Rated D

Jack Valenti, long-time president of the MPAA, has passed away. Thankfully, Wikipedia is on the story:

It's really sad to see butt cancer claim another life, but I will always remember him for his tireless fight against the VCR: "I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston Strangler is to the woman home alone."

Dead

Jesse Films

I have two friends named Jesse, and they both make films. Go figure. So here are two films they posted recently on youtube.

This first one was made by Jesse M. (who now goes to Columbia film school), and is titled Sunday Mornings. I love it:


This second one was made by Jesse V.H. (who goes to Cambridge), and is titled Natural Selection:

IPCC WGII

The IPCC released the summary report for the second Working Group this past Friday. It's available on their website here and is titled "Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability."

William Dembski on Galileo

William Dembski recently posted the following quote from Koestler on his website, in an attempt to rewrite history and paint the persecution of Galileo as really being just a quarrel with an entrenched and opressive scientific establishment:

“Galileo’s conflict with the church could have probably been avoided if he had been endowed with less passion and more diplomacy; but long before that conflict, he had incurred the implacable hostility of the orthodox Aristotelians who held key positions at the Italian universities. Religion and political oppression play only an incidental part in the history of science; its erratic course and recurrent crises are caused by internal factors. One of the conspicuous handicaps is the conservatism of the scientific mind in its corporate aspect. The collective matrix of a science at a given time is determined by a kind of establishment, which includes universities, learned societies, and, more recently, the editorial offices of technical journals. Like other establishments, they are consciously or unconsciously bent on preserving the status quo — partly because unorthodox innovations are a threat to their authority, but also because of a deeper fear that that their laboriously erected intellectual edifice might collapse under the impact. Corporate orthodoxy has been the curse of genius from Aristarchus to Galileo, to Harvey, Darwin and Freud; throughout the centuries its phalanxes have sturdily defended habit against originality.” (Koestler, The Act of Creation, 1969, p. 239)

What Dembski and Koestler fail to mention is that Galileo was brought before the Inquisition by then-pope Urban VIII and threatened with torture unless he retracted all his previous statements regarding heliocentrism. Galileo knew that they meant business, since they had recently burned Giordano Bruno alive for exactly the same crime, and complied. He was placed under house arrest for the rest of his life and his ideas were declared by the church itself to be "contrary to the sacred Scriptures," "opposed to the true faith," and "false and absurd in theology and philosophy." To suggest that this was merely a quibble with a bunch of huffy scientists protecting their reputations, and that religion and political oppression played only a minor role, is way off the mark.

That being said, of course there is a degree of inertia in the scientific community. But that's what makes it so effective. Once an idea has been well supported, there will be some reluctance to replace it with another. Not just any new idea will do. You have to demonstrate that the new idea is worthwhile or better than the old one. This isn't a sign of close-mindedness, but rather a rigorous standard of proof. Scientific communities are extraordinarily open-minded to those who can back up their claims. Galileo was eventually accepted because he could demonstrate his correctness. Einstein was accepted, despite his really weird ideas, because he could back them up. Quantum theory, a supremely weird one, was also accepted because it had evidence on its side. It's no secret what point Dembski was trying to get across with this (in addition to downplaying the church's resistance to Galileo), but the conservatism of scientific communities is certainly open to those who actually have something worthwhile to say.

48%

According to a recent Newsweek poll, 48% of the American population rejects the scientific theory of evolution. Out of 34 countries surveyed, we ranked 33rd. Only Turkey is more averse to the idea.

In related news, Ken Ham is still traveling the country to teach children that man and dinosaurs co-existed just like in the Flintstones:

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