Selective use of evidence

One fascinating aspect of moderate christian apologists is that many of them like to cite "evidence" in support of their beliefs.  One line of such an argument on behalf of christianity is that all the evidence needed is their bible - if the bible says something, then since the bible is a sacred document, then everything it says must be true!  What more evidence would one need?  Apart from the obviously ciruclar argument fallacy, I, for one, consider that such "evidence" amounts to no evidence at all.  The bible is laced with internal contradictions, a lot of historical accounts for which there's absolutely no historical record, a host of ideas about the natural world that are precisely what one would expect from a late Bronze Age set of myths, and so on.  I see no reason to accept anything therein that is not corroborated by some other source of evidence!  Some of my apologist friends, nevertheless, stubbornly maintain that it's evidence.  They go to great lengths to rationalize the bible's contradictions and cast aspersions on scholars who have provided evidence that much of the "history" of the bible is pure fabrication.

Another element of this christian "evidence" is the pseudoscience of creationism.  Anyone who subscribes to creationism in any of its various guises is willfully accepting interpretations of various facts that have been twisted to fit the intellectually barren "hypothesis" of divine creation according to the mythology of their bible.  It's not science - it's religion, pure and simple.  I'm constantly amazed at the bizarre misinterpretations and misunderstanding of science used to rationalize creationism.  Nevertheless, there's a whole cottage industry fabricating such "evidence" to bolster creationism.  And this elaborate collection of pseudoscience seems to be working for many people, given the disturbingly widespread rejection of evolution in favor of creationism in the USA.

Yet another "argument" is that one need only look to the natural world to see vast evidence supporting the deity.  How could I overlook the daily miracles going on in the world around me?  Well ... for starters, I have a rather high standard for what I'm willing to accept as a miracle!  Everyday life just doesn't measure up to biblical miracles that conveniently ceased 2000 years ago, for no obvious reason.  Routine existence is pretty far from supernatural occurrences commanded by a deity.

But perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this is that believers would even attempt to offer any evidence whatsoever!  If one is supposed to accept the reality of the bible and its deity on faith - that is, belief in the absence of evidence - then what possible reason do apologists have for trying to manufacture evidence (where none exists)?  If faith is enough, why call upon evidence at all?  This strikes me as a clear implicit admission of their lack of faith, actually! 

However, if you challenge their evidence, one of two things typically happens:

1.  They ignore your challenges to their evidence and maintain that their evidence is valid no matter what you say.  This is, of course, the sign of a completely closed mind, suffering from intense confirmation bias (the universal human tendency to accept uncritically any evidence no matter how flimsy that confirms what we already believe and to question any evidence no matter how substantive that challenges what we believe).

2.  They fall back on faith and argue that faith always trumps any evidence, pro or con.  And it always does, of course.  Whenever you choose to accept an idea without any evidence, then there can be no possible rational argument that will dissuade you.  This is why faith is so dangerous, actually.

To me, the fundamentalists who rely entirely on faith are at least being consistent in their position.  They're not dancing with evidence when it suits them and rejecting evidence when it doesn't.  Although such a position in the modern world flies in the face of all that being rational has given us, they're steadfast in their lack of interest in rational arguments.  It's a lot easier for me to understand fundamentalists than it is for me to understand people who accept the principles of logic and evidence in most of their activities but in their spiritual life, they stubbornly cling to some bizarre belief system for which there's no meaningful evidence.  The capacity of the human mind to rationalize is truly amazing!

Freethinking demands credible, repeatable, independent evidence.  No hypothesis based on belief in the absence of evidence is acceptable.  Science recognizes the distinction between ideas for which credible evidence exists, and ideas that presently are beyond our capability to validate.  The latter are considered "speculation" and while there may be good logical reasoning behind these ideas, without evidence to support them, they remain outside of the domain of science.  Science knows its limitations - religion accepts no limits to its "knowledge".

Why is there no substantive NWS training?

I've been an advocate for serious training of its forecasters by the National Weather Service (NWS) for what amounts to my entire career ... with essentially zero progress.  I watched a TV program about military training for snipers recently and was astonished at their methods ... the trainers are all experienced snipers themselves, new tactics are constantly being incorporated in response to changing conditions in real-world battle conditions, the trainers go back in the field after time spent in the sniper training program.  This TV program reminded me of the pitiful state of training in the NWS, and reveals a training process for military snipers that reflects many aspects of a proposal of mine I posted some years ago.  Please read my proposal before continuing ...

I've been told that my proposal is impractical and unaffordable - that is, I'm unrealistic.  Let me ask in response: how realistic is it to offer no meaningful forecaster training to new employees?  How realistic is it to have no continuing education and training program for weather forecasters?  How realistic is it to have no certification process by which forecasters demonstrate their competence periodically in order to continue doing their jobs?  How realistic is it to pour hundreds of millions into new forecasting technology and next to nothing into the people who use that technology?  How realistic is it to assume that four years of undergraduate meteorology provides all you'll ever need to know to do the most challenging job in all of meteorology? From where I sit, it's not I who is being unrealistic!

The human component of the NWS is the single largest budget item for the agency.  The science and technology behind automated, "objective" weather forecasting has been underwritten by hundreds of millions for decades and is ongoing today.  Yet, to this day, the NWS invests only marginally in training and so, for example, we have no idea what it takes to be a good weather forecaster, because that involves learning about people, not about differential equations and computer code.  We meteorologists learn math and physics in school - that's education.  We can argue about how good our meteorology education is, but I know for a fact that at the end of a four year undergraduate program, new graduates still don't know very much about the atmosphere and how it really works.  For myself, it was well into my doctoral studies before I began to obtain a dim understanding of processes in the atmosphere.  Nearly forty years later, I'm still learning, of course!

Training is about how to take the principles you learned via education and apply those principles to a specific job.  In our case, for the most part universities don't train their students how to forecast.
Although a few university professors might do a decent job of instilling the principles of atmospheric science (i.e., educating them), most of them don't do a decent job.  And when their graduates go to work as weather forecasters, how do they learn how to forecast?  See here, as well.  For the most part, it's up to them to learn it on their own.  A few lucky ones might be given the chance to learn from a competent mentor.

What training that the NWS provides is dominated today by "distance learning" - self-study modules on specific topics.  There's precious little face-to-face training of the sort described in my proposal.  Many of the people creating these training modules are good folks, doing the best they can, but it's like bailing out the Pacific with a thimble.  The few in-residence courses are pretty decent, but far too little and too infrequent to be of much enduring value.

It's unconscionable that a bloated NWS bureaucracy continues their incompetent management, even as they shortchange training programs for their forecasters.  NWS management is under investigation currently (spring 2012) from Congress for misappropriating funds ... and it's coming to light how they've allowed their agency to become seriously underfunded over the past several decades.  I wouldn't mind seeing a clean sweep of NWS managers, and a major reduction in the bureaucracy (including NWS Headquarters and elimination of the regional bureaucracies altogether).  There's a lot of fat in the NWS budget, mostly comprising fatheads trying unsuccessfully to manage the system!

Maybe some of the money saved by a drastic reduction of the NWS bureaucracy could be used to develop a meaningful training process in the NWS for the first time in its history.

Communist atrocities

Often, religious believer apologists take umbrage at the point that many atheists make about the long, bloody history of religions.  They particularly like to bring up the point that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and other Communists were atheists, and they're at the top of the list of history's mass murderers.  Hitler was raised a catholic and Nazi propaganda shows a continuing thread of christian bias  throughout his Third Reich's rule - the case for him being an atheist is at least arguable and seems pretty thin to me.  His virulent hatred of jews was shared by many christians under his rule, unfortunately.  Communist tyrants, on the other hand, vigorously replaced whatever religious upbringing their people once may have supported with orthodox Communist ideology.  Communists brook no rivals for dominance!  In fact, a while back, I posted a blog about the parallels between religion and despots of all flavors.

The atrocities committed by Communist regimes were not committed in the name of atheism, however.  Atheism simply was dragged along for the ride.  The nominal justification for these atrocities was always in the name of social "justice" via Communism:  "We were justified in these extreme measures because of the necessity to ensure the eventual triumph of the  'dictatorship of the proletariat.' "  Of course, it was precisely the working classes that were the victims of these horrific deeds, but this essay is not the place to go into details regarding the various Communist tyrannies.

Although the nominal excuse was Communist ideology, the real reason for brutal repression of their own people was that these outlaw regimes were mainly interested in the utter destruction of any opposition to the Communist tyrants.  The ideological slogans and rationalizations served to mask the reality that this was all about total power over the people.  Communist regimes have been linked to atheism, unfortunately, so atheists constantly have to explain how nominal atheists could be responsible for such evil deeds.

Human existence is plagued with vast numbers of instances of abuse of power.  It seems an inescapable penalty we pay for our human societies.  Power always corrupts.  Political ideology occasionally has superceded religion as the main excuse for abuse of power by totalitarian regimes, but it seems that religion and politics often make ready bedfellows - for instance, the catholic church did little or nothing to oppose Nazi war crimes, which seems to imply that they had struck some sort of deal with the Nazis.  They even aided in the escape of some of those war criminals from Germany at the end of WWII!

The orthodox church in Russia could make no such deal with the Bolsheviks (Communists) and suffered intense repression as a result.  This is an exception to the rule - and the orthodox church had no problem looking the other way regarding the brutality of the tsars.  Both politics and religion are about dominance over and control of people's lives, so they can have a mutual understanding.  The words politicians and religious leaders use when they attain dominance are quite similar, their actions are also similar, and the results are unsurprisingly similar.  We are today in the midst of a religious war pitting islam against judaism and christianity.  The rhetoric of all sides is disturbingly similar, the "sacred texts" of all sides are essentially calling for the same thing:  convert or die, and some of their adherents are willing to kill (and die) for the faith!

The argument that atheism must share equally with religion the burden of guilt for crimes against humanity is fallacious.  Apart from the Communist regimes, atheists generally have been minorities throughout world history.  Atheists under the "banner" of atheism have never been in control of a nation!  Some atheists have been in positions of power but often had to stay "in the closet" to attain those positions.  In Communist regimes, everyone was forced into atheism, whether or not they actually were atheists!

I know of no atrocities committed on a large scale in the name of the non-religion of atheism.  No doubt some percentage of rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and psychopaths are atheists - probably a percentage that's below their percentage within the local populations, but non-zero nevertheless.  That Communist atheists have done their share of senseless slaughter can only be extrapolated to atheists in general by means of the specious assertion that the Communists did these things to advance the cause of atheism.  This is an example of the the logical fallacy of a false eqivalence - Communist atrocities against their own people are not the equivalent of the atrocities done in the name of religion.  And even if they were, the transgressions of some atheists don't justify the evils perpetrated in the name of religion.

Consider the religious jihads and crusades in our history (and still going on at present).  It's quite evident that the spread of those religions at the point of a sword/gun is precisely what they've been (and still are) all about!  The slaughter, the torture, the terror, the enslavement is all designed to make unbelievers into "believers" (or corpses).  No organized activity of atheists, as atheists, has ever engaged in such abominable acts.  I challenge anyone to provide any example that doesn't exploit the connection between Communist ideology and atheism!

Who is this for?

As I contemplate writing this tribute, I can't seem to figure out to whom it's dedicated.  I just watched a recorded version of a program about the blues, hosted by Morgan Freeman (one of my favorite actors).  What it brings to mind is a night that will live in my memory so long as I retain the ability to recall things - a night spent at Buddy Guy's club in Chicago.  We had been there to participate in the annual program about storms, storm chasing, and storm spotting put on by my friend Paul Sirvatka from the College of Dupage.  I go to this whenever Paul invites me because - because I grew up there, because Paul is my friend, and because the blues clubs in Chicago are second to none.

Buddy Guy, performing.  I've been to a few concerts where he was playing and despite his age, he still performs with enormous energy and enjoys interacting with people in the audience.

We had gone to Buddy Guy's club Legends because (a) I absolutely think Buddy Guy is fantastic, (b) Coco Montoya was playing there that night, and (c) what more do I need to say?  It was a great night and I was with my friend Al Moller, who has been a huge influence on me in so many ways, including my love for the blues.  The warmup act was - mediocre - and they had finished playing but the headline act (Coco Montoya), was not yet onstage.

I don't recall the details, but suddenly, I hear Al calling me.  "Chuck, come here!  It's fucking Buddy Guy!"  I needed no further motivation.  I went to where he was yelling, and lo and behold, it was indeed Buddy Guy!  I felt like a stupid kid - just what do you say to someone who is truly a living legend?  I mumbled something about loving his work - no doubt it was pathetic - and shook the hand of the great man.  I don't even recall what he said, but I'm sure it was something nice.  I've been in a somewhat similar position and the adoration is kind of embarrassing.  But I just couldn't help myself.  I was just another of his many adoring fans.

I remember asking him if he was going to perform.  No, he said, but he was looking forward to Coco Montoya's performance.   And indeed it wound up being a memorable performance.  There's nothing like the relationship between a great blues musician and his audience!  You just can't capture that in a studio.

I enjoyed this TV presentation of the blues, though it was the usual TV treatment:  mostly superficial and far less that what the topic deserves.  The blues is a great, uniquely American idiom, contributed by the African-American segment of our population and largely unrecognized and unappreciated by white America until the British re-introduced it to us in the 1960s.  The blues musicians were exploited by the music industry.  It's only lately that we've discovered the geniuses in our midst and given them some small recognition for the immensity of their contributions.  No doubt racism is at the heart of this long-delayed recognition, but the fact that people are now willing to accept the importance of the blues in our musical world is at least an encouraging sign of the eventual demise of the scourge of racism.

But seeing Buddy Guy in this TV program made me think of my friend, Al Moller, as well.  In many ways, my long friendship with Al puts me in a better position than I was in with Buddy Guy that night.  I've known Al since 1972, and we have had many adventures together, as well as many shared experiences (not limited to storm chasing!).  I feel more comfortable around Al.  I have the benefit of those years of friendship with a great man.

I wonder what it might be like to be Buddy Guy's long-time friend.  Alas, that's something I'll never be able to know.  What sort of person would I think Buddy Guy is?  If I judge by his music, I think we could be friends - but how meaningful is my response to his music?  Is his creative work indicative of what sort of person he is?  When it comes to it, does my professional work indicate what sort of person I am?  When I think about the work of Al Moller, I see him and his professional work inexorably intertwined.  I see the connections between Al the man, and Al the professional weather forecaster.  I know of the passion that drove his work and which manifested itself in so many ways in his life, including his incredible photography.  I see those connections because I've known Al for so long.

This all forces me to believe that if I had been Buddy Guy's friend for as long as I've known Al, I think his work reflects his passions in a similar way.  Ultimately, we may share that connection, whether we are close friends or not.  Is this essay about Al Moller, or is it about Buddy Guy?  Or is it simply another piece in my lifelong struggle to understand myself?  Sorry - I can't answer that.  But I'm grateful for my friends, and I'm grateful for the joy music gives me.

Proselytizing for atheism?

Many people seem to think that as an atheist, I believe it's my duty to convert everyone to disbelief in a deity.  My believer friends assume I'm trying to convert them, and some of my atheist friends consider it an important part of a supposed campaign to stamp out religion.  But I reject this notion utterly.  I'm not proselytizing for atheism at all!

Make no mistake - especially when it concerns the abrahamic religions (christianity, judaism, and islam), I consider religion to be a pernicious influence on our society without which we'd definitely be better off.  But I also know that trying to change the strongly-held beliefs of believers is mostly a waste of my time. Believers interpret things through the lens of "confirmation bias" whereby they see everything as confirming their beliefs and disputing anything that threatens those beliefs.  If I propose rational arguments against those beliefs, they'll not only not be convinced by anything I might have to offer on behalf of my disbelief, but some might accuse me to trying to convert them, thus confirming their erroneous assertion that atheism is just another belief system, despite the logical situation that disbelief cannot be a belief!

If I thought rational arguments would be effective in converting believers to unbelief, I likely would follow that path, because in my opinion, religions are a system with more downside than upside for our modern societies.  But instead, here's where I'm coming from:  I know it's unlikely I can get you to toss aside your comforting delusions and myths, so I'm not going to try.  In fact, I support fully your right in these secular United States to believe in whatever you choose.  All I ask in return is that you do the same, and not force your beliefs on atheists and other nonchristian believers by inserting religious doctrine into public institutions.   Is that asking so much?  Apparently, it is - some believers see any opposition to putting "In god we trust" on our currency, or to affirming that our nation is "under god" in the pledge of allegiance as an infringement on their religious freedom.  This is such a monumentally illogical argument, it's hard to know even where to begin to refute it. 

Some of my believer friends tell me to just ignore the intrusions of religious doctrine, if it bothers me.  It's just so many words by which I should not be offended.  Or they say, contrary to the reality of history, that the US is founded on religious principles, which couldn't be farther from the truth, but they have bought into revisionist history by which everything is given a religious spin by those who would distort truth in order to carry out a religious agenda that seeks "dominion" - that is, to impose a christian theocracy on the US through the ballot box.  Or they say it's their right to do so because they represent the majority of Americans.  They would seek to impose the tyranny of the majority on all other believers (not of their ilk) and on nonbelievers as well.  If need be, they will toss the Bill of Rights aside in their drive to christian dominionism.

I speak out against the activities by christian dominionists that would increase the penetration of christian religion in our secular nation.  I dispute the absurd illogic that permeates the abrahamic religions because we can ill afford to sink even further into irrationality at a time when we need all the rational thinking we can muster.  We share in challenging times - believers and nonbelievers both - our economy is a mess, unemployment is rampant, the disparity between the rich and the poor is expanding even as the middle class is being pushed seemingly inexorably toward poverty, corporations are buying influence on politicians with increasing success, perpetrators of corporate crime are escaping any justice whatsoever, our civil rights are being trampled upon in the name of the illusion of security against our putative external enemies (shades of 1984), people increasingly are rejecting science in favor of religious myths, and our education system has been pushed to the brink of irrelevancy.  Freedom and liberty are being threatened on many sides and we need innovative thinking, unconstrained by irrelevant religious doctrine.  Oh yes, if I thought I could change people's minds to reject their security blanket of religious nonsense, I would certainly try.

But - it's hopeless.  Believer apologists want to portray atheism as just another belief system.  They say, without any real basis, atheism must be taken on faith because we cannot prove (in an absolute sense) that their god doesn't exist, just as their late Bronze Age religious cant must be taken on faith because it cannot prove (in an absolute sense) that their god does exist.  They say that science requires just as much faith as their religion when that is so patently counterfactual, it's hard to imagine by what twisted logic it can be asserted that science is built on faith.

I post these thoughts not in the vain hope that I will convince believers to abandon their beliefs, but to clarify that my goal is not to do so at all.  My posted thoughts are a plea for a commitment to freedom and liberty for everyone, not just the christian believers.  If there is to be any hope for a common ground upon which believers and nonbelievers can work together, it must be on this secular core represented by the principles of this secular nation as embodied in our Constitution.  If we cannot work together to achieve freedom and liberty for all, then our nation will have failed utterly to have lived up to its promising start.  We will cease to be the shining beacon of freedom we like to believe ourselves to be and will become just another fascist theocracy.

What would it take to be truly "Weather Ready" as a nation?

Having recently returned from the Weather Ready Nation Workshop in Birmingham, AL, I heard many interesting and stimulating ideas generated there.  One that I noticed in particular was the question "Just how do we define 'Weather Ready', anyway?"  I already posted a blog about the utter meaninglessness of the term "StormReady" as it is applied by the NWS.  Here at this meeting, a gathering of very qualified specialists in meteorology and many of the diverse social sciences that was charged with developing multidisciplinary research objectives to help the nation become 'Weather Ready', defining our ultimate goal is not a frivolous question!

Mulling over this question, one thing becomes clear:  our workshop was aiming almost entirely toward institutional responses to help the nation be prepared for whatever the weather will throw at them.  [Hazardous weather is far from being limited to tornadoes - it includes winter storms, heat and drought, flash floods, hurricanes, nontornadic windstorms, hailstorms, and so on.]   We spent our workshop considering multidisciplinary research needed to help institutions (e.g., the NWS, FEMA, local governments, etc.) enhance their activities in response to the threat of hazardous weather.

How close are we now to being ready as a nation?  From where I sit, I'd say we're pretty far from being ready.  I'll expand on that shortly.  Having said this, I must acknowledge that although our existing institutional responses to the threat of hazardous weather are far from perfect, they are much more successful than a superficial examination might reveal.  We really don't know quantitatively (especially in $$ but also in terms of lives) the extent to which the existing systems have saved our nation from disasters.  What we do know is that weather disasters are happening more frequently, and it seems evident that our vulnerability to the weather has been increasing, not decreasing.  A growing population at risk from the weather is manifested in the dollar damage figures (which I admit are only a crude measure of the economic impact of weather).

The institutional responses can and should be reviewed and revised when we know precisely how to do the revisions so as to get the best results.  But I want here to point out a heretofore under-recognized component of our readiness for weather as a nation.  We continue to have large populations living in flood-prone areas, we have large populations living in coastal areas vulnerable to hurricanes and even high-end extratropical storms, we have cities in arid locations that are increasingly struggling to find sources of fresh water, we have segments of our population in relatively warm regions who are unprepared for serious winter storms, heat waves claim lives every year, our homes are shoddily built, ready to be destroyed by the winds, and so on.  The element that is being overlooked, in my opinion, is the personal responsibility that all people living in the USA must bear if they are to prepared.

Witness the pointless "indomitable spirit" of rebuilding in areas devastated by floods.  This continues to happen not only because of the failure of our institutions to deny this foolish response, but because of the irresponsible, selfish failure of those who want to rebuild in the same location to recognize the message the weather is sending: living in this location is foolhardy!  If people want to live in such locations, despite the known dangers of doing so, they should not be allowed to insure their property, or their premiums should reflect the extreme risk to their property (and lives) that living there represents.  Developers in flood-vulnerable locations (such as "10-mile flats" in Norman, OK) need to disclose the risks to their customers or, preferably, not be allowed to develop those areas in the first place.

I've recently discussed the importance of home construction quality in the USA and how inadequate it is.  If the public demands enhanced structural integrity as opposed to fancy marble kitchen counter tops, then perhaps the construction industry will respond.  It's evident that the construction industry doesn't see it to be in their pecuniary interest to offer substantially stronger homes than they're now building.  Without a demand from the public, they'll oppose and lobby against more stringent building codes.  Homebuilders will respond to a demand from their customers, where they would not respond well to demands imposed on them from outside.  People need to understand that better-constructed homes are in their best interest if they want to be prepared for hazardous weather!

It seems to me we've seen a collective growth in the notion that the responsibility for protecting people from weather dangers is loaded entirely on institutions:  the NWS, media weather broadcasters, local government, etc.  Although these institutions certainly are responsible for some part of the effort to be prepared, all their work means nothing if people don't accept their share of the overall responsibility.

The media consistently have dropped the ball in public education, failing miserably in their obligations for public service.  The NWS has little or no capability for outreach to the public, although that's something that should be reconsidered.  For the present, therefore, the primary burden for this must be on the media.  They need to get their facts straight and begin to get an accurate message out to the public:  People must invest their own time and resources if they hope to be prepared for any hazardous weather that might happen in the future.  Throughout the year, the weather poses different potential hazards and the time for people to plan for these hazards is long before the threat becomes imminent!  Institutions should make information available to the public, but the public ultimately must think about and act upon that information for their personal preparations.  If the poisonous viewpoint persists that it's totally someone else's responsibility to protect the public from hazardous weather, we'll never achieve the status of a Weather Ready Nation!

A magic bullet for tornado warnings?

After the tragic tornado season of 2011, with nearly 600 fatalities, it's natural for some agonized re-appraisal to go on.  Some blame themselves, some blame others. But the "blame game" is pointless.  How do we explain all those fatalities, despite the fact that the National Weather Service (NWS) and the so-called Integrated Warning System (that includes media broadcasters and emergency managers, as well as storm spotters and NWS forecasters) did a pretty good job with having tornado warnings out for the deadly tornadoes?

Of late, it's become fashionable to discuss the issue of the efficacy of warnings in terms of the need to do social science-oriented research.  In fact, I've just returned from the Weather Ready Nation Workshop in Birmingham, AL where the main goal was to define research objectives for a multidisciplinary approach to the challenge posed by large death tolls in spite of reasonably timely and accurate warnings.  Hopefully, the outcome of this workshop will be a major step forward in getting the needed multidisciplinary research done.

For decades, the NWS has been focused, naturally enough, on the weather!  During most of my career, most forecasters operated under the notion that they have a forecasting task to accomplish that basically ends when they push the "send" button on their computers and their forecast products (including tornado warnings) leave the office (mostly electronically).  They've not considered it their responsibility to understand what happens when it leaves the NWS office - and it shouldn't be their job.  Weather forecasting is tough enough!  My long-time friend and colleague, retired NWS operational forecaster Alan R. Moller made me aware of the inadequacy of this situation:  even a perfect forecast is useless if the forecast information:

• Fails to reach its intended users
• Is not understood by the intended users
• Is not believed by the intended users
• Is of no value in helping intended users to make critical decisions

For the last year, there's been a lot of angst over the warning process.  What can we do to make them more effective?  What can we do to prevent any of the foregoing stumbling blocks along the path to protecting the lives of those unlucky enough to be in the path of tornadoes?  To a considerable degree, solutions to the problems depend on information about the users we presently don't have, and have only begun to obtain.  Weather forecasters aren't qualified to do the research needed for this - they know meteorology, not social science.  Partnerships between the meteorologists and the social sciences must develop as a result of mutual interest in answering the as-yet unanswered questions about what happens when the forecasters push "send".

I've long been an advocate on behalf of this research and I continue to believe we need those answers before we start meddling with the warning process.  No doubt in reaction to all the angst, the NWS recently initiated a public "experiment" in tiered warnings.  This is an ill-advised, ill-designed experiment. It "recycles" some old terminology and represents nothing particularly new. Its experimental design isn't founded on new understanding of how the public receives, understands, and uses warnings to make decisions. Moreover, it shouldn't have been carried out in a "public" mode. The ability to issue skillful tiered warnings should have been tested in a non-public, "testbed" mode before this project was undertaken - the HWT at the Norman Weather Center would have been an ideal venue for a series of internal experiments establishing the extent of forecast skill before going public. And the physical and social scientists should have been given the opportunity to review this experiment and offer recommendations before the ill-advised decision to go ahead with this was ever made.

Having said all this, I now want to throw  some cold water onto the entropy generated by all this anxiety over the warnings.  First, in my opinion, there's no magic bullet that will transform the existing warnings into something where all the challenges described above are overcome.

Is it our goal to turn the public into automatons who shuffle off like zombies to shelter every time we issue a warning?  Personally, I don't think so.  We have no business telling our forecast users what to do.  The meteorologists need to issue their warnings, but the users must make their decisions about what to do with our weather information on the basis of their own complex needs, which vary from one user to the next.  This diverse set of user needs can't be accounted for in NWS warnings and so I'm opposed to such things as call-to-action statements.  If people need to know what to do in specific situations, the time to learn that was before the threat ever materialized, not in the last few minutes before a tornado strikes.

Although the existing warning system is far from perfect, its impact on life-saving over the years has been dramatic.  I have no doubt that thousands of lives have been saved by the existing imperfect warning system.  Before we start tinkering with the warnings, we need to be as certain as possible that any proposed changes won't result in even less effective warnings than they are now!  First of all, do no harm!!

Second, it's obvious to me that mere wording changes aren't likely to have any lasting impact on the warnings.  We have to reconsider the whole process, end-to-end (to use a phrase that once was popular in NWS management circles), and make changes only on the basis of clear and compelling new findings about the warning process.  Wordsmithing is of little or no value.

Third, the existing warnings do their best with respect to the tornadoes that are most likely to take lives:  long-track violent tornadoes.  We're already doing pretty well there and the rest of the tornadoes only account for a small fraction of the fatalities.  When large, violent, long-track tornadoes hit populated areas, people will be killed.  Most of the time, tornadoes miss population concentrations here in the USA.  A comprehensive explanation for the massive death tolls in 2011 has yet to be offered, and likely involves some complex interactions among factors leading to casualties, but it's my belief that the primary "explanation" is that our luck ran out in 2011.  The threat has been there all along, but we were mostly unlucky in 2011, whereas we've mostly been lucky in the preceding decades.  This has been characteristic of tornado fatalities over time - sporadic disasters decades apart, with much lesser events dominating in between.   We need to review and consider who is being killed in deadly tornadoes and the reasons for their deaths.  I don't believe the "answer" to preventing fatalities is longer warning lead times by tornado forecasters.  As noted, we're already doing a pretty good job with most of the really deadly tornadoes, paradoxically.

What does "Storm Ready" really mean?

Many of my readers know the National Weather Service has a program called "StormReady" that gives communities "StormReady" status when they meet certain criteria.  You can read the criteria on their website.  Some recent experiences here in my community - Norman, OK - have given me reason to doubt Norman's actually readiness for storms, in spite of their having been granted this "distinguished" status.

I wrote an extended essay after a tornado developed near my home late at night in 2009.  The local sirens weren't sounded until well after the tornado began, apparently because no one was in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) to push the button.  On 13 April 2012, a tornado developed just west of Norman and moved across the heart of the city, wrapped in rain.  It turned out to be a weak tornado (EF-1), fortunately.  It dissipated not far from my home.  The sirens again were not sounded until the tornado was well into the city - apparently again because no one was staffing the EOC.  Just how "storm ready" can Norman actually be if this is their track record in threatening situations?  Why was there no one already at the EOC in these situations?  Having an EOC is not very meaningful if there's no one there to operate the facility.

Sirens are not the best means of disseminating tornado warnings, but Norman recently spent a fair sum to install new sirens.  Was this the best possible way to use that money?  I think not.  Apparently, from what I heard, the mayor made that decision on her own, basically, for reasons unknown to me.  I'd like to see the general public wean themselves of their dependence on sirens as their sole means to alert them of approaching hazardous weather.  Yes, sirens might still have a useful function, but people shouldn't be accustomed to depending on them alone to obtain information about the weather.  Whatever I might think about the efficacy of sirens for tornado warnings, however, these two recent incidents seem to suggest that Norman is not so ready for storms as their resume might suggest.

What does "storm ready" really mean?  As I see it, the NWS criteria don't go nearly far enough to establish a meaningful preparedness level for communities to meet.  To be truly ready, communities need to do much more!  For example, who has reviewed and approved the tornado plans in place in the local public schools?  Have those plans been evaluated by someone independent of the school who actually has the qualifications to know what's needed?  Dr. Matt Biddle and I have done some informal snooping around in schools over the years and found several disturbing things:

1. Many schools don't have a functioning weather radio
2. The designated shelters in many of the schools I've investigated have serious problems that would endanger anyone sheltering there
3. Schools often have suitable shelter spaces that are unnecessarily unavailable for use - e.g., interior rooms filled with stored items
4. The structural integrity of school buildings is not always known, so any structural defects that could affect safety need to be identified by someone competent and those flaws fixed
5. Some of the tornado plans I've seen contain fundamental flaws that could put children and staff at risk

A similar evaluation of all the other places in a community where people gather - businesses, malls, recreational facilities, universities, private schools, hospitals, nursing homes, churches, and so on - should be undertaken.  Most of our concerns with tornadoes are focused on residences, and deservedly so, but they're not the only locations where people are at risk in a tornado.  Residential building codes should be in place that mandate enhanced structural integrity.  Families and businesses need to be encouraged to develop tornado hazard plans and to practice them at least once a year.  Public information campaigns to make the community aware of their responsibilities and resources should be routine.

In my experiences here in Norman, the politicians seemed distinctly uninterested in taking full advantage of the numerous subject matter experts in the university and the Norman Weather Center.  Similarly, it seems many of those experts have little interest in contributing to the improvement of the community's preparations for storm hazards.  That this is the case here in Norman seems incredible to me.  How can we presume to lecture to others about what to do to prepare for storms, when our own community is not a shining example of what can and should be done?  Is Norman truly storm ready?  I don't think so!  That should be an embarrassment to everyone.

The false dichotomy: Tornadoes and home construction

The widespread prevalence of mythology seems to characterize the whole subject of tornadoes and their interaction with humans.  For example, I recently wrote a blog about the myth of water tables preventing the construction of basements.  Someone recently passed on to me a "Disaster Safety Review" put out by the Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety, that contains some fascinating material, that I'll address shortly.

However, the main issue compelling me to write this blog is a false dichotomy:  the builders and their lobbyists say that it's possible to build a tornado-proof home, but no one could afford it or even want it.  This argument presumes that the only two options available to a prospective homeowner are either (a) a tornado-proof bunker, or (b) the standard, flimsy frame home built in the USA.  That this is a false dichotomy should be evident to anyone who knows anything about construction.  It's quite possible to construct homes that would resist damage from tornadoes - that is, to some standard somewhere intermediate between (a) and (b).

As should be well-known, the hurricane-prone regions along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts have building codes that mandate homes be built with more structural integrity than is required for homes in the rest of the nation.  Essentially, outside of the coastal zones, the standard is that the home be constructed to resist structural damage in winds up to 90 mph - this is option (b), above.  In the coastal zones, the standard is up to 125 mph!  Apparently the builders are quite capable of building homes to that higher standard (assuming it's actually enforced).  Note that this higher standard does not make homes either hurricane-proof, or tornado-proof!  Their enhanced structural integrity makes them hurricane/tornado-resistant, however. Such homes can be built and apparently they're affordable!

In even a violent tornado (EF4-5), the violent damage comprises only a small percentage of the damage path.  Therefore, by far the majority of the damage path area experiences winds of EF-3 or less (currently, the bounds of EF-3 are nominally 136-165 mph).  If we had all new homes built in the USA held to the higher standard applied in the hurricane-prone regions of the US, we eventually would have far less structural damage to homes, even in violent tornadoes!  In EF-2 and weaker tornadoes, structural damage would be nearly eliminated.  Reduced structural damage would provide reduced debris loads in tornadoes, and it's well known that debris within tornadic winds makes those winds considerably more destructive!

Of course, a lot of "legacy" homes will remain for a long time that were built to the lower standard (b).  Their structural damage would still contribute debris that could affect the damage even in well-constructed homes.  Airborne debris from your neighbor's flimsy home could "reach out" and harm your home, even if your home is well constructed.  I've seen examples of this in my damage surveys - it's not enough just to have your home well-constructed!  Whole neighborhoods and, eventually, whole communities need to be well-constructed to provide the optimum safety from unnecessary damage.  This problem can't be corrected overnight, obviously, but if we do nothing to enhance building codes within the tornado-prone areas of the USA (essentially everywhere east of the Continental Divide), then we'll be plagued indefinitely with what amounts to unnecessary damage from tornadoes.

I note that in the safety review mentioned above, the states of TX, MS, and AL are rated quite low in terms of building code and enforcement.  If one were to search for reasons why tornado outbreaks in "Dixie Alley" produce so many fatalities, this might be a good place to start!

I don't know and neither does anyone else!

Today, with a "High Risk" of a major tornado outbreak in the forecast, some recent experiences prompt me to discuss a tornado-related topic that seems to be springing up everywhere, sort of like playing a game of Whac a mole.  The question is ... wait for it ... Will global climate change cause an increase in the frequency and/or intensity of tornadoes?

I recently had an extended email discussion  on this topic with a famous climate scientist after I posted a blog on the subject.  That scientist, not a specialist in severe convective weather, seems reluctant to accept the arguments of a fellow scientist who has spent 40 years studying tornadoes and tornado climatology, or to do anything to correct "misstatements of his position" on the subject in the popular media.  Whatever - I have no means to control the words/actions of others, nor do I wish to have such control.

The more time I've spent looking at our data regarding the occurrence of tornadoes, the more concerned I've become about the relationship between those data and the unknown true time-space distribution of tornadoes in the USA.  I've said on many occasions that the USA has the best data regarding tornado occurrence in the world, but our data still pretty much suck!  They're dominated by the heavy hand of non-meteorological influences:  population density, challenges to rating tornado intensity, reporting practices, politics of various sorts, and so on.  The effects of these "secular" factors only become evident as one works with the data.

It's indeed logically possible that some of the changes we see over time in the space-time distribution of tornado reports are the result of global climate change.  I certainly have no basis for ruling that out.  Unfortunately, I can't rule out the possibility that global climate change has, as yet, had no effect, either!  Given the very strong signal of a increasing tornado frequency, it seems inevitable that people examining the data for the first time would be impressed most by that very obvious trend in the data. Even a relatively sophisticated newcomer capable of using tools like statistical analysis on the data couldn't avoid being dominated by that trend.   The problem is that deeper examination of the data eventually reveals large biases that clearly have nothing to do with meteorology.

Our tornado data simply do not permit the drawing of conclusions with high confidence about possible changes in the space-time distributions of tornadoes.  No simple adjustments of the data - say, accounting for population bias - can remove the multitude of secular changes that resist being characterized easily in time and space.  Population bias is only one amongst the multitude and it's relatively easy to accommodate, whereas many of the other factors are much more difficult to account for, or even to characterize.  Given the potential significance of the effects arising from anthropogenic global warming, it's easy to understand why someone would jump on a superficial analysis of the tornado occurrence data to make unjustifiable, speculative statements about the future for tornadoes.  But the simple fact is I don't know what's going to happen and neither does anyone else!  Anyone who asserts that they do know what's going to happen with respect to future tornado occurrences has no scientific foundation upon which to stand. 

I'm not happy about this situation, but scientific integrity demands that I acknowledge it and behave accordingly.  I see little or no potential for the development of an extensive data base about tornadoes free of these secular influences any time in the next several decades.  I know of no way to obtain highly accurate data that would reveal the true space-time distribution of tornadoes.  Even if some such solution did exist, we would have to use it for many decades to develop a sufficient sample of events to justify making confident statements about temporal changes in the space-time tornado distribution.

Therefore, this problem isn't going away any time soon, barring some sort of unforeseen new developments in the climatological analysis of tornado occurrence data.  Absent highly reliable information about that true distribution, any hypothesis based on the historical record of tornadoes regarding the future of tornado occurrences as the global climate changes is going to remain speculative - which is to say, outside of the domain of good science.

Legendary? Really? Nope!

In my little corner of the world (severe storms meteorology), I've managed to make some contributions to the science and to the hobby of storm chasing, and am known for being outspoken.  For this, I'm constantly being told I'm a "legend" in the field.  Some people actually seek my autograph, and want to be photographed with me, as if I'm some sort of pop star!  I suppose I should be flattered by this, and it does perhaps reflect that I've managed to become successful at what I set out many, many years ago to accomplish.  That's really nice, but ...

Frankly, I find "legend" status to be inappropriate and pretty silly, actually.  How famous can a meteorologist ever hope to be?  When I go into the grocery store, they still ask for money when I want to take food home.  I don't get police escorts to and from the airport.  I can go out in public without being mobbed by fans.  No paparazzi are following me around.  My portion of "legendary" status is a pretty small one.  And that's just fine with me.  I still consider myself to be a student of meteorology, still hoping to understand more of the natural world's mysteries.

I've never sought to be a legend, and I don't believe I deserve such a label.  And I definitely don't want it!  For me, this sort of putting a person on a pedestal is simply an invitation to be knocked down by folks who may dislike you for reasons of their own.  It also invites the creation of legends - stories that often grow with successive tellings - that create a drastically oversimplified version of the person being afforded legendary status.  A flat, "cardboard cutout" version of the real person being "honored" as a legend results.  The real person who farts, belches, curses, makes all sorts of mistakes, and even does stupid things is lost somewhere behind the false front of the legend.

The recent fall of Joe Paterno is a good example - there were rumors of his being less than perfect (arrogant, hard to work with, abusive to his subordinates, etc.) during his coaching tenure, but these were buried in the background, little more than whispered rumors outside of the football program.  That is, until events at Penn State called his legacy into question.  Then, wolves were howling for his skin well before all the facts were known.  Outside of Penn State and its alumni, many people now think of Joe Paterno only in terms of his fall from grace.  He didn't deserve "legend" status in his prime, and now he doesn't deserve all the negatives heaped on him as a result of his downfall.

When I read posthumous tributes, I'm often struck by the almost uniformly adoring tone of them, even when the real person was not very admirable.  This reflects some sort of unspoken conspiracy to not speak ill of the dead, unless they were "legendarily" bad.  No one minds it when you bash Hitler, or Stalin, or Pol Pot, or any other notorious figure.  But when a widely popular figure dies, many people seem inclined to wallow in a competition to say the most positive things about the recently dead person.  If someone else brings up something about the recently deceased that is less than laudable, they often are vilified, even when speaking the truth.  The real person is hidden somewhere behind the cardboard cutout legend.

From dictionary.com:           Legend - noun

          1. a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical.

          2. the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend.

The key point here is that legends are not historical, nor are they verifiable.  They're stories that spring up in connection with people.  I have no wish to be characterized in legendary terms.  If you're going to tell stories about me, make sure they're true, not exaggerated, and not inherited second- or third-hand. 

If you choose to call attention to yourself, rather than to your accomplishment, then you may well be seeking legendary status, perhaps to address some deep-seated insecurity.  As an example, some storm chasers are after fame and fortune, marketing themselves or allowing others to market them as legends - it's not about the storms, it's about them!  I'd be deeply ashamed to do many of the things I see some chasers doing.  And when I die, I'd rather any obituaries focus on the reality of who I am, not some imaginary legend.

The Water Table Myth and Tornado Protection

In several different contexts of late, the continuing myth of the local water table being too high (or too variable) for certain types of construction has come up.  My colleague Dr. Matt Biddle has brought to my attention that this is essentially balderdash!  His father was in the concrete business, and Matt's opinion certainly seems well-founded.  Concrete can be poured and will set up just fine completely underwater!  The home construction industry has been selling the idea that a high water table somehow precludes having basements across a great deal of the southern US.  It seems that the reality is that no such problem exists!  In the past, homes used to be constructed with basements here (in OK, and elsewhere in the south) all the time.  But it's cheaper and faster to build homes on a slab than it is to dig out for a foundation at the homesite and build that foundation before commencing home construction.  This added cost would have to be passed on to customers.  But if people can't afford that cost, then perhaps building on a concrete slab is a viable economic alternative.  Be nice to have the choice!

The home construction industry also opposes needed changes to building codes to reflect the actual threat from tornadoes and strong winds here in the plains - for similar reasons:  it adds to the cost and to the time needed to construct a home.  The latter is critical - builders make their profits by speed of construction.  Get it built quickly so it can be sold quickly!  Builders often seek exemptions from building codes in order to reduce construction time, while sacrificing structural integrity - the use of powder-driven nails to "secure" walls to the sill plate is a classic example.  Building codes generally specify the use of J-bolts for securing the walls to the foundation/slab but the builders circumvent this by obtaining an "exemption" to use the much less secure nailing method (much faster!).  So the bottom line is that if the builders had to increase the price because of their additional costs and time, they wouldn't be able to build so many homes.  Fewer people could afford them.  Profits go down.  The opposition from home builders to change is understood, but it's not necessarily in the best interests of the home buyers!

The tired "water table" excuse has been used for so long now, it's passed into "common wisdom" and so isn't even questioned - Ooops, the water table is too high here!  No basements are possible!  Everyone knows that, so don't bother to ask about it!  This is a classic case where someone raises a somewhat esoteric objection to a proposal, and the proposer is not aware of the reality of the situation, thereby feeling compelled to accept a completely specious argument mostly out of innocent ignorance.  I encounter this sort of thing from time to time - I can think of folks who are masters at pulling such objections out of thin air in a conversation, where further investigation after the argument shows that the objection is in fact without any substantial basis.  I hate it when that happens during an argument, but I admit that I have fallen victim to such, even recently.  The water table objection has been accepted as valid, despite its evident lack of validity, for so long, no one now even contemplates mentioning the issue to their home builder.  If I wanted a basement for a new home I was building, could I even find a contractor willing and able to do it here in central Oklahoma?  I wonder.

What's really bothersome is that builders use the false claim that basements are precluded by the water table as an excuse for not building homes with basements.  This has a direct impact on the availability of in-home tornado sheltering places, of course. That's actually why I'm writing this essay.  If more homes had basements that people could use for below-ground shelters, then we could reduce tornado fatalities as a result.  Just being below ground is not enough, however - there should be something sturdy (like a staircase or a workbench) under which to shelter while in the basement, as debris can fall into the basement!

I recently heard the same incorrect "water table" argument from someone as an excuse why a subway system couldn't be built in a southern state.  I've seen examples where railroad tunnels have been built on the bottom of bays and rivers, surrounded on three sides by water!  The idea that the water table is an impenetrable barrier to the construction of underground rail transportation is just plain false.  A high water table may complicate matters some, and perhaps extra costs will be incurred, but the water table excuse simply doesn't wash (pun intended!).  People may not like the proposal of using rail as a means for public transport, but the water table is not a valid reason to reject such proposals.

When you hear the "water table" argument come up in conversation, feel free to ask the person using it to show evidence that it's a valid argument!  Yes, high water tables can cause leak problems for basements, but there are ways to minimize/prevent that leakage.  It's just not a valid excuse for not building basements in the southern states of the USA!

On the Separation of Church and State

A couple of topics have emerged in some "discussions" on social media ... the first concerns the tax-exempt status of churches.  There have been some pretty strident statements made by some churches that constitute political advocacy, thereby rendering them vulnerable to removal of their tax-exempt status by the IRS. However, it seems the IRS is really not very much into enforcement of the rules embodied in existing law.  As it now stands, like other charitable organizations, including secular ones, churches are granted tax-exempt status in return for their charitable activities.

Some religious radicals believe that churches are literally above the law of the land here in the USA and shouldn't even file for tax exemptions because they're not subject to the laws of our nation.  I think this is a pretty extremist position and won't dignify it with further discussion.

Some religious believers see the restrictions of political advocacy by churches, at risk of losing their tax-exempt status, as an abridgement of their right to free speech.  This is a specious argument!  Free speech is guaranteed to persons, not organizations, and no church member's free speech rights are being taken away by the Constitutional law requiring separation of church and state.  What's being prevented by the threat of loss of tax-exempt status is the "right" of churches to influence their congregation's votes in the political process.  When churches begin to take open, even flagrant stances of a political nature, they cease to be charitable organizations and become political, which should bring the wrath of the IRS down on them.  That is, if the IRS actually was able to enforce the laws, which it seems it's either unable to do, or reluctant to do so for fear of offending someone.

Any church seeking to influence the political process is clearly seeking to abrogate the principle of separation of church and state, which most thoughtful people acknowledge has been good for churches, as well as the USA's secular government.  State-supported religion is bad for religious freedom of any but the one favored religious denomination, and is contrary to the principles under which the USA was founded - despite the revisionist history being touted by advocates of an American theocracy.

The other topic concerns the evident futility of intercessory prayer - prayers asking for the deity to intercede on our behalf.  All scientific tests of the efficacy of intercessory prayer have produced the same result:  such prayers have about the same frequency of being answered as if no prayer at all were offered.  Praying for someone or something is a way to show your concern but such praying cannot be shown to have any effect on the outcome.  Therefore, it actually does nothing for the person(s) being prayed for, but it does make folks feel better, I suppose.  You can show your concern, which can be a comfort, without actually doing anything about the situation!

Anyway, imagine that the deity is what the abrahamic religions claim it to be:  infinitely powerful, infinitely wise, and infinitely benevolent.  Said being is said to have a mysterious "plan" that, conveniently, is beyond the comprehension of any mere human.  It's at least plausible to suppose that such an infinite being could well possess an incomprehensible plan.  Would it be too much to ask for some sort of crude explanation, anyway?  After all, an infinite being should have no trouble formulating an explanation to the dunces it created in the first place.  And if this being loves us, don't we deserve an explanation?  A loving human parent would never treat a child this way!

Thus, when our prayers aren't answered, the excuse apparently is that the deity's plan precluded changing that plan to accommodate human needs (including survival!).  If one grants this deity's infinite powers, we simply should accept our fate as dictated by that plan and acknowledge that the deity does whatever it wants to, irrespective of our pleading.  It seems presumptuous and arrogant to even entertain the idea that our human needs could cause an infinite deity to change the plan, just for us!  Our discomfort is all part of the plan, is it not?  Nothing happens on this planet without the deity's say-so, right? 

Of course, jesus promises in the new testament that the deity will indeed answer prayers from people of faith, in direct conflict with available evidence.  Apparently, the mysterious "plan" supercedes jesus's promises to answer prayers, so the bible should contain a disclaimer to the effect that the needs of the "plan" trump the needs of the supplicants!  Kinda like the needs of the Army, as I recall.  So the infinitely loving being is willing to break promises; that seems pretty evidently contradictory to me.  Couldn't that infinite wisdom have figured out a way to avoid breaking promises?  Oh, yes - I keep forgetting - abrahamic religion isn't based on logic, evidence, and rationality.  It's based on an irrational belief in the total absence of evidence:  the "virtue" known as "faith"!

It seems pretty evident to me that this putative deity is a fabrication - invented by humans in their likeness, not the other way around.  The abrahamic deity some humans have invented for themselves, like all such creations in our human past, is much more human than the believers want to admit:  self-centered, insecure, demanding, jealous, full of lies and contradictions, afraid that humans will seek knowledge and understanding, vengeful to the point of being psychotic - willing to cause everlasting pain and anguish on its creations who fail to accept it as the only true deity, a mass murderer who sees women and even slaves as mere property, etc.  Frankly, it's amazing to me how many otherwise intelligent humans are able to accept this manufactured myth as reality.  But here in the USA, everyone is free to pursue their religious beliefs (thanks to the separation of church and state) - or nonbeliefs - and I support wholeheartedly their right to do so. 

The evils perpetrated in the name of the abrahamic deity continue to result in a blood-soaked human toll.  Is this what we should accept as the philosophical and moral basis for our American society?  I most devoutly hope not!!  Long live the separation of church and state!!

How to honor Vietnam veterans

I certainly cannot and do not speak for all Vietnam veterans.  But I know how some of us feel about that experience.  Today, the flags flew at half mast on the University of Oklahoma campus and I received a copy, via the OU Police department, of the following executive order from the governor of Oklahoma:

I, Mary Fallin, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, in recognition of Vietnam Veterans Day, direct that appropriate steps be taken to fly all American flags and Oklahoma flags on State property at half-staff from 8:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 15, 2012, to honor the many sacrifices made by the men and women of Oklahoma and the United States during the Vietnam War.

Vietnam Veterans Day is a day to honor all the veterans who served in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos during the Vietnam War for their service to their country.  The flying of these flags at half-staff is a symbol from Oklahomans that we remember all those who fought in the Vietnam War, especially those who were killed, and demonstrates our sympathy for their families.

Well, madame governor, while I suppose I appreciate this token of respect, as late as it is in coming (42 years after I left Vietnam), but ... I have a very different suggestion about how to honor the sacrifices made by American men and women in that awful, unjust, and pointless war.  Bring home our warfighters!!  Get them out of Afghanistan and Iraq and all of the many countries where they now do their duty in foreign lands, at risk and causing hardship to them and their families and costing the nation a vast fortune in sorely-needed resources.

There are several important lessons from the Vietnam war but evidently, the current crop of chicken hawk politicians have not learned any of them.  We should not ever be involved in any conflict where our direct national interests are not threatened.  That means that proxy wars on foreign soil for ideological reasons are unacceptable!  We should never engage in a war where there is no clearly defined goal, and no obvious outcome to define the accomplishment of that goal.  The first Gulf War was ended by Bush Sr. when the objective of freeing Kuwait was convincingly achieved.  I had hoped that American politicians had finally understood the Vietnam experience and we would no longer engage in these pointless, endless struggles against "insurgents".  The second Gulf War initiated by Bush Jr. is a classic example of the kind of morass that Vietnam became.  If one Gulf War worked, why not another?  Because unilateral actions to remove regimes we don't like are not consistent with a sane foreign policy.

In its long and bloody history, Afghanistan has fought foreign invaders with bloody ferocity because - they don't want invaders!!  Imagine that!  We smirked when the Soviets got mired in a Vietnam war of their own in Afghanistan, ultimately running away in a fashion quite similar to the American "escape" from Vietnam, with their asses smarting from the ass-kicking they absorbed.  And then we go and do the very same thing by invading Afghanistan!?!?!?  Say what!?!?!?  What are we doing in Afghanistan?  What are these politicians thinking?  American men and women are dying there on a daily basis, to say nothing of the Afghans themselves (including truly innocent civilians).   Our Oklahoma flags fly at half-staff several days per year to "honor" the warfighters from Oklahoma dying in Afghanistan.  To say nothing of the terrible injuries they suffer and the awful impact on their friends and families.  The psychological trauma of multiple combat deployments in these asymmetric wars is also causing a huge toll.  When you put young soldiers in harm's way, you can't expect them to escape without at least some psychological impact, even if they manage to avoid personal injury!  I certainly learned that in Vietnam!

If you want to honor the Vietnam veterans that I represent, you would do well to forgo the token exercise of lowering the flag to half-staff on Vietnam Veterans Day, madame governoer.  Instead, I beseech you use your political influence to keep American men and women out of foreign wars that clearly are not in our direct national interest.  We've invested vast and yet precious resources to be the world's policeman, but no one is so suicidal they would take us on in a "set piece" conflict.  No, we will be bled of our valiant warfighters in wars where we are the invaders - our troops die because they're not wanted in those nations, and there's no real compelling reason to sacrifice their lives and their bodies for mere ideology.  We aren't winning the war on terror by sacrificing our troops in Afghanistan.  The terrorists are succeeding because we seem to have only one strategy to oppose them:  to bomb and shoot people.  This does me no honor at all as a Vietnam veteran.

Vulgarity vs. Insulting

Apparently, Faux News is comparing Bill Maher's calling Sarah Palin a "cunt", a "twat", and a "MILF" with Rush Limbaugh's labeling of Sandra Fluke a "slut".  This is apparently part of a campaign my friend David Matthews 2 calls a "false equivalency".  If it's OK for Bill Maher to use vulgar language in referring to a woman, this is no better than Rush Limbaugh.  If you accept Bill Maher's vulgarity, you must accept Rush's.

Let me see if I can shed some light on why this is a false equivalency.  Bill Maher's stock in trade, like many other comedians, is to use vulgar language routinely.  Many people are offended by vulgar language - as luck would have it, I'm not one of them - but enough people dislike vulgar language (to the point of being offended by it) that it's generally forbidden in most public media.  Cable comedy programs have been featuring vulgar language for years, as have comedians in nightclubs.  This has a loooong tradition, of course, going back many decades.  Vulgar language, like it or not, is a part of the vocabularies of many people in real life.  To use vulgar references to people is not necessarily an insult - it's simply a vulgar way to refer to someone.  Such language has shock value and, therefore, is a part of many comedians' acts, simply for its shock value.  I admit freely to using vulgar language frequently, precisely for its shock value.  Many people find it astonishing to hear me use it.  It has no mandatory interpretation as an insult, in and of itself.  For example, if I were to use the word "nigger" in reference to a black person - which is not formally an obscenity but certain has a lot of negative associations - I don't necessarily mean an insult.  Any more than when African Americans use the word "nigger' among themselves.  Of course, "nigger" can be used as an insult, to refer to someone who fits a certain stereotype.  As can "cunt" or "twat" or "MILF".  But its use is only vulgarity, and not necessarily insulting.

For Rush Limbaugh to use the word "slut" to refer to any woman who wishes to engage in sex for any reason other than marital procreation is, on the other hand, clearly an insult.  Rush is condemning her for her sex life - manifestly her business, not Rush's.  His radio program isn't routinely peppered with vulgar expressions.  He isn't about using terms for their shock value as part of his programmatic message - in  fact, he represents himself as a moral authority, as well as many other mantles of right-wing ideological purity.  It's out of character for him to use vulgarity.  Therefore, his use of the word "slut" can only be interpreted as an insult directed at this woman.  He's on his moral high horse and making it very clear that any woman who might wish to engage in sexual activity for any reason other than becoming pregnant within a marriage (between a man and a woman) is, in his view, a moral trangression - a sin.  He's casting Sandra Fluke into the outer darkness reserved for evil sinners.

I don't endorse Bill Maher's use of vulgarity in reference to Sarah Palin.  It's not necessary to draw attention to her failings.  The use of demeaning terms for women is problematic at a time when women are under attack from many quarters, even such a woman as Sarah Palin.  I certainly have little or no respect for Sarah Palin, but I don't think she should be described in such ways by public figures.  This essay isn't intended to justify the language Bill Maher has used.  Rather, it's to deny the equivalency between that and Rush Limbaugh's statement about Sandra Fluke.

I'd like to close this by saying that the withdrawal of Rush's advertisers is an example of an indirect way to limit free speech.  As much as I detest Rush's comments about Sandra Fluke, he has the right in the USA to express his opinions in any way he wishes, including being insulting.  If someone has a problem with what Rush is saying, they should simply stop listening to his show.  A declining listenership would be a very effective way to voice your opinion about Rush.  Calling for the cancellation of his show, or the withdrawal of his advertising, are forms of censorship to which I'm philosophically opposed.  Ignoring him is a much more satisfactory way to let him know how you feel than to demand that he be subjected to censorship.  Freedom and liberty are for everyone, including people with whom you disagree.  Especially for those with whom you disagree!

Sandboxes

Amidst all the swirling controversy regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a subplot has arisen that involves me rather more directly than most of the science regarding global climate change.  In particular, some climate scientists (among them is Dr. Kevin Trenberth) have been making what I believe to be highly speculative claims about the climatology of severe weather in a world affected by AGW.  The essence of the situation is that Trenberth has been claiming in various media that there will be more tornadoes in an AGW-influenced future, and that the "tornado season" will start earlier and be more violent than ever.

In my studies of severe convection and tornadoes, I have not been willing to make any statement regarding the potential impact of AGW on the occurrence frequency of tornadoes.  Why so cautious?

First, the existing record of tornado events is seriously problematic, even here in the US - it's much, much worse outside the US, unfortunately.  The existing record of tornado occurrences simply will not support any speculation about trends in the observed events, in large part because the existing record is overwhelmingly dominated by non-meteorological artifacts in the data.  I've spent the last 40 years exploring that record (along with several colleagues, including Dr. Harold Brooks).  I have a number of peer-reviewed publications related to the topic of severe storm and tornado climatology.  Those data simply don't allow us to make any statement whatsoever about long-term trends.

Second, although it seems likely that increasing global average temperatures would increase evaporation, making the average atmospheric humidity rise and thereby making it possible for increased thermal instability and possibly stronger updrafts in thunderstorms, there are some other factors associated with AGW that could mitigate that.  In particular, with the AGW being more pronounced in the polar regions than near the equator, the result would be a decrease in the horizontal temperature contrast between the poles and the equatorial regions.  That, in turn, would result in a decrease of vertical wind shear.  Decreasing vertical wind shear would be notably unfavorable for the development of tornadic supercells.  There might be an increase in overall severe storm activity because of increased buoyancy, but the resulting storms might be less likely to become tornadic.

Third, the details of just what a future dominated by changes from AGW would be like remain speculative.  There could be regional variations in the frequency of conditions favorable for tornadoes, irrespective of what the global average conditions might be.  Thus, tornado frequency in some regions might increase, and yet could decrease over most regions, leading to an overall decrease - that is,  some areas could buck that global average trend and actually show an increase in frequency.

I've been a consistent supporter of the consensus of global climate change scientists regarding AGW.  This is because I have no research findings of my own that could gainsay that very strong consensus.  I know some of the scientists who are part of that consensus and I have great respect for their work.  The general findings regarding AGW are consistent with what I know about meteorology, but climate change is not my domain of expertise.  It would be foolish for me to dispute the findings of the consensus represented by the IPCC reports, since (a) this is outside my domain of expertise and, (b) I have no rational evidence-based reason for such a dispute.  What evidence I see is overwhelmingly supportive of the consensus, which is why I believe it's such a strong consensus.

But in the case of tornadoes, a few climate scientists (e.g., Dr. Trenberth) are overstepping their domains of expertise.  If I give them the respect that their work is due in an area within which I have no record of peer-reviewed publications, I would expect them to do likewise regarding the work I (and my colleagues) have done in an area wherein these climate scientists have no record of peer-reviewed publications.  I don't speculate about global climate change, so I have every reason to expect them not to engage in unfounded speculation about tornado occurrence frequency.

It doesn't work that way? Oh, really?

In discussions with christian believers, a huge sticking point for me is the absence of credible evidence for the "god hypothesis" (GH).  Atheism is not necessarily a belief system, it's the absence of belief.  This point is one that many religious believers have considerable difficulty understanding - it takes no belief to be an atheist - only the absence of belief in a supernatural deity.

When atheists challenge the beliefs of believers, the believers often respond with something along the lines of "We may not be able to prove to you that god exists, but you can't prove that he doesn't exist!"  This is a classic misunderstanding of atheism:  that we can offer no absolute proof of the nonexistence of god doesn't require us logically to believe in that deity's existence.  Many atheists acknowledge that we can't produce such a proof.  We accept that since we can't do so, others logically can choose to believe their god exists.  Most atheists are not out to convert believers to non-believers, since experience suggests that, for the most part, such efforts are fruitless.  Rather, we simply want to point out the irrationality of most religious beliefs and to explain why we choose not to buy into them.  Moreover, we consider the burden of proof logically is on the believer, not the disbeliever! 

And we expect that believers shouldn't push their beliefs into the lives of those who don't accept those beliefs.  I'll stop posting my opinions when believers stop posting theirs.

There are two aspects to freethinking that are characteristic of atheists: 

1.  Arguments on behalf of some idea should be rational.  They need to follow the rules of logic.  They need to make sense.  They need to be as free as possible of unfounded speculation.  They should encompass no contradictions.
2.  Arguments should be supported by evidence, if possible.  When considering an idea, a rational analysis of any idea based on a rational argument often leads to logical expectations that can be tested by collecting evidence and comparing that evidence to those expectations.  If that evidence is consistent with some hypothesis, then it's plausible to accept that hypothesis provisionally, until new evidence is found that contradicts the hypothesis.  This is, in a nutshell, the scientific method.

One aspect of the GH is that it usually involves such things as infinite knowledge, infinite power, and infinite benevolence.  When considering such infinities, many believers fail to appreciate the potential for logical traps and pitfalls when dealing with infinities, such as the classic question "Can god create an object he can't move?"  These sorts of problems are brushed aside as sophistry by believer apologists, but I find them a challenge to the logic of most believers.  It's the infinite nature of these attributes that's troublesome for non-believers, whereas believers seem all too willing to accept these assumptions with little more than perhaps a twinge of doubt.  Those infinities lead necessarily to contradictions that demonstrate the irrational (and, therefore, implausible) nature of the GH as expressed by christian believers.

The "evidence" that atheists can marshal to bolster their disbelief is, not coincidentally, an absence of evidence on behalf of the GH.  An absence of evidence makes it logically consistent to declare an absence of belief!  If the putative deity were demonstrating its existence by its actions every day so that everyone on Earth could see the evidence for themselves, then we'd have no need for the tens of thousands of religious denominations that exist today.  That hypothetical deity would be making its needs and concerns known directly to all of us on a daily basis.  Belief would not require faith at all - rather, it would be a demonstrable reality.  Belief would be rational, and based on routine experience.  The absence of that everyday evidence is a strong argument in favor of disbelief.  Why would an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent being, creator of the universe and all within it, choose to make it so difficult to believe in that being?  What would be the point, anyway?  Why, in its infinite benevolence, would it create humans only to subject them to eternal torment?  Such a deity would be considered criminally psychotic if it were human!

Instead, we're told "It doesn't work that way.  Our deity has no wish to make it easy to believe in him!  He wants us simply to accept the idea of his existence on faith alone!  Faith is the test we have to pass!"  Fine - if that's what you believe, it conveniently allows you to "apologize" for the utter lack of evidence supporting your beliefs.  The humans who created your belief system made it possible - no, mandatory! - to explain away any absence of compelling evidence; to rationalize it by making belief in the absence of evidence a virtue, instead of an unfulfilled requirement for acceptance.  Actual controlled, scientific tests of the efficacy of intercessory prayer, for example, have failed to show any beneficial effect (and, in some cases, have shown some tendency toward negative effects!).  These tests are dismissed by apologists, saying something like "Our god doesn't work that way!  If he actually answered all prayers (as promised in the bible, by the way), there would be clear evidence of his existence!"  So I'm supposed to accept that kind of nonsense?  If your god 'doesn't work that way' so as to provide unambiguous reasons to believe in him, then the GH doesn't work for me!  The complete and utter absence of any credible evidence on behalf of the GH is enough for me to choose disbelief in the GH.  I haven't "proven" the non-existence of your deity, but I've challenged you to accept the burden of proof to convince me otherwise.  You offer no credible evidence to convince me and seem to be arguing that this actually makes logical sense!  No - it fails utterly to make any sense.   I've stated what evidence it would require to convince me of validity of the GH and it's not forthcoming.  What evidence would it take for you to disbelieve, as I do?  Are you willing to admit that no evidence would ever convince you to disbelieve, thereby confirming the irrationality of your position?  Then we could agree to disagree.