Goodness gracious, what is it about this time of year? Perhaps the Oscars and Groundhog Day and Valentine’s Day give us a triple-whammy of being told what we’re supposed to be thinking about things, and just get the creative juice stirred up. Best Sentence IX, it would seem, is going to have to be chainsawed in half and shared, for there are two contenders and they are both far too good to be ignored.
Blogger friend Buck at Exile in Portales has been — heh — “on fire” with this whole silliness about anthropogenic global warming, in which the Good Lord or some other omnipresent and omnipotent deity decided us bloggers didn’t have enough late-night-comedy material and snowed out a press conference about GW. Yeah that’s right. “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?” was going to be held in the Rayburn House Office Building on February 14th, and they’re just going to have to reschedule…because…well, it was just to freakin’ cold.
You can’t ignore that. It’s like walking right up to Beavis and Butthead and congratulating them on their efforts to “entertain us.” Huh huh, he said…
But on to the best sentence award. On Tuesday, he had a post up that linked to an article in the Times Online UK, which starts off with the candidate for Best Sentence IX itself…
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
And from there, things just remain…enlightening. Straightforward. Obviously true. Things we all know to be the case, but that very few people talk about anymore, like “enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.” Go read the whole thing.
But that is not the contender for Best Sentence. Coulter hits her stride when she starts to defend the Real Deal Man, and she does so thusly…
There was one refreshing aspect to Obama’s announcement: It was nice to see a man call a press conference this week to announce something other than he was the father of Anna Nicole Smith’s baby.
Once again, she must have been up half the night cooking up that one. Whatever. It still works.
Among the “climate change skeptics” we are instructed to ignore on a daily basis, yesterday it was the canuck who was editorializing and he gave no quarter and held nothing back.
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
:
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
From the “Environmental News Network”: “Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told.” “The science is solid,” says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
“The science is solid,” says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
“The science is really solid,” says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. “The science is very solid.”
And at that point, on “Larry King Live” last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: “Heidi says the science is solid and I can’t criticize her because she never says what science she’s talking about.”
Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed’s heart at an Al Gore lecture.
Alas, the science isn’t so solid. In the ’70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers “climate change.” If it’s hot, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s cold, that’s a sign of “climate change.” If it’s 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because “climate change” is accelerating out of control.
For those who care, Lindzen could be called dirty in the sense that he’s said to have personally received income from oil interests. Ross Gelbspan wrote an article for Harper’s Magazine clear back in 1995, instructing us to believe that the planet was heating up and that we are henceforth to ignore anyone saying otherwise, especially Lindzen. So our orders are quite clear on this.
Which begs the question. What about, just for the sake of argument, a climate-related dispute that is more easily measured? How about whether it’s raining outside right now? If you’re somehow in a position where you can’t find out, and one guy tells you it’s pouring and another guy tells you it’s all sunshine and blue sky and singing birds — does it matter who’s getting paid by whom?
I mean sure, one of those two guys has to be wrong. Is it the guy who’s making an income? Could be. Maybe. Probably? I’m not so sure. And in the dispute about anthropogenic global warming, you’ve got a situation where both guys are getting paid, since it doesn’t seem there’s a lot of public grant money flowing to these global warming skeptics. Not only does that somewhat excuse Dr. Lindzen — gotta make money somewhere, ya know — but it fairly devastates the “don’t listen to him because he’s getting paid” paradigm even under premises most favorable to it. We are to presume — with no evidence — that there is a reverse-correlation between cashing checks, and being right. Both sides are cashing checks. Your point?
The same muck is supposed to be sticking to Dr. Ball. Except…if you bother to pay attention to the details…not quite so much. His indictment has to do with advising Friends of Science. His page at SourceWatch, the liberal pro-global-warming tattletale reference, lists not a single other detail persuading me to ignore him for any reason at all. What of the FoS outfit? “In an August 12, 2006, The Globe and Mail revealed that the group had received significant funding via anonymous, indirect donations from the oil industry.” Huh. If they’re anonymous, how do you know they’re from the oil industry?
Friends [of Science] dared not take money directly from energy companies. The optics, Mr. [Albert] Jacobs [geologist and retired oil-explorations manager] admits, would have been terrible.
This conundrum, he says, was solved by University of Calgary political scientist Barry Cooper, a well-known associate of Stephen Harper.
As his is privilege as a faculty member, Prof. Cooper set up a fund at the university dubbed the Science Education Fund. Donors were encouraged to give to the fund through the Calgary Foundation, which administers charitable giving in the Calgary area, and has a policy of guarding donors’ identities. The Science Education Fund in turn provides money for the Friends of Science, as well as Tim Ball’s travel expenses, according to Mr. Jacobs.
And who are the donors? No one will say.
“[The money’s] not exclusively from the oil and gas industry,” says Prof. Cooper. “It’s also from foundations and individuals. I can’t tell you the names of those companies, or the foundations for that matter, or the individuals.”
When pushed in another interview, however, Prof. Cooper admits, “There were some oil companies.”
Omigosh! So as the pro-global-warming movement spreads a whole lot of unfounded rumors about climate change, actively encouraging people to assess for themselves the merits of complicated climate models and the effect of greenhouse gases by — peeking out their windows and muttering about this hot summer or that mild winter — the oil companies are doing something besides taking it up the ass?
How ominous. I can hear that spooky organ music playing now.
But what I find really interesting is, relying on Source Watch to plumb the depths of whatever might slander Dr. Ball’s name so I don’t have to be burdened with reading through what he has to say…and that seems pretty safe — this is the extent of it. Dr. Ball gets his filthy lucre from FoS, FoS accepts private donations, and there’s oil companies in there. Somewhere. So I’ve heard.
You know…it just seems to me, if Dr. Ball has some firm evidence for what he’s claiming, that’s more important to the argument than how he pays his mortgage and buys his groceries. And if he doesn’t, well that would be more important too.
Well my goodness, they have been piling up without me putting out even a half-assed effort to keep up with them, huh?
It’s a very important issue for our time. We know the earth is getting much warmer lately, and that man is the only cause of it. If we reform our infrastructure, put so many factories out of commission that the world’s major superpower is corrupting our environment no more than the northern tip of Switzerland, come what may — we just might live. If we don’t, we’ll drown in one bitchin’ tsunami after another.
We know this to be true. How do we know it? Because our Democrats really played up the Mark Foley scandal and they were able to b-a-r-e-l-y take over Congress, so President Bush was cowed last night into saying:
America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. These technologies will help us become better stewards of the environment – and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change. [emphasis mine]
So there ya have it. Congressman pervert sends nasty e-mails to page boys…new Congress…President says something…Presto. That’s the way we know things. Kind of reminds me of what Tommy Lee Jones said in Men in Black…a thousand years ago we knew the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago we knew the earth was flat and 5 minutes ago you knew we are alone in the universe. That is pretty much it. We “know” the earth is heating up and we “know” it’s our fault.
A few days ago I pulled this off the Wikipedia entry for the Weather Channel. I saved it because it looked useful, and in my opinion it did not comport with NPOV, the Neutral Point-of-View doctrine that is central to Wikipedia’s quality standards. See, I like NPOV myself, but I don’t think things have to be NPOV to be useful. You hear from both sides, however irrational and bigoted they may be, you’ll learn much more than if you just stick to the middle of the road.
But Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of practice. So it was easy to see, this was going to go away. So I saved it. Sure enough, it’s no longer there.
Controversies
On December 21, 2006, Dr. Heidi Cullen posted JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE… in The Weather Channel’s web site. Dr. Cullen’s posting took the position that American Meteorological Society (AMS) should strip the certification of any meteorologist that publicly questions that global warming is anything other than a manmade phenomenon. This position of marginalizing meteorologists who argue that recent weather variations may have a natural explanations struck many scientist as politically motivated and flawed. While Dr. Cullen and The Weather Channel denied any political motivation, the position generated significant editorial comment. JUNK CONTROVERSY NOT JUNK SCIENCE…
The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks. Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming. The Weather Channel Takes on Global Warming
I saw that one coming. What surprised me, was the scolding tone of the person who I’m assuming was responsible for the removal. He could be talking about something else; I hope so.
We have an anon IP who is continually inserting right-slanted edits into the section on the 2007 blog controversy. For what it’s worth, while conservatives seem to be trying to make this into a cause celebre (and there is some indication that this may be an astroturf campaign), the vast majority of the scientific community considers it to be a right-wing temper tantrum and therefore a tempest in a teapot. It also does not help that said anon clearly lacks the scientific background to be making knowledgeable contributions to this section — no, you’re not required to have a PhD, but a back-of-the-envelope understanding of the basic issues involved (as well as a firm grasp of the scientific definition of “theory”) would go a long way towards knowing what is needed to comment knowledgeably.
As it is, the article fails to reflect both that anthrogenic global warming is in fact the accepted scientific consensus, and that the vast majority of Dr. Cullen’s critics are coming from the right side of the political spectrum. Thoughts? [emphasis mine]
If this is the fellow responsible for removing the section quoted above, I approve of the action but strongly deplore his reasoning. Since my objection is to the reasoning, I don’t suppose it very much matters whether there is any connection at all between the Wonya Lucas tidbit, and Mister “back of the envelope” boy. His is an exercise in Clean Thinking, which over the long term is responsible for nothing that’s helped us, ever. Did it belong in Wikipedia? Absolutely not. Am I better off not knowing it? Eh…I don’t think so…and I somewhat resent having secrets kept from me, and having some bill-o-goods sold to me that this dumbing-down is for my benefit.
I like knowing about Wonya Lucas. She seems to be a big part of the story. Earlier this month Melanie Morgan wrote up an expose that you’ll never get any of these “purists” to take seriously, since it appeared in WorldNet Daily. But it’s good to know.
The Weather Channel debuted in 1982 and went on to earn a reputation as a well-known and respected cable network. The explosive success of the cable channel prompted the publication of a book marking the network’s 20th anniversary. That success has been based on the fact that weather forecasts are sought after by a vast number of Americans on a near-daily basis.
What had been nice about The Weather Channel is that through most of its history it stayed clear of political propaganda and focused on delivering weather forecasts to the nation, supplemented with riveting live reports from the front lines of hurricanes, winter blizzards and springtime floods.
But no more. The Weather Channel is now engaged in a con job on the American people, attempting to scare the public that their actions are destroying the planet by creating a global warming crisis.
The move away from scientific forecasting of the weather to sensationalized leftist political advocacy is in part due to the influence of Wonya Lucas, executive vice president and general manager of The Weather Channel Networks.
Lucas admitted in a recent interview with Media Village that the reprogramming of The Weather Channel was influenced by her tenure at CNN when that network shifted from presenting straight news to personality-driven programming.
Lucas decided that what was good for CNN was good for The Weather Channel, and the objectivity and respectability of the network has now been thrown out the window. It doesn’t matter that CNN’s turn to the left has caused their ratings to plummet; The Weather Channel’s embraced its model.
Media Village reported that the move by The Weather Channel “is intended to establish a broader perspective on the weather category and, says Lucas, to move the brand from functional to emotional.”
Emotional weather forecasting?
Good question. Mixing emotion and thinking can lead to some bad stuff. And some scientists are beginning to worry about it…just a little.
Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer’s heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.
In their efforts to capture the public’s attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It’s probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.
“Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster,” says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.
Now, I have been repeatedly instructed that I am supposed to believe “all” the scientists agree with the global warming mantra — the exceptions are limited to phony scientists who are “on the payroll of the energy industry.” I do not know if James Spann is on the payroll of the energy industry, but I’m confident that if he can be linked to it in any way, I’ll be told about it any minute now. Because he’s gone on the record and said something…unclean…
The climate of this planet has been changing since God put the planet here. It will always change, and the warming in the last 10 years is not much difference than the warming we saw in the 1930s and other decades. And, lets not forget we are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North America and Northern Europe.
If you don’t like to listen to me, find another meteorologist with no tie to grant money for research on the subject. I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.
:
I have nothing against “The Weather Channel”, but they have crossed the line into a political and cultural region where I simply won’t go.
So there ya have it. What we know about global warming, is that the earth has a “mean” temperature, and this temperature is subject to flux. Good thing that it is; what stays static, is limited to things that are dead. Tragically, we have linked the fluctuation to imminent death, when in reality it is a sign of life. The suggestion of doom, thanks to executives like Lucas, has caused a surge of adrenaline to inundate the issue and everything that touches it.
But the bottom-line is, as far as what everyone wants to know about — the theory that we’re causing our own imminent destruction — it’s probably a crock.
All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That’s why they keep changing, and that’s why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of “unknown unknowns” out there. The real world is full of x’s, y’s and z’s, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?
That’s why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.
Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn’t get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong — they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well).
Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can’t speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn’t give them a Seal of Approval.
Thus speaketh Dr. Heidi Cullen, climate change expert. Thank you for proving my point, Dr. Cullen. Science is not about what is known, what is unknown, what is theorized, etc…it’s about opinions, and institutions awarding seals-of-approval for having the correct ones.
This becomes abundantly clear when one reviews what set her off:
Capitalweather.com, a website for hard-core weather junkies in the DC area, recently published an interview with a local meteorologist that highlights the unfortunate divide that exists right now between the climate and weather communities. Yup, that divide is global warming. When asked about the science of global warming, the meteorologist responded:
“The subject of global warming definitely makes headlines in the media and is a topic of much debate. I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but it is complex. Often, it is so politicized and those on both sides don’t always appear to have their facts straight. History has taught us that weather patterns are cyclical and although we have noticed a warming pattern in recent time, I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That’s all I will say about this.”
Yeesh. “I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this…” and away she goes. For withholding your seal of certainty, you should be defrocked of the seal of approval. Only those who are certain, and say so, can be approved. You want to stay approved — be certain. That’s the job.
AND after more than a century of research — based on healthy skepticism — scientists have learned something very important about our planet. It’s warming up — glaciers are melting, sea level is rising and the weather is changing. The primary explanation for this warming is the carbon dioxide released from — among other things — the burning of fossil fuels.
With that knowledge comes responsibility.
Here at The Weather Channel, we have accepted that responsibility, and see it as our job to give YOU the facts on global warming.
Our position on global warming is supported by the scientific community … including the American Meteorological Society. Their official statement says:
“There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.”
I’ve read all your comments saying I want to silence meteorologists who are skeptical of the science of global warming. That is not true. The point of my post was never to stifle discussion. It was to raise it to a level that doesn’t confuse science and politics. Freedom of scientific expression is essential. [emphasis mine]
Excuse me — this poor s.o.b. says, and I quote…”I don’t know what generalizations can be made from this with the lack of long-term scientific data. That’s all I will say about this.” And Dr. Cullen goes off on him. She wants the AMS credentials withheld. The guy doesn’t have the right position on this to be blessed by the AMS.
Now she says the point was never to stifle discussion.
Am I characterizing her screed unfairly? She doesn’t want to “confuse science and politics.” The object of her criticism lacks confidence in something, and simply comments that he doesn’t have the confidence in it to comment beyond a certain point. It seems well-established that Dr. Cullen has castigated the poor fellow not for what he did say, but for what he did not say. There is not, so far as I can tell, a substantial disagreement about what evidence has been presented; the issue is what to make of the evidence. Heidi Cullen’s entire argument is based on the premise that some kind of line has been crossed — all who express doubt, are political propagandists and should be labeled as such. “True” scientists have their minds made up.
That’s the exact opposite of what “science” used to be.
It’s sad, really. She’s trying to invalidate the perception of critics like me, and just about every sentence she puts down provides greater support for what we’ve said. Through authorities like Dr. Cullen, science is getting into the opinion business.
Throughout most of recorded human history, we’ve had something called “science.” It’s steered us in a beneficial direction, and it’s plunged us deeply into thickets and bunny-trails that have been proven wrong hundreds of years later. The pattern that emerges, is that it’s had an illuminating effect on things when it sticks to the facts, and it’s sent us off in the wrong direction when it’s done what Dr. Cullen wants it to do.
The lesson seems to be that if you want to know how things work, you’re only going to make sound progress in figuring this out if you keep in mind what is certain and what is not. In other words, know what it is you don’t know. Based on everything she’s written about this, Heidi Cullen hasn’t impressed me as doing as good a job at this, as those placed under her criticism.
I keep on hearing that science is in danger of being destroyed by politics. I believe this has already taken place.
People we like to call “scientists,” or whom we insist on embracing the belief that they have something to do with what we call “science,” are voting in groups on what to allow and what not to allow. I have a rather eccentric, and lonely, idea of what a “scientist” is, and the group-thing doesn’t have much to do with it. I notice I don’t owe very much to groups of scientists; groups of anybody, for that matter. I’ve got all these useful things sitting around me as I type this that I got because of science. A flatscreen computer monitor, a coffeemaker that grinds my beans fresh at a pre-selected time-of-day, a hot plate that keeps the coffee cup hot and fresh as I type away. These things were not developed because groups of people voted on what worked and what did not work. These things came about because somewhere, an individual fiddled around with something until it became something else, and started doing something.
This is how we get things. Everything we use, I daresay. Groups vote here & there on what to do with these things, and maybe, to take credit for the things coming into existence; they do not actually make the things. It’s up to individuals to do that. Go on, try and find an exception. If you think you’ve found one, you probably got snookered.
And so, when a scientist — what I think of as a scientist — sits in a room full of other scientists voting on something, I expect he or she is usually going to be a wallflower, waiting for the proceedings to be over so that some research in an empty room or cubicle somewhere can be resumed. The guy that’s doing the talking, or holding court, or trying to get some kind of coup going against some hated morsel of existing policy or what-not…that isn’t a scientist. That’s a politician. Credentials or not, that’s a politician wearing a scientist’s coat. To put it simply, trying to get a group to approve or deny something, is not scientific work. Science is the study of nature, and nature is going to do what it damn well wants.
Science often goes and stops according to the presence or absence of funds; sadly, where those funds go, is a question often put before large groups. And so, you see, if I’m wrong about science being dead — I’m certainly correct about it being subordinated to other things. Other things that are anti-science. Call it “Cinderella science,” something forced to mend dresses and sweep floors for ugly stepsisters.
I was given cause to think about this about a month ago when Mary Cheney, the homosexual daughter of our current Vice President, announced her pregnancy.
No Republican in Washington is more beloved by social conservatives than Vice President Dick Cheney, who with his wife, Lynne, has backed and breathed every issue dear to them for six tumultuous years.
News that Cheney’s lesbian daughter, Mary, is pregnant has therefore touched a raw nerve, as advocates for conservative family values struggle to reconcile their loyalty to the Cheneys with their visceral opposition to same-sex relationships — and particularly to raising a child without a father.
Credit goes to blogger friend James Bostwick for sniffing out the first piece of bull poo in this mini-essay. Do you know any “social conservatives”? Quick, think of five…five, who hold Vice President Cheney in affectionate esteem above & before any other public figure. Aw hell, just think of one. Know anybody like that? While it’s fair to say some conservatives don’t despise Mr. Cheney quite as much as the average left-wing liberal, I can’t think of anyone who regards the veep as “beloved” because of his social positions. Whatever the position on social issues, the conservative viewpoint is invariably that Vice President Cheney is some kind of traitor — in one direction, or in another. The SFGate writer has erected a straw-man argument, to lend importance to her article that doesn’t really exist.
But the fireworks were just starting. I had a fascinating off-line dialog with John Rambo for the last month or so about this one. “JohnJ” is a featured writer at Bullwinkle Blog and blogs his own stuff at Right Linx, both of which are excellent resources worth your time to peruse here & there. Like a handful of other folks who are sufficiently self-disciplined to pay attention to things that don’t fit on MTV, Rambo has developed a curiosity about my still-natally-developed “Yin and Yang” theory and recalled the essentials of it after James Dobson’s guest column appeared in Time Magazine.
And this is where the phony science comes in. It’s fascinating watching what happens from this point; almost like a chemical reaction. Try to leave the emotion-charged social issues out of it, and focus on the thought process…as any decent scientist would.
In the December 13 column, Dobson starts out…
A number of social conservatives, myself included, have recently been asked to respond to the news that Mary Cheney, the Vice President’s daughter, is pregnant with a child she intends to raise with her lesbian partner. Implicit in this issue is an effort to get us to criticize the Bush Administration or the Cheney family. But the concern here has nothing to do with politics. It is about what kind of family environment is best for the health and development of children, and, by extension, the nation at large.
With all due respect to Cheney and her partner, Heather Poe, the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father. That is not to say Cheney and Poe will not love their child. But love alone is not enough to guarantee healthy growth and development. The two most loving women in the world cannot provide a daddy for a little boy–any more than the two most loving men can be complete role models for a little girl.
Dobson is saying, here, that the child will be raised without a father. Is that scientific? Maybe yes, maybe no…but does it even have to be? Unless there’s something else going on that we haven’t been told, it looks like the matter is settled. There is Mary, there is Heather…no male influence in sight, and certainly no need to have such a figure present in the essentials of upbringing. Dobson seeks to examine how this will affect the child at the developmental stages, and this is the part that touches on Yin & Yang — and it also gets him in no small measure of hot water with the community of what we have come to call “scientists.”
The unique value of fathers has been explained by Dr. Kyle Pruett of Yale Medical School in his book Fatherneed: Why Father Care Is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child. Pruett says dads are critically important simply because “fathers do not mother.” Psychology Today explained in 1996 that “fatherhood turns out to be a complex and unique phenomenon with huge consequences for the emotional and intellectual growth of children.” A father, as a male parent, makes unique contributions to the task of parenting that a mother cannot emulate, and vice versa.
According to educational psychologist Carol Gilligan, mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty. Moms give a child a sense of hopefulness; dads provide a sense of right and wrong and its consequences.
And, almost as if you’d been hearing a dull shrieking noise overhead for a few seconds, there emerges a thunderous BOOM. Dr. Pruett would like to say something about this.
“Time Magazine should take Dobson’s article off the web and pledge that they will never again use his group as a source on family issues,” said Wayne Besen, Executive Director of Truth Wins Out. “Focus on the Family has damaged its credibility and should stop misleading Americans by misquoting respected researchers.”
TODAY, Pruett wrote the following letter:
Dr. Dobson, I was startled and disappointed to see my work referenced in the current Time Magazine piece in which you opined that social science, such as mine, supports your convictions opposing lesbian and gay parenthood. I write now to insist that you not quote from my research in your media campaigns, personal or corporate, without previously securing my permission. You cherry-picked a phrase to shore up highly (in my view) discriminatory purposes. This practice is condemned in real science, common though it may be in pseudo-science circles. There is nothing in my longitudinal research or any of my writings to support such conclusions. On page 134 of the book you cite in your piece, I wrote, “What we do know is that there is no reason for concern about the development or psychological competence of children living with gay fathers. It is love that binds relationships, not sex.” Kyle Pruett, M.D. Yale School of Medicine.
What of the other researcher? Dr. Gilligan is similarly agitated and has a similar beef:
The issue has to do with distorting the findings of science and distorting the conclusions of research. These meaningful words are used in the video, above, over and over again. Shame on Dr. Dobson.
Now, take a look at what we got going on here.
EVERYTHING is orchestrated by this “Truth Wins Out” outfit, which appears to have been acting in a way similar to Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead. Hey, Dr. Pruett and Dr. Gilligan, did you know your work is being cited this way? Do you know what kind of parties you won’t be invited to because of this? If you like, we can produce a video for you…
Is that science?
How about guitar music playing in the background of the video? Is that what we call “research”? How about the heavy implications that Dr. Dobson is engaged in some kind of a pattern of falsification going back-a-ways — but, if you listen to the words, you see this all comes from the single piece in Time Magazine about the Cheney pregnancy? Science has a lot to do with identifying trends and patterns of things. Was that done accurately here, or was this implication done to appeal to people’s emotions? Is it scientific to appeal to emotions?
How about Dr. Gilligan’s use of the actual word in the video? You might want to watch it again; she uses it several times. Is she referring to a discipline where you prove and/or refute things by means of research and experimentation? It does not appear so. In fact, I’ve noticed James Dobson’s guest column simply prints two short sentences each dealing with the two disaffected docs. He does not say Dr. Pruett is opposed to homosexual marriages or non-traditional families. He does not say this about Dr. Gilligan. He does not say a single word about what the researchers have concluded from their research. If he did, why would I care about that? No, he simply reports what they have learned.
Pruett and Gilligan angrily retort that he has “cherry-picked” and “distorted” their research. Listen and read very, very carefully. They could have said Dobson’s article is wrong. They could have said NO. Dr. Pruett’s research was “distorted” as saying “fathers do not mother.” Pruett could have said “my research indicates that fathers DO mother.” Or, he could have said “my research has no indication on whether fathers are capable of mothering, or not.” Gilligan’s research was “distorted” with the summary that “mothers tend to stress sympathy, grace and care to their children, while fathers accent justice, fairness and duty.” Again, Dr. Gilligan could have said NO. She could have said this directly contradicts facts. Why not? She’s accusing Dobson of distortion…show us a concrete distortion. She could have said mothers and fathers share completely interchangeable roles. Or, that she doesn’t know — jury’s still out on that.
No, it seems — at the behest of this TruthOut outfit — Drs. Pruett and Gilligan object to the conclusions drawn from their research, which, on its own, was reported accurately.
Science is getting into the opinion biz. People throw the S-word around…and they aren’t really talking about “science” anymore. Look at Dr. Gilligan’s video one more time. What she calls science, is not a process but a simple exercise of argumentum ad authoritarian fallacy. Dr. Gilligan does not oppose gay marriage. Her research shows that fathers and mothers tend to contribute different things to a child’s upbringing, but you are not to use this in advancing an argument hostile to gay marriage. If you try to do this, she will stop you. She says so.
I don’t want to be too hard on the scientists, I’m sure they’ve got “reputations” to worry about. As I said at the beginning of this posts, scientists decide things in groups nowadays; that’s what creates the problem with calling them “scientists.” And I’m sure when Dobson comes to a conclusion out-of-favor with the scientific peerage, and he uses the work of “respected” (read: accepted into the clan) researchers, to them it feels like slander. So on an emotional level, I suppose you can’t slight them for wanting to treat it that way.
But based on what he wrote that I read, their objections are just plain silly. He’s taken what they said — and he’s reached conclusions, based on what they said, that they don’t like. And so they’re insisting on playing traffic-cop, with their scientific credentials, on the conclusions to be reached from the work they did. According to what we used to call “science,” that’s utterly invalid.
It’s like me agreeing to the terms of a credit card, charging things up on that card, and then objecting to the balance on my bill at the end of the month. Hey, it’s a conclusion drawn from your research; it’s not the research itself. You don’t have to like it, and if your reputation is being somehow tarnished because of the conclusion someone else drew from your work, it shouldn’t be. And if your invitation to a cocktail party somewhere has been withdrawn, or your grant money for some project is no longer forthcoming, well you know what? That’s just tough. It says more about the person who made the decision to withdraw or revoke than it does about James Dobson.
Update 1/5/07: Additional contribution from Rambo, George H. Taylor speaking on “consensus science”. Must-see.
Some damn dirty foreigner is telling our politcians what to do, and to resign if they don’t do what he says. Well, this time, I’m on the damn dirty foreigner’s side. And it’s not because I agree with the damn dirty foreigner’s position, which I do. It’s because the damn dirty foreigner didn’t bring up the matter of U.S. politicians doing what damn dirty foreigners say. The objects of his excoriation, on the other hand, are the ones who brought it up. Yeah that’s right. They started it, and he finished it.
Lord Monckton, Viscount of Brenchley, has sent an open letter to Sens. Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, which says in part…
It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right [to free speech], as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech – and with good reason – in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators.
You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to “senior elected and appointed government officials” who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world’s greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go.
No question about it, Lord Monckton is a “Must-Tard.” Which is this blog’s terminology for persons who seem incapable of stating their position on anything, without using words like “must,” “ought,” “should,” “gotta.” In other words, folks who want short-circuit the cogitative process, by leap-frogging forward to the thing that needs to be done. Often, because they can’t state, to others or to themselves, how and why they think it should be done. And usually, such persons are from Europe.
But Lord Monckton is a must-tard who is not only able to articulate why it is the thing must be done…but he makes a water-tight case. Upholding the Constitution, after all, is a duty sworn by all members of Congress when they begin or renew their services. Surely it makes very little sense, to have a Congress curtailed from prohibiting speech, but able to bully whoever it wants when it comes to funding certain positions.
What was the original letter sent by the Senators to the CEO of Exxon-Mobil? James Taranto wrote it up recently; the full text is here. Excerpt below:
We are convinced that ExxonMobil’s longstanding support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.
Obviously, other factors complicate our foreign policy. However, we are persuaded that the climate change denial strategy carried out by and for ExxonMobil has helped foster the perception that the United States is insensitive to a matter of great urgency for all of mankind, and has thus damaged the stature of our nation internationally. It is our hope that under your leadership, ExxonMobil would end its dangerous support of the “deniers.” Likewise, we look to you to guide ExxonMobil to capitalize on its significant resources and prominent industry position to assist this country in taking its appropriate leadership role in promoting the technological innovation necessary to address climate change and in fashioning a truly global solution to what is undeniably a global problem.
And I believe that explains my earlier comments. Where in tarnation does Lord Monckton get off telling us what to do? Where, indeed. The Senators started it; he finished it. From out of a relative vaccuum, emerged this dictum that it is a priority of paramount importance, or of relatively high importance, that research by private interests in the United States, should only be carried out if the damn dirty foreigners would approve of it.
And along comes a damn dirty foreigner who disagrees with the dictum. Maybe the dictum is still right; maybe the damn dirty foreigner is wrong; but if that is the case, an unworkable contradiction has been knotted together, and it seems to possess a certain Gordian quality to it such that it can only be undone by sword. We’re beholden to the damn dirty foreigners, only when the damn dirty foreigners agree we’re beholden to them, but we should ignore what the damn dirty foreigners have to say when they remind us of our own Constitution? How in the world would that work?
I hate to say it, but the Constitution is a decidedly second priority here. No, I really think so. The Constitution is a bunch of rules that tell us what we should and should not do. Science, on the other hand, is what we know — and, like the Constitution, science has its neck stretched across a chopping block as well. Look what you’ve got going on here; just look at it. We have two members of our upper legislative house releasing an open letter. The letter says hey — scientists are to agree with us, or else they are not to be funded. In fact, they aren’t scientists at all, they are “a small cadre of global climate change skeptics.”
Now, elsewhere, as water pipes freeze and then as sidewalks get so hot you can fry bacon on ’em…all around the year…we’re going to hear from several outlets “scientists are (more or less) unanimous about the man-made influences on global climate change.” Unanimous means all. All the scientists agree — is that before, or after, the inquisition has come along to silence the “small cadre”?
Rockefeller and Snowe make reference to an “echo chamber” of skepticism, and to a “climate change denial confederacy.” There is a campaign to muscle, to bully, to intimidate, to coerce, to silence anybody who doesn’t toe the line on global warming, especially if they’re scientists. We know this campaign exists. We know it for a fact. Rockefeller and Snowe, are just the ones who’ve had the balls to make their threats public, under the auspices of enabling “the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy.”
Those two are open with their threats. God only knows how many thugs are not.
Is this what we’re supposed to call “science”? It isn’t what I call science.
I like knowing about