This week's winner in the idiotic sentence of the week competition:
A letter from a Boston Globe reader in Wood-Ridge, NJ makes a "crucial" point: "Americans may not trust Iran's leaders, but we trust our own less."
I couldn't formulate a more damning indictment of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Friday, December 07, 2007
Green scare
If inordinate fear of communism is called a red scare, inordinate fear of global warming should be called a green scare.
Letter in Commentary magazine
Arthur Herman’s otherwise excellent essay “Who Owns the Vietnam War?” (December 2007) appears to downplay the devastating effects of Nixon’s bombing campaigns in Cambodia. He describes the precision of smart bombs and claims that “the collateral damage caused by American bombing [in Vietnam]…was actually very limited.”
Philip Short, Michael Lind, Elizabeth Becker and others offer clear evidence that the US bombing created enormous hardship for Cambodia’s rural populations, causing large peasant migrations to both Phnom Penh and the forests. Regardless of how smart the bombs were, there were a lot of them—according to some accounts, more than were dropped in all of World War II--and many many Cambodian villages were destroyed. The bombing was also an effective recruiting tool for the Khmer Rouge, although the banditry of the South Vietnamese troops in Cambodia was also important in creating support for the Communists.
Although the bombing might be justified by Cambodia’s violation of its claimed neutrality, minimizing the collateral damage makes it easy for the anti-war Left to condemn everything we did in Indochina by pointing to an apparent lack of sympathy for the civilian population.
On the other hand, Mr. Herman is right to dismiss attempts to hold the American bombing accountable for the Cambodian genocide that followed. Some have proposed that the “savage” American bombing drove the Khmer Rouge to respond with savagery of their own—although no other population in history subjected to bombing has reacted by murdering millions of their compatriots. Noam Chomsky went beyond the moral equivalency of this thesis, proposing a morality tale with the United States as the villain and the Khmer Rouge the victim. It is sophistry to blame the anti-Communist campaign of the U.S. when nearly two million Cambodians were murdered by a Marxist-Leninist government whose leader, Pol Pot, adopted the terror strategies of Stalin and Mao. They were called Red Khmers for a reason.
Philip Short, Michael Lind, Elizabeth Becker and others offer clear evidence that the US bombing created enormous hardship for Cambodia’s rural populations, causing large peasant migrations to both Phnom Penh and the forests. Regardless of how smart the bombs were, there were a lot of them—according to some accounts, more than were dropped in all of World War II--and many many Cambodian villages were destroyed. The bombing was also an effective recruiting tool for the Khmer Rouge, although the banditry of the South Vietnamese troops in Cambodia was also important in creating support for the Communists.
Although the bombing might be justified by Cambodia’s violation of its claimed neutrality, minimizing the collateral damage makes it easy for the anti-war Left to condemn everything we did in Indochina by pointing to an apparent lack of sympathy for the civilian population.
On the other hand, Mr. Herman is right to dismiss attempts to hold the American bombing accountable for the Cambodian genocide that followed. Some have proposed that the “savage” American bombing drove the Khmer Rouge to respond with savagery of their own—although no other population in history subjected to bombing has reacted by murdering millions of their compatriots. Noam Chomsky went beyond the moral equivalency of this thesis, proposing a morality tale with the United States as the villain and the Khmer Rouge the victim. It is sophistry to blame the anti-Communist campaign of the U.S. when nearly two million Cambodians were murdered by a Marxist-Leninist government whose leader, Pol Pot, adopted the terror strategies of Stalin and Mao. They were called Red Khmers for a reason.
Evolution of the zebra fish
I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about evolutionary biology, but after sending a letter to the WSJ yesterday on intelligent design, I opened my morning Globe to find a front page story about a biologist who was fired for his “creationist” beliefs.
The story mentions his “Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation,” but it’s not clear if this is the reporter’s interpretation of what all creationists believe or his own view, i.e., that he’s a knuckle-dragging Bible literalist who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Given that the man has a master’s degree in biology and a Ph.D. in philosophy (from St. John's University), it seems hard to imagine, but anything is possible.
However, the following paragraph gave me pause:
"[Nathaniel Abraham] was hired by Hahn's marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining '. . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective.'"
One would hope that given Dr. Abraham’s education and profession, he does not deny that animals are capable of adapting to their environment, i.e., that evolution through a process of genetic mutation exists. Dr Abraham might differ with Darwin however, on two of Darwin’s larger hypotheses: 1) that new species are created through a series of genetic mutations; and 2) that these mutations are entirely random. Intelligent design theory proposes that although genetic mutation creates micro-evolution within species, there is no proof that it creates new species. I assume that Woods Hole is not expecting the zebra fish Dr. Abraham is studying to evolve into elephant seals.
On the second point, one can accept that some mutations are random, and one can study these mutations using scientific methods—see Michael Behe’s recent book The Edge of Evolution, which examines the limits of random mutation in the malaria virus—without accepting that all mutation is random. If a scientist believes that the awesome complexity of life requires an intelligent designer, i.e., God, it need not affect his research on the response of a zebra fish to chemical contaminants.
The story mentions his “Christian belief that the Bible presents a true account of human creation,” but it’s not clear if this is the reporter’s interpretation of what all creationists believe or his own view, i.e., that he’s a knuckle-dragging Bible literalist who thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. Given that the man has a master’s degree in biology and a Ph.D. in philosophy (from St. John's University), it seems hard to imagine, but anything is possible.
However, the following paragraph gave me pause:
"[Nathaniel Abraham] was hired by Hahn's marine biology lab in March 2004 because of his expertise working with zebra fish and in toxicology and developmental biology, according to court documents. He did not tell anyone his creationist views before being hired. Hahn's lab, according to its website, studies how aquatic animals respond to chemical contaminants by examining '. . . mechanisms from a comparative/evolutionary perspective.'"
One would hope that given Dr. Abraham’s education and profession, he does not deny that animals are capable of adapting to their environment, i.e., that evolution through a process of genetic mutation exists. Dr Abraham might differ with Darwin however, on two of Darwin’s larger hypotheses: 1) that new species are created through a series of genetic mutations; and 2) that these mutations are entirely random. Intelligent design theory proposes that although genetic mutation creates micro-evolution within species, there is no proof that it creates new species. I assume that Woods Hole is not expecting the zebra fish Dr. Abraham is studying to evolve into elephant seals.
On the second point, one can accept that some mutations are random, and one can study these mutations using scientific methods—see Michael Behe’s recent book The Edge of Evolution, which examines the limits of random mutation in the malaria virus—without accepting that all mutation is random. If a scientist believes that the awesome complexity of life requires an intelligent designer, i.e., God, it need not affect his research on the response of a zebra fish to chemical contaminants.
"Not comfortable thinking about science"
Letter to the WSJ:
Lawrence M. Krauss’s valid case for increasing scientific literacy in America (Wall Street Journal, “Science and the Candidates," 12/6/07) would have been more compelling if he had not tried to bring in the debate about evolutionary theory. The ability of a presidential candidate to tackle the technological challenges facing America is unrelated to his views on intelligent design.
Mr. Krauss points out that when avian flu appeared, “no one suggested that ‘intelligent design’… could provide answers.” No one suggested that a rocket scientist or an auto mechanic could provide answers, either. Intelligent design investigates a very specific question: did the complex design observable everywhere around us arise through a series of completely random genetic mutations, as Darwin proposed, or was some form of intelligence necessary to guide the process?
In fact the mutation of viruses like avian flu are studied by intelligent design researchers—but not with the goal of preventing infectious disease that Mr. Krauss is referring to. In his recent book, The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe makes the case from data on the malaria virus that the power of random mutation to create new forms of life is limited.
Michael Behe seems convincing to a layman. He may be proven wrong. I’m not averse to the idea that evolutionary biology will one day trace how random mutation created a whale from a paramecium. At present though Darwin’s hypothesis is still being tested, and the larger question of the origin of life remains an unsolved mystery. I find this debate about where we came from lively and exciting. When Lawrence Krauss tells us that the debate is over (not unlike global warming alarmists), that intelligent design is believed by people who don’t know that the earth goes around the sun, who are “not comfortable thinking about science,” it comes across as anti-intellectual and close-minded.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119690672602315322.html
Lawrence M. Krauss’s valid case for increasing scientific literacy in America (Wall Street Journal, “Science and the Candidates," 12/6/07) would have been more compelling if he had not tried to bring in the debate about evolutionary theory. The ability of a presidential candidate to tackle the technological challenges facing America is unrelated to his views on intelligent design.
Mr. Krauss points out that when avian flu appeared, “no one suggested that ‘intelligent design’… could provide answers.” No one suggested that a rocket scientist or an auto mechanic could provide answers, either. Intelligent design investigates a very specific question: did the complex design observable everywhere around us arise through a series of completely random genetic mutations, as Darwin proposed, or was some form of intelligence necessary to guide the process?
In fact the mutation of viruses like avian flu are studied by intelligent design researchers—but not with the goal of preventing infectious disease that Mr. Krauss is referring to. In his recent book, The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe makes the case from data on the malaria virus that the power of random mutation to create new forms of life is limited.
Michael Behe seems convincing to a layman. He may be proven wrong. I’m not averse to the idea that evolutionary biology will one day trace how random mutation created a whale from a paramecium. At present though Darwin’s hypothesis is still being tested, and the larger question of the origin of life remains an unsolved mystery. I find this debate about where we came from lively and exciting. When Lawrence Krauss tells us that the debate is over (not unlike global warming alarmists), that intelligent design is believed by people who don’t know that the earth goes around the sun, who are “not comfortable thinking about science,” it comes across as anti-intellectual and close-minded.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119690672602315322.html
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Irrational obsession with CO2
The Globe editorial "Carbon Capture, but then what?" points out that converting the Somerset facility to coal gas will reduce air pollution, including mercury and sulfur, but you urge the DEP to halt this good project because the details haven't been perfectly worked out for capturing and sequestering CO2 emissions. One might say that this illustrates the maxim that the perfect is the enemy of the good, but I'm not convinced that the goal of capturing carbon is worthwhile. There is very good evidence that increases in CO2 lag behind increases in temperature by 800 to 2000 years; i.e., increased CO2 does not lead to global warming--global warming leads to increased CO2. An irrational obsession with CO2, a non-toxic gas necessary for plant life, should not obstruct valid efforts to reduce air pollution.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Free market subsidies
Allen E. Smith calls for new energy policy legislation, arguing that the ethanol industry is an example of "our preoccupation with letting the free market determine our national energy policy."
The only reason that ethanol is in our gas tanks is because of energy policy legislation mandating its use, along with billions in subsidies for ethanol producers. Rather than a failure of the free market, ethanol is a perfect example of how legislators with a poor grasp of the energy market, abetted by corn and green lobbyists, can push an ill-conceived project forward. Allen Smith, no. Adam Smith, yes.
(published in Boston Globe 11/20/07)
The only reason that ethanol is in our gas tanks is because of energy policy legislation mandating its use, along with billions in subsidies for ethanol producers. Rather than a failure of the free market, ethanol is a perfect example of how legislators with a poor grasp of the energy market, abetted by corn and green lobbyists, can push an ill-conceived project forward. Allen Smith, no. Adam Smith, yes.
(published in Boston Globe 11/20/07)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
