Global Warming Beliefs, New Poll

I’m still on the road this week, with my access to the internet sporadic. Email or phone is the best way to find me.

Rasmussen reports that, “69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research.” The meat is in this quotation:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of American Adults shows that 69% say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs, including 40% who say this is Very Likely. Twenty-two percent (22%) don’t think it’s likely some scientists have falsified global warming data, including just six percent (6%) say it’s Not At All Likely. Another 10% are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here .)

The question that corresponds to that answer is, “In order to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming, how likely is it that some scientists have falsified research data?”

This is plain enough, but it is still a leading question, perhaps with the effect of influencing opinions in the direction of agreement. I say this because further into the survey we learn that “While 40% believe Americans should take immediate action to stop global warming, 42% suggest waiting a few years.”

And this: “But 47% now believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is, down from 54% in February 2009.”

You’d expect that if 70% of people really did think climatologists were liars and cheats, that a roughly equal percentage would say that global warming isn’t a problem.

I caution readers that these survey results have no bearing whatsoever on whether climatologists really have lied. If any of them have, they’re a fraction of a minority of working scientists.

Thanks to Nate Winchester for bringing this survey to our attention.

String Theory Confirmed By Airline

String theory begins by telling its audience that most of nature remains hidden from us in tiny, curled up dimensions of space. You can’t see them, but they’re there.

I have discovered where theses dimensions are and can verify to you for the first time they are hidden as promised. They may be found on United Airlines’ 757 Jets, wedged into the Economy Plus section of the aircraft.

I purchased one of these seats on Monday, fully expecting to benefit from the promised extra dimensions of “space” and “spaciousness” United assured me were unavailable to the lesser beings in steerage, folks who were too cheap to pay for the priviledges and high living to which your author has grown accustomed.

When I got to 11D, visual inspection proved that this Economy Plus seat was no larger than the seats at the back of the plane, the so-called non “Plus” section. But knowing the eye can deceive, I sat.

It was then I confirmed that the extra dimensions of physical space were hidden as predicted. For I could not wedge my 6’2″ 195 lb frame into the seat such that I could sit straight. Also, the mis-named “head” rest dug into my should blades, items which are still nowhere near my head.

This would have been tolerable if not for the man who shortly arrived, wishing to pile into 11E, the middle seat. He was two inches shorter than I and about twenty pounds heavier. He too must have been up on his physics, but he was not a string-theory man. He probably subscribed to Lee Smolin’s rival non-hidden dimensions quantum theory.

I say this because when he saw the space into which he would have to maneuver, he became quite angry. He must have realized that the dimensions of space which were promised were not there, thus implying that his quantum theory was false.

He became incensed and started throwing his elbows around trying to find the seat belt. He grumbled and swore. He took up both armrests and growled at the seat back in front of him as if daring it to say something.

After huffing a solid five minutes, he reached down and pulled out a book from his satchel. I never managed to see the cover, which the man was purposely hiding. But I saw large letters on the back cover which read, “A**holes Finish First.”

Very well, I thought, a Harvard man. An MBA, surely. So I slowly but forcefully put my right elbow on the armrest on the millimeter of exposed surface the man left open. I said to him, “The Pauli exclusion principle at work, eh?”

He looked at me like I spoke an incomprehensible foreign language, opened his mouth, but decided against saying anything and went back to his book. And there he sat for the rest of the trip.

I would have written about this earlier, but it was only this morning I regained feeling in my upper limbs, which had become numb after the prolonged flight.

Posted in Fun

Air Force Forced To Drops Ethics From Nuclear Weapons Ethics Training

CFIThe Center for Inquiry, that group of ex-CSICOP members turned rogue skeptics, has condemned—condemned!—the United States Air Force for teaching Just War theory in its Nuclear War Ethics course.

This irritated the easily irritable because Just War theory was promulgated by, among others, St. Augustine, who, the folks at the Center for Inquiry feel, was unfortunately Christian. And Christianity and matters military don’t mix, say the CFI. Teaching Just War theory is “unconstitutional” they insist.

Therefore, the members of CFI agitated and complained to the military to remove Christian ethics from its course on Nuclear War Ethics or else…or else what? Or else there would be trouble, boy. We could not have the largely Christian members of the Air Force learn when war was just and when it was not unjust according to the leading philosophers of that faith. St. Augustine and other thinkers’ thoughts should not and cannot be exposed to our military minds else the Republic is doomed.

After completion of this course, airmen must sign a pledge that promises at least that, “I will perform duties involving the operation of nuclear-armed ICBMs and will launch them if lawfully ordered to do so by the President of the United States or his lawful successor.”

An ignorant person might have thought that to require a man to sign that deadly serious pledge, we might like to first ensure that he was provided an education that covered the full scope of philosophy and broad range of history on the topic of Just War. Especially since many, or even most, of the these men are Christian, or will fight next to other Christians, or will fight against enemies who are of other religions.

But, no, says the CFI. Of these philosophies, the military must remain mute. To show that they are not quiet on these subjects, the CFI pestered the AF into releasing the power point slides written by Chaplain Captain Shin Soh.

In his lecture, Captain Soh discusses topics such as “Can a person of faith fight in a war?” and “Can war by just?” He summarized Augustine’s idea of Just Cause, “to avenge or avert evil; to protect the innocent and restore moral order” but not to “expand power” nor for “pride or revenge.” One must also fight under a “Legitimate Authority”, have a “reasonable prospect for success” and only as a “last resort.”

All topics the ordinary citizen might think it useful for our nuclear weapons holders to know. But then the citizens at CFI are anything but ordinary. Just imagining that training like this is being dispensed is enough to, in their words, raise a “public outcry.”

Captain Soh, in his role as a Chaplin and presumably knowledgeable about Biblical history, includes examples of what he conceived were instances of just wars, such as when Abraham “organized an army to rescue Lot.” He points out that, in the New Testament, some soldiers were characterized as “devout and God fearing.” Frightening stuff, say the CFI.

Our man Soh then details the horror of nuclear war and how it differs from other known forms of killing. Hiroshima is pictured, as are many of the Japanese citizens who died in that attack. Soh wonders, was this attack justified? Some say no, many say yes; Soh says why.

Not for the last time Soh pushes home the terrible burden faced by missile commanders. He asks his students to consider, “Are we morally safer in other career fields, leaving the key turning to someone else?”

The CFI would see to it that Soh does not ask this question of future students. They say that “the use of religious dogma confuses the officer’s ethical obligations with religious commitments.”

Somehow—and it remains an interesting question just how—the CFI has forgotten that religious people use their religion as an ethical basis. For these people, it is difficult or impossible to separate ethics from religion. This is also true for non-religious people, since, given the history of the West, the morals they know were largely formed by religious principles. And this is true even if you don’t like it.

Ethics and religion cannot be cleanly separated and it is the rankest, more rigid dogma to insist that it is “unconstitutional” to include any basis of religion in course of ethics. Especially a course on how and when and why to kill people in large numbers efficiently and quickly.

Updates

Beavering Away

Will be engaged busily this week; posts may become sporadic, confused, nonsensical. More then usually, I mean.

Now is the chance to send in a Guest Post (200 ~ 800 words) to finally show the world the Truth of some subject close to your heart. Just email me and I’ll be happy to put it up. Just think: once the world reads your words, you can find the same edifying fame as I have. This fame is so predictable that it can even be reduced to an equation:

    Fame = Obscurity – 1.

I’ll let the mathematically inclined readers figure that out.

Big Announcement!

Sports Fans: I’ll soon have a big, exciting, Oh-My-God announcement that will change your life forever. Those with weak hearts are warned.

I’m involved in a start-up which will test how good experts, bookmakers, bar flies, and civilians are at picking who wins and who loses. By “who” I mean sporting competitors.

Our goal is to be ready for the NFL season. Which, for no good reason, starts in the summer and overlaps Baseball, the only true American sport.

Spencer’s Paper

Roy Spencer has very kindly responded to some of my questions I had about his paper. So the review I promised is nearly ready. Probably later in the week than earlier, however.

Jim Enstrom

Remember the case of Jim Enstrom, UCLA research scientist? He came on the national That-Poor-Sap radar earlier this year when he identified a phony working for the California Air Resource Board. I originally wrote about him here: California Air Resources Board Uses Strange Statistics, UCLA Fires Scientist.

Enstrom discovered that CARB employee and statistician Hien Tran’s PhD came from the degree mill “Thornhill University.” This wouldn’t be interesting except Tran was the author of a report that CARB is using (in part) to make policy.

For his troubles, Enstrom is being booted from UCLA, a university, it is important to recognize, that sucks in quite a bit of moola from CARB and other California agencies.

Anyway, Enstrom has asked my help in reviewing some statistical papers the EPA and other agencies are using to prove that particulate air pollution is Worse Than We Thought. I’m doing this pro bono.

Once we have it put together, I’ll report to you what’s what.

Bad Movies

Only because we just talked about it, Kyle Smith of the New York Post reviews the new book, “Writing Movies for Fun and Profit: How We Made a Billion Dollars at the Box Office and You Can, Too!” by screenwriters Robert Ben Garant and Thomas Lennon

The premise of this book is that most movies stink, and here’s why.

He said it, not I. On movies today: “They suck. It’s unbelievable how bad movies have been, right. I mean, it’s just I haven’t seen a run of this, a crop of movies

. . . It’s a very entrepreneurial world, and I think you will see that right itself with time in it. But, right now today it’s a particularly dreary moment.”

The speaker is Jeffrey Katzenberg, DreamWorks co-founder and movie mogul, earlier this month. I’ll be quoting his words next time some Hollywood person asks me why critics are so mean.