage is that these developed countries have access to tech and container shipping. We don't want to lower our wages - but we don't want to pile on top of those wages these taxes.
   
   We ought to use some of the revenue [from carbon taxes] to help the poor with the adjustments that are coming forward.
   
   
3. I'm in favor of cap and trade and I supported Kyoto. but I understand the realities of the situation.
   
   I think the new president should take office at a time when our country has a commitment to defacto compliance with Kyoto. And I think we should move the start of the new treaty period from 2012 to 2010. We need a tougher treaty that starts in 2010. And we need to find a creative way to get China and india involved sooner rather than later.
   
   That's important not least of which because China's emissions will exceed ours in the next couple of years.
   
   We need to ratify a cap and trade system so the market will work for us rather than against us.
   
   
4. We should have a moratorium on new coal plants that are not fixed with carbon capture and sequestration technology.
   
   
5. I think our congress should fix a date beyond which incadescent lightbulbs are banned. [aside: Australia is about to do this.]...
   
   It's like wal-mart. It's not taking on the climate crisis simply out of the goodness of their heart. They care about it but they're making money at it.
   
   
6. The creative power of the information revolution was unlocked by the Internet. When the science and engineering pioneers came up with arpanet and this senate empowered them with a legislative framework and money for r&d, that came together.
   
   We ought to have [an analogous] electro-net and we ought to encourage widely distributed power generation. We ought to take off the caps and let individuals sell back as much as they want on the grid.
   
   Know that the opposite of a monopoly is a monopsony - a single buyer who dictates prices, so we need to have an open market to deal with that [so it's not just the utility company dictating the value of electricity sold back to the grid]. You give individuals the ability to do that and you watch - families, small business will go to town on this.
   
   
7. I think we ought to raise the CAFE standards. Don't single out autos, but as part of it.
   
   
8. Pass a carbon-neutral mortgage association. Here's why: buyers of new homes and buyers and sellers all focus on purchase prices. But the expenditures that go into more insulation and window treatment and those that don't pay back immediately but pay back over 2-3 years, those don't get counted as savings. Put those in a separate instrument - then have a Connie May [like the government's Fannie Mae, which handles mortgages] which can create a separate instrument. So that people can save and reduce co2 at the same time.
   
   
9. Require corporate disclosure of carbon emissions. Investors have a right to know about material risks that could affect the value of their stocks in the future.

The Correct Answer Is "Yes"

The New York Times reported the following exchange with Sen. John McCain:

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

Leprechaun Found In Alabama

Happy Birthday, James Madison

Martin Durkin Responds

Two prominent British scientists sent a letter to filmmaker Martin Durkin about the many misrepresentations he made in his "documentary" titled The Great Global Warming Swindle (of which I wrote about here).

Martin Durkin responds:
"You’re a big daft cock... Go and fuck yourself”

Geothermal Cuts

According to Reuters, the White House will be cutting research funding for geothermal power despite a recent MIT study touting its potential.

At least the DoE has been investing in solar power.

Bill Broad vs. Al Gore

Journalist William Broad recently wrote a column in the New York Times on Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth. I just wanted to point out a few of the problems I saw in the article.

First off, the article refers to Roger Pielke Jr. as an "environmental scientist." His area of expertise is political science, and he is not a scientist of any kind. But that's just a minor point that bothered me.

However, this part really bothered me:

So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.

Um, the NAS report actually did the exact opposite. It said that there is high confidence that the warming is unprecedented for the last 400 years, and that there is significant supporting evidence that the warming is also unprecedented for the last millenium:

The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes the additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and documentation of the spatial coherence of recent warming described above (Cook et al. 2004, Moberg et al. 2005, Rutherford et al. 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Osborn and Briffa 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press), and also the pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators described in previous chapters (e.g., Thompson et al. in press). Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

The article also fails to mention that the IPCC AR4 report directly confirms what Al Gore said:

"Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the last half of the 20th century were very likely [>90% certainty] higher than during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely [>66% certainty] the highest in at least the past 1300 years."

And this part really bothered me:

But Benny J. Peiser, a social anthropologist in Britain who runs the Cambridge-Conference Network, or CCNet, an Internet newsletter on climate change and natural disasters, challenged the claim of scientific consensus with examples of pointed disagreement.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

But Benny Peiser has presented this criticism before (in letters that were rejected by Science magazine), and has already been forced to back down once someone actually examined the articles he was citing as support. [Here's a paper by Naomi Oreskes in Science magazine that examines the scientific consensus]

Links:
Real Climate discusses inaccuracies in a previous article by William Broad here.
Real Climate discusses the article in more detail here.
Tim Lambert responds here.
Gristmill reponds here and here.
Media Matters goes into more detail on the "skeptics" used in the article here.
Boykoff's "Balance As Bias" paper can be found here.

Secular Islam Summit

The Secular Islam Summit just released what they're calling the St. Petersburg Declaration.

We are secular Muslims, and secular persons of Muslim societies. We are believers, doubters, and unbelievers, brought together by a great struggle, not between the West and Islam, but between the free and the unfree.

We affirm the inviolable freedom of the individual conscience. We believe in the equality of all human persons.

We insist upon the separation of religion from state and the observance of universal human rights.

We find traditions of liberty, rationality, and tolerance in the rich histories of pre-Islamic and Islamic societies. These values do not belong to the West or the East; they are the common moral heritage of humankind.

We see no colonialism, racism, or so-called "Islamaphobia" in submitting Islamic practices to criticism or condemnation when they violate human reason or rights.

We call on the governments of the world to reject Sharia law, fatwa courts, clerical rule, and state-sanctioned religion in all their forms; oppose all penalties for blasphemy and apostacy, in accordance with Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights; eliminate practices, such as female circumcision, honor killing, forced veiling, and forced marriage, that further the oppression of women; protect sexual and gender minorities from persecution and violence; reform sectarian education that teaches intolerance and bigotry towards non-Muslims; and foster an open public sphere in which all matters may be discussed without coercion or intimidation.

We demand the release of Islam from its captivity to the totalitarian ambitions of power-hungry men and the rigid strictures of orthodoxy.

We enjoin academics and thinkers everywhere to embark on a fearless examination of the origins and sources of Islam, and to promulgate the ideals of free scientific and spiritual inquiry through cross-cultural translation, publishing, and the mass media.

We say to Muslim believers: there is a noble future for Islam as a personal faith, not a political doctrine;

to Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Baha'is, and all members of non-Muslim faith communities: we stand with you as free and equal citizens;

and to nonbelievers: we defend your unqualified liberty to question and dissent.

Before any of us is a member of the Umma, the Body of Christ, or the Chosen People, we are all members of the community of conscience, the people who must chose for themselves.


Endorsed by:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Magdi Allam
Mithal Al-Alusi
Shaker Al-Nabulsi
Nonie Darwish
Afhin Ellian
Tawfik Hamid
Shahriar Kabir
Hasan Mahmud
Wafa Sultan
Amir Taheri
Ibn Warraq
Manda Zand Ervin
Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi

First Non-theist In Congress

According to the Secular Coalition for America, Pete Stark (D-Ca), pictured left, is the first open non-theist in Congress. Good for you, Pete.

Update: It turns out that he identifies as a Unitarian. I thought that Unitarians were just theists who reject the idea of the trinity. It turns out that the term also includes non-theists.

Pointless Missouri Resolution

Rep. Carl Bearden (R-MO) has introduced an amendment to the Missouri state constitution that does precisely nothing. Here is the text of the amendment itself:

that to secure a citizen's right to acknowledge Almighty God according to the dictates of personal convictions, neither the state nor any of its political subdivisions shall establish any official religion, but a citizen's right to pray or to express his or her religious beliefs shall not be infringed; that the state shall not compose prayers nor coerce any person to participate in any prayer or other religious activity, but shall ensure public school students their right to free exercise of religious expression without interference, as long as such prayer or other expression is private and voluntary, whether individually or corporately, and in a manner that is not disruptive nor in violation of other policies, rules, or standards, and as long as such prayers or expressions abide within the same parameters placed upon any other free speech under similar circumstances

Uh, all of that is already perfectly legal and guaranteed by the constituion.

Swindle?

Channel 4 in Britain recently aired "The Great Global Warming Swindle," a documentary that rehashes the same tired global warming "skeptic" arguments. Basically, the point of the documentary is that climate change is just a worldwide hoax, despite the fact that all of the peer reviewed scientific journals and all the relevant scientific organizations agree that it is indeed real. But people love conspiracy theories, so here is the documentary itself.



Not long after the first showing, one of the experts used in the film (Carl Wunsch) complained that he had been "seriously misrepresented" in the documentary. This is apparently nothing new for the documentary film-maker Martin Durkin, since a previous documentary of his "was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that 'distorted or mispresented their known views'."

Claim #1: CO2 doesn't match the warming of the 20th Century.
Martin Durkin apparently believes that this is damning to the idea that climate change has largely been driven by CO2 emissions. However, nobody is claiming that CO2 is the only forcing agent. In fact, the mid-century cooling period, which was driven by sulfate emissions, fits perfectly into our current models.


Claim #2: The troposphere should warm faster than the surface.
Uh, it does. Their own expert Christy has said:

"Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human induced global warming. Specifically, surface data showed substantial global-average warming, while early versions of satellite and radiosonde data showed little or no warming above the surface. This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."

Claim #3: Temperature leads CO2 by 800 years in the ice core record.
Durkin believes that since the Vostok ice core record shows temperature changes 800 years ahead of CO2 changes, that this implies that CO2 doesn't actually affect temperature itself. But that claim, made over and over by climate "skeptics", has been refuted over and over. Temperature and CO2 have a feedback relationship where an increase in one results in an increase in the other (albeit in different proportions). What you see in the ice core record is a cyclical increase in temperature (due in part to the orbital variations in the sun) followed by a CO2 amplification of that increase. That's how the feedback works. Increased temperature eventually releases more CO2 from the oceans, which in turn increases the warming. This doesn't cast any doubt on global warming and doesn't even contradict with what the climate experts have been saying.

Claim #4: There were higher temperatures during the "medieval warm period".
To support this claim, Durkin uses a graph that he attributes to the IPCC. No date is given, but here is the graph:

However, this is the graph from the 1990 IPCC report (I think it was also used in AR2). Conspicuously absent are the IPCC graphs used after 1995, showing current temperatures to be higher. Here are the graphs of 10 more recent temperature reconstructions, including one that was used for the 2001 IPCC report:


Claim #5: The sun is really responsible for the recent warming.
Durkin acts as if nobody had ever properly considered the sun before. As evidence that this is responsible for the recent warming, he offers an impressive-looking graph that shows a matching "Temp." plotted against "Solar". However, this graph has been disposed of a long time ago (see Damon and Laut 2004).

the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by incorrect handling of the physical data. The graphs are still widely referred to in the literature, and their misleading character has not yet been generally recognized.

More on the sun here and here.

Here's a picture of the man himself, Martin Durkin:


Update:
John Houghton of the IPCC responds here.
RealClimate responds here.
Carl Wunsch responds here.
Stoat responds here.
George Monbiot responds for The Guardian here.

Chuck Norris

Chuck Norris, weighing in on evolution:

"here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real. It is not the way we got here. In fact, the life you see on this planet is really just a list of creatures God has allowed to live. We are not creations of random chance. We are not accidents. There is a God, a Creator, who made you and me. We were made in His image, which separates us from all other creatures."

House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has just announced the new members of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

Democratic members, appointed by Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

• Congressman Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Chairman
• Congressman Earl Blumenauer of Oregon
• Congressman Jay Inslee of Washington
• Congressman John Larson of Connecticut
• Congresswoman Hilda Solis of California
• Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota
• Congressman Emanuel Cleaver of Missouri
• Congressman John Hall of New York
• Congressman Jerry McNerney of California

Republican members, appointed by John Boehner (R-OH):

• Congressman James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, Ranking Member
• Congressman John Shadegg of Arizona
• Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon
• Congressman John Sullivan of Oklahoma
• Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee
• Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan

It's interesting to note, however, that all but one of the Republican appointees (Greg Walden) voted against creation of the committee in the first place.

The Dead - Billy Collins

Rev. Cizik and the NAE

Rev. Richard Cizik, Vice President of the National Association of Evangelicals, has recently spoken on the topic of global warming. He says that Christians should take the notion of stewardship more seriously.

We are commissioned by God the Almighty to be stewards of the earth. It is rooted not in politics or ideology, but in the scriptures. Genesis 2:15 specifically calls us "to watch over and care for" the bounty of the earth and its creatures. Scripture not only affirms this role, but warns that the earth is not ours to abuse, own, or dominate. The Bible clearly says in Revelation 11:18 that "God will destroy those who destroy the earth."

So what do his fellow evangelical leaders do? They write a letter to the chairman of the board, expressing their distaste and encouraging Cizik to either shut up or resign.

If he cannot be trusted to articulate the views of American evangelicals on environmental issues, then we respectfully suggest that he be encouraged to resign his position with the NAE.

So why do the letter's signatories believe Cizik is doing all this? Is it because there is scientific agreement that global warming is caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?

Not quite. Apparently, Cizik is colluding with the "liberal media" to shift the focus from more important issues like gay marriage and abstinence:

We have observed that Cizik and others are using the global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from the great moral issues of our time, notably the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage and the teaching of sexual abstinence and morality to our children.

Perhaps these guys missed the memo, but Cizik is pro-life, anti-stem cell research, anti-gay marriage, pro-abstinence, and probably has the same basic sense of morality as the signatories. James Dobson and the others must think that this is a zero-sum game, and that you can't be pro-environment without taking away from those other issues.

But my favorite part comes right after the letter mentions that Cizik is concerned about over-population:

We ask, how is population control going to be achieved if not by promoting abortion, the distribution of condoms to the young, and, even by infanticide in China and elsewhere? Is this where Richard Cizik would lead us?

You're just itching to kill Chinese babies, aren't you Mr. Cizik? We've caught onto you.

This is apparently a common characterization of the issue:

"Climate change" is the latest hot issue for the environmental movement that counts among its leadership some of the world's leading population control activists who are also openly hostile to Christianity. Environmentalist doctrine presupposes that the answer to climate concerns is the elimination of huge portions of the human population through mass abortion, sterilization programs and numerous other means.

That's right. Mass abortion, sterilization, and probably murder or something. Because they hate humans.

Quote Of The Day

"I have been called -- my kids are all aware of this -- dumb, crazy man, science abuser, Holocaust denier, villain of the month, hate-filled, warmonger, Neanderthal, Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun. And I can just tell you that I wear some of those titles proudly."
-Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla)

Brasseye Paedophile Special

Part 1


Part 2


Part 3

Ann Coulter Weighs In On Global Warming

Ann Coulter, pictured right, recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily about global warming where she accuses people other than herself of being hysterical and hyping catastrophe. Somewhat ironically, she seems to believe that taking steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to a horrible catastrophe:

• "Liberals want mass starvation and human devastation"
• "They want us to starve the productive sector of fossil fuel and allow the world's factories to grind to a halt. This means an end to material growth and a cataclysmic reduction in wealth"
• "When are liberals going to break the news to their friends in Darfur that they all have to starve to death to save the planet?"
• "To say we need to reduce our energy consumption is like saying we need to reduce our oxygen consumption"
• "Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans"
• "If we have to live in a pure "natural" environment like the Indians, then our entire transcontinental nation can only support about 1 million human beings. Sorry, fellas – 299 million of you are going to have to go"
• "The entire fuel-guzzling, tacky, beer-drinking, NASCAR-watching middle class with their over-large families will simply have to die."

But my favorite part of this article is where she refers to Hitler and Stalin as liberals:

"Liberals have always had a thing about eliminating humans. Stalin wanted to eliminate the kulaks and Ukrainians, vegetarian atheist Adolf Hitler wanted to eliminate the Jews"

Greenhouse Gas Policy Comparison

The graph below gets cut off, but you can read the full story here.

Raymond Finney

Tennessee state senator Raymond Finney, pictured right, has filed a bizarre resolution asking the commissioner of education to answer by January 15 whether there is a god or not. Actually, it's three questions:

1. "Is the Universe and all that is within it, including human beings, created through purposeful, intelligent design by a Supreme Being, that is a Creator?"
2. "Since the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught in Tennessee public schools?" (Assuming that the answer to #1 was "Yes")
3. "Since it cannot be determined whether the Universe, including human beings, is created by a Supreme Being (a Creator), why is creationism not taught as an alternative concept, explanation, or theory, along with the theory of evolution in Tennessee public schools?" (Assuming that the answer to #1 was "I dunno")

Ray probably didn't get the memo, but teaching creationism in public schools was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court a long time ago. See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).

Can - Dizzy Dizzy (1977)