Name that band!

I picked up a CD today, and was pretty surprised when I popped out the liner notes and saw this photo. They definitely changed their look as time went along. Any guesses?

Fireworks without, stillness within

Watching the fireworks tonight, I was reminded that the last time I had a girlfriend on July 4th was in… fucking 2004. Jesus H. Christ at-a-taxi-stand-with-an-expired-AmEx, that’s some lame, weak, unforgivable sauce right there!

Men approaching 40 with spotty dating resumes — and I’m certain that there are more than a dozen of you reading this blog — will feel me on this one: there are times when one must fish or get off the pot. My problems with dating are manifold, as I’ve doubtless spat about here previously. But shall we count them, you and I, just for the meadow-strolling loll-aboutery of it?

Hold on, I need another drink. 1.5 oz vodka, .5 oz triple sec, .5 oz creme de menthe. I shit you not! This is a special “project drink” I’ve crafted that will enable me to plow through a bottle of shitty vodka I bought in a moment of ill-advised thriftiness some years ago and have regretted since. People come over and say, “Vinny! Whip me up a screwdriver,” until they spy the jug of reprehensible vodka and quickly switch to straight whiskey, mezcal or whatever civilized liquor I have on the rack. Keeping foul vodka in your liquor cabinet is a slap in the face to a distinguished guest — it obviates so many beverage choices — so I’m hell-bent on drinking my way through the squalor of “Bartlett’s Bulbitation”.

I’m back, toting a vodka ‘n’ creme de cassis ‘n’ bitters payload. Not horrible, but nothing I’d serve to someone I love.   So, let’s take a look at that obstacle course, yes?

• New friends are surprised to hear that I’m shy. But it’s true, when talking to women I’m attracted to. I’m a garrulous lad in welcoming company, but can’t get over my assumption that any woman I’m attracted to will find me duller than Sunday’s bus schedule on a Tuesday.
• And why would I resign pre-battle? Track record, ducklings. Two solid decades of dating has laid down a pretty horrifying paper trail: If I’m hot for her, she must be interested strictly in punk drummers, the over-50 set, accomplished professionals, danseuses, wakeboarders, and/or Yalies. If she’s hot for me, I have — so far — wanted so much more.
• “Oh shut up!” you cry, faint with faith that 20 years of dating would have surely dredged up some tender grubling, crackling in her febrile nubility who shuddered with a universally-recognizable aura of Gaia’s sexual imprimatur? Oh yes, and you’d be right. But those aurae have — through thickness of skull, thinness of valiance — been missed or struck at too late. In the dervish-thicket of competitive sperm we males swim in, there are not days, minutes or weeks — certainly not months — that we may lay idle, wondering if phone calls or flowers would be appropriate. Hesitation, pondering, gentle treading, thoughtful chats, apologetic embraces — these have been the guiding lights of my dating MO, the fidgety gestalt I (fussily) foment.
• But what folly! that souls twinned at conception should fall prey to mistimed text messages, asshat flight attendants from Memphis that would chat up one’s True Beloved, that a woman wouldn’t just say, “so, you’re saying you’re into me?” But oh, yes, we live in that world.

I live in it, anyway. There’s 4+ bullet points to go, but they will wait for another night of shoddy vodka and creme d’ cassis.

Tunnel rage, now with facts!

Remember that post I made yesterday about how we’re gonna replace the viaduct with a tunnel? And how stupid the idea is, and how it makes my blood run black with white-hot rage? (Look it up, by the way. This happens all the time in the big city when effete liberals get P.O.’d: our blood actually turns black, and we become untrifleable-with.)

Anyway, today I’m happy to provide a link to HugeAssCity, one of my favorite blogs, where Dan Bertolet calms me down by asking a few questions like, “How likely is this to actually happen?” Answer: it’s far from a done deal.  Take a look. Dan has black blood syndrome, too, but actually knows what he’s talking about, unlike Uncle Vinny.

Still furious about the viaduct replacement

Have I written about this already? Who cares! I’m still furious at Frank Chopp, Jamie Pederson, Ed Murray and Christine Gregoire for pushing this horrible tunnel option on us. It’s gonna cost billions. It won’t give buses priority over cars, and it won’t move light rail at all. It will tear up downtown for years. It spits on the grave of a perfectly sane surface-street option. And the money we burn on it could be used on hundreds of useful projects.

Chopp, Pederson, Murray, Gregoire: You are all to blame for this (Chopp more than others, as I understand it). You should all be yelling nonstop about reversing this horrible decision before you waste time on any mere million dollar problem we have in this state. You’ve blown a colossal hole in our budget on a shitty idea. The sooner you start yelling, the happier I’ll be. And when you actually undo it you’ll be back on my good side. Until then, stop sending me mail (ahem, Gregoire) asking for money.

Oh, and Greg Nickels? Jan Drago? I blame you, too. McGinn is the only mayoral candidate I’ve heard loud and clear on this. He might be a little sketchy on other his campaign priorities (um, citywide wireless, tell me you’re kidding) but he understands how much the fucking tunnel will warp other projects for the next decade.

Why torture yourself, eh?

Some people are justly wondering why in the world I’d want to debate a global-warming denier. There’s a little part of me that hopes that rational debate still gets through to people, so there’s that part of it.

But the sick part is that I really like picking fights with fundamentalists. They’re so adrift, you know?

Topics I can’t wait to get started on:
Biblical inerrancy
Abortion
Creation vs evolution
Free will vs determinism
Kirk vs Picard — just kidding. For fuck’s sake keep the trekkies away from me!

Oh darn, that reminds me… I was trying to use Twitter to settle the free will vs determinism question the other day. Gotta get back to that!

Global warming denialism, continued

I’ll take the WSJ article by Strassel that Ex-Marine linked to as my starting point.

She makes a series of sensational-sounding claims to buttress her argument that a growing number of  global warming skeptics are turning the tide against the consensus scientific view:

• the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming
• …today only 11% of the [Polish] population believes humans play a role in global warming
• French President Sarkozy may send Claude Allegre as his minister of Industry/Innovation
• New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program
• Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N
• Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief.
• Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.”

This isn’t the complete list of her claims, but it’s what I’ve decided to tackle for now.

• Her article contains a list of opponents, but there is no evidence that there are more or less people worldwide that consider global warming a serious threat. If she had included trend data on opinion polls over the past 10 years, that would be interesting. Or looked at the number of signatories to the Kyoto Treaty. Bear in mind that for the rest of this I am reviewing her anecdotes about individuals or groups that oppose the scientific consensus, not making a judgement about whether critics are increasing or decreasing in strength.

Back to the 7 bullet points above:

• the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming
  • Info available here, including this comment by Alex Verlinden:
    • the original statement in Polish is located here. I sent an email to the PAS and got a reply from Prof. Dr. Andrzej Zelazniewicz, who is President of the Committee of Geological Sciemces (of the) PAS … he confirmed that this committee issued the statement … he also pointed out that “… Please also note that there are more than 90 scientific committees in PAS which means that not necessarily everybody in PAS shares our position …”
  • It’s impossible to review the paper, because it’s only available in Polish.
• …today only 11% of the [Polish] population believes humans play a role in global warming
  • Interesting… but what does this prove? Public opinion varies around the world.
• French President Sarkozy may send Claude Allegre as his minister of Industry/Innovation
  • Mr. Allegre made his views clear before a Senate committee in 2006, and I reply to it in detail below.
    
• New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country’s weeks-old cap-and-trade program
  • True. However, the National Party still agrees that that greenhouse gases should be reduced, and is committed to meeting the Kyoto Protocol. 42% of NZ say climate change is a “problem now” and another 35% say it’s “urgent and immediate”.
• Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N
  • No citation for this, but it’s not an argument. Counting scientists who agree with you is kind of sad, it’s more interesting to look at the argument they’re making, as I’m happy to do.
• Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief.
  • I read the letter she sent, and I disagree with Strassen’s summary. She wants both sides to stop attacking each other personally, and focus on the scientific arguments, such as reviewing the 10-year TRMM data.  Her quote is “I decided to keep quiet in this controversy until I had a positive contribution to make”, this hardly seems like she is “finally free to talk”.
• Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.”
  • His book is only available in Japanese, so I can’t review it. However, I would point out that he says the sensational title and chapter headings (”Lies and Traps in Global Warming Affairs”, “The Worst Scientific Scandal in the History”)were forced on him by the publisher: “despite the impression from its sensational title (due to the publisher)”.

OK, now on to the substance of Mr. Allegre. Note that this all comes from his October 2006 testimony/press release for the Senate/Inhofe, so it may be a bit out of date. But the moral of the story is that I am happy to address any substantive criticism you have of the consensus scientific view on climate change. Further, nothing you have said or linked to yet has demonstrated that the scientific community has failed to respond honestly to the criticisms of skeptics. Skepticism is welcome in science; it’s how we improve. But if your criticisms are found to be invalid, owning up to your mistake would be the sportsmanlike thing to do.

Each of these claims comes from the Senate press release.

Claim — “Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.”

Rebuttal – This is a claim made in a letter to the editor, and does not point to references. This is not an argument, it’s an assertion. Back it up with data, and we can discuss.

Claim — If there are big, inherent fluctuations in the system, as paleoclimate studies are showing, it could make determining the Earth’s climatic future even harder than it is.  Link to WaPost article.

Rebuttal – Yes, climate prediction is complex. In the past 3 decades of warming, the “usual suspects” that one looks to as sources of natural global warming (solar variation, volcanoes, Milankovitch cycles) have been comparatively quiet. “It’s complex” is not a reason to give up, nor is it logical to say that because climate sometimes changes without the activity of man, man is incapable of causing climate change. Needless to say, the scientist in the study cited by the WaPost, Simon Brassell, is not a climate change denialist.

Claim — “peer-reviewed research shows that the Sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20^th-century warming.” As evidence, he points to a paper by Scafetta and West: (http://www.acrim.com/Reference%20Files/Scafetta%20&%20West_2007JD008437.pdf).

Rebuttal – Scafetta and West are exhaustively rebutted here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/, but the summary is as follows: The paper does not show that the Sun was responsible for 50% of the 20^th century warming, it proposes one computer model that if followed under particular circumstances, could give this answer. They do not claim to have discovered any new mechanism for how the Sun could have such an impact.

Claim — Bonus Claim! There is also a common argument from the denialist side that mainstream scientists have forgotten, suppressed, etc., the effect of the sun on global temperature changes.

Rebuttal – The most recent IPCC report (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_TS.pdf) includes an entire section on the influence of the sun: TS.2.4: (http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf). Summary goes like this: We now have 28 years of consistent data tracking the radiative output of the sun. The irradiance striking the earth varies about .08% over the 11-year sunspot cycle, with no significant long-term trend. This results in even less of a solar impact on climate change than was believed at the time of the previous IPCC report, although the authors report that direct evidence for the sun’s influence on earth temperatures is still poorly understood.

Claim — Global warming stopped in 1998 — cites a University of East Anglia study as evidence.

Rebuttal – Short-term warming and cooling cycles are not abolished, nor are individual cold (snowstorm) or hot (hurricane) events. What’s interesting is the trend.

1998 was a particularly hot year, and choosing that as the “maximum” is rather dishonest. Looking at the temperature charts since ~1850 shows a clear trend:

Image came from: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

The specific East Anglia “cooling assertion” study is critically reviewed here (http://www.amos.org.au/documents/item/82).

Etc. If you find this interesting, pick a few topics where you disagree with my approach, and we can debate further.

Global warming denial on Facebook

So, I’m hanging out on Facebook today, and an old next-door dorm buddy posted a link to a crazy global-warming-is-a-hoax WSJ article. I replied, and things got wacky. I definitely could have done a better job staying away from the ad hominem attacks, but it’s pretty tough when 95% of the people left arguing against global warming  (a) have no credentials, (b) are funded by Exxon and/or (c) are deceptive at best, fraudulent at worst.

I’ve cleaned up the transcript a little and tried to remove personally identifying info. Aside from that, it’s as-is. I’ll let you know if we continue the discussion. Your thoughts are welcome! (Yes, that includes you, Jonolan.)

Ex-Marine posted a link.

Today at 8:18am.

Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change – WSJ.com

Summary: The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere.

Ex-Marine comments: The inconvenient truth about the global warming lie is growing.

Some Other Guy at 8:25am June 26

Turn up the heat! I’m cold.

Uncle Vinny at 8:28am June 26

Feel like a making a bet on this one, [Ex-Marine]? I have $1000 that says you’ll be pretty embarrassed about this in 20 years.

Ex-Marine at 8:31am June 26

It’s junk science built on ideology instead of evidence. Al Gore did a pretty good job selling it. Almost as good a job as Obama did on selling change you can believe in.

Some Other Guy at 8:32am June 26

I will bet a million dollars that a thousand dollars isn’t worth today’s 1 dollar in 20 years.

Uncle Vinny at 8:35am June 26

So, that’s a “yes”? We can each put $1000 in an interest-bearing account, and whenever you get embarrassed enough by the contents of that link (Senator Inhofe, for fuck’s sake! LOL), you can sign it over to me.

Ex-Marine at 8:39am June 26

No, I’m not betting $1000 because [Ex-Marine wife] would kill me. So, out of that entire article you choose to highlight Senator Inhofe. Not Dr. Kiminori Itoh (who contributed to the UN climate report); not Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize winner for physics); and not Dr. Ian Plimer (who wrote a book debunking the myth of global warming). This is the issue that has gotten the US to where it is on the subject of global warming: selective listening and ignoring voices of dissent. Kudos!

Uncle Vinny at 8:56am June 26

Oh brother. Fine! Put up whatever amount of money you have lying around. (Although, if you can’t convince her that the bet is a sure thing, maybe you should worry?)

You can pretend that the “voices of dissent” have been ignored if you like, but if you just Google a little (try Ivar Giaever, who got his Nobel in Physics in ‘73 for something unrelated to climate, (try this: http://issuepedia.org/Ivar_Giaever/climate) and admits he knows nothing about the science) with anything like a skeptical mind, you’ll begin to get embarrassed pretty quick. Have you spent any time reading debates between the two sides? It’s a blowout… the “it’s a hoax” side is incredibly embarrassing, and the “it’s groupthink” side is only a little less so. There are a few legit scientists who are still criticizing the consensus view, but they aren’t calling the mainstream scientists “hoaxers”.

Holy shit, dude. Ian Plimer?! The guy believes in creation. He’s out looking for Noah’s Ark.

Ex-Marine at 9:01am June 26

There ya go. Continue belittling those who disagree with you (while disregarding what they are actually saying) and consider the debate won. Hey, I have an idea! Let’s cripple the economy even *more* than it already is with cap and trade legislation based on faulty science. Yeah!

Uncle Vinny at 9:28am June 26

I’m not trying to be a dick. Really. But have you spent any time reading both sides of the debate? Because you sound a lot like you’ve just been listening to Rush and Hannity.

Have you spent any time reading wikipedia? Did you follow that link in my previous comment? Does it bother you that you’re relying on a guy who’s out searching for Noah’s Ark? If a math professor tells you that pi is irrational, and a 4th grader says he’s not sure, how much time do you spend worrying about the 4th grader’s opinion? More so, when Dr. Giaever ADMITS he knows nothing about climate science, but just “feels” like those concerned about global warming are part of a “new religion”, doesn’t it make sense to belittle that as junk science?

My mistake on Plimer, by the way. He’s actually anti-creationism, but pro-finding Noah’s Ark. Weird! Anyway, Wikipedia has a plenty of info on him. He’s not denying massive temp changes; he’s saying it’s inevitable, and Strassel puts him in her article as a skeptic!

Ex-Marine at 9:45am June 26

I listen to neither Rush nor Hannity. Google “global warming debunked” and then, if you care to, try to address the **statements** made, not **who** is making them or **what group** is behind them. So far all you’ve demonstrated is the ability of global warming theorists to attack the person making the statements, not the statements themselves. I don’t have the time, energy, nor inclination to dig up dirt on every scientist who supports global warming. It is this philosophy of “proving” the point of global warming through character assassination of the opposing viewpoint holders that is making people sit up and say, “Hey, wait a minute. Where’s your proof?” Thank goodness people are finally stopping to think for themselves instead of believing everything that is crammed down their throat by the government.

Uncle Vinny at 9:48am June 26

Ok, I’ll get to work on that, if you’ll reply to a few of the links and questions I’ve posted above…

Ex-Marine at 10:15am June 26

A lot of the “evidence” of global warming is based on NOAA surface temperature sensors which have specific guidelines on their placement. Unfortunately, the NOAA does not follow the guidelines and places them on asphalt or cement surfaces which cause exaggerated readings of surface temp. Google on “NOAA temperature sensor mistakes” and there are plenty of hits. The Wikipedia article on global warming states, “The most commonly cited indication of global warming is the trend in globally averaged temperature near the Earth’s surface.” and yet not one single reference is made to misplacement of NOAA temp sensors. Yeah, Wikipedia is a non-biased and balanced source of information on the topic of global warming. Not! Who cares if Ian Plimer is looking for Noah’s Ark? What specifically about his science is it that you take issue with? Or do you just discount his entire argument because he’s looking for evidence of Noah’s Ark? Yes, I followed the link on Ivar Giaever. Opinion vs. opinion.

Ex-Marine at 10:21am June 26

Further to the above: http://www.heartland.org/books/PDFs/SurfaceStations.pdf. I know, I know…now you’ll dig up dirt or otherwise discredit Anthony Watts as well.

Uncle Vinny at 11:03am June 26

Wikipedia covers the urban heat island effect pretty comprehensively here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island “While the ‘heat island’ warming is an important local effect, there is no evidence that it biases **trends** in historical temperature record; for example, urban and rural trends are very similar.” Just read the whole article, it’s interesting, and might calm you down.

A plausible reason why this effect isn’t mentioned in the Wiki article on Global Warming is that the Heartland paper you cite is specifically for NOAA, which is specifically about measuring temperature over land in the US. Does the evidence of global warming rely entirely (or even significantly?) on land-based NOAA measurements? No, as you’d see if you followed the link to the IPCC report (http://is.gd/1eCFy), which lays out exactly how they make their claim for rising temperatures (over land, water and in the atmosphere). In fact, they have an entire section (3.2.2.2) on this issue.

Dreaming like the Drowning Man

For whatever reason — probably my moody state of mind — I’ve been OCD-like in my listening and re-listening to the Cure lately, particularly “The Drowning Man” from their album Faith. I have developed more of an eye-rolling reaction to the Cure over the years, especially to any of their tunes later than Pornography, but the early stuff can still be so perfect sometimes.

Today I looked up the lyrics to “The Drowning Man”, and the story behind the song, being pleasantly surprised by the nontrivial roots of both. Self-pity, gloom, angst and gothy hopelessness, sure… but there’s a little more than your typical Hot Topic bullshit going on here, at least in the eyes of Uncle Vinny.

I’ve been trying to write a post on why I’ve been so sad and melancholy lately, but I still can’t figure it out. Too many contradictory things going on, half awesome, half crappy, so I’m yoyoing all over the place. Anyway, for this morning I’ve switched off the Cure and switched onto a terrific double album: Blue Skied ‘n’ Clear, various bands doing covers of Slowdive tunes. Much perkier, in a shoegazey sort of way. Having friends over for dinner tonight, so I need to get going on cooking.

Oh, and how cool is it that I can be standing in the grocery store, pull out my phone and browse to my blog to look up the ingredients for my home-made ice cream recipe?! Totally freakin’ awesome, I love this modern world sometimes.

And while I’m ending this post on a gentle up-note, please enjoy this mellow tune by Messrs Ludwig van Beethoven and Glenn Gould; it’s especially nice because Glenn does us all a favor by not mumbling:

No, you can’t expand your “settlements” anymore

I’m really hoping that Obama holds the line with Israel, and that as a result, the “settlements” in the West Bank will stop growing.

The counter-argument is that families grow, and it’s perfectly natural for people to want to put a new room or two on a house, but that assumes that the land you’re expanding into is (a) yours and (b) not  being used by someone who might have a growing family.

The “settlements” are illegal, and the sooner their growth is stopped, the sooner their occupants will be moving back into Israel. The sooner that happens, the sooner we can get to two-states living side by side, working out their differences diplomatically instead of with rockets and tanks.

Maybe Israel will say, “You know what? Screw you, Obama. We’re going to keep expanding!”, and then we’d see if he has the courage of his convictions. I sure hope he does.  M. J. Rosenberg recommends in that case that Obama move immediately to demanding negotiations on a final settlement, but I think I prefer something I read a few weeks back (can’t find it now, rats) that says that Israel has never successfully stood up to a US president when he determines what the policy should be*. The Israeli lobby is very powerful, but Israeli fears that the U.S. may withdraw financial and military cover — even partially — are more powerful still.

* Which, if you think about it, is a pretty horrible position for Israelis to be in. Seems like they’d want to move as quickly as possible towards a secure future with their neighbors that doesn’t rely on the massive military/diplomatic strength of a fickle superpower.

“God will punish this nation”

I was going to post something about how ridiculous it is when Pat Robertson or some pro-life nutjob yammers about how God is going to send terrorism, plagues or frizzy hair to “punish the U.S.” for all of the abortion and homosexuality, etc… but then I realized that the Old Testament is chock full of God smiting various nations for their depravity. For example, it would be charitable to assume that every single Amalekite was a nasty person who deserved a plate of hot Death, but it seems more likely that the innocent got crushed right along with the filthy. In fact, Samuel makes it pretty clear:

2 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt.
3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.‘ (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

So maybe this is why Robertson is so concerned about our not-godly-enough Democratic leadership? Concerned that God might get a wild hair and obliterate the whole lot of us, and let Himself sort us out.

PS: Since I’m rambling, I’m really not sure if I should say that one “gets a wild hare” or “gets a wild hair”, and Google isn’t helping much.

PPS: Not 100% clear that the Amalekites ever existed, testimony perhaps either to the efficacy with which the Israelites exterminated them, or just another example of some Iron Age shepherd’s tall tale woozily remembered that’s now venerated as Immutable Truth.

PPPS: In much less divisive news…. ponies!!