Three Cultures? Or one?

Of late, I’ve been slowly working through a book: "The Three Cultures" by Jerome Kagan. This is a work that pays homage in its title to C.P. Snow’s classic work, "The Two Cultures", in which Snow described and attempted a reconciliation between the seemingly very different cultures of science and the humanities. In Kagan's book, the author (a social scientist) adds a third culture by distinguishing between “natural” sciences and social sciences, the latter of which focus on human beings and their activities in various ways (political science, economics, sociology, psychology, etc.). Kagan divides the "science" culture into two ...

I’m not going to delve into this book’s notions - maybe later. But reading it has forced me to mull over the divisions among the diverse human “cultures”. Of particular significance is that being a physical scientist has given me a broad perspective - in a position to grasp challenging scientific concepts based on a knowledge of advanced mathematics. Those in this position are relatively rare. I don’t know the numbers, but I’m guessing that simply knowing Calculus puts me into a very tiny minority (of order 1% or less) of humans in my country, to say nothing of those in other nations (“worlds” apart, in nations where most people have little chance to pursue a career in science, regardless of their talent and interest).

And I'm also human, with all the same feelings and perspectives that those pursuing careers in the humanities have. Science inevitably colors those aspects of my perspective, naturally - nevertheless, I see the beauty of a rose as well as the next human. I also see deeper than that, to the processes allowing that rose to happen in my world. It's my privilege to live at a time and place where science has added considerable understanding about the world for all of us who choose to gain that understanding.

I know many scientists who dabble in other fields of endeavor, including many who are artists of various sorts – visual arts, performing arts, etc. Some of them are reasonably well-accomplished in their hobbies. Not full-time professionals certainly, but serious enough about those hobbies to develop considerably their talents in those directions. Most good scientists are far from one-dimensional geeks, despite the widespread myth that all scientists are one-dimensional.

Unfortunately, I know very few folks who are the inverse of my colleagues - that is, professionals in the humanities but simultaneously pursuing some scientific interest at a serious level. [Many of the exceptions to this rule amongst those I know are storm chasers!] This means that scientists well may be more than able to grasp non-science concepts, but few of those pursuing careers outside of science have much of a clue about how science really works. Their bias against science comes, perhaps, from hated science courses in K-12 education, which they rejected as of no interest and boring in the extreme. Math phobia also takes a toll of the potentially interested. Unfortunately ignorance of how science works perpetuates myths about, say, the conflict between evolutionary biology and creationism. Myths fill the vacuum created by rejected understanding.

It’s my hope that this essay won’t come across as encouraging or perpetuating a divide between science and the humanities. My experience suggests that the concept advanced by C.P. Snow is true - that the two cultures have some elements in common and could viably interact, to the benefit of everyone. But it’s been my perception that most non-scientists have erected a barrier in their own minds to the value and excitement of learning about the natural world in a scientific way. To them, knowing a rose’s biology somehow detracts from our appreciation of the rose as an object of beauty or a symbol of something relating to the human condition. I couldn’t disagree more with that thesis, but it’s impossible to change the mind of someone who has chosen to remain ignorant of the inherently beautiful perspective associated with knowing how things work.

I can’t imagine how the modern Western world of today, with its deep roots in science and technology, must appear to someone who has trouble understanding the information content of a graph. As I suggested earlier, that ignorance breeds the growth of faith-based mythology. In today's world, where important social decisions ride on scientific issues, the growth of that mythology as a means of making societal decisions is inherently dangerous.

Whatever their world view, folks ignorant of science and how it works are separated by a vast gulf from the world as I know it. That saddens me, because I enjoy discourse with people who are informed enough to have a substantive understanding of some topic. Finding myself "preaching to the choir" is a less than satisfactory experience - I'm not seeking affirmation of my ideas by murmured agreement in a crowd of the faithful. Rather, I welcome challenges to my understanding, provided they're intelligent challenges, and not simple bashing. By the same token, a clash of ideas that results in no one changing their minds still can be useful and stimulating, provided the discourse remains civil (see my earlier blog about civil discourse).

C.P. Snow bemoaned the division of our society into two apparently different "cultures". Today, the fractionation of our society is rolling forward at an accelerating pace. We're mostly talking past each other, not engaging in a search for understanding and reconciliation where possible. Dehumanizing those with opposing views is rampant on all sides. If we're to survive the storm we're creating for ourselves, I think we need to welcome dissent in the way that our nation's "Founding Fathers" hoped would happen - in the way expressed so eloquently on a plaque affixed to Bascom Hall at the University of Wisconsin.

Dr. Joanne Simpson, 1923-2010

Joanne Simpson looking over a weather conference poster presentation of which she is the lead author, in1985.  

Yesterday - 4 March 2010 - Dr. Joanne Simpson died. Dr. Simpson had a long and very productive career as a meteorologist, with a vast array of professional accomplishments to her credit. It's somewhat unfortunate that she may be most widely recognized as the first woman to earn a Ph.D. in meteorology (University of Chicago, 1949). Although I didn't know Dr. Simpson very well, we met a few times and I was honored by some remarks she made about me to a colleague - I have to paraphrase her comment as I can't vouch for a verbatim quote: "He's just a crazy cowboy, but he does good science." Coming from someone of her scientific stature, that was high praise, indeed! I was honored that she saw me in those terms.


Today (5 March), I feel some considerable sadness over her passing, but this is tempered by the knowledge that Dr. Simpson left us a huge legacy of accomplishments. Her triumphs were our triumphs (i.e., we meteorologists), and our profession is by far the better for her long and distinguished career. That limits any sorrow I might otherwise feel over her loss.

Dr. Simpson was a formidable figure. If you crossed paths with her, you would be in for a tussle and she'd neither give nor ask for any quarter in the argument. She wanted to get at correct answers to scientific questions, whatever it took. On the other hand, my limited experiences with her showed her to be warm and compassionate. Moreover, I'm confident that when she interacted with students and young admirers, she was full of encouragement and support - although I can't say so by direct experience, I've heard this from others. I admire both qualities in professionals, and I believe she had them both, in abundance.

Hence, I will speculate that Dr. Simpson would not embrace being labeled as a "female meteorologist" - rather, she likely would be want to be recognized simply as a meteorologist. Not that she was ashamed to be a woman - no, not hardly! She was justifiably proud of her success after all the negativity expressed simply because she was a woman. Nor would she wish to ignore or downplay the travails she experienced at the hands of her exclusively male professional peers early in her career. And I use the term "peer" intentionally - she was their equal (or, in many cases, their superior!), even if they chose not to recognize or acknowledge that.

Her determination to pursue her career goals no matter what challenges it might entail is yet another character trait I admire greatly. I've seen the attitudes in meteorology toward women become distinctly better in the last 20 years than they were at the time Joanne Simpson completed her doctorate (those attitudes hadn't changed by much yet, when I began college in 1963). No doubt that many women in the profession today see her as a role model, and have her to thank for breaking down those barriers. Times have changed, although I believe they are yet to be where they should be - meteorology is still learning how to accept women as professionals.

Although I never had the chance to interact much with her, Dr. Joanne Simpson is a hero of mine. I'm proud that our profession managed to produce a figure of her capabilities, who had the strength of character to succeed in the face of considerable disrespect from those nominally charged with nurturing people toward careers in our profession. But mostly, I'm proud of her accomplishments, which need no qualification regarding her gender. She did excellent science and became a well-recognized leader whose body of work made a compelling case for her acceptance in any role she chose to assume in the profession. The fact that she was a woman is irrelevant to all that, but if you take her gender into account, it makes her accomplishments stand out even more.

This profession mourns her loss today, but we should be thankful and happy that Providence saw fit to share such a person with us for such a long time.

Does anyone have the right to be free from criticism?

In American society, where media scrutiny is intense and 'political correctness' has become the mantra within the media, it seems to me that there's been a backlash against subjecting people to criticism for their words and actions. Unless I'm mistaken, and so far it doesn't seem so, this is still a country that guarantees freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Anyone, any action, any word is fair game, and with blogs as well as the traditional media, criticism is everywhere. You may not agree with the need for such criticism, and you're free to say so, of course. I contribute my share of criticism from time to time and in various venues. When I do so, I don't feel the need to issue some pansy-ass disclaimer, either. What I say is my opinion and I have the constitutional right to express it, even it's unpopular in some circles. I try to make my actions match my words, although I may fall short of that goal occasionally. I make no apologies about having an opinion, and I'm both willing (nay, eager) to discuss that topic with anyone who disagrees with my views and able to change my opinion if their counter-argument is sufficiently convincing.

People who do things like posing for titillating photographs in magazines, or having extramarital affairs, or espousing unpopular causes, or taking unnecessary risks, or distributing propaganda on behalf of their causes -- such folks need to appreciate that they might well be on the receiving end of criticism from those who are (a) offended by such actions, or (b) simply object to such things. My response to people who're offended by what I say or do is simple: you being offended is your choice, not mine. Hence, it's not necessarily my problem. Nevertheless, I support anyone's right to express their objections to the words or deeds of someone else, so long as their objections don't escalate to physical attacks or even threats of physical attacks (otherwise referred to as assault*) on the offending person. At that point, their own actions are illegal and no longer protected by the right to free speech.

To the best of my knowledge, there's no constitutional guarantee of freedom from criticism. If you're willing to say controversial things, or do controversial deeds, then you're likely to be the target of criticism. If you didn't know that going in ... well, too bad. Hopefully, you've learned what's in store for being controversial. I may or may not agree with your choices, but unless you break the law in the process, you'll have my support with regard to your right to make such choices. There will be no sympathy for you from me, however, if you get subjected to criticism. Deal with it.

On a somewhat tangential note, a firmly established method for expressing your concern for bad laws is to break the law, suffer whatever legal consequences befall you as a result, and make such a public spectacle of it that the problems with the law are brought to everyone's attention. This is the time-honored principle of non-violent protest used by Ghandi and M.L. King to draw attention to bad laws. But they not only had no intention of complaining about being arrested and jailed for their deeds, their tactics would have been useless had they not been arrested and jailed! The injustice of the law was propelled to the headlines where everyone could see it. If there's a bad law on the books and you're victimized by it, then you should not only be prepared to accept the consequences, you should embrace the consequences as an opportunity to attack the law! If you're unwilling to do the time, then don't break the law, okay?
___________
* Assault is the threat of bodily harm that reasonably causes fear of harm in the victim.

Life's Gift: Friends

Recent events have made me think a lot about my friends. No, not my Facebook "friends" (although there's considerable overlap there) - I mean the people I've come to know in reality, rather than the cyber-world. Your family is important, of course, but their presence in your life is more or less mandatory. Your friends have chosen voluntarily to be with you, and not simply because they have to put up with you. They enjoy being in your presence and do so whenever circumstances permit. They overlook things about you that they may not like because, for them, the pleasure you bring into their world outweighs whatever annoyance they might feel about what you say and do about some things.

Some of my younger acquaintances seem too prone to say "Life sucks!" when things go wrong in their lives. I suppose I may be a bit impatient when I hear such things from younger folks - many of their problems are pretty small in comparison to the really tragic things that have befallen some of my other friends. I want to tell them that life may have much worse things to dish out for them in the future. And they should be more willing to count their blessings than to focus on their problems. Further, no matter how bad things seem to be, they can always be worse! And so things have become bad for some of my friends. I feel so helpless when terrible things happen to them. In so many cases, there's little or nothing I can do. I try my best to do whatever I'm able to do, but it seems so inadequate.

And I ask myself, "Why have I been so lucky compared to some of my friends?" Evidently, there's no reason for it. I don't pretend to understand why bad things happen to good people - it's one of many things about this world I don't understand. "Why them?" I ask. "What have they done to deserve such anguish and pain?" But there's no answer for these questions, either. And, to quote Clint Eastwood in The Unforgiven ... "Deservin's got nothing to do with it!"

Nevertheless, I'm grateful for my good fortune, regardless of the reasons for it, if any. And my friends are one of the most treasured parts of that good fortune. If I fail to serve our friendship as often and as much as I should, please bear with me. I think of you often, my friends. Your presence in my life has made it so good, I'm almost ashamed to admit how good it's been. Life has its ups and downs, but friendships are a great way to both ride out the downs and to celebrate the ups.

Science - a human endeavor

Science is a creative human activity that it's been my privilege to participate in for the majority of my adult life. I've had to work at the actual process and gain understanding (as well as knowledge of my limitations) in my chosen field - but a bigger challenge has been to understand science as a human activity. This blog is no place to go into this in detail, but I want to comment about one small part of the process, using a particular example.

In order to be a contributor to science, each individual has to have a unique perspective and use that vantage point as a take-off point for exploration of ideas. In the process, the practitioner inevitably comes to ideas that either break entirely new ground (quite rare) or challenge existing concepts. If you do anything at all in science, your ideas will challenge those of other scientists. Confrontation is virtually inevitable so long as the science is alive and active (see here for an extended discussion). And when those whose ideas you're challenging learn of your new ideas, they'll have strong motivation to find fault with what you've done. In other words, they'll be in a defensive mode, fighting your ideas with those of their own, and seeking to discredit your version in order to protect theirs. This amounts to a sort of "marketplace of ideas" in which each of us becomes a salesman for their scientific creations. The market determines the survivor by a process of reaching a consensus about new ideas, although the process can unfold over a long time. The poster child for this process is Wegener's ideas about continental drift, which when introduced were summarily dismissed in that marketplace, only to emerge many decades later when new technologies provided the evidence that Wegener lacked to buttress his hypothesis.

Recently, I've been encouraging the National Hurricane Center (NHC) to review their assessment of the intensification of the tropical storm known as Erin in 2007, which reintensified over land. It's pretty evident that the system by which NHC classifies storms has the usual problems that any taxonomy does - reality often fails to fit into neatly organized categories with arbitrary boundaries. Because this storm had declined in intensity after landfall, as hurricanes usually do, it passed a threshold whereby it fell out of their purview. In effect, NHC had washed their hands of it before it reached Oklahoma, and when it re-intensified over Oklahoma, it must have been something they must have wished would just go away. As discussed below, their assessment seems to reflect this wish.

Of course, most landfalling tropical storms have a life that continues for a time after landfall but they typically don't reinvigorate over land because science has shown that such storms derive their energy from heat flux out of warm ocean waters. How could such a storm intensify over land? If it's intensifying, then that process must be by some mechanism that would disqualify it from tropical storm status. This is essentially the argument cited by the NHC authors in their assessment.

In this case, prior heavy rainfall had transformed most of central Oklahoma into a warm, shallow sea - standing water was everywhere. The process by which tropical cyclones can intensify over land has been described in a recent paper by Prof. Kerry Emanuel and his collaborators* - who gave such events their own unique name: agukabam. The name is derived from the Australian aboriginal language, because they had only been documented in Australia - until Erin in 2007.

Recently, a group of NHC authors published a review of the 2007 Atlantic hurricane season** and concluded that Erin's overland intensification didn't meet their criteria for a tropical storm and so had deemed it simply to be a "low" - which is roughly comparable to calling a tornado a "low" - it's true that the system involved reduced pressure at its core, of course. But the vast majority of the scientific community has agreed that this was not just any old low pressure system. It had once again become a tropical cyclone, with all the earmarks of such a system: a warm core, spiral bands, increased winds (not to hurricane force, though), and even an eye. So why does NHC wish to avoid calling a spade a spade, in opposition to the meteorological consensus? I can't answer that, of course. I wasn't involved in the discussion.

I've recently learned from a source at NHC that if such an event were to happen again, it would likely be considered as a tropical cyclone by NHC. Thus, they seem to have adopted a new policy that amounts to a revision of their concept of what qualifies as a tropical cyclone. So why would they insist on continuing to defend their published assessment of Erin? I can only speculate about their reasons. There's an easy solution to this dilemma: I believe the best and most honorable thing to do is for NHC to publish a retraction of those conclusions from their recently-published paper. This retraction would, in fact, be consistent with their new policies regarding such events and with the scientific consensus about the issue of what constitutes a tropical cyclone. Otherwise, the erroneous assessment will remain in the scientific literature as a very public example of a process gone wrong.

Perhaps someone will publish a 'comment' about that misclassification, of course. Unfortunately, the usual 'comment - reply' process carries with it a sort of adversarial overtone that could result in a defensive response by the NHC authors. Such a reply by NHC would be unfortunate and could convey the impression that the NHC is engaging in defensive rationalization rather than participating in meteorological science. I would hope it wouldn't have to come to someone submitting comments about this mistake - it would be a credit to NHC for them to submit on their own a retraction to the journal (Monthly Weather Review) that published their 2007 storm season summary.

But science is done by humans, with egos and positions to defend, and who often struggle to make public admission of error, as if it's some sort of disgrace in science to have been wrong. In our marketplace of ideas, mistakes are common and easily forgiven if admitted to and repaired when they become known. It seems to me that the time has come for NHC to admit they made a mistake and move on. And tropical storm science will show by this example that it's mature enough to learn from its mistakes.

---------------
* Emanuel, K., J. Callaghan, and P. Otto, 2008: A hypothesis for the redevelopment of warm-core cyclones over northern Australia. Mon. Wea. Rev., 136, 3863-3872.
** Brennan, M.J., R.D. Knabb, M. Mainelli, and T.B. Kimberlain, 2009: Atlantic hurricane season of 2007. Mon. Wea. Rev., 135, 4061-4088.

Dribs and Drabs ...

It's been a while since I've posted a blog. Many things have come to mind, but not managed to intrude strongly enough to merit a full-blown discussion here. Thus, I simply offer some random, brief thoughts:

1. Storm chasers come in a whole spectrum of flavors ... don't believe that what you see on the Discovery Channel is representative of that spectrum. Reed Timmer has achieved fame and fortune. beyond doubt, but has yet to establish that he's contributed to science.

2. The science of meteorology offers few definitive answers. Forecasting is what justifies paying our salaries, but we're plagued with uncertainties as a natural outgrowth of the science as we understand it. If you want certainty, consult the arrogant or the ignorant (sometimes it's hard to distinguish between them). We can't predict the future with certainty. Can you, in your world?

3. Politics is a poor mechanism for dealing with reality. You're free to accept whatever you choose in the political spectrum, but to label your opposition with apostasy is not reality ... it's simply a mechanism for feeding your paranoia.

4. Formal religion is the haven for those who've stopped thinking and retreated into blind faith. And blind faith is a formula for persecution without hesitation, delusions about reality, and the acceptance of suppression of the rights of minorities.

5. If we praise God for touchdowns, shouldn't we give him credit for fumbles and interceptions, as well?

6. Perhaps we find predictions of apocalypse in 2012 based on Mayan notions of deep time (> 5,ooo years) to be amusing. If we apply the same skepticism to Christian predictions of the Second Coming, might it not be equally amusing? What are you doing to prepare for the winter solstice of 2012?

7. If global warming is about what you've personally experienced, do you have any idea of what a tiny sample of the climate you've actually sampled? From the perspective of climate change, a human lifetime is comparable to that of a mayfly.

8. Are your opinions about global climate change based on an equal foundation to those of the IPCC consensus?

Free advice ...

Next April, Vickie and I will have been married for 35 years. Not bad for a marriage that many predicted would never last! I've been thinking about this for a while and I've distilled some things I've learned into some free advice ... if you're thinking about being married or are just recently married, here are some thoughts that might be of some help. At least I can put them down and you can mull them over. These are not in any particular order.

1. Commitment to the relationship - if you've said 'yes' to the marriage vows, were you just mouthing the words so you could get to the honeymoon, or did you actually mean them? Assuming you at least thought you meant them, consider this: if you leave yourself an escape hatch, then the odds are quite high that the first rough patch in your relationship will see you using your escape hatch. Commitment means you are determined to make things work even when it's hard. A marriage that hasn't been tested yet, will eventually be tested! And successful tests in the past are not a guarantee about future tests.

2. It takes two to tango - no matter how much one partner in the marriage wants it to endure, if the other is seeking to escape, there's very little prospect of that relationship enduring. Only when you both want it to last will you figure out ways to get past the inevitable storms. Each must be individually committed, but it always requires an equal commitment.

3. Infidelity is generally fatal - a marriage is something that you begin to build from day 1. It's not just the wedding day and done. Each day, each experience, each trial, each triumph adds bricks to that structure. When you've been building that marriage, brick by brick, for a long time, then how important is that orgasm you're going to get with your 'touch of strange'? Can that even begin to match the value of what you've built over the years? Can you really do that and hurt your partner that badly? Is it worth it? If it is, then your relationship was built on sand. Or you're a jerk.

4. Trust is critical - you have to be able to trust your spouse, and I don't just mean about sex. I mean everything. If you don't trust your partner, then it's not much of a relationship. Funny thing about trust - it takes a long time to build but you can throw it away in a stupid, thoughtless instant. Lies and deceit are not part of a healthy relationship. You can lie to others if you choose, but not to your spouse - ever!

5. If you don't grow together, you'll inevitably grow apart - I don't mean by this that you have to stay in each other's hip pocket all the time. You can have different interests and do things independently of your spouse, but you need to share something together. Find that something and put time and effort into it if for no other reason than because it involves your partner in your life.

6. Accept your spouse completely - the things that your partner does that piss you off are probably never going to change. If you can't accept the 'imperfections' of your spouse, then either don't marry that person, or get out of that relationship as soon as possible. There many 'imperfections' that are quite understandable reasons for terminating a marriage: physical and/or mental abuse, infidelity, drug abuse, etc. You have to decide how to react in such instances. But don't let their merely annoying habits become a big deal with you. You don't have to like them, but you do have to accept them if the marriage is to survive. It never hurts to consider that you might have some annoying habits yourself!

If you and your spouse are fortunate enough to be able to keep your relationship alive and well through good times and bad for several decades, then I'm pretty confident you're using these concepts. I thank my lucky stars on a regular basis that I found a woman who'd accept me for what I am and put up with my foibles. She's the best thing that ever happened to me, by a huge margin, so I don't take anything for granted. Some say that love is never having to say you're sorry. Well, I'm not that perfect and I've made my share of mistakes - for which I've been sorry and said so. Vickie is the light of my life - without her, most of the rest of it would not have been possible. I hope your relationships can be as wonderful as our marriage has been!

Two gripes: Simplified solutions and Obvious political bias

This blog has covered a diverse array of topics. Tonight, I'm frustrated about two things: I'm calling them "Simplified solutions" and "Obvious political bias". My right-leaning friends no doubt see me as a knee-jerk "liberal" whereas I see many of them as knee-jerk "believers in the religious right wing". Whatever labels we choose to use to vilify each other don't really matter.

1. Simplified solutions. If we lived in a totally rational world (which, by the way, would necessarily have to exclude religious faith, since it is by definition irrational - i.e., based on faith rather than evidence!), then solutions to many problems would be trivial. Moral dilemmas over abortion and adultery, as well as concern for STDs would vanish completely and instantly if everyone lived by the rule of having sex only within the context of wedlock (apparently, an option that doesn't include homosexuals, so they must abstain entirely!). That's obviously the right thing to do and, as a side benefit, it takes care of all those nasty side-effects of sex outside of the institution of marriage. What a terrific solution! Now why didn't I think of that? It solves everything and keeps everyone inside the lines regarding sexual mores. O.K. - those troubling issues are solved! On to the next problem.

We as a nation are dealing with the consequences of drug use in this country, which involves the expenditure of billions of dollars and the tragic destruction of many, many lives through the use of drugs. A logical solution? Simple. "Just say no!" We needn't bother with all of the complex issues associated with prohibition of some drugs while at the same time permitting the free and legal use of others. If everyone just looked over the situation and decided not to use any drugs of any sort, then our problems with that would disappear. O.K. - another problem solved! Let's move on.

Got a war somewhere that's turned into a morass of complexity? Americans dying in the fight and billions being spent without any results? Simple. Just nuke the shit out of them! To heck with the concerns for "collateral damage" - let the missiles fly and leave it to God to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. When our enemies are cowed into surrender by the prospect of their nation being turned into a nuclear slag heap, that'll fix it! We can do it. Problem solved! Next!

Dealing with environmental issues is another thorny problem. O.K. - before we get involved in saving the world, or some stupid endangered fish or bird somewhere at the price of changing human lifestyles, let's just put it to a vote. Us or the bird/fish/lizard? Whattya know? I guess we prefer us over that critter. The future is someone else's problem. We have to deal with the threats in the "here and now". Oilfields in a protected area? What's more important - your right to cheap gas or some caribou or whatever? No problem. Trample on those nature preserves - just keep our gas prices down, thanks! That was easy. Environmental problems vanish when we put it to a vote! On to the next problem!

I could go on, but hopefully, I don't need to. These "solutions" are grotesque oversimplifications. The real world is complex and nonlinear. Simple ideas fail to grasp the subtleties - but subtleties are lost in a politically polarized world. Slogans and simplicity are preferred. Please, don't ask me to think!

2. Obvious political bias. The right-wing dominated media - yes, that's correct, the media are now dominated by right-wing "pundits" who use the guise of journalism to transmit their political agenda - these guys (notably, the Fox "news" folks) are currently suggesting that the Obama administration has been slow to respond to the recent (failed) attempt by a Nigerian terrorist trained in Yemen to blow up a plane. This righteous (pun intended) indignation by these anti-Obama politicians is deliciously absurd, given that the Bush administration ignored numerous warnings from their own intelligence community regarding the impending 11 September 2001 attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. These slip-ups by the GWB administration are forgotten in their haste to condemn the Obama administration. Hypocrisy is rampant, but apparently unrecognized by the right-wing apologists.

Incompetence is incompetence. I don't care who's responsible. But the notion of these folks being indignant over the shortcomings of the Obama administration actuallyis quite amusing in light of the shortcomings of the GW Bush Crime, Inc. administration. These right-wing pundits seem to be pining away for the ecstacy of a neocon in the Oval Office, the memory of a happier time (for them!). The notion that roughly half the nation is repulsed by the very notion of the GWB administration is lost on them. It is indeed a checkerboard world (see my earlier blog)!

We are a nation totally divided. Half the nation sees the world through the biased eyes of the apologists for GWB and his cohorts in crime. Half the nation sees the world through the lens of unabated hatred for everything that GWB and Cheney stood for. America is mired in a multitude of problems defying simple solutions and all we (the two halves of America) can seem to do is pour vitriol on each other. We stand still, paralyzed by bitter political bias, unable to act at a time when action seems especially important. The right-wing pundits, during the GWB administration, supposed that we should be united in support of a "wartime president" and then pour derision and act to prevent any actions by his successor, who has inherited wars initiated by his predecessor. Do they see the hypocrisy in this? I doubt it.

I mourn for our nation, which is more divided than ever at a time when action is most needed, but is prevented by political opposition. I don't see Obama as the savior of our nation - he is, however, our President, at a time of great crisis. Should he be given carte blanche? No. But neither should his every effort to take action be blocked along purely political lines.

Sad, sad, sad ...

Human communication - Iffy, at its best

Recent events have made it evident to me that it borders on miraculous that we humans are successful at communicating via the spoken word to any meaningful extent. Human language carries with it so little direct information about our actual intended meaning, that it becomes very easy for misinterpretation of our words. So easy, in fact, that misunderstandings are pretty common. It takes considerable effort and some honest, civil discourse to determine that what may appear to be disagreements are simply misunderstandings.

That many misunderstandings occur as a result of Internet-based typed communications is both evident and legendary. Without the nonverbal cues that accompany face-to-face conversation, people can get so upset by someone's typed words that they react in a very negative way, often stimulating a similar reaction - culminating in the classical "flame war" so common on message boards. It seems that nonverbal cues can reduce the likelihood of misinterpretation. Nevertheless, even face-to-face conversation can be misinterpreted. I think most all of us recognize this.

Since we have no telepathic powers (outside of science fiction), we humans find it challenging to understand the intentions of those with whom we interact via the spoken (and written) word. Obviously, the barriers between people who are native speakers in different languages are even higher, even when they are both reasonably fluent in a common language. In addition to the language barrier as a direct impediment to communication, the cultural contexts put a level of subtlety on the spoken word that can be quite difficult to communicate. Verbatim, word-for-word translations between languages are notoriously bad at conveying meaning. I wonder how many wars between nations speaking different languages have begun because of a misunderstanding that has its origins in such communication barriers.

Even when considering only native speakers of the same language, the spoken word can convey impressions that are inconsistent with the intentions of the speakers. Some recent experience makes that very clear to me - and it's something that concerns me. How easy it is to assume that you've been understood in all aspects, when the reality is that your message was lost because the hearer heard something in your words that you never intended to say.

I can only suggest that when your blood is boiling because of what someone has said to you, perhaps it's a good time to slow down that reactionary response, and consider what the speaker's intended meaning might have been. Rather than a direct response to a perceived insult or provocation, you should consider a more measured response, seeking clarification about their intended meaning. Yes, this is probably more easily said than done, but it might prevent you from having the conversation descend into a tit-for-tat exchange of angry verbal grenades, or worse. Don't respond to what you think you heard; instead, seek a clarified understanding of the speaker's intentions.

Human language is reknowned for its capacity to convey subtle shades of meaning. But that subtlety includes the potential for ambiguity of intention. Certain words can stimulate a particular reaction, whereas different, but similar, words might engender a radically different reaction. When you think carefully about it, it's remarkable that we're as successful at communication via language as we are. The subtleties conveyed through the spoken word can be lost if the recipient doesn't grasp them, for some reason. It's dangerous to assume that the recipients of your words have understood your intended meanings.

Damage control: East Anglia ethical lapses

Recent disclosures of possible ethical problems within the climate change science going on at the University of East Anglia have stimulated a firestorm of accusations by the global warming skeptics. I recently received an email from an acquaintance:

Saw the attached editorial in the Wall Street Journal and was amazed that I had not heard anything about this scandal. I did a little research and saw the distrubing [sic] trends that I had long suspected might be coming to light. I have always known that man was probably having some profound effect on the environment, but probably not in the respects or degrees that the media was putting before us. This has huge implications as we are moving toward Capping Carbon and the U.S. prepares to enter in with the rest of the world in global treaties that will probably not have any unilateral aspects. I am almost certain that the U.S. will take the biggest brunt of the cost of so called "Global Warming". ... The point of this for me anyway, "Who do we trust." If we are going to make decisions that are costing farmers, industry, and all citizens billions of dollars then we need the correct data. I want to do what is right for my children and grandchildren, but I cannot make good decisions about what I believe if the liberal media and various environmental groups decide to massage the data to their liking. Let's Beware.

My responses follow ...

Beware, indeed! It's very appropriate to ask the question about whom to trust. Unfortunately, like everything else humans do, science is done by people and some of the participants haven't always been completely and perfectly ethical. Within any group of humans, you will find those who are willing to go beyond ethical boundaries.

Nevertheless, it's simply stretching credibility to the extreme to take the sins and errors of a few climate change scientists and extrapolate to reject the content of the IPCC reports, which are the consensus among hundreds of scientists. A few of those scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports are friends of mine, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that they've perpetrated the sorts of shenanigans that have come to light as the result of the hacking (an illegal act, by the way). I know something about the topic of physical processes as they relate to climate change and the notion that global warming is not happening is simply absurd.

This isn't a conspiracy within climate change science, although a few may have gone beyond ethical limits. It's not about the mythical "liberal media" pushing the global warming agenda. And "climategate" is an obvious verbal ploy to manufacture a media-based scandal. If a limited number of scientists have "massaged" the data inappropriately, then you should also consider the very real possibility that some (if not many) of the so-called "skeptics" have been massaging their data to show contrary results.

You're free to believe whomever you wish, of course. I understand your frustration when some scientists cross the boundary to unethical behavior. Such behavior bothers me, too. But don't believe that they represent anything more than a tiny fraction of the contributors to the IPCC report. You should also understand that science doesn't do well with absolutes - see my essay about how science works.

It would be nice if science could answer questions with a simple "yes" or "no" answer. But that's just not the way things work. Consensus CAN be wrong, and anyone claiming infallibility for consensus science should be viewed as suspect. For some thoughts about how to look at the question of global warming see my essay on the subject.

If you want to do right by your children and grandchildren, consider section 5 of that essay about a "policy of least regret".

Meanwhile, another acquaintance sent:

Chuck,
Even some non-scientists have legitimate concerns about openness and honesty in science.

My response follows ...

Anyone who was laboring under the notion that science (a decidedly human endeavor) has heretofore been immune to ethical lapses must be living in a world of fantasy. Concerns about openness and honesty in science are legitimate. What's happening here is that climate science has revealed itself to be the same as any other science - ethical lapses by small groups and individuals can happen. It's unfortunate when it happens and enters the public consciousness, as it does indeed tarnish our "image" - but a squeaky-clean image for science is simply not realistic so long as science is done by fallible human beings.

We scientists need to be concerned about such things, and to reject them as unworthy of the scientific enterprise. But to extrapolate to say that "science is dying" is simply absurd. Climate science has joined a long list of other sciences in which scandalous ethical lapses have occurred. Science isn't dying, but we must repudiate those who sully the profession and renew our personal pledges not to fall into ethical traps. The ends never justify the means.

Hubris: Thy name is the Corps of Engineers

Sorry for the long drought of posts ... I've been unable to connect during my recent trip to Beijing, China. I had Internet but couldn't get through. While there, I wrote the following in response to a news item.

According to the Associated Press:

“Katrina ruling could bring new deluge of lawsuits
“By CAIN BURDEAU (AP)
“NEW ORLEANS — A landmark court ruling blaming the Army Corps of Engineers' "monumental negligence" for some of the worst flooding from Hurricane Katrina could lead to a new deluge: billions of dollars in legal action from thousands of storm victims.

“The federal judge's harshly worded decision also served as vindication for residents of St. Bernard Parish and the Lower 9th Ward in New Orleans who have long argued that Katrina was largely a man-made disaster, caused by the federal government's failure to maintain the levees protecting the city.”

This story has two components: the first is the long-standing arrogance of the Corps of Engineers in trying to “manage” the Mississippi River (and others, of course) for the benefit of humankind. The 19th Century belief that humans could bend the natural world at will to serve people has not yet died its well-deserved death. All that the “management” of the Mississippi River has accomplished is the consumption of vast amounts of resources for what is inevitably only a temporary solution. The river eventually will go wherever it wants to go – its massive and inexorable power exceeds our ability to force it to our will indefinitely.

By maintaining the fiction (at great taxpayer expense) that we can force the river to go where we want it to go (and stay out of areas well below sea level), we’ve encouraged the settlement of places that would otherwise be natural wetlands. Katrina was the catalyst for the failure of the levees, and it might well be the case that the levees had been neglected, but those levees were destined to fail eventually when given a serious test by heavy rainfall leading to floods or a hurricane even stronger than Katrina. Perhaps the Corps was less willing to spend its resources on the levees around New Orleans because it had other, higher priorities. I’m not trying to rationalize for the Corps – far from it – the Corps has created the very situation in New Orleans that encouraged the “development” of the areas protected by those very levees. The flooded parishes in New Orleans, in effect, were created by the Corps (and the city of New Orleans, which also has a long tradition of arrogance, dating back at least to the 1927 Mississippi River floods).

It long has been recognized that New Orleans was in the center of a bullseye, and Katrina was a very near-miss that nevertheless was enough to trigger the collapse of some of the inevitably-doomed levees. Perhaps that was due to maintenance that was inadequate, or perhaps not. The fate of the levees, maintained or not, was to fail.

This legal ruling clearly leads the way for a wholesale plundering of the Corps via lawsuits. Of course, those lawsuits could utterly destroy the budget of the Corps, which presumably would be expected to continue its mandated duties, anyway. So how could the Corps continue to operate in the face of all those lawsuits? Evidently, the Federal Government would have to increase its outlays to support Corps activities. What cutbacks to other programs would this necessitate? From where would this money come?

What this amounts to, then, is a huge bailout for some of the residents of New Orleans – those able to hire lawyers and drink deeply from the Federal trough. In turn, this means that the taxpayers of the U.S. would be bankrolling welfare for those relatively well-to-do New Orleans residents.

As I’ve said elsewhere, it makes absolutely no sense to rebuild those flooded parishes in New Orleans. All it does is replace a thoroughly riddled target bullseye with a new one, ready to be destroyed by the next big flood or tropical cyclone that inevitably will affect New Orleans. The message of Katrina isn’t truly about negligence by the Corps. It’s about hubris by the Corps and the people of New Orleans.

Those New Orleans residents seeking to rebuild, perhaps with the infusion of funds from lawsuits against the Corps, are guilty of blaming the hand that created the situation where they were at risk of disaster in the first place (the Army Corps of Engineers). That disaster occurred in the form of Katrina, but these folks apparently still don’t get the message. If they want to blame to Corps for something, it should be for cooperating with the City of New Orleans in perpetuating the myth that the overwhelming forces of Nature could be held at bay forever. The residents seeking funds to rebuild will share the blame for the disaster(s) yet to come, if they go back to those parishes and rebuild.

The rest of the nation’s taxpayers should not have to foot the bill for the arrogance and naivete of New Orleans residents. Those in New Orleans who want to go back to the flooded parishes shouldn't be bailed out when the next meteorological disaster devastates those places once again. There should be no government-supported safety net, and either no insurance at all or insurance only with a massive increase in premiums to cover their eventual losses. The inevitable disaster's costs should be the sole responsibility of those foolish enough to rebuild and live there.

------------------------
Response to "Anonymous":

Apparently, your being offended didn't give you the courage even to acknowledge ownership of your comment by using your own name. If you're offended by my comments, that's your personal choice, and not my responsibility.

If New Orleans were my hometown and I lived in one of those flood-prone parishes, I'd be doing my damnedest to get out of there as best I could! I'm sorry for those who have to stay, but for those who choose to stay, I offer the following: it's costing billions to allow you the chance to live there. That cost is being spread to everyone in the nation, rather than falling exclusively on those of you who seem to believe that it's our national responsibility to help foot the bill for you to have the privilege of rebuilding at the center of a bullseye!

Greensburg, Kansas, is a poor analogy - there's no particular reason to single out Greensburg for tornado threat compared to the surroundings for hundreds of miles in any direction. The odds of them being dead-centered by another violent tornado in the next hundred years are really low. On the other hand, much of the "developed" portion of New Orleans exists because of the levees that hold back the Gulf and the Mississippi River in the best of times. Levees always fail eventually, and it had long been foretold that New Orleans would get hit by a bad hurricane, resulting in catastrophic flooding of the low areas. Greensburg isn't at the center of such a bullseye and it makes much more sense to rebuild Greensburg than it does to rebuild those places in New Orleans that are below sea level! The odds of another major hurricane hitting New Orleans in the next hundred years are pretty high.

New Orleans has a long history of arrogance ... read the book Rising Tide by John M. Barry for a shameful episode in their past. It's available at Amazon.com. I understand you might have many reasons for wanting to remain in New Orleans, but none of those reasons are rational.

Unanticipated fallout from having children

Tonight my lovely wife took me out to dinner for my birthday. It turned out that the manager of the restaurant was a friend of my son's from way back. He'd been in our house back in the day and recognized us despite our advancing age, and it was great to see and just chat with him again. Obviously, he was doing a great job because our experience there justified my choice to celebrate there. Seeing him provided an unexpected bonus for my birthday celebration - having an intimate dinner with my bride was great, so this was the cherry on top of the sundae.

But that's not what prompted me to write this, tonight. This delightful experience got me to thinking about how many of our friends have come into our lives as a direct result of the things our kids did during their formative years: the school and extracurricular activities of our children expanded our circle of friends to include a large number of very special friends. Not only did our children bring joy into our lives in their own right, but they put us in contact with a much wider circle of friends than we otherwise would have had. Many of those friends we acquired through being involved with our children have been and continue to be a great blessing in our lives.

For those of you who have not had children, I understand there are many things to be worried about when making the choice to be nor not to be parents ... the expense and trouble of being a parent: childhood illnesses, sibling rivalries, smart-ass teenagers, whiney behavior, etc. I won't deny that being a parent carries with it a heavy burden of responsibility and asks of us some things that we love to gripe about with our colleagues in parenthood - but which people with no children can't possibly understand.

Nevertheless, in addition to the many wonderful moments that children offer to you that (in my experience) more than compensated for the challenges our children presented us ... they will give you the opportunity to develop relationships with other adults that can enrich your lives far beyond your expectations. I never knew that such important contacts might flow from the apparently simple choice to have children. I never imagined that my life would be so vastly blessed with new friends and relationships that have become profoundly important to us.

I owe a great debt of gratitude to my children ... both of them ... for everything they've added to my life. I'm only now beginning to appreciate how much I would have missed had we not chosen to bring them into the world. It was the right choice for us. I can't thank you enough, Chad and Heather.

It's a checkerboard world

Of late, I've been reading postings by people I know in various places around the Internet. I have this odd feeling we seem to live on different planets. A number of my friends are about as different from me in certain terms as it's possible to be. I consider myself to be a "liberal" in some ways and "conservative" in other ways - hence, I prefer not to pigeonhole myself.

I found the GW Bush years to be a time when I was ashamed to be an American - he was virtually the perfect antithesis of everything I believe in. Eight years under that smirking, arrogant sonofabitch was about all I could take.

But I don't find Barack Obama to be the light at the end of that tunnel. Contrary to the rantings of my right-wing friends, I think the new President has erred by compromising his liberal principles too many times, already. He concedes to the Christian Reconstructionist Party (the Republicans) and receives absolutely nothing in return - that's not compromise. It's capitulation.

Despite my friends' very evident paranoia over his "liberal fascist" policies, I believe he's not anywhere near liberal enough. He seems determined to pretend that our economy can actually recover to become what it was before the recent catastrophes, triggered by stock market crashes, and by the criminal mismanagement of the credit business by greedy capitalists who've devastated millions of people and barely received a slap on the wrist. If it becomes what it was before, it's only doomed to more criminal manipulation and the inevitable credit busts.

We continue to live in a dream world, where everyone seems blissfully unaware of how the price of energy is a sword of Damocles over our heads. We continue to fight a war for control for middle East oil. That war itself consumes vast quantities of oil every year, keeping warships, warplanes, and tanks in the fray, to say nothing of the American lives it consumes. We squander hundreds of billions on this war when we should be investing in alternative energy sources, doing something to develop a transportation infrastructure that doesn't rely on the automobile, and reducing our consumption of fossil fuel. How can the politicians continue to stumble down the same tired pathways, ignoring the problems that await us around the corner?

As our nation slides into scientific and technological illiteracy, we continue to become more and more convinced (as a nation) that religion offers a more meaningful understanding of biology, climate, astronomy, and geology than what science provides. We Americans have built our position as a superpower largely by being creators and innovators in science and engineering - but our national ethic seems to be turning its back on all that in favor of teaching our children to prefer religious dogma to pragmatic science.

I find it particularly disturbing that my right-wing friends seem to think that Obama is some sort of Anti-figure to the reign of the GWB Crime, Inc. admininstration, leading our nation to ruin. If he's leading our nation to ruin, it's because he's not moving our nation down pathways sufficiently different from those of his predecessor in the Oval Office! He hasn't pulled our military out of the Iraq fiasco. He hasn't pushed for hard controls on the abuses that led to the credit swap default fiasco. He hasn't lead us toward decreasing dependence on fossil fuels and toward support of alternative energy sources. He hasn't taken serious action to respond to the threat of global warming. He has yet to repeal the Patriot Act, which is the most serious threat to American civil liberties since WWII with its associated nullification of habeas corpus. He has yet to deal with the abuses of torture in the military. He just isn't doing what I believe he was elected to do.

My right-wing friends and I will never agree on any of the political and religious issues that divide us. We can only continue to be friends by agreeing not to talk about these points. The world is fractionating into a checkerboard, where it seems the alternatives are only black or white. You're either with me, or against me - to paraphrase Christ and GW Bush. Sad, sad, sad ...

A vulgar display of American horsepower

I recently (25-27 September 2009) attended the O'Reilly/Castrol Fall Nationals drag races at Ennis, TX with my friend, Al Moller. It had been quite some time since either of us had been to a professional-caliber drag racing event - we both came away wondering why we stayed away for so long. It was a fantastic experience, despite the heat and the burning sun we had to endure in the grandstands. We had terrific seats on the north side of the track, very close to the starting line, so we could see the launches right out of the hole. And we wandered about in the pits during breaks in the action, as well, seeing some of the racers up close and in person.

Drag racing is a truly American extreme sport. You can read about it at the National Hod Rod Association site. Its origins lie with the love affair Americans have with their cars and the natural competitive nature of Americans: who has the quickest car? Since street racing is dangerous, as well as illegal, and not recommended, the NHRA (in particular, its founder, the late Wally Parks) came up with an idea - to take the "hot rods" to a track where the racing could be done under safe conditions without danger to non-participants, to see who could cross the finish line first in a straight line race (rather than a roundy-round thing that goes on for an extended time). In a quarter mile, you could settle the issue in a few seconds, once and for all.

With time and typical American mechanical innovation and creativity, the sport evolved from heads-up, "run what ya brung" hot rods all mixed together into various classes of cars, with the ultimate classes being the top fuel dragsters and fuel "funny cars". These are the most extreme cars in motorsports, with large, purpose-built engines running on a mixture of nitromethane and methanol. Their sole purpose is to accelerate as fast as possible and in their current incarnation use 8000 horsepower engines in the lightest allowable car (there are rules that govern the details of what is a legal car to run, mostly seeking to provide some measure of safety). The engines are always on the ragged edge of blowing up under the strain.

Top fuel dragsters begin from a standing start and reach speeds approaching 300 mph in about 4 seconds flat (or less) over a distance of 1000 ft - the distance in the top fuel categories was reduced from 1320 to 1000 ft for safety purposes. When dragsters were first developed, they used engines originally built for street vehicles, but were modified by the racers in various ways to provide more horspower. The cars gradually became lighter and lighter as the technology of dragsters evolved, even as the engines increased in power - the result? More and more speed, shorter and shorter elapsed times (ETs) to get down the track. In today's world, the specially-built drag racing engines have their origins in Mopar hemispherical head designs dating from the 1950s, but the real top fuel engines today are engineered and built from the start to be racing engines. They're no longer modified regular car engines. They're a V-8 design, producing around 1000 horsepower per cylinder! For comparison purposes, the typical passenger car engine produces about 125 horsepower from 4 or 6 cylinders.

Some simple calculations show that going from 0 to 300 mph in 4 seconds represents an average acceleration over that 1000 ft distance of around 3.5 x the force of gravity (g). At the start, the cars accelerate at around 6 x g - the acceleration decreases with time down the track because of the increasing air drag on the vehicle (which goes up as vehicle's speed increases). When a top fuel dragster launches from the starting line (the "hole"), the engine is producing a deafening bellow at a sound level of about 120 decibels - enough to damage your ears. Therefore, the racers and most spectators either cover their ears or wear earplugs. But the sound isn't limited to what you can hear - the sound can be felt in your whole body as the car goes by. When it passes, you can smell the nitromethane ("nitro") fumes in the air - a sweet, acrid smell that's unmistakable for anything else. I love the smell of nitro in the morning - it smells like ... victory! (my apologies to Robert Duvall and Apocalypse Now)

This sport is as uniquely American as jazz, the blues, apple pie, chili, tobacco, potatoes, musicals, and tomatoes. It's caught on in England and Australia to some extent, but it's not popular in continental Europe or Asia, which are homes to sophisticated motorsports fans. Unlike Formula-1 or sports car racing, drag racing is brutally simple: put the most horsepower you can into the lightest possible car allowed by the rules, race it down a straight line for a quarter mile (1320 ft or about 2 city blocks) - or 1000 ft - and see who crosses the finish line first. The race is decided in a few seconds. You can see the entire race - start to finish - from your seat in the stands. And one race follows the other in rapid succession, as hundreds of hopefuls try to qualify for and survive the eliminations to win a championship in their class.

What you see on TV is but a pale imitation of the sights, sounds, and smells of the actual experience. If you ever go see a real NHRA drag race, you'll likely either love it or hate it. A friend we met for the first time at this year's races took his father to the Fall Nationals last year. His father's reaction? "It's a vulgar display of American horsepower." Al and I agreed with our new friend - yes, that's true, and the more vulgar, the better!

For myself, I think my love affair with drag racing likely is connected to my love affair with supercells and tornadoes (the most extreme storms on the planet!). The beginning of my interest in drag racing was due to my cousins in Illinois, who were older than I and into hot rodding and drag racing. Since my cousins were my role models of the time, I followed their interests and got hooked on drag racing myself. I saw my first big-time, professional drag racing event at the World Series of Drag Racing at Cordova, Illinois, sometime in the early 1960s (I think, when I was in high school). And my best friend from high school, Tom Schifler, and I became regulars at Cordova for a while - we even went to the US Nationals in Indianapolis a couple of times in the late 1960s.

My first interest began earlier though, in the late 1950s, when "Big Daddy" Don Garlits was bursting onto the drag racing scene. Don Garlits became a favorite of mine (like John Force is today). I looked forward to seeing him race and if Garlits showed up, I was really pleased. I liked the brute force of drag racing and the technical side, as well. I liked the creativity and ingenuity of the racers in all the classes, especially in the "sportsman" and "stock" classes.

I learned a lot about automotive engines without ever becoming a mechanic. My interest in the sport has suffered from other, higher priorities at times, but has never been forgotten. This year's event may get me back to attending more regularly. Al and I are already planning to be back in Ennis for next year's event! Maybe we'll see you there?

Global Warming and Evolution as Political and Religious Topics

In my last post about civil discourse, I talked about having an open mind and its importance to the character of a discussion/argument. When it comes to science, however, there are some limits on what an open mind must consider as pertinent. In particular, arguments predicated on someone's beliefs rather than on evidence or logic is beyond the boundaries of what I consider to be worthy of consideration in the discussion.

For example, many people I know, including some folks who wear the label "meteorologist" find it easy to discard the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and say they just don't buy into the notion that humans are responsible for a significant part of the observed increase in global temperature. [I'm not going to touch on the notions of those who go still further, to deny that the global temperature is rising - they're already well beyond the pale of science.] The IPCC report was created by a large number of specialists in climate research and the content of that report contained essentially no minority opinions because they were more or less unanimous regarding the main conclusion that the evidence supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic climate change is real and significant. Most of the disbelievers like to point out that not all climate change scientists agree on this point. Surprise, surprise! There are very few aspects of science to which all scientists agree. So there are some scientists out there who don't accept the consensus view of the IPCC report. On that basis, the disbelievers among the folks I know are willing to discredit the consensus without actually understanding the scientific issues. I'm a meteorologist, but I'm not a global climate change researcher. I believe it would be rather arrogant for me to reject that consensus simply because I heard of some scientists who don't believe in that consensus or because it violates my personal beliefs.

What gives those who are not global climate change scientists the idea that they can reject the consensus without having any direct evidence of their own? That idea, in my opinion, stems from the fact that global climate change has been transformed into a political issue. In politics, one opinion is pretty much at the same level as any other. You can embrace or reject political opinions at will and you need not muster a shred of evidence or logic to support that stance. Your beliefs are sufficient. In science, some interpretations are at a higher level than others because they're based on stronger evidence and/or more compelling logic. Scientific issues aren't decided on rhetoric alone. Not all scientific opinions are equal.

Why has global climate change become politicized? Because if we are to respond to the potential threats posed by global warming, it will have considerable economic and social impact! Mitigation of anthropogenic climate change requires decisions to be made in the political sphere. The people in a democratic nation would have to show their support for any decision to be made by electing politicians they believe would vote on those political issues the way the voters want. The majority rules, so the politicians want to read the pulse of the voters to know in which camp to throw their support. After all, the primary motive for a politician is to get into and stay in public office. Anything else is optional, at best.

Which way should the citizens lean on a politicized scientific issue? Is consensus science always right? No, of course not, but would it be sensible to base a decision that has far-reaching societal impact on the opinions of some maverick scientist well outside of the consensus? Only if that maverick was correct. But how does a non-participant in the science know who's right and who's wrong? The IPCC consensus has emerged from the best evidence that a large cross-section of the world's climate change scientists can muster. The IPCC was formed with the explicit purpose of informing political decision-makers which way to lean on the issue of anthropogenic climate change. Some politicians don't like the IPCC consensus because it threatens their political agenda.

Does it make sense to reject that consensus without knowing much of anything about the global climate change science that has formed that consensus? Most voters won't ever be able to make informed decisions about most scientific issues because most voters aren't specialists in those scientific areas. Does it make any sense, then, to decide to reject the IPCC consensus on the basis of what amounts to political opinions? I think not. Although I know more about meteorology than most voters, I have no evidence of my own to deny the validity of the IPCC report. I know some of the participants and I trust their science. That trust doesn't make them infallible, but it's not based on a personal whim, either. I don't comprehend how people who know less than I about atmospheric science can take a position opposed to that consensus, except because of either a purely political opinion, or an innate mistrust of any authority (so a maverick appeals to them despite having no basis for deciding the validity of that maverick viewpoint).

Note that most of meteorological debate on scientific issues stays within the scientific community. There's no political fall-out from the ongoing argument about using vertical wind shear or storm-relative helicity to understand supercells and tornadoes. So the media aren't covering that topic, and the political parties haven't got a shear versus helicity plank in their platforms. It's not something that can or should be settled in the media. The argument goes on between the advocates without any press conferences, intergovernmental panels, etc. The issue eventually may be settled in some fashion but those participating in the argument won't be appearing in media interviews to attack their scientific colleagues, or to respond to attacks in the media by their colleagues. In other words, without the attention of the media and the politicians, science will go on as usual - issues will be decided on the basis of evidence and logic, not opinion. The consensus isn't dogma - it changes all the time, but on a rational basis - not according to personal whims and beliefs.

It's a real shame that societally important scientific issues apparently can't be decided in the proper way - I refuse to participate in an argument where my opponent in the discussion has a closed mind about the inadmissability of his/her beliefs in the discourse.

It's much the same about the apparently widespread belief in the religious dogma about a supernatural origin for life. It's not an open mind that rejects the position of consensus science regarding the overwhelming evidence in favor of evolution as opposed to religious creationism. Rather, it's a thoroughly closed mind - closed to the logic and evidence that supports evolutionary biology. Supernatural explanations can have no place in science regardless of their possible validity in other magisteria. Someone who embraces the notion that supernatural causes are a scientifically valid "explanation" for life is dogmatic in the extreme.

Why is there creationist biology, but no theist severe storms meteorology? Because the sacred texts of the world's deist religions have virtually nothing to say about storm dynamics! If these sacred texts offered an extensive description of how their deity creates tornadoes, then perhaps we'd be having theists calling for alternative explanations in scientific textbooks, and radical theists disrupting school board meetings to impose creationist tornadogenesis theory in schools. Since no such text appears, the theists feel no threat to their beliefs from severe storm science.

Anyone who believes in their religious version of creation in preference to evolutionary biological science is outside the domain of a reasonable discourse. Science rejects dogma in favor of evidence and logic. If you dispute scientific consensus, then you must present extraordinarily good evidence to support such an argument. If you have none of your own, then you really have nothing to offer in a rational discourse. I don't have to open my mind to your nonscientific belief system. My mind isn't closed to rational argument, but you have nothing of the sort to present. Further discourse is impossible, and the best we can hope to do is to agree to disagree.

And just what is civil discourse?

The notion of what constitutes "civil discourse" is certainly arguable. I'm offering the following thoughts on the topic.

1. For a discourse to have value, both members must have open minds. If one member in a conversation has a closed mind regarding the topic, then it's quite likely that the course of the conversation will slide into incivility. What constitutes an open mind can be debated, as well, naturally. Generally speaking, I think having an open mind means a willingness to be convinced by careful logical arguments and/or evidence. A closed mind is one unwilling to consider any possibility, however remote, of changing one's position on a subject.

Most debates over religion or politics include at least one closed mind, and often two (or more). These aren't often civil discourse - they simply represent opposing position statements. You can continue to offer position statements back and forth indefinitely, and that might be a civil discourse of a sort. Without anyone being willing to consider changing their minds, it's at best an information exchange. For the most part, such conversations descend well outside the range of civil discourse.

For the most part, I dislike such conversations intensely and avoid them as much as possible.

2. A civil discourse avoids using provocative language, which inevitably obscures the point being made. Imagine a conversation you're having with an acquaintance on some topic. You've just voiced an opinion and the response is "You piece of shit! You're an absolutely stupid fucking asshole for thinking that!" You might, of course, actually be a stupid fucking asshole (or not - but that's not the point, is it?), but I doubt if the conversation's going to remain on point from that instant on. Your likely response is either to (a) terminate the conversation immediately or (b) come back in kind, with verbal guns blazing.

Now, rewind the tape, and consider your reaction to the following response. "That's an interesting viewpoint, but have you considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" I hope it's clear from this gedanken experiment that it's a rule of civil conversation that foul language, insults, name-calling, and such simply precludes the possibility of civil discourse.

Another variation: "That's an interesting goddamned viewpoint, but have you fucking considered what it might look like from a different perspective?" Same theme, but a very different sort of reaction is likely.

This is not about being "politically correct" (hereafter, PC) at all! Being PC is to use euphemisms and deliberately not using certain words to avoid offending someone. I was recently watching a re-run of "Blazing Saddles" on a commercial station, and the word "nigger" had been blanked out of the soundtrack wherever it was used. This PC version of "Blazing Saddles" was a grotesque mockery of the original movie - the excision of the "N-word" completely missed the whole point of the story, which was done in a comical mode but had some deeper content than farts around a campfire.

But - as another gedanken experiment - suppose I'm having a discussion with a black man and at some point, I call him a nigger. Yes, I know blacks call each other niggers all the time. Why can't I? Well, of course, no one can tell me what I can or can't do, but one of the nearly inevitable consequences of injecting that word into what had been a civil discourse between a white man and a black man is that it almost certainly changes the whole nature of the conversation. Is it reasonable that black folks can use that word among themselves and I can't? No. Of course not - it's stupid, and constitutes a form of racism. In the Army, of all places, I had a friend who was a black man - he called me a honky and I called him a nigger and we got along just fine. We chose not to be offended by mere words.

But the rules of civil discourse generally preclude using provocative words - not because of some slavish adherence to the rules of PCness, not because of some concern for being offensive (you don't need provocative language to offend someone, of course), but simply because it immediately throws the conversation off point. I'm not particularly worried about offending people. I've done it many times simply by being honest - without cursing, name-calling, or vulgarity. If someone wants to be offended, I can't prevent that. But if the goal is an exchange of ideas in order to convince the other party to think seriously about your point of view, you simply can't descend into language you know is likely to be offensive. It's not an arbitrary rule imposed by some authority figure - it's a fact of life.

Sometimes, people choose to become offended by something you say that has no obvious offensive connotation. They come back at you with invective and name-calling. Not much point to continuing such discourse, unless you want to try to talk them down off their high horse.

Most of us know most the words that are likely to offend. George Carlin enjoyed using them for their shock effect (so do I, occasionally) and even developed a famous list of 7 such words that couldn't be used on television:

• Shit
• Piss
• Fuck
• Cunt
• Cocksucker
• Motherfucker
• Tits

[Curious, by the way, that shit is #1 and piss is #2 - I always thought it was the other way around] Without straining oneself, I'm sure that this list could be expanded upon considerably, to include, inter alia, a whole litany of racial epithets and slurs: spick, nigger, wop, kike, chink, gook, etc.; as well as slang names for body parts: dick, pussy, asshole, etc.; and various forms of sexual topics: faggot, blowjob, jerking off, rim job, buttfuck, etc.

Words are just words. We probably shouldn't be offended by them, ever, but most of us are, at least occasionally. The fact is that when you use such language, the response is almost inevitably to shift the discourse away from civility. Using them can become a signal to your partner(s) in the conversation that you're not really interested in changing their minds or having a civil conversation. You likely just want to vent your contempt or impress them with your willingness to defy convention. It's an in-your-face way to assert your position on some topic. You're free to do that as much as you wish, naturally, but don't be surprised or offended that someone responds in a way that signals their disrespect for your part in the discourse.

3. If you want your opinion to be respected, you must respect the opinion of other participants in a civil discourse. Rewind the tape once again in my gedanken experiment - now imagine a response to voicing your opinion about something to be "That opinion simply illustrates that your stupidity is monumental." Note that no typical curse words are involved. [And it's a logical possibility is that you are monumentally stupid. Or, as is often the case, it might be that the speaker is confusing ignorance for stupidity.] This is manifestly a disrespectful statement, nevertheless. I've voiced comparable statements in conversations with friends and acquaintances, but only in two quite different circumstances - (i) in jest, or (ii) in absolute sincerity when I have, in fact, lost respect for the opinion of the other party in the conversation. At that point, I know the conversation is pointless and I have no wish to carry on with it.

4. About the so-called Golden Rule: some recent conversations have suggested to me that this isn't the cure-all I once thought it to be. In its basic form, it says one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. This sounds all well and good, but what if I'm a masochist, and I want others to beat me up? Does that mean I'm obligated by the Golden Rule to reciprocate and beat on everyone? I'm not really allowed to impose my wishes on anyone with the expectation that they'll respond the way I want. People are notoriously different in their responses within a conversation. In general, rather than imposing my wishes on them, I'm going to take the position that how I treat you isn't necessarily how I wish to be treated, nor is it simply a response to the way you treat me ("tit for tat"). Rather, when I engage in discourse, I enjoy having a bit of fun, and I thrive on having people challenge me. So long as the conversation is stimulating, I want to continue.

I'm not necessarily hoping to change your mind, although I hope to see at least some evidence that I might be able to do so. We can agree to disagree in many cases, but what I want to obtain from a conversation is: stimulation for additional thought, new insight, new information, new points of view I hadn't considered, new ideas. If you choose to ignore or dismiss everything I say without offering any coherent argument, then further conversation is pointless, and I'm going to terminate it, if you haven't. Should you choose to lace your conversation with pointlessly provocative words all the time, I can handle it, but it's a distraction I could do without, for the most part. It's not that I'm offended by it - it's just an annoyance if it dominates the discourse. The occasional expletive here and there isn't any problem for me - only when the talk reminds me of conversations in a military barracks does it become an issue for me.

So you want me to spoon feed you?

Today, in the midst of a conversation with a colleague who shall remain nameless, I had a realization. We were discussing a topic we had talked about a few days ago. In that previous conversation, I'd indicated that this colleague could learn a lot more about what I was doing by reading the publications I'd co-authored on the topic and by reviewing the essays on my Webpage. When I asked him today if he'd read those papers, he said he hadn't. He then wanted the URL to my website, so I asked him if he'd bookmarked it. "Yes, " he said, "but I have so many bookmarks I can't find anything." Apparently, going to read about my latest research isn't a continuing high priority. I typed in the URL for him, and even showed him the precise locations of the content I'd wanted him to review.

Years ago, I became excited about the enormous potential for information sharing represented by the Internet and the World-Wide-Web. Because of that excitement, I've taken some considerable pains to put out as much information about my work and my opinions about various topics on the Web. Maintaining my websites is not a trivial task, but I felt that providing my colleagues with easy access to my work was distinctly worthwhile.

Instead, it seems, that only a few people ever bother to take advantage of the by-now considerable amount of information that resides on my website. "Oh, I can't possibly keep up with all the stuff you put out there." is a common refrain. "Yeah, I went there about 6 months ago but haven't been back." is another. "I can't find anything there!" is another complaint. My experience today has been repeated many times in the last several years with others - it's not just the one person. Oh, no.

At times, and today was one of those times, I get frustrated with the apparent lack of interest in the content I've worked hard (to say nothing of time the time spent) to make available. It seems that making it easier to access has encouraged a kind of laziness, rather than stimulating the process of searching for information. There's a host of Web tools for assisting in that search, but I find that many people seem to want it handed to them on a silver platter. "Oh, can't you just email me the PDF?" So you want me to spoon feed you? Why am I going to the trouble to make things available on my Website, when so few seem willing to search it for content that's of potential interest to them?

Hopefully, I'll feel better tomorrow, but this is a continuing aggravation ...

America's national shame ...

My friend Max, a friend I met in Vietnam with whom I have stayed in touch ever since, brought this news story to my attention. Former Army Lt. William Calley (who took the fall for the My Lai massacre in Vietnam 40 years ago) made a public apology on 21 August of this year for his actions in that event, admitting he feels considerable remorse for what happened. This is a bit late, of course, but it's to his credit that he's done so. As the saying goes, better late than never. Lt. Calley was the sole person prosecuted for this crime against humanity. He was a scapegoat for the crime, which was clearly a reflection of the horrors of war. No such act can ever be considered the sole responsibility of one man.

Long after the war, I thought long and hard about my experiences in Vietnam. I was blessed with a time and duty station where I was exposed to none of the ugliness that combat troops participating in field operations had to deal with. Although I cannot condone the unlawful actions of my brothers-in-arms, I realized it wasn't possible for me to judge them. Had I been in their boots, what would I have done had I been there at My Lai? It's comforting for me to think I would have resisted shooting unarmed civilians ... but I have to accept that I have no evidence to believe I would have done anything different from what my fellow American soldiers did at My Lai.

What do you think you would have done, had you been there? How can you know the answer? I do know that if you haven't been there and experienced what the soldiers in that situation experienced, you also have no right to judge them.

They, like Lt. Calley, have to live with their choices on that day. Part of the agony of returning combat soldiers is to deal with the horrors that combat brought to them. People back home can't ever truly understand what it was like and so it's mostly pointless even to try. I was in Vietnam, and saw some part of the realities of that war, but by not being in combat, I can't ever truly understand what they experienced. So the returning combat veteran tends to keep it inside because it's obvious that friends and family who weren't there are not going to understand. But kept inside, these experiences can fester, and may become a cancer on the veteran's soul. I never had to deal with that, thank my lucky stars. But I know enough to have some appreciation for what my fellow soldiers may have gone through.

My government "asked" me to participate in that terrible war. I went, and I did what was asked of me, however reluctantly. Since it never involved shooting at another human being, and no one ever shot at me, I have no horrible memories or nightmares with which to try to cope. Lt. Calley, 40 years on, has admitted he was wrong and apologized for his misdeeds. When will our government do the same for its misdeeds during that time? William Calley is far from the only person responsible for war crimes during our long national disaster in Vietnam. When will our government face up to its responsibilities for that terrible time of our history? When will our government apologize to Vietnam, to the American public, and to the American war fighters for their actions in leading us into and continuing that awful, unjust war? If William Calley has the courage, however long after the event, to feel remorse and apologize for his actions, why can't our government show similar courage by owning up to its share of the responsibility for what happened in My Lai (and elsewhere during that long national agony)? Why should William Calley remain the lone repository of our national disgrace?

Many Americans, including me, are upset that the Japanese have never apologized for their war crimes during WWII, arguably with considerable justification. But if our own government is unwilling to admit its culpability in the horrors we perpetrated in Vietnam, can our government be justified in expecting Japan to own up to the war crimes it perpetrated in WWII?