Science Fail #2

This Science Fail shtick is harder than I realized. Apparently really good fails don't just grow on trees, and it took me much longer than expected to turn this up. For entry #2 I delved into this short SCIAM news article mentioning a historical climate warming event. Fortunately for me, most any mention of "climate" these days is very likely to bring out the worse in people.

"Without people there to destroy the vegetation in building houses and killing the animals for food,the plants would get very large and so would the animals. The larger the animals had to get to reach the top of the plants, the more the CO2, and both plants and animals put off a great amount of heat. From the large pools of oil and coal, we know that there were places where there was a lot of plants and a large number of animals - like at a watering hole. So that tells me that if you want to cut down on CO2 build up - don't let a lot of plants and a lot of animals hang out together." (link to source, currently comment #12)

The fun part is, the trolls and pundits are going hard at each other in the comments, so this might not even be the worst fail to be found there. I chose this one because it is not overtly political, and it is fails on so many levels. Where to begin? Zoology fail, Biology fail, Ecology fail, Geology fail, time-scale fail ... It's all good. 

Or it would be good, if "good" meant "fail".

Finally, a shout out to my friend NS at Science and Math Defeated. Thanks for the link, and back at ya!

See Science Fail #1.

This was going to be longer

This was going to be a longer post, but then I got in a fight with the new Blogger editor, ending in my switching back to the old Blogger editor. Therefore, this post is shorter. This post was going to have a stronger theme, but I used up all my time on the aforementioned editor. Therefore, this post is a loosely themed collection of links. Take it for what it is worth.

Class M: Support Honesty in the Climate Wars

Neurologica: Terrible Anti-Vaccine Study, Terrible Reporting

The Sensuous Curmudgeon: Another Creationist Assault on Einstein

Greg Laden: Religion has a major conflict with science, but does this conflict also exist within the sciences?

I really liked Greg's opening paragraph. There is no conflict between science and religion unless you choose for there to be one. Consider who may benefit from such conflict.

Deniers != Skeptics

Author David Brin has a nice essay up about the difference between Deniers and Skeptics of Human Generated Climate Change. Here's an intro:

Distinguishing Climate "Deniers" From "Skeptics"

What factors would distinguish a rational, pro-science "skeptic" - who has honest questions about the HGCC consensus - from members of a Denier Movement who think a winter snowstorm means there's ni net-warming of the planet?

Is such a distinction anything more than polemical trickery?

Well, in fact, it happens that I know some people who do qualify as climate change "skeptics." Several are fellow science fiction authors or engineers, and you can quickly tell that they are vigorous, contrary minds, motivated more by curiosity than partisan rigor. One who I could name is the famed physicist Freeman Dyson.

(In fact, if truth be told, there are some aspects of HGCC that I feel I want clarified -- that seem to be poorly-justified, so far. I am an ornery, contrarian question-asker, of the first water!)

After extensive discussions with such folk, I found a set of distinct characteristics that separate thoughtful Skeptics from your run of the mill, knee-jerk Denier dogma puppet.

Here's the first one:

The first, second, and last, can be found at Contrary Brin.

Earths Mightiest Superheroes Vs Global Warming!

Actually, it's how the Earth's Mightiest heroes would deal with the impending doom that is Galactus, but you get the idea. Click thru to read full size.

Matt Bors comics
Part 2
Part 3
[Hat Tip 2 Comics Alliance] 

Dipping my toes into the turbid waters of AGW

This is an appeal to my readers and fellow bloggers for some advice. I've already pitched this to two prominent bloggers I occasionally correspond with, but I don't have direct contact with everyone I'd like to poll via email or Facebook, so this is my open call for responses. I would like your opinions, in a Science blogger/Dear Abby sort of way, and anyone else that is likely to read this is welcome to chip in too.

A friend has asked me to participate in a blog/project to conduct an open source attempt to replicate some climate modeling results. This is likely to be an amateur effort at best, but the stated intention is to educate about what really goes into climate modeling. Now I believe my friend to be a reasonable sort of skeptic, but it turns out he has some connections with people like Steve McIntyre and Eric Raymond. This gives me some concern, and I am leery of getting involved in anything that even gives the appearance of supporting the AGW deniers.

Oh yeah, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, if you didn't know already.


I would appreciate your opinions on whether I should become involved, or stay the hell away from it.

Some other information relevant to my participation:

1.  I have a good mathematics and statistics background, and did some relevant modeling of physical processes (hydrology) in grad school, but have no background in climate science.
2. I really haven't been following the AGW debate past some casual reading, but not being caught up in the old arguments might be a good thing.
3. I believe the scientific reports and news that AGW is real. I do have a some of skeptical thoughts about the extent of climate change the models predict, but even a small change is a valid cause for serious concern. I am concerned.
   
4. I think this might actually be a valid and useful educational effort, and I'm pretty sure I could make some good contributions.
5. I need another blog to write for like I need another hole in my head. ;-)

One friend already commented to me ...

"Not to discourage you from having fun, but there are a plethora of people stepping into the debate without sufficient preparation."

Another, who is self-described as very conservative, encourages me to go for it.

[Images Wikipedia, downloaded 12/12/2009]