Plimer unbloodied and certainly unbowed | Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog
Andrew Bolt thought that last Friday's debate on Radio National didn't hurt Plimer at all. I must admit, I didn't think that Veron was very effective, but then again, as he only had the book for an hour before the exchange, you couldn't expect him to be well informed on its contents.
But the main problem was that (as I understand it) Veron is an expert on reefs, which gives him an interest in global warming, but doesn't really make him a direct expert on climate science.
One thing of note did come out, however, and that is that it appears (as I suspected) that Plimer leaves ocean acidification pretty much out of the debate. (Veron said he had trouble finding any references to it, but eventually did find a brief mention.)
Anyway, a much better refutation of Plimer's book, at least in one specific field, was on Radio National this morning. You can listen to it here.
Tim Lambert already has his list of obvious faults or omissions, and a more recent post indicating a sarcasm misfire that appears in the book.
While we are still waiting to see a more detailed review from some experienced climate scientists, I don't see any reason as to why skeptics should think that this book represents any form of breakthrough.
UPDATE: Andrew Bolt hasn't commented on this story from last week, as far as I know, but it's one that seems worthy of the attention of any AGW skeptic who wants to be taken seriously.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
How Britain is entertaining itself, etc
Go west! Gay storylines are drawing crowds to theatres in London's West End and fringe - The Independent
This lists 10 plays which are currently running in England to reasonable box office.
It seems to me that when it comes to gay themed musicals/comedy, they are usually much better reviewed (and more widely viewed) than the inherent quality deserves. It's like how Margaret and David (At the Movies) can't but help give an Australian movie an extra 1/2 to 1 star just for being Australian. I cite the movie versions of "Priscilla" and "La Cage" as examples.
The only gay drama that I can recall seeing much of was the TV version of Angels in America. The whole thing was terribly overwrought, I thought, but I seem to recall quite a few reviews pretty much agreeing with that.
Going back to gay comedy in Australia, I had the misfortune to see some of the Pam Ann Show on the Comedy Channel last week. This is very odd: a woman comedian who dresses up like a drag queen and seemingly aims for an audience mostly of gay male flight attendants. She is spectacularly unfunny, and if you look at the comments here, I am not alone in so thinking. (Best summary: "Feeble attempt to be a female (!) Bob Downe, the twist being no panache, poor scripting and no apparent talent.")
At least she goes to prove that no matter how much more sensitive people might feel gay men are, they don't as a class necessarily have any better refined taste in humour.
This lists 10 plays which are currently running in England to reasonable box office.
It seems to me that when it comes to gay themed musicals/comedy, they are usually much better reviewed (and more widely viewed) than the inherent quality deserves. It's like how Margaret and David (At the Movies) can't but help give an Australian movie an extra 1/2 to 1 star just for being Australian. I cite the movie versions of "Priscilla" and "La Cage" as examples.
The only gay drama that I can recall seeing much of was the TV version of Angels in America. The whole thing was terribly overwrought, I thought, but I seem to recall quite a few reviews pretty much agreeing with that.
Going back to gay comedy in Australia, I had the misfortune to see some of the Pam Ann Show on the Comedy Channel last week. This is very odd: a woman comedian who dresses up like a drag queen and seemingly aims for an audience mostly of gay male flight attendants. She is spectacularly unfunny, and if you look at the comments here, I am not alone in so thinking. (Best summary: "Feeble attempt to be a female (!) Bob Downe, the twist being no panache, poor scripting and no apparent talent.")
At least she goes to prove that no matter how much more sensitive people might feel gay men are, they don't as a class necessarily have any better refined taste in humour.
Determined
Drug-Sub Culture - The Latest Way to Get Cocaine Out of Colombia? Underwater. - NYTimes.com
Interesting article on (large) semi-submersibles being used to smuggle drugs.
Interesting article on (large) semi-submersibles being used to smuggle drugs.
Unexpected
BBC NEWS | Health | Statins link to healthy prostate
A statin is included in the mooted "polypill", which (I think) was designed only with heart disease and strokes in mind. If it also has a substantial protective effect on very common prostate problems, it would be a very attractive bonus.Statins are currently used to lower cholesterol and help prevent heart attacks and strokes.
However, there is growing evidence that the drugs also prevent cancer cells from dividing, and may even cause some cancer cells to die.
Worldwide, prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death.
The US Mayo Clinic followed 2,447 men aged 40 to 79 for nearly two decades.
They found men who took statins were three times less likely to develop prostate cancer than men who did not take the drugs.
They also found statin users were 57% less likely to develop an enlarge prostate.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
A late Anzac post
Here's my late father, probably in the North Atlantic, during (or shortly after) World War II. I'm not sure who the scowling figure in the background is. (A Chief Petty Officer, perhaps?)
He was never one to speak much about his war time experiences, and as far as I know, was lucky enough to avoid major action. But it's hard to imagine from the comfortable perspective of the last 40 years the social upheaval of a World War, and our thoughts and gratitude are, naturally, richly deserved.
He was never one to speak much about his war time experiences, and as far as I know, was lucky enough to avoid major action. But it's hard to imagine from the comfortable perspective of the last 40 years the social upheaval of a World War, and our thoughts and gratitude are, naturally, richly deserved.
Friday, April 24, 2009
A severe attack of the cutes
Gather the kiddies around, don't let them read the previous post, and just watch this:
Pope support
How can we change 'macho' attitudes to sex? | Society | guardian.co.uk
It's hard to read this article in The Guardian without thinking that it basically supports what the Pope and George Pell were attacked for saying a few weeks back.
On the issue of use of condoms within marriage: I would be concerned if the Pope's view was commonly taken by African women as meaning that they should still have unprotected sex with their husband even if they know he is HIV positive. But in fact, as one article I referred to in the previous post indicated, Catholic moralists would probably argue that it would be wrong for a HIV positive husband to insist on sex at all. (I don't know about most of my readers, but if I were in such a wife's situation, there's no way I would want to keep a sex life going with the husband - condom or not.)
For a situation where it is only suspected (through a belief that he is being unfaithful, say) that the husband is HIV positive, it seems to me doubtful in the extreme that unprotected sex within the marriage would be due to the Catholic teaching. After all, condoms don't exactly enhance the experience: a fact which condom promoters don't seem to ever want to acknowledge.
A wife's insistence on use of one when she only suspects the husband may be HIV positive is likely to be resented by him, and seen as taking away his perceived right to maximum enjoyment. And besides, she may want a child.
I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of cases, while a wife's decision to not insist (or her inability to insist) that her husband use a condom is consistent with Catholic teaching, but her position is far from primarily motivated by such teaching. On the husband's side, adherence to the Papal view on condoms would almost never be the reason that he does not use one with another partner or a prostitute.
(Update: is it possibly a partial reason a husband tells his wife that she should not make him use one? Maybe, in some cases, but again its doubtful from the Catholic point of view that he should be having sex at all if there are doubts about his sexual health. But again, isn't it far more likely that in most cases it is husband's selfishness that is the main reason he doesn't want to use one?)
Another way of looking at it is to say this: if the Catholic Church changed its teaching on condoms in Africa tomorrow, would it make a substantial difference to the HIV transmission rate? I think it's extremely doubtful that it would.
At heart, the problems are much more likely to cultural ones as the article suggests.
Update 2: having said all of that, I would be more than happy for the Catholic Church to revise its view on contraception and the idea that all sex has to be capable of procreation. What I am reacting against is the oft-repeated claim that Catholicism that is killing millions by virtue of its current teaching.
It's hard to read this article in The Guardian without thinking that it basically supports what the Pope and George Pell were attacked for saying a few weeks back.
On the issue of use of condoms within marriage: I would be concerned if the Pope's view was commonly taken by African women as meaning that they should still have unprotected sex with their husband even if they know he is HIV positive. But in fact, as one article I referred to in the previous post indicated, Catholic moralists would probably argue that it would be wrong for a HIV positive husband to insist on sex at all. (I don't know about most of my readers, but if I were in such a wife's situation, there's no way I would want to keep a sex life going with the husband - condom or not.)
For a situation where it is only suspected (through a belief that he is being unfaithful, say) that the husband is HIV positive, it seems to me doubtful in the extreme that unprotected sex within the marriage would be due to the Catholic teaching. After all, condoms don't exactly enhance the experience: a fact which condom promoters don't seem to ever want to acknowledge.
A wife's insistence on use of one when she only suspects the husband may be HIV positive is likely to be resented by him, and seen as taking away his perceived right to maximum enjoyment. And besides, she may want a child.
I strongly suspect that in the vast majority of cases, while a wife's decision to not insist (or her inability to insist) that her husband use a condom is consistent with Catholic teaching, but her position is far from primarily motivated by such teaching. On the husband's side, adherence to the Papal view on condoms would almost never be the reason that he does not use one with another partner or a prostitute.
(Update: is it possibly a partial reason a husband tells his wife that she should not make him use one? Maybe, in some cases, but again its doubtful from the Catholic point of view that he should be having sex at all if there are doubts about his sexual health. But again, isn't it far more likely that in most cases it is husband's selfishness that is the main reason he doesn't want to use one?)
Another way of looking at it is to say this: if the Catholic Church changed its teaching on condoms in Africa tomorrow, would it make a substantial difference to the HIV transmission rate? I think it's extremely doubtful that it would.
At heart, the problems are much more likely to cultural ones as the article suggests.
Update 2: having said all of that, I would be more than happy for the Catholic Church to revise its view on contraception and the idea that all sex has to be capable of procreation. What I am reacting against is the oft-repeated claim that Catholicism that is killing millions by virtue of its current teaching.
Spin your way out of this one, Kevin
Rudd's policies encourage would-be asylum seeker - ABC News
One man said he plans to attempt the boat journey even though his refugee status is already confirmed, because he has heard he is more likely to be accepted by Kevin Rudd's Government than its predecessor...Heh heh heh.
"Kevin Rudd - he's changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different," a second asylum seeker told the ABC.
"Maybe accepted but when John Howard, president, Australia, he said come back to Indonesia."
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Folk crisis averted
Online dating service for Austrias folk musicians | Austria News
Austrias folk musicians have problems to find the right partner. To guarantee enough of offspring from relationships between folk musicians, the governing body of that certain musical direction opened an online dating service for such kind of people.I think I have found a new favourite nation to regularly ridicule.
Dr Mickey?
How nosy mice sniff out sickness - health - 22 April 2009 - New Scientist
I didn't know that mice and rats had been shown to have some disease sniffing ability, like dogs have with cancer.
(There was a documentary on SBS recently about trials in England with cancer sniffing dogs. I was only able to half watch it, but the point of the story seemed to be that there was much professional scepticism about how useful this ability could be in real life, because dogs can have good days and bad days in smelling trials. My experience at the airport with a sniffer beagle that got very excited over a bottle of gin would appear to confirm that.)
Anyway, I hope one day to find a cage of rat assistants in my GP's surgery.
I didn't know that mice and rats had been shown to have some disease sniffing ability, like dogs have with cancer.
(There was a documentary on SBS recently about trials in England with cancer sniffing dogs. I was only able to half watch it, but the point of the story seemed to be that there was much professional scepticism about how useful this ability could be in real life, because dogs can have good days and bad days in smelling trials. My experience at the airport with a sniffer beagle that got very excited over a bottle of gin would appear to confirm that.)
Anyway, I hope one day to find a cage of rat assistants in my GP's surgery.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Cities not to work in
Is Jakarta a bad place to work? Say it ain’t so | The Jakarta Post
Businessweek has ranked the world's worst cities for expats to work in:
Businessweek has ranked the world's worst cities for expats to work in:
The report ranked Jakarta second, just below Lagos in Nigeria and above Riyadh in Saudi Arabia, saying the threat of violence from extremists, in particular, was a serious drawback to living in Jakarta.But the Jakarta Post notes this quasi-positive spin:
The report said despite problems common to many developing cities such as the risk of disease, poor sanitation and excessive pollution, “Indonesia can be an enticing location”.Many people in comments are disputing that it should be at such a high ranking. I like this one though:
This is a bum rap. I have worked as a frequent visitor in Jakarta and I have found it to be a pleasant city in many respects. Of course, the traffic can be nightmarish and the air pollution can injure one's respiratory tract.Interestingly, more than one commenter cites Malayasia as being the most racist country in the region.
If you don't have to travel far each day, speak Bahasa and have a modicum of patience, one can thrive there.
More on that baby
Gulfnews: Mother of 'illegal' infant arrested
It's not clear from the rest of the story as to whether there was anything improper at all in the documents she produced.
It's a great way for a nation to attract foreign workers.
A mother whose infant daughter was declared an illegal resident in Sharjah was arrested on Monday by the Sharjah Naturalisation and Residency Department (SNRD) on a charge of submitting forged documents. She was released hours later on condition she would return to the department on Tuesday with a guarantor's passport.Her infant daughter Nayana, 18 months, had to spend the day at baby care awaiting the release of her mother who was still in SNRD custody.
The babysitter told Gulf News that she didn't know what to do with the baby who cried all the time.
I like the personal detail at the end.
It's not clear from the rest of the story as to whether there was anything improper at all in the documents she produced.
It's a great way for a nation to attract foreign workers.
A long term reason for optimism?
Findings - Use Energy, Get Rich and Save the Planet - NYTimes.com
John Tierney will cop a lot of flack for running these predictions:
But the problem is, will the attainment of average global wealth of sufficient size to "green" the planet take place fast enough to prevent a disastrous accumulation of CO2?
It has occurred to me before that it might just be possible that, regardless of (probably unsuccessful) attempts at effective CO2 limiting treaties, foreseeable (or even unforeseen) changes to energy technology might just mean that CO2 production is rapidly contained over the next 50 years anyway.
Of course, if James Hanson is right, that's far too late. But, if God is really smiling upon the planet, a milder version of the Maunder minimum might buy the nations enough time to prepare for a return to higher than normal temperatures. Of course, that's assuming that people could be persuaded during a mini ice age that global warming was still a threat - which is probably a big ask!
Also, a really severe mini-ice age is not likely to help, I guess, as it would be reason to not cut back on coal fired power generation in those countries undergoing bad winters.
Anyway, there's always ocean acidification to worry about regardless of temperatures.
John Tierney will cop a lot of flack for running these predictions:
I don't doubt the point about the rich being greener than the poor. (It's also the assured way of containing population growth.)1. There will be no green revolution in energy or anything else. No leader or law or treaty will radically change the energy sources for people and industries in the United States or other countries. No recession or depression will make a lasting change in consumers’ passions to use energy, make money and buy new technology — and that, believe it or not, is good news, because...
2. The richer everyone gets, the greener the planet will be in the long run.
But the problem is, will the attainment of average global wealth of sufficient size to "green" the planet take place fast enough to prevent a disastrous accumulation of CO2?
It has occurred to me before that it might just be possible that, regardless of (probably unsuccessful) attempts at effective CO2 limiting treaties, foreseeable (or even unforeseen) changes to energy technology might just mean that CO2 production is rapidly contained over the next 50 years anyway.
Of course, if James Hanson is right, that's far too late. But, if God is really smiling upon the planet, a milder version of the Maunder minimum might buy the nations enough time to prepare for a return to higher than normal temperatures. Of course, that's assuming that people could be persuaded during a mini ice age that global warming was still a threat - which is probably a big ask!
Also, a really severe mini-ice age is not likely to help, I guess, as it would be reason to not cut back on coal fired power generation in those countries undergoing bad winters.
Anyway, there's always ocean acidification to worry about regardless of temperatures.
The appeal of fighting witches
Two books about witches. - By Johann Hari - Slate Magazine
Interesting article here about why belief in witchcraft is still common in significant parts of the world.
Interesting article here about why belief in witchcraft is still common in significant parts of the world.
The problem with India
India: the next climate obstacle? - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist
A New Scientist blog opines:
A New Scientist blog opines:
I would look to India for the next wall of resistance from developing nations. At negotiations, it is a forceful opponent to limiting emissions in developing nations. (Understandably so: the average Indian emits 1.2 metric tons of carbon each year, compared to 20.4 for the average US citizen.)
Indian negotiators have been known to flatly refuse to even discuss the matter of limiting emissions in developing nations during some negotiations because it was not explicitly on the agenda.
What Mahmoud left out
Ahmadinejad receives 'warm welcome' home after UN summit speech | World news | guardian.co.uk
Ahmadinejad omitted some remarks from the prepared text issued by Iranian diplomats in Geneva which described the Holocaust as "ambiguous and dubious".The eventual response from Israel might be far from that description.
On trial for writing an opinion?
Obama remarks on torture memos leave open possibility of prosecution - Los Angeles Times
Like this makes sense:
Of course, one of the common arguments against torture is that it does not produce reliable information in any event. But is that necessarily true? The CIA and intelligence services of all countries have a lot of experience in the field: do they like people to know how successful it can be?
There is probably a lot of information out there on the issue, but I don't have time to go looking for it now.
One other point I find curious about this whole matter is that, if the one of the interrogation "benefits" of waterboarding is that the victim thinks they are about to die, surely that aspect of it decreases over time if you've been subjected to it a dozen times and you still haven't died? Or does the psychological impact of it still increase over time, just out of fear of undergoing yet another round of an extremely unpleasant procedure?
Going back to Obama's flying the kite on Justice Department prosecutions, Powerline has this to say (and of course I agree):
I also tend to agree with Tigerhawk's take on this: if you have caught a terrorist who is prepared to kill thousands of civilians, it is surely helpful for him to at least believe that he is about to be tortured. Obama has effectively removed that fear, and that is not a good thing for the future security of his nation.
UPDATE 2: The New York Times reports that Obama's own intelligence director, Admiral Blair, supports the Dick Cheney position that important information was disclosed from waterboarding (or other techniques authorised by the Bush administration). I think we can assume Cheney was telling the truth.
Like this makes sense:
Although President Obama opposes the prosecution of CIA operatives who carried out the most controversial interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration, Obama suggested today that he had not ruled out action against Justice Department officials who authorized the tactics....Update: further interesting details on this in The Guardian version of the story:
Obama said that "with respect to those who formulated those legal decisions, I would say that that is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws, and I don't want to prejudge that. I think that there are a host of very complicated issues involved there."
The White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said only three days ago that the administration did not favour prosecutions of those who had devised the policy, and Gibbs echoed that on Monday.Cheney has a point. Surely most people are surprised by the number of times some detainees were waterboarded. Unless you believe that individual CIA operatives just started doing it for fun (a wildly improbably assumption, given the amount of paperwork that appears to surround these cases), they clearly must have been under the impression that something was to be gained (or was being gained) in the process.
Obama's about-turn may reflect the sense of outrage, at least among US liberals, over further details of CIA interrogations that have emerged during the last few days, including the use of waterboarding against one detainee 183 times. Or it could be purely political, a retaliation for sniping against him by Cheney.
In an interview with Fox News on Monday night, Cheney said he was disturbed by the release of the previously classified memos. He called for the declassification of other memos that he said would illustrate the value of intelligence gained from the interrogations.
"I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw, that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," he said.
Of course, one of the common arguments against torture is that it does not produce reliable information in any event. But is that necessarily true? The CIA and intelligence services of all countries have a lot of experience in the field: do they like people to know how successful it can be?
There is probably a lot of information out there on the issue, but I don't have time to go looking for it now.
One other point I find curious about this whole matter is that, if the one of the interrogation "benefits" of waterboarding is that the victim thinks they are about to die, surely that aspect of it decreases over time if you've been subjected to it a dozen times and you still haven't died? Or does the psychological impact of it still increase over time, just out of fear of undergoing yet another round of an extremely unpleasant procedure?
Going back to Obama's flying the kite on Justice Department prosecutions, Powerline has this to say (and of course I agree):
The idea of prosecuting a lawyer because a wrote a legal analysis with which the current Attorney General disagrees is so outrageous that I can't believe it would be seriously considered.UPDATE: some commentary on the issue of whether torture works.
I also tend to agree with Tigerhawk's take on this: if you have caught a terrorist who is prepared to kill thousands of civilians, it is surely helpful for him to at least believe that he is about to be tortured. Obama has effectively removed that fear, and that is not a good thing for the future security of his nation.
UPDATE 2: The New York Times reports that Obama's own intelligence director, Admiral Blair, supports the Dick Cheney position that important information was disclosed from waterboarding (or other techniques authorised by the Bush administration). I think we can assume Cheney was telling the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)