Global warming: Science harassment and bad "reporting"

Two stories on Yahoo, via Memeorandum, both caught my eye due to their headlines, one of which I know will get reposted again and again by the wingnuts and AGW denialists. That's the bad "reporting" one.

Let's get to the science harassment one first.

It looks like the government's offshore drilling management agency is harassing the two scientists who claim they saw dead polar bears in Arctic Ocean waters in 2004, a report that eventually forced the species to be officially listed as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act.

Here's the details of the more serious possible harassment against the lead scientist, Charles Monnett:

Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues." But he has not yet been informed by the inspector general's office of specific charges or questions related to the scientific integrity of his work, said Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.

Could Kenny Boy Salazar at Interior, and his flunkies, do this? Certainly, just after BLM oil-lease bidding monkey wrencher Tim DeChristopher got two years in prison.

And, since the government won't let Monnett talk to the media, BOERME is acting as judge, jury and executioner, so far at least.

Beyond all I mentioned above, let's not forget Team Obama's generally ruthless actions in going after whistle-blowers, which kind of relates to that.

Salon has more on just how much this stinks, and on how it, like the bad "reporting," is being exploited by denialists.

Next, the bad "reporting."

It's all over this op-ed, which Forbes apparently first ran as a news story, and then Yahoo picked up as the same.

The BS factor starts with the headline, "New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism." And continues in the first graf, lest one think this is just using a headline to sell something:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.

As for claims about the peer-reviewed nature of the journal, well, I'll bet that's BS too, but right now, I can't get its website or the parent website to load. That probably indicates small server size and other things, which means right there that "peer reviewed" may be getting stretched.

And, besides that, the author's tagline at the end of the op-ed gives the store away:

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

Yep, it's denialist bullshit all right.

Beyond that, the initial report author, Roy Spencer, not only also works for Heartland, but he's an intelligent design guy as well as an AGW denialist. Phil Plait has more.

National Science Board goes chicken-shit on evolution

The board, which oversees the National Science Foundation, omitted questions on evolution and the big bang from a biennial survey of science and engineering issues.

Why?

(B)ecause the survey questions used to measure knowledge of the two topics force respondents to choose between factual knowledge and religious beliefs.

Well, the NSF is about science, not belief. Or, at least, I thought it was. Apparently not. John Bruer, a philosopher (NOT identified as a philosopher of science) who heads the St. Louis-based James S. McDonnell Foundation (big biz dictating science – that's the "McDonnell" of McDonnell-Douglas fame) took the lead on pulling the two questions.
He calls the survey questions "very blunt instruments not designed to capture public understanding" of the two topics.
That's bullshit, and I'm not the only one to say so:
"I think that is a nonsensical response" that reflects "the religious right's point of view," says Jon Miller, a science literacy researcher at Michigan State University in East Lansing who authored the survey 3 decades ago and conducted it for NSF until 2001. "Evolution and the big bang are not a matter of opinion."
Indeed, a mix of the religious right and big biz. Oy.

Why I remain ambivalent about voting Green

Basically, it’s because for all the good Green Party positions, there’s plenty of nuttery, which might in part be excusable, but also hypocrisy that can rival the Republican-Democratic duopoly.

The GP platform (PDF) has details of the good, the bad and the ugly.

First, the good?

I definitely agree with withdrawing from Afghanistan with Iraq.

I wholeheartedly support ending the “War on Drugs,” medicalizing marijuana and getting rid of private prisons.

I totally support making sure workers get all possible rights to unionize.

Get rid of permanent vetoes for any U.N. Security Council member? I could be down with that.

Repeal the Patriot Act and Military Commissions Act? Sign me up.

Fair trade? I’ve been decrying liberal squishes for more than a decade.

Civil rights of secularists? Of course; I am one.

But, then comes the nuttery, in a variety of forms, many of them involving some degree of detachment from reality.

For example, you CANNOT be hardcore about chastising the Bush Adminstration for failure to follow up on sound science on global warming and climate change, then turn around and be all woo-hoo, granola and New Agey (pejoratives intended) on wanting even more federal support for alternative medicine than now, alternative medicine that not only has no scientific support, but has plenty of scientific debunking, without being hugely hypocritical.

Nonetheless, the Greens continue to do this.

Health Programs and Medical Treatment
We support the availability of holistic health approaches and, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy and acupuncture.

No, federal support isn’t technically mentioned in that graf, but as the GP favors a single-payer version of national healthcare, it IS mentioned in the broader context.

Next, the GP looks like it’s been infiltrated by John Birchers:

Chemicals used in the fluoridation of America's public drinking water supplies are toxic waste by-products. The majority of these toxic wastes come from the phosphate fertilizer industry. Fluoride accumulates in the human body through ingestion and inhalation. A growing body of research suggests that fluoride may be associated with arthritis, hip fractures, bone cancer, kidney damage, infertility, and brain disorders. For these reasons, the Green Party opposes the fluoridation of drinking water.

Except now, Big Biz, rather than Godless Commies, are going to kill us with fluoride.

Actual proof? Whole nother story, or non-story.

Then, on nuclear issues, we have this:

The platform calls for phaseout of all nuclear power AND technology, without mentioning nuclear medicine. Oversight, straddle or hypocrisy? I will take either Choice No. 2 or No. 3. Disingeniousness, like hypocrisy, it would appear is not limited to major parties.

---

At times, the platform has a mix of naivete, willfulness and anti-authoritarianism that isn’t fully connected to reality.

Take, for example, the portion of the platform on homelessness:

Repeal laws that criminalize any facet of homelessness including where they sleep, or that deny citizens the right to help homeless persons.

Re-affirm and enforce laws that open public buildings for the homeless in freezing weather.

Open feeding stations that guarantee two meals/day to homeless people.

First, let’s state some actual facts about the homeless situation.

With some variations between parts of the country, seasons of the year, and economic conditions, sociologists and social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists, criminologists, and last but not least, addiction counselors will tell you that the homeless, like Gauls of Caesar’s day, are divided into three roughly equal parts:

1. The down on their luck;
2. The mentally ill;
3. The addicts.

That’s with some overlap between 2 and 3, and people who are originally in category 1 exacerbating their situation into Category 3.

OK. I’m not down with decriminalizing public drunkenness, which is going to include in some way, public drug intoxication these days. So, scratch GP point 1.

Public buildings? With food, no less? Larger cities have city-run homeless shelters. Even mid-sized cities have the Salvation Army, church missions, etc.

Problem is, many people in Category 2 and all active users in Category 3 don’t want to go into those places. People who are schizophrenic or in the manic phase of bipolar disorder are literally paranoid of them.

And alcoholics or addicts don’t want to quit, which shelters demand.

I don’t know what country some GP members live in; the homeless have at least some degree of safety net, but they have to be willing to use that net on the net’s terms.

---

I have other disagreements that are lesser-level, but still definite disagreements.

For example, the GP cut out calls for a gas tax hike from this year’s platform. I say keep it in, and use the money to subsidize lower-income people buying more fuel-efficient cars.

And, that said, a call to boost car gas mileage to 60 MPG by 2012 is ridiculous. Even Toyota can’t do that.

And, the claim that water can only be managed at a sustainable level at the local level? Wrong. That can produce water wars.

Hydrogen car? It’s greenwash for carmakers, and the GP is dumb enough to fall for it.

Subpoena power to “neighborhood councils”? Uhh, folks like Posse Comitatus, Republic of Texas, various Freeman groups, etc., would all looovvee that one.

---

Some things, I just find interesting, like the GP saying education should remain a state-level issue. I think it should be more federalized than it is now.

I also think the GP, along with the ruling duopoly, misses the boat in not calling for a European-length school year.

Hawaiian sovereignty? The past is well in the past.

D.C. statehood? The Constitution provides (both for Greens and Jesse Jackson-type Democrats) for retrocession to Maryland.