A uterus and attendant physiological and behavioral meat construct, i.e., woman, is also an amazing piece of biotechnology that is a necessary component of the developmental process.
via scienceblogs.com
PZ Myers cracks me up.
after years pressing his thumb on the denialist end of the scale, Bjorn Lomborg sees the light (feels the heat?).
With scientific data piling up showing that the world has reached its hottest-ever point in recorded history, global-warming skeptics are facing a high-profile defection from their ranks. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on "a challenge humanity must confront."
………
Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.
Oh, how times have changed.
In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calls for the world's governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.
via news.yahoo.com
The UK scientist at the center of the "Climategate" controversy over leaked e-mails has been cleared of hiding or manipulating data by a parliamentary committee.
But lawmakers who had been investigating the row over global warming science said in a report published Wednesday that climate scientists must publish all their raw data and methods to ensure the research is "irreproachable."
The Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in eastern England has been under fire since last November when emails, which skeptics claimed showed scientists hiding and manipulating climate data, were allegedly hacked and leaked onto the Internet.
…..
The Commons report said the leaked emails suggested a "blunt refusal"
by Jones to share scientific data but its chairman Phil Willis said
there was no evidence that Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his
own science."The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been
largely misplaced," the report said. "On the accusations relating to
Professor Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the
committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice
in the climate science community but that those practices need to
change."
Going after The Onion's niche, the Washington Post seeks Sarah Palin's "thoughts" on climate change. Marc Ambinder takes her apart:
The revelation of appalling actions by so-called climate
change experts allows the American public to finally understand the
concerns so many of us have articulated on this issue.
Remember, the "revelation" was born from an potentially illegal e-mail
hack. "So-called" — untrue. These are experts. Their science has been
validated, independently. Their "actions" here consist of insulting
climate change skeptics, immature name-calling, and, at worst, devising
a strategy to keep the climate change deniers out of debates and
peer-reviewed journals. The "concerns" that Palin speaks of are the
result of years of accumulated science denialism that now,
conveniently, has been seemingly "validated" by the fog of a grand
conspiracy, suddenly revealed.
"Climate-gate," as the e-mails and other documents from the Climate
Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have become known,
exposes a highly politicized scientific circle — the same circle whose
work underlies efforts at the Copenhagen climate change conference.True
— although the politicization came about as a response to an extremely
well-funded political campaign by those whose bottom lines would be
most harmed by carbon taxes, cap and trade schemes and the likeThe
agenda-driven policies being pushed in Copenhagen won't change the
weather, but they would change our economy for the worse.
If you can't discern climate from weather, you have no business yakking about climate change in a major publication.
I like the point Ambinder makes about politicization. Scientists are not by nature spin doctors or politicians. That's why can you never get them to "guarantee" or offer "100%" certainty about anything. Steeped in the peer review process, the research community is typically unprepared (and inadquately funded) to offer an effective defence against well organized lay attacks on their credibility. When they do engage, they are often clumsy or perceived as 'arrogant' by a public with a poor understanding of how science works. Having the facts on your side is not always enough.
watching "climategate" swirl around I keep asking myself what these people are thinking. here is a typical denialist screed:
The project is all about wealth transfer and pan-global re-alignment of spheres of influence, not climate. These ingrates managed to dumb down the population enough to pull the wool over their collective eyes and now they drag this complacent and debt laden society to the very brink of coolapse.
via blackkettle.wordpress.com\
Let me try to connect the dots. Thousands of over-educated underpaid climate scientists are part of a massive global conspiracy!! to take over the world through faked data, academic infighting, and powerpoint presentations. Honestly, what would be the motivation for all of these scientists to abandon their professional integrity to take on super-rich business interests and the religious right? What's the payoff? Free doughnuts in the lunchroom? 
Similar to the evolution / holocaust / vaccine denial mobs (with a fair degree of overlap) the climate change deniers, by virtue of financial interest or religious zeal (or both), fly in the face of overwhelming evidence with an arsenal of fake experts, out-of-context quote mining, bad faith arguments, and outright lies. You really must have a head full of nonsense to buy this stuff.
I am not sure what is supposed to be so shocking about the so-called "climategate" scandal. Someone hacked into servers at the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University. Cue the flying monkeys of climate change denial who, after picking through the 10 years' worth of faculty emails, have declared climate change science invalidated. Climate scientists can hang up their models and go home. It's all a big hoax!
I challenge any organization, or individual for that matter, to surrender all of their email to their worst enemies. Let's see what might turn up. We might find that "gasp" some emails are nasty, inconsistent, dishonest, or just plain wrong. Shock. horror. yawn.
This is typical behaviour of the denialist community (climate change, evolution, holocaust, birthers, etc.). Launch fact-free attacks on the science and scientists, howl over reasonable scientific disputes, misrepresent uncertainty, argue in bad faith, quote mine and clip out of context, and generally behave like 4th graders.
For some other views, let's check in with the lefty hippie treehuggers at Shell Oil (commenting at LGF):
I think that the science now tells us more than enough to warrant
action. Certainly there remain uncertainties, but not on the issue as a
whole.
With regards the private e-mails posted on the internet, I think the
story is a simple one and it could apply to any one of us. Think of all
the e-mails you have written over the past 10 years. Now imagine that
someone ciminally breaks into your e-mail account and downloads all of
them, handpicks a few and posts them on the internet to cast you in a
particular light. We could all be shown to be saints or sinners or
anything in between.
Now look at what has happened with these scientists going about their
work in much the same way anyone of us might attend to our job. Enough
said.
Enough indeed. Unfortunately some don't concur, and we'll be hearing more from the denialists & their monkeys. Some further excellent roundup of the "controversy" at Nature, Popular Mechanics, and of course RealClimate.
ex Bush press secretary Perino claims no terrorist attacks on U.S. during Bush presidency:
http://www.dailykostv.com/flv/player.swf
The media and airwaves seem filled with these people. The definition:
No, do be a glibertarian you have to first be a big “L” libertarian, and then only apply your libertarianism to other peoples problems. Glibertarians replies to any situation where someone else is hurt is “fuck you I got mine”, “told you so” or “nanny nanny boo boo”.
Frum takes on the wingnut habit of throwing the 'fascist' label at liberals in the context of the US health care debate. He nails it here:
Contra Rush Limbaugh, history’s actual fascists were not primarily known for their anti-smoking policies or generous social welfare programs. Fascism celebrated violence, anti-rationalism and hysterical devotion to an authoritarian leader. To date, the Obama administration has fallen rather short in these departments. Perhaps uncomfortably aware of the shortcoming, the hardliners have developed — okay, invented really — their own mythology about Obama “brownshirts.” (The popular conservative website RedState.org literally uses the term.) The complaint rests on a single case — that of conservative activist Kenneth Gladney, who got into a scuffle at a townhall in St. Louis, Missouri. The altercation was captured on video and you can watch it on YouTube. What you’ll see is a man, already on the ground, and another man stepping back in order to avoid tripping over him. The man on the ground is Gladney. Gladney walked away from the confrontation and later went to hospital, where he was treated for light injuries and released the same day. Whatever happened and whoever started it, this happily bloodless encounter bears not even the most glancing resemblance to the brutality that made Hitler’s brownshirts notorious. And yet, look up Gladney’s name online and he’s suddenly a poignant martyr.
Can we get a grip here? It is possible to express opposition to a president’s policies without preposterous name-calling — without diminishing and disparaging the unique experiences of those who did actually suffer from actual persecution by actual Nazis. After all, you know who else trafficked in hysterical exaggeration? That’s right: Hitler!
UK Conservative Leader responds to US wingnut attacks on the National Health Service:
Millions of people are grateful for the care they have received from the NHS – including my own family. One of the wonderful things about living in this country is that the moment you're injured or fall ill – no matter who you are, where you are from, or how much money you've got – you know that the NHS will look after you.
iBiome 