150 years ago, a book that changed history: Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

150 years ago today Charles Darwin’s “big book,” On the Origin of Species, was first published.  The entire publication run of more than a thousand copies sold out within a few days, making it a certified best-seller of its day.

A rare copy of the first edition, found in the loo of an old house, sold at auction at Christie’s for US$172,000.

Olivia Judson’s already got her day-after blog post up at the New York Times site, talking about a key issue in evolution:  Extinction.  She already blogged on the importance of the Big Book.

And the “Origin” changed everything. Before the “Origin,” the diversity of life could only be catalogued and described; afterwards, it could be explained and understood. Before the “Origin,” species were generally seen as fixed entities, the special creations of a deity; afterwards, they became connected together on a great family tree that stretches back, across billions of years, to the dawn of life. Perhaps most importantly, the “Origin” changed our view of ourselves. It made us as much a part of nature as hummingbirds and bumblebees (or humble-bees, as Darwin called them); we, too, acquired a family tree with a host of remarkable and distinguished ancestors.

The reason the “Origin” was so powerful, compelling and persuasive, the reason Darwin succeeded while his predecessors failed, is that in it he does not just describe how evolution by natural selection works. He presents an enormous body of evidence culled from every field of biology then known. He discusses subjects as diverse as pigeon breeding in Ancient Egypt, the rudimentary eyes of cave fish, the nest-building instincts of honeybees, the evolving size of gooseberries (they’ve been getting bigger), wingless beetles on the island of Madeira and algae in New Zealand. One moment, he’s considering fossil animals like brachiopods (which had hinged shells like clams, but with a different axis of symmetry); the next, he’s discussing the accessibility of nectar in clover flowers to different species of bee.

At the same time, he uses every form of evidence at his disposal: he observes, argues, compares, infers and describes the results of experiments he has read about, or in many cases, personally conducted. For example, one of Darwin’s observations is that the inhabitants of islands resemble — but differ subtly from — those of the nearest continents. So: birds and bushes on islands off the coast of South America resemble South American birds and bushes; islands near Africa are populated by recognizably African forms.

Of course you –you cognescenti, you — know Judson is the wit behind Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation, a thoroughly delightful, funny and scientifically accurate book.  Which brings to my mind this question:  Why are scientists, and especially evolutionary scientists, so funny and charming, in stark contrast to the dull proles of creationism?

And, were he not ill at the time, can you imagine what a fantastic dinner guest Charles Darwin himself would be?

Darwin's hand-drawn "tree of life"

Meanwhile, at PBS, NOVA already featured “Darwin’s Darkest Hour” earlier this year.  NOVA research Gaia Remerowski alerts us to a coming production, “What Darwin Never Knew,” featuring progress made in evolutionary development, “evo-devo.”   Science marches on.

Remerowski illustrated her post with Darwin’s quick, hand drawing of a “tree of life,” a drawing that has become iconic in biology circles — like the one to your right.  This one comes from the website of “Speaking of Faith,” another PBS production that featured Darwin earlier this year.  SOF offered an online tour of some of the work of Darwin, too — other drawings from Darwin’s own hand.  Nice exhibit.

Our country’s advocates for good science education, the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) carried Origin Day greetings and a rundown of a dozen projects commemorating the 150th year of the book, and the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth.

Happy Origin Day, indeed.

The unbearable lightness of Palin groupies

I’m not sure what to make of this.  No amount of dopeslapping or head:desk banging is going to help these people get a clue.

And while I haven’t read Sarah Palin’s book, I’ll wager they won’t get a clue there, either.  Listening to the interviews one wonders whether they would be able to read Palin’s book.  Most of the kids who work hard to fail my classes look like geniuses next to these people.

And then a horrifying thought bubbles up:  Dear God, these people might actually vote!  They probably view Jay Leno’s “Jaywalking” sequences with astonished looks and great confusion.  They can’t tell what’s wrong with the answers, and they miss the humor.

I found this piece at Canadian Cynic (from whom I stole the headline) — he confessed he could only stand just under two minutes of this torture.

For Palin groupies, here are a couple of issues to consider while watching this video:

1. While it’s done by New Left Media, it’s astonishing that anyone could find so many babbling idiots at one gathering, anywhere in America.  This was Ohio?   Yeah, Columbus; I know people in Columbus.  I fear for their lives, now.
2. Palin has never made any particular defense of the First Amendment, nor of any of the five freedoms it enumerates.  When people say she stands for “freedom to speak,” or “freedom of religion,” they are making stuff up.
3. “Realness” is not a policy.
4. Tax cutting isn’t generally a great policy when people aren’t making enough to pay any taxes at all.  Tax cutting contributed to our current mess.
5. Socialism is not “giving away money.”
6. Obama’s two books do not portray Marxism in a good light.  They don’t mention Marxism as a potential path for any American, anywhere.
7. “Czar” is a shorter word for a headline than “Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,” or “Special Assistant to the President for Energy Policy.”  People who are called “czars” by headline writers do not have any special powers beyond being right when they speak to the president (among many other advisors).  The real power is held by agency heads, like the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of Treasury.  The President’s Cabinet is not a wooden device in which he keeps his dinnerware.
8. One may always question motives, but on the issue of Obama’s “liking” the military, consider:  He’s appointed many former military people to important positions, including U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, to get good advice from people who know the military well; Obama is the only president since Johnson, maybe since Lincoln, to go meet victims of war as their caskets come back to their families; Obama is the only sitting president ever to visit the graves of victims of a current conflict at Arlington National Cemetery.  The lives and welfare of our men and women in uniform has been a singular focus of this president.
9. Talk of martial law?  Not from Obama.  Not in the administration.  Not in any agency.  Not in Congress.  Only in wingnut dens.
10. Illegal aliens cannot be naturalized under current law.  No illegal aliens are being naturalized.  When found, they are being deported.
11. Obama is an American citizen; even the courts are getting testy about that, tossing the crazy lawsuits out with harsh comments for people who are so gullibly dumb.
12. It’s 700 miles from Sarah Palin’s home to the nearest point in Russia.  “Seeing Russia from the backyard” is a figure of speech, and not accurate in any way.
13. The Governor of Alaska is not the first defense against any attack from a foreign nation on the U.S., coming through Alaska.  The U.S. Air Force has jurisdiction, and still patrols that area, along with satellite and radar surveillance.  In an attack, the official role of the Governor of Alaska is to duck and stay out of the way.
14. The Governor of Alaska has no special security clearance that no other governor has.  I’m not sure that any governor has a security clearance as governor.
15. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is not a player in the protection of polar bears, nor any other animal on listed as threatened or endangered.
16. No proposal is before Congress to change current law on “partial birth” abortion.  Since there is a law on the topic, it would take a new law, passed by Congress, to change current law.  Obama can’t touch it without Congressional action.  (This is basic civics, you know?)
17. Are you afraid of what’s happening in America?  After you listen to these yahoos, you may have cause to fear what would happen if their views were to carry an election.

Are people still lining up for lobotomies?  Do they directly from the operating table to a Sarah Palin book signing?

We can hope New Left Media edited out all the cogent, intelligent remarks.  I have this nagging fear that they didn’t have to edit at all.

Purloined CRU e-mails on climate science: One scientist pleads for accuracy

Here is what he said.  Edward Cook, one of the world’s foremost authorities on ancient trees and how to learn from them (Dendrochronology),  wrote to Michael Mann, both men scientists involved in making their science understandable and available to the public and the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Both men thought their communication would be private, probably forever.  When no one is looking, this is what they say to one another:

From: Edward Cook <drdendro@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: hockey stick
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 15:25:41 -0400
Cc: tom crowley <tom@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, esper@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, Jonathan Overpeck <jto@u.arizona.edu>, Keith Briffa <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, mhughes@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, rbradley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx, srutherford@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi Mike,

No problem. I am quite happy to work this stuff through in a careful way and am happy to discuss it all with you. I certainly don’t want the work to be viewed as an attack on previous work such as yours. Unfortunately, this global change stuff is so politicized by both sides of the issue that it is difficult to do the science in a dispassionate environment. I ran into the same problem in the acid rain/forest decline debate that raged in the 1980s. At one point, I was simultaneous accused of being a raving tree hugger and in the pocket of the coal industry. I have always said that I don’t care what answer is found as long as it is the truth or at least bloody close to it.

Cheers,

Ed

This note appeared at the end of a rough-and-tumble debate over what data can be trusted, the motives of scientists involved, and how to make the best use of data collected, clear and unclear, in order to make an accurate portrayal of what is happening in our atmosphere.

I’ll wager no critic of these scientists bothered to quote this one today, nor will they.  In toto, the purloined e-mails show a devotion to science, and the requisite devotion to accuracy and ethical behaviors.  But in a political debate where television weathermen feel compelled to demonize scientists to promote their political beliefs, who can afford to look at the big picture?

My apologies to Dr. Cook for the purloining of the e-mail (though of course I had no role in the hacking); my appreciation to Dr. Cook for standing up for what’s right, damn the critics, when he th0ught no one was looking.

That’s the definition of character, isn’t it?

E-mail this:

U.S. Rhodes Scholars, 2009

Rhodes Trust’s American branch announced the 32 winners of Rhodes Scholarships in 2009’s competition.  List of winners and press release below – congratulations to the winners, and congratulations to all the finalists, each of whom probably deserved to win.

American Rhodes Scholars-elect for 2010
(Subject to ratification by the Rhodes Trustees after acceptance by one of the colleges of Oxford University)

District 1

Maine, Bowdoin College
Mr. William J. Oppenheim III
112 Rosebrook Road
New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

New Jersey, Brown University
Mr. Zohar Atkins
9 Melrose Place
Montclair, New Jersey 07042

District 2

Connecticut, Wesleyan University
Mr. Russell A. Perkins
1583 Ashland Avenue
Evanston, Illinois 60201

Massachusetts, Yale University
Mr. Matthew L. Baum
90 Jensen Road
Watertown, Massachusetts 02472

District 3

New York, Swarthmore College
Mr. Mark Dlugash
16 North Chatsworth Avenue, Apt. 210
Larchmont, New York 10538

New York, United States Military Academy
Ms. Alexandra P. Rosenberg
10 Liberty Street, Apt. 43B
New York, New York 10005

District 4

Delaware, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ms. Caroline J. Huang
10 Rising Road
Newark, Delaware 19711

Pennsylvania, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Mr. Henry L. Spelman
10 Woodbrook Lane
Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081

District 5

Maryland/DC, University of Virginia
Mr. Tyler S. Spencer
3408 Dent Place, NW
Washington, DC 20007

North Carolina, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Ms. Ugwechi W. Amadi
113 Tulip Tree Drive
Camden, North Carolina 27921

District 6

Georgia, Harvard College
Ms. Grace Tiao
5162 Sunset Trail
Marietta, Georgia 30068

Virginia, College of William and Mary
Ms. Kira C. Allman
5223 Blockade Reach
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185

District 7

Alabama, Auburn University
Mr. Jordan D. Anderson
5602 Club Lane
Roanoke, Virginia 24018

Florida, Harvard College
Ms. Roxanne E. Bras
602 Trumpet Place
Celebration, Florida 34747

District 8

Texas, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Ms. Elizabeth B. Longino
3243 Greenbrier Drive
Dallas, Texas 75225

Texas, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mr. Steven Mo
418 Chickory Wood Court
Pearland, Texas 77584

District 9

Indiana, Harvard College
Mr. Darryl W. Finkton
4335 Shady View Drive, Apt. 2C
Indianapolis, Indiana 46226

Kentucky, University of Louisville
Ms. Monica L. Marks
99 East Star Hill Road
Rush, Kentucky 41168

District 10

Illinois, Stanford University
Mr. Daniel D. Shih
2710 Yorkshire Court
Aurora, Illinois 60502

Michigan, Harvard College
Ms. Jean A. Junior
2303 Somerset Boulevard
Troy, Michigan 48084

District 11

Iowa, University of Chicago
Ms. Stephanie A. Bell
3725 Greenbranch Drive
West Des Moines, Iowa 50265

Wisconsin, Harvard College
Ms. Eva Z. Lam
935 North 31st Street
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53208

District 12

Kansas, University of Pittsburgh
Ms. Eleanor M. Ott
1520 Crescent Road
Lawrence, Kansas 66044

Missouri, Truman State University
Mr. Andrew J. McCall
13204 Tablerock Drive
St. Louis, Missouri 63122

District 13

Colorado, Regis University
Mr. William D. Gohl
5345 Whip Trail
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80917

New Mexico, University of Arizona
Ms. Justine O. Schluntz
9203 Night Sky Lane NE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87122

District 14

Montana, Columbia University
Mr. Raphael J.C. Graybill
401 4th Avenue North
Great Falls, Montana 59401

Washington, United States Military Academy
Ms. Elizabeth A. Betterbed
933 Gway Drive
Fox Island, Washington 98333

District 15

California, Princeton University
Mr. Henry R. Barmeier
13499 Chalet Clotilde Drive
Saratoga, California 95070

California, Yale University
Mr. Geoffrey C. Shaw
460 Bella Vista
Belvedere, California 94920

District 16

California, University of California-Los Angeles
Ms. Elizaveta Fouksman
3821 Hamilton Way
Emerald Hills, California 94062

California, United States Air Force Academy
Ms. Brittany L. Morreale
4128 Via Nievel
Palos Verdes Estates, California 90274

The press release:

WASHINGTON, DC/November 21, 2009 – Elliot F. Gerson, American Secretary of the Rhodes Trust, today announced the names of the thirty-two American men and women chosen as Rhodes Scholars representing the United States. Rhodes Scholarships provide all expenses for two or three years of study at the University of Oxford in England, and may allow funding in some instances for four years. Mr. Gerson called the Rhodes Scholarships, “the oldest and best known award for international study, and arguably the most famous academic award available to American college graduates.” They were created in 1902 by the Will of Cecil Rhodes, British philanthropist and African colonial pioneer. The first class of American Rhodes Scholars entered Oxford in 1904; those elected today will enter Oxford in October 2010.

Rhodes Scholars are chosen in a two-stage process. First, candidates must be endorsed by their college or university. Over 1500 students each year seek their institution’s endorsement; this year, 805 were endorsed by 326 different colleges and universities.

TRUSTEES
The Rt Hon Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Chairman) The Lord Kerr of Kinlochard GCMG Miss Rosalind Hedley-Miller
The Rt Hon Lord Fellowes GCB GCVO QSO Mr Julian Ogilvie Thompson Professor John Bell
Mr Thomas W Seaman Professor Sir John Vickers Mr Michael McCaffery
WARDEN & SECRETARY TO THE TRUSTEES
Dr Donald Markwell

Committees of Selection in each of 16 U.S. districts then invite the strongest applicants to appear before them for interview. Gerson said, “applicants are chosen on the basis of the criteria set down in the Will of Cecil Rhodes. These criteria are high academic achievement, integrity of character, a spirit of unselfishness, respect for others, potential for leadership, and physical vigor. These basic characteristics are directed at fulfilling Mr. Rhodes’s hopes that the Rhodes Scholars would make an effective and positive contribution throughout the world. In Rhodes’ words, his Scholars should ‘esteem the performance of public duties as their highest aim.’”

Applicants in the United States may apply either through the state where they are legally resident or where they have attended college for at least two years. The district committees met separately, on Friday and Saturday, November 20 and 21, in cities across the country. Each district committee made a final selection of two Rhodes Scholars from the candidates of the state or states within the district. Two-hundred sixteen applicants from 97 different colleges and universities reached the final stage of the competition, including 16 that had never before had a student win a Rhodes Scholarship. Gerson also reported, “in most years, we elect a winner from a college that had never before had a Rhodes Scholar, even after more than a century. This year we are pleased to announce a first-time winner from Truman State University in Kirksville, Missouri.”

The thirty-two Rhodes Scholars chosen from the United States will join an international group of Scholars chosen from fourteen other jurisdictions around the world. In addition to the thirty-two Americans, Scholars are also selected from Australia, Bermuda, Canada, the nations of the Commonwealth Caribbean, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Kenya, New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Africa (South Africa, plus Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia and Swaziland), Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Approximately 80 Scholars are selected worldwide each year, including several non-U.S. Scholars who have attended American colleges and universities.

With the elections announced today, 3,196 Americans have won Rhodes Scholarships, representing 310 colleges and universities. Since 1976, women have been eligible to apply and 424 American women have now won the coveted scholarship. More than 1,800 American Rhodes Scholars are living in all parts of the U. S. and abroad.

The value of the Rhodes Scholarship varies depending on the academic field and the degree (B.A., master’s, doctoral) chosen. The Rhodes Trust pays all college and university fees, provides a stipend to cover necessary expenses while in residence in Oxford as well as during vacations, and transportation to and from England. Mr. Gerson estimates that the total value of the Scholarship averages approximately US$50,000 per year, or up to as much as US$175,000 for Scholars who remain in Oxford for four years.

The full list of the newly elected United States Rhodes Scholars, with the states from which they were chosen, their home addresses, and their American colleges or universities, follows. Brief biographies follow the list.

For further information, please contact:
Elliot F. Gerson
American Secretary
The Rhodes Trust
8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 240
Vienna, Virginia 22182
(703) 821-5960

On Sunday, November 22, Mr. Gerson may be reached for press and other calls at 202-288-1195 or amsec@rhodesscholar.org, except between noon and 6:30 PM Eastern time. Joyce Knight of the American’s Secretary’s Office will be able to provide details on how to reach Scholars-elect, and may be reached Sunday at any time at 703-380-7980. Beginning Monday, November 23, questions can be directed to the Rhodes Trust office in Vienna, Virginia, at 703-821-5960, or to Mr. Gerson at amsec@rhodesscholar.org.

Short biographical sketches of each of the scholarship recipients can be found at the Rhodes Trust site.

WASHINGTON, DC/November 21, 2009 – Elliot F. Gerson, American Secretary of the
Rhodes Trust, today announced the names of the thirty-two American men and women
chosen as Rhodes Scholars representing the United States. Rhodes Scholarships provide all
expenses for two or three years of study at the University of Oxford in England, and may
allow funding in some instances for four years. Mr. Gerson called the Rhodes Scholarships,
“the oldest and best known award for international study, and arguably the most famous
academic award available to American college graduates.” They were created in 1902 by
the Will of Cecil Rhodes, British philanthropist and African colonial pioneer. The first class
of American Rhodes Scholars entered Oxford in 1904; those elected today will enter Oxford
in October 2010.
Rhodes Scholars are chosen in a two-stage process. First, candidates must be endorsed by
their college or university. Over 1500 students each year seek their institution’s
endorsement; this year, 805 were endorsed by 326 different colleges and universities.
TRUSTEES
The Rt Hon Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Chairman) The Lord Kerr of Kinlochard GCMG Miss Rosalind Hedley-Miller
The Rt Hon Lord Fellowes GCB GCVO QSO Mr Julian Ogilvie Thompson Professor John Bell
Mr Thomas W Seaman Professor Sir John Vickers Mr Michael McCaffery
WARDEN & SECRETARY TO THE TRUSTEES
Dr Donald Markwell
NEWS RELEASE — THE RHODES TRUST — Page 2
Committees of Selection in each of 16 U.S. districts then invite the strongest applicants to
appear before them for interview. Gerson said, “applicants are chosen on the basis of the
criteria set down in the Will of Cecil Rhodes. These criteria are high academic achievement,
integrity of character, a spirit of unselfishness, respect for others, potential for leadership,
and physical vigor. These basic characteristics are directed at fulfilling Mr. Rhodes’s hopes
that the Rhodes Scholars would make an effective and positive contribution throughout the
world. In Rhodes’ words, his Scholars should ‘esteem the performance of public duties as
their highest aim.’”
Applicants in the United States may apply either through the state where they are legally
resident or where they have attended college for at least two years. The district committees
met separately, on Friday and Saturday, November 20 and 21, in cities across the country.
Each district committee made a final selection of two Rhodes Scholars from the candidates
of the state or states within the district. Two-hundred sixteen applicants from 97 different
colleges and universities reached the final stage of the competition, including 16 that had
never before had a student win a Rhodes Scholarship. Gerson also reported, “in most years,
we elect a winner from a college that had never before had a Rhodes Scholar, even after
more than a century. This year we are pleased to announce a first-time winner from Truman
State University in Kirksville, Missouri.”
The thirty-two Rhodes Scholars chosen from the United States will join an international
group of Scholars chosen from fourteen other jurisdictions around the world. In addition to
the thirty-two Americans, Scholars are also selected from Australia, Bermuda, Canada, the
nations of the Commonwealth Caribbean, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Kenya,
New Zealand, Pakistan, Southern Africa (South Africa, plus Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi,
Namibia and Swaziland), Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Approximately 80 Scholars are selected
worldwide each year, including several non-U.S. Scholars who have attended American
colleges and universities.
NEWS RELEASE — THE RHODES TRUST — Page 3
With the elections announced today, 3,196 Americans have won Rhodes Scholarships,
representing 310 colleges and universities. Since 1976, women have been eligible to apply
and 424 American women have now won the coveted scholarship. More than 1,800
American Rhodes Scholars are living in all parts of the U. S. and abroad.
The value of the Rhodes Scholarship varies depending on the academic field and the
degree (B.A., master’s, doctoral) chosen. The Rhodes Trust pays all college and university
fees, provides a stipend to cover necessary expenses while in residence in Oxford as well as
during vacations, and transportation to and from England. Mr. Gerson estimates that the
total value of the Scholarship averages approximately US$50,000 per year, or up to as much
as US$175,000 for Scholars who remain in Oxford for four years.
The full list of the newly elected United States Rhodes Scholars, with the states from which
they were chosen, their home addresses, and their American colleges or universities,
follows. Brief biographies follow the list.
For further information, please contact:
Elliot F. Gerson
American Secretary
The Rhodes Trust
8229 Boone Boulevard, Suite 240
Vienna, Virginia 22182
(703) 821-5960
On Sunday, November 22, Mr. Gerson may be reached for press and other calls at 202-288-
1195 or amsec@rhodesscholar.org, except between noon and 6:30 PM Eastern time. Joyce
Knight of the American’s Secretary’s Office will be able to provide details on how to reach
Scholars-elect, and may be reached Sunday at any time at 703-380-7980. Beginning
Monday, November 23, questions can be directed to the Rhodes Trust office in Vienna,
Virginia, at 703-821-5960, or to Mr. Gerson at amsec@rhodesscholar.org.

Smoking guns in the CRU stolen e-mails: A real tale of real ethics in science

Climate skeptics fear that some climate scientists have cooked their data in order to produce a pre-ordained outcome from their research.  Many of these people are excited this weekend at the public release of e-mails purloined from Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in England, from one of the leading climate research labs.  Every crank science and crackpot political site has a story touting the end of research on global warming.

Sure enough, with just a few minutes of searching the e-mails, I found references to ethical breaches in cooking of data, and a discussion about how to talk about  the data and the issue in public.

The paper involved is this one:

David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearsona and S. Fred Singer, “A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions,” INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, Int. J. Climatol. (2007).  Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651

Unless you follow this issue closely, you probably don’t see the problem with publicizing the ethical breaches scientists thought they saw in this paper and its publication.  Also, if you are a “skeptic” who is chronically apoplectic over Al Gore’s success in informing people about climate change and winning prizes and making money, you may be thrilled that there is a scientist anywhere worried about ethical lapses by scientists involved in this controversy, and you can’t wait to see them brought to justice (cooking data is a federal crime in the U.S., if done with federal research money).

[Yes, I think there are ethical questions about publishing anything from these e-mails, let alone links so the viewing public can read them completely.  However, since much of this material has already been cherry picked and quote mined by political activists who hope to stop action to mediate and stop global warming, I think a good case can be made that, to be fair, we should look at the entire collection to see what they really reveal.  There may be criminal liability for some of the disclosures I'm discussing here -- but that liability does not fall on the scientists who have been unfairly impugned in the last few days.  The liability falls instead on the critics of warming.  Let's be fair.  In  a fair fight, truth wins.]

So, hold your high-fives and “I-told-you-sos” until you look at the data, at the information found.

One of the e-mails is quite explicit:

I think the scientific fraud committed by Douglass needs to be exposed. His co-authors may be innocent bystanders, but I doubt it.

Fraud?  Right there in front of everyone?  In the climate debate?

In the end, the scientists in the discussion determined not to hold a press conference to announce a finding of fraud, but instead to hunker down and work on publishing datasets that would contradict the alleged fraudulent paper, and establish their case with data instead of invective and press conferences.

They even declined to rush to inform the public of the fraud after a lengthy series of attempts to duplicate the results with well-known, accurate methods on accepted data:

Bottom line: Douglass et al. claim that “In all cases UAH and RSS satellite trends are inconsistent with model trends.” (page 6, lines 61-62). This claim is categorically wrong. In fact, based on our results, one could justifiably claim that THERE IS ONLY ONE CASE in which model T2LT and T2 trends are inconsistent with UAH and RSS results! These guys screwed up big time. [emphasis added by MFB]

Anthony Watts and others may be justified in asking that the scientists who wrote this fraudulent paper should be summarily dismissed, and in questioning why other scientists dallied in exposing the fraud.

But there is this to consider:  The paper in question is a paper critical of warming hypotheses, and it was co-authored by at least a couple of the most strident critics of Al Gore, James Hansen, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The smoking gun was used to shoot down a hasty effort to brand climate-change critics as unprofessional and wrong.  The smoking gun was used to enforce the hard ethical rules of science:  Don’t speak until your data allow a fair conclusion.

The smoking gun e-mails show correct and careful behavior by the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report, but unethical behavior by the critics whose backers, we might assume, stole the e-mails in the first place, and published them without understanding the depth of moral character demonstrated by most scientists in the conduct of their professions.

Now, I have not analyzed every possible permutation of this thread, only those with the title shown.  I used the “Alleged CRU e-mails — searchable” cited by Anthony Watts and others.  I stumbled into the thread discussing the paper by “Douglass, et al.“  I then did a search for e-mails discussing “Douglass,” and limited it to the thread on this point.  I suspect there are other e-mails in that thread in which Douglass’s name is wholly missing, and which did not turn up  in the search.

Now you know the rest of the story.  Fred Singer is a leading denialist, one of the organizers of the political campaign to blunt the publication and discussion of evidence of global warming and what to do about it.  The Douglass, et al. paper under discussion was a key component of the denialists’ campaign in 2007.  The purloined e-mails point to unethical behaviors by the scientists on the anti-warming side, the so-called “skeptics.”

So, from a quick dive into the data we learn:

1. Climate scientists talk like Boy Scouts trying to impress a Board of Review.
2. Climate scientists are extremely careful with data.
3. When they think no one is looking, climate scientists behave ethically.
4. When they think have found a piece of fraud, climate scientists are careful to recheck their numbers several times and in several ways before saying anything.
5. Instead of holding a press conference, climate scientists like to keep the fisticuffs in the confines of juried journals.
6. Climate “skeptics” are full of themselves, and probably wrongly accuse climate scientists of fixing data.
7. Fraud in climate science may occur, but generally on the side of those who argue against warming or who advocate inaction as a response.
8. The claims of smoking guns that negate the case for doing something about global warming are most likely hoaxes.

Here are the texts I looked at:

• From Ben Santer, on December 5, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=821&filename=1196877845.txt
• From Ben Santer:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=822&filename=1196882357.txt
• From Ben Santer, December 6, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=823&filename=1196956362.txt
• From Dan Seidel:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=824&filename=1196964260.txt
• From Tom Wigley, December 10, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=825&filename=1197325034.txt
• From Ben Santer, December 13, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=826&filename=1197507092.txt
• From Ben Santer:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=827&filename=1197590292.txt
• From Ben Santer:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=828&filename=1197590293.txt
• From Ben Santer, December 14, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=829&filename=1197660675.txt
• From Thomas R. Karl, December 15, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=830&filename=1197739308.txt
• From Leopold Haimberger, December 23, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=831&filename=1198443017.txt
• From Ben Santer, December 27, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=832&filename=1198790779.txt
• From Leopold Haimberger, December 30, 2007:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=833&filename=1198984230.txt
• From Susan Solomon:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=834&filename=1199027884.txt
• From Peter Thorne, January 2, 2008:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=835&filename=1199286511.txt
• From Susan Solomon:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=836&filename=1199303943.txt
• From Ben Santer:  http://www.anelegantchaos.org/emails.php?eid=837&filename=1199325151.txt
• You may carry on from there if you wish — just go to the dump site of the e-mails, and do a search for “Douglass”

Smoke this:

Newtongate shakes anthropogenically-generated mathematics at the foundation

Satire, hoax, fact — how can we tell the difference?

Maybe more importantly, how can we tell early on that the “Climategate” kerfuffle, involving purloined, but otherwise dull e-mails from climate scientists, is nothing to worry about?

Look at history!  Remember Newtongate?  Read it here, at Carbon Fixated.

If you own any shares in companies that produce reflecting telescopes, use differential and integral calculus, or rely on the laws of motion, I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the calculus myth has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after volumes of Newton’s private correspondence were compiled and published.

When you read some of these letters, you realise just why Newton and his collaborators might have preferred to keep them confidential. This scandal could well be the biggest in Renaissance science. These alleged letters – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists behind really hard math lessons – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in covering up the truth, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

But perhaps the most damaging revelations are those concerning the way these math nerd scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence to support their cause.

What kind of conspiracy keeps calculus being taught to innocent children today?  Exactly the same conspiracy that causes scientists to sound the alarms about climate change.

Tip of the old scrub brush to Tim Lambert at Deltoid.

Rap at the White House: Alexander Hamilton

An Obama guest, Lin-Manuel Miranda, pushes the envelope on gangsta rap, and history teaching:

You can’t use that in the classroom, teachers?  Why not?

More:

Wikipedia notes of Miranda:

He is working on a hip-hop album based upon the life of Alexander Hamilton, entitled The Hamilton Mixtape.[5] He recently performed “The Hamilton Mixtape” at the White House Evening of Poetry, Music, and the Spoken Word on May 12, 2009. Accompanied by Alex Lacamoire. ^[12]

Tip of the old scrub brush to Slashdot.

Why more kids should study world history, harder

Jon Taplin explains why knowing world history is valuable. The sad thing is that, of course, the story that makes his reason doesn’t appear in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills list for world history, nor in any other social studies course.

Now that the Texas State Board of Education has taken off the cloak of education and made it clear that social studies in Texas is considered a political free-fire zone, and that they plan to vitiate anything but the propaganda value for the Republican Party, Taplin’s piece has all the more poignance.

The Renaissance, and Florence, were more than just a minor question on the TAKS test.  Santayana’s Ghost weeps bitterly.

Why isn’t Jon Taplin’s blog required reading in more places, by more people in government and politics?  We know why the Texas State School Board doesn’t want anyone to read it — that alone should make people fight to see what Taplin says.

Promote this idea in your own study group:

A Jonathan Alter-cation: Teacher pay-for-performance? How about the same for pundits?

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter likes charter schools, and often enough writes about them and his frustration that public schools and their teachers won’t roll over and play dead while charter schools steal money from them (my characterization, not Alter’s).

At Public School Insights, Claus von Zastrow suggested that maybe pundits like Alter ought to be subject to having their pay docked when they screw up, too.  Then he went further, and specifically criticized a recent Alter column, point for point.

A few comments down, who should show up to make his case, but Jonathan Alter.

Go watch, and learn.  Among other things, the discussion is much more civil than we usually see on blogs.  It’s a lesson for Christians and creationists especially.

It’s not much of a conflict of interest, but I have dealt with Alter before, in his previous job at The New Republic (back when it was not so much a bastion of neo-conservatism).  Alter did a major profile of Sen. Orrin Hatch.  Alter strove not to be flattering, and the biggest problem was the Vint Lawrence illustration, showing Hatch draped in the American flag as a cloak.  As I recall from those now-dusty decades, the profile wasn’t exactly correlated with the illustration on any issue.  Over the years, Alter’s been closer to correct more often than he’s been wrong, in my view — his views on charter schools being in that area where I think he errs.

Public schools have never suffered from a surplus of money.  Charter school advocates should not be allowed to steal income from public schools directly.  To shore up GM, we don’t allow GM to take a share of profit from Ford for every GM car sold.  Nor do we allow Ford to take a share of GM’s income.  Competition in education is a foolish pursuit most often, but we don’t need a competitive model that bleeds education on either end, as Alter’s advocacy favors.

In hard economic terms, free market, gloves-off, bare-fisted capitalistic competition has never been shown to work in education.  I never could figure out Milton Friedman’s advocacy for such competition since there is no case ever to be made that competition makes better schools, nor that privately-run schools work better for educating an entire nation than public schools.  I think all relevant evidence runs the other way.

Pay for performance, but links for free:

Leonid meteor scattered showers

Meteors from the Leonid shower could have been good viewing — generally, as I predicted, it was not spectacular.  At least BBC said so.

But if you can make the time, it’s almost always profitable — psychologically and spiritually — to look up at the sky.

Some who did look up got great photographs of the not-spectacular views.

"A fireball seems to shoot right through a house in Grafton, Ontario. Malcolm Park captured the image as he was setting up to photograph meteors on Monday night." (MSNBC caption)

If this isn’t spectacular, can you imagine what would be?

Palin: Ignore the woman abusing the flag and look at those gams!

Newsweek features Sarah Palin on the cover this week, a couple of weeks after featuring Al Gore.  I thought the Gore cover was interesting, but could be interpreted to make him look sinister.

Sexist? Or sac-patriotic?

Palin, on the other hand, is featured in a full photo she posed for Runners World last year.  A flattering photo, it also features a U.S. flag, which we’ll get back to in a moment.

Palin complains that the cover is “sexist.”

Yahoo! News has the story, featuring Palin’s Facebook complaint.

“The choice of photo for the cover of this week’s Newsweek is unfortunate. When it comes to Sarah Palin, this “news” magazine has relished focusing on the irrelevant rather than the relevant. The Runner’s World magazine one-page profile for which this photo was taken was all about health and fitness — a subject to which I am devoted and which is critically important to this nation. The out-of-context Newsweek approach is sexist and oh-so-expected by now. If anyone can learn anything from it: it shows why you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, gender, or color of skin. The media will do anything to draw attention — even if out of context.

But look at the cover.  Newsweek brands Palin as a problem — for Republicans. Is the sexism charge designed to divert attention from what Newsweek is saying, editorially?

Look at the display of the flag.  Clearly out of flag code on all scores, it appears as if she’s using the flag much as an athletic towel.  Now think of the rage the right worked up to when candidate Obama didn’t wear a flag lapel pin.  Can you imagine the rage had any Democrat posed for a picture, leaning on the flag like that?

The photo reveals Palin and her handlers as ill-informed on the flag code, and willing to do almost anything to get a camera.  I find it interesting that now, more than a year after she posed for the picture, she’s concerned about her showing of leg and not about the political issues raised by Newsweek.

Almost no one worries about the disrespect for the U.S. flag.

_____________

Update: Good commentary at Obsidian Wings — and note the first five or so comments.  Smart readers there!  Much the same at Majikthise.

Brave 10-year-old Arkansas boy refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance, on principle

Adults worry about peer pressure.  Kids can goad other kids into doing stupid things, dangerous things, illegal things, and immoral things.

Pressure from adults on kids might be just as strong.

What about a 10-year-old kid who stands up to peer pressure, and stands for principle against adults who use all sorts of inducements to get him to do something he believes is wrong?

I offer a salute to Will Phillips of  West Fork School District, in Washington County, Arkansas.

Will believes homosexuals in America are not beneficiaries of  liberty and justice for all.  Will now refuses to stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance for that reason.

It’s probably not what I’d advise the young man to do to protest, but he has every right.  He’s thought it through, which may not be said for the substitute teacher and the school administrator who tried to pressure him into giving up on his principles.

In the Arkansas Times, David Koon writes the story:

A boy and his flag

Why Will won’t pledge.

David Koon
Updated: 11/5/2009

WILL PHILLIPS: Freedom lover.

Will Phillips, freedom lover, in Arkansas (Arkansas Times photo)

Will Phillips isn’t like other boys his age.

For one thing, he’s smart. Scary smart. A student in the West Fork School District in Washington County, he skipped a grade this year, going directly from the third to the fifth. When his family goes for a drive, discussions are much more apt to be about Teddy Roosevelt and terraforming Mars than they are about Spongebob Squarepants and what’s playing on Radio Disney.

It was during one of those drives that the discussion turned to the pledge of allegiance and what it means. Laura Phillips is Will’s mother. “Yes, my son is 10,” she said. “But he’s probably more aware of the meaning of the pledge than a lot of adults. He’s not just doing it rote recitation. We raised him to be aware of what’s right, what’s wrong, and what’s fair.”

Will’s family has a number of gay friends. In recent years, Laura Phillips said, they’ve been trying to be a straight ally to the gay community, going to the pride parades and standing up for the rights of their gay and lesbian neighbors. They’ve been especially dismayed by the effort to take away the rights of homosexuals – the right to marry, and the right to adopt. Given that, Will immediately saw a problem with the pledge of allegiance.

“I’ve always tried to analyze things because I want to be lawyer,” Will said. “I really don’t feel that there’s currently liberty and justice for all.”

After asking his parents whether it was against the law not to stand for the pledge, Will decided to do something. On Monday, Oct. 5, when the other kids in his class stood up to recite the pledge of allegiance, he remained sitting down. The class had a substitute teacher that week, a retired educator from the district, who knew Will’s mother and grandmother. Though the substitute tried to make him stand up, he respectfully refused. He did it again the next day, and the next day. Each day, the substitute got a little more cross with him. On Thursday, it finally came to a head. The teacher, Will said, told him that she knew his mother and grandmother, and they would want him to stand and say the pledge.

“She got a lot more angry and raised her voice and brought my mom and my grandma up,” Will said. “I was fuming and was too furious to really pay attention to what she was saying. After a few minutes, I said, ‘With all due respect, ma’am, you can go jump off a bridge.’ ”

Will was sent to the office, where he was given an assignment to look up information about the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, the principal called his mother.

“She said we have to talk about Will, because he told a sub to jump off a bridge,” Laura Phillips said. “My first response was: Why? He’s not just going to say this because he doesn’t want to do his math work.”

Eventually, Phillips said, the principal told her that the altercation was over Will’s refusal to stand for the pledge of allegiance, and admitted that it was Will’s right not to stand. Given that, Laura Phillips asked the principal when they could expect an apology from the teacher. “She said, ‘Well I don’t think that’s necessary at this point,’ ” Phillips said.

After Phillips put a post on the instant-blogging site twitter.com about the incident, several of her friends got angry and alerted the news media. Meanwhile, Will Phillips still refuses to stand during the pledge of allegiance. Though many of his friends at school have told him they support his decision, those who don’t have been unkind, and louder.

“They [the kids who don't support him] are much more crazy, and out of control and vocal about it than supporters are.”

Given that his protest is over the rights of gays and lesbians, the taunts have taken a predictable bent. “In the lunchroom and in the hallway, they’ve been making comments and doing pranks, and calling me gay,” he said. “It’s always the same people, walking up and calling me a gaywad.”

Even so, Will said that he can’t foresee anything in the near future that will make him stand for the pledge. To help him deal with the peer pressure, his parents have printed off posts in his support on blogs and websites. “We’ve told him that people here might not support you, but we’ve shown him there are people all over that support you,” Phillips said. “It’s really frustrating to him that people are being so immature.”

At the end of our interview, I ask young Will a question that might be a civics test nightmare for your average 10-year-old. Will’s answer, though, is good enough — simple enough, true enough — to give me a little rush of goose pimples.  What does being an American mean?

“Freedom of speech,” Will says, without even stopping to think. “The freedom to disagree. That’s what I think pretty much being an American represents.”

Somewhere, Thomas Jefferson smiles.

Chess games of the rich and famous: Ben Franklin and Lady Howe

"Lady Howe mates Ben Franklin," 1867 painting by Edward Harrison May - public domain

Resources:

• Ben Franklin and his essay, “The Morals of Chess,” by John McCrary
• A history of Ben Franklin and chess, from Wholesale Chess

H1N1 vaccine, a citizen’s duty

Claudia Meininger Gold practices pediatric medicine in Great Barrington, Vermont.  When someone recently suggested offering flu shots at polling places, it struck her that, like voting, getting a flu shot is a good citizen’s duty.  She wrote about it in the Boston Globe.

AS A pediatrician, I received my swine flu vaccine without a moment’s hesitation. I wanted to be available to treat the onslaught of illness, and to be able to go comfortably into a room with a coughing, miserable child knowing that I was not putting myself or my family at risk. I was astounded, therefore, to read recently, in a popular newsletter for pediatricians, a column by a pediatrician stating that he would not recommend the vaccine to his patients. His arguments were that the illness was relatively mild and the vaccine might not be safe.

In my practice, there are many parents who choose not to immunize their children. As a mother myself, I sometimes wonder if part of the motivation for this choice is to combat the helpless, scary part of loving someone so much. It can become overwhelming to contemplate everything that can possibly go wrong. Perhaps parents refuse vaccines because it is something they can control, a way in which they can “protect’’ their child. In the case of swine flu, or H1N1, this action is, in my opinion, misguided.

There are many different fears associated with vaccines, but the specific fear around H1N1 has its origin in a 1976 outbreak of Guillain-Barre syndrome, a disease that damages nerve cells, after mass vaccination against a swine flu. The website of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention addresses this issue:

“Several studies have been done to evaluate if other flu vaccines since 1976 were associated with GBS. Only one of the studies showed an association. That study suggested that one person out of 1 million vaccinated persons may be at risk of GBS associated with the vaccine.’’

The current method for making the H1N1 vaccine is the same as that for the seasonal flu vaccine. The only difference is that seasonal flu vaccine is prepared in anticipation of flu season, while manufacturing of this one was begun while the pandemic was in its initial stages. High-risk groups, such as the elderly and young children, receive the seasonal flu vaccine without a second thought.

It is true that for the majority of people H1N1 is a mild illness, generally causing two to four days of feeling lousy. But the virus is highly contagious. The sheer numbers are staggering. A school in Chicago closed last month when 800 of its 2,200 students were sick. With any flu there are people who will have complications and die. As the number of cases continues to climb, statistics are not in our favor.

For high-risk groups, such as pregnant women, talk of “mild illness’’ is meaningless. Stories are multiplying of the devastating losses of both baby and mother. In our small town there are young adults who were previously healthy now on respirators in intensive care units.

In a recent op-ed in The New York Times, Douglas Shenson proposed the use of polling places for vaccination. This led me to think of vaccination as a responsibility of being a citizen, analogous to voting. Just as one vote does not determine the outcome of an election, one person immunized does not halt the spread of illness. Yet voting is a civic duty. Similarly, vaccination, while benefiting the individual, serves to protect the population as a whole. Short of shutting down the country, mass immunization is the only way to stop the spread of this virus.

In addition, I feel that as a physician, it is my responsibility to uphold the recommendations of the CDC. If every individual citizen took it upon himself or herself to decide what was best for the country, there would be chaos.

Washing hands, covering our mouths when we cough, and staying home when we are sick are all ways to contribute to the common good. As responsible citizens, when the opportunity arises, and in keeping with CDC guidelines, we should all do our part and immunize ourselves and our children.

Dr. Claudia Meininger Gold, a pediatrician, practices in Great Barrington.  Copyright to Boston Globe.

 

• Home /
• News /
• Health and Fitness News from the Boston Globe

<!– Citizen, heal thyself: Get the swine flu vaccine Boston Globe Just as one vote does not determine the outcome of an election, one person immunized does not halt the spread of illness. Yet voting is a civic duty. Similarly, vaccination, while benefiting the individual, serves to protect the population as a whole. Claudia Meininger Gold November 16, 2009 –>

Claudia Meininger Gold

Citizen, heal thyself: Get the swine flu vaccine

By Claudia Meininger Gold November 16, 2009

E-mail this article

To:

Invalid E-mail address

Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail:

Invalid E-mail address

Sending your article

Your article has been sent.

• E-mail|
• Print|
• Reprints|
• // Yahoo! Buzz|
• ShareThis

Text size – +

AS A pediatrician, I received my swine flu vaccine without a moment’s hesitation. I wanted to be available to treat the onslaught of illness, and to be able to go comfortably into a room with a coughing, miserable child knowing that I was not putting myself or my family at risk. I was astounded, therefore, to read recently, in a popular newsletter for pediatricians, a column by a pediatrician stating that he would not recommend the vaccine to his patients. His arguments were that the illness was relatively mild and the vaccine might not be safe.

Chess games of the rich and famous: Will Smith

Actor Will Smith and chess board, photo by Robert Snyder

Actor Will Smith worked with chess masters to improve his game — literally.  Photo and story from 2001 at The Chessdrum.