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!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Sunday, April 29, 2012
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:
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.
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
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.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
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:
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.
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:
- Many schools don't have a functioning weather radio
- The designated shelters in many of the schools I've investigated have serious problems that would endanger anyone sheltering there
- Schools often have suitable shelter spaces that are unnecessarily unavailable for use - e.g., interior rooms filled with stored items
- 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
- Some of the tornado plans I've seen contain fundamental flaws that could put children and staff at risk
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.
Friday, April 20, 2012
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!
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!
Saturday, April 14, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
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
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.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
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!
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!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
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!!
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!!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
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:
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
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!
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!
Thursday, March 8, 2012
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
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.
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.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Why do I do what I do?
I just finished giving two presentations to two different groups within a few days of each other. I think my talks went over well - at least based on the comments I received afterwards. I also just finished reading a wonderful book about the 1925 Tri-State tornado that I'll soon be reviewing here. And this nation again suffered a major outbreak of killer tornadoes (on 2 March). This all got me to thinking about why people seem to appreciate the messages that always underlie my presentations. It's my belief that the reason people respond favorably to my talks is that I say what I'm thinking, without sugar coating or resorting to innuendo to make a point. I'm saying what many people want to say, but most of them feel too inhibited to say such things. I decline to be so inhibited.
It was a long-standing goal of mine (since high school, actually) to be able to say what I think without having to censor myself for fear of offending someone. When I earned my doctorate in 1976, I decided I'd reached that point, and I've never looked back or regretted that decision. Yes, being outspoken has earned me a certain amount of enmity in certain circles and probably cost me a promotion (that I didn't really need). The fear that many people have about speaking their mind may be unfounded in at least some cases, but that fear of retribution for being outspoken leads to self-censorship. Of course, some people may indeed be punished in important ways for speaking their minds. If so, I feel fortunate to have not been punished in any way that really mattered to me. What I'm grateful for is that I've been able to be an advocate for certain things and a public critic of other things without any fear of retribution. So when I take a clear and unequivocal position on something, there often seem to be people who let me know they're pleased that someone has been willing to say what I've said. Of course, not everyone agrees with my positions. For some reason, most of them decline to debate the issue with me, or even to disagree with me openly. I much prefer they say what's on their minds, and I certainly have no means to visit retribution on anyone for disagreeing with me openly. So the relatively scarcity of opposition bothers me because I always learn things from a rational argument, even when the outcome is that we agree to disagree.
Recent tornado outbreaks have reinforced many of the things that a few of us have been concerned about all along: the danger of staying in mobile homes, the greedy opposition of the mobile home industry to any legislation that would seek to do something about the problem, the greedy opposition of the construction industry to changes in building code that would make buildings more resistant to damage from tornadoes and high winds, the management practices that inhibit the National Weather Service from doing the best possible job, and so on. As a science professional, I feel obligated to share my opinions and my reasons for having them (typically involving scientific evidence). I consider that a requirement associated with my duties. Anything less would be a disservice to those who are depending on what my science can contribute to the welfare of society (worldwide). My real obligation is to my science, not to any particular organization to which I might belong. If I stay true to the science, the rest takes care of itself.
Reading the terrible tragic stories associated with tornadoes makes my participation in this science much more personal to me. The stories from the 1925 Tri-State tornado have an eerie similarity to stories about the most recent tornado outbreak. I already know that I can't possibly understand how tornado survivors feel, simply because it's never happened to me. For me, it's no longer possible to see these powerful weather phenomena in the same light as when I first began my career. I began to grasp (however dimly) the devastating impact they can have on real people after the Union City tornado of 1973, when my chase team drove into the damage in the wake of the tornado (see item #32 here). It adds an entire new dimension to realize that science isn't just a game I'm playing with the atmosphere - it's a process that can contribute something important to the society that has paid my bills for all these years. I can give something back and offer some hope that in the future, society can be better prepared to prepare for and deal with these events. Therefore, it's my duty to be as outspoken as possible. I simply can't tolerate anything that would inhibit our society from doing its very best to respond to these tragedies in the most effective possible fashion.
It was a long-standing goal of mine (since high school, actually) to be able to say what I think without having to censor myself for fear of offending someone. When I earned my doctorate in 1976, I decided I'd reached that point, and I've never looked back or regretted that decision. Yes, being outspoken has earned me a certain amount of enmity in certain circles and probably cost me a promotion (that I didn't really need). The fear that many people have about speaking their mind may be unfounded in at least some cases, but that fear of retribution for being outspoken leads to self-censorship. Of course, some people may indeed be punished in important ways for speaking their minds. If so, I feel fortunate to have not been punished in any way that really mattered to me. What I'm grateful for is that I've been able to be an advocate for certain things and a public critic of other things without any fear of retribution. So when I take a clear and unequivocal position on something, there often seem to be people who let me know they're pleased that someone has been willing to say what I've said. Of course, not everyone agrees with my positions. For some reason, most of them decline to debate the issue with me, or even to disagree with me openly. I much prefer they say what's on their minds, and I certainly have no means to visit retribution on anyone for disagreeing with me openly. So the relatively scarcity of opposition bothers me because I always learn things from a rational argument, even when the outcome is that we agree to disagree.
Recent tornado outbreaks have reinforced many of the things that a few of us have been concerned about all along: the danger of staying in mobile homes, the greedy opposition of the mobile home industry to any legislation that would seek to do something about the problem, the greedy opposition of the construction industry to changes in building code that would make buildings more resistant to damage from tornadoes and high winds, the management practices that inhibit the National Weather Service from doing the best possible job, and so on. As a science professional, I feel obligated to share my opinions and my reasons for having them (typically involving scientific evidence). I consider that a requirement associated with my duties. Anything less would be a disservice to those who are depending on what my science can contribute to the welfare of society (worldwide). My real obligation is to my science, not to any particular organization to which I might belong. If I stay true to the science, the rest takes care of itself.
Reading the terrible tragic stories associated with tornadoes makes my participation in this science much more personal to me. The stories from the 1925 Tri-State tornado have an eerie similarity to stories about the most recent tornado outbreak. I already know that I can't possibly understand how tornado survivors feel, simply because it's never happened to me. For me, it's no longer possible to see these powerful weather phenomena in the same light as when I first began my career. I began to grasp (however dimly) the devastating impact they can have on real people after the Union City tornado of 1973, when my chase team drove into the damage in the wake of the tornado (see item #32 here). It adds an entire new dimension to realize that science isn't just a game I'm playing with the atmosphere - it's a process that can contribute something important to the society that has paid my bills for all these years. I can give something back and offer some hope that in the future, society can be better prepared to prepare for and deal with these events. Therefore, it's my duty to be as outspoken as possible. I simply can't tolerate anything that would inhibit our society from doing its very best to respond to these tragedies in the most effective possible fashion.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Two news items
Two recent items caught my attention yesterday. The first can be seen here, where the band and their crew denied any responsibility for the stage collapse caused by a downburst during the Indiana State Fair. In effect, they said the victims were at fault and the construction of the stage was not responsible for the tragedy. I discussed this event in an earlier blog posting, considering things from a different viewpoint. It's my understanding that there's a code covering the construction of outdoor stages that, if followed, would mitigate the chances for such events as what occurred at the Indiana State Fair - but there is no substantive enforcement of that code. Hence, I suppose the construction of the stage was formally done legally, but it evidently didn't follow the (unenforced) construction code. To put the blame for the event on the fans is not entirely without some substance, but certainly it seems like a pretty weak defense that I suspect won't stand up in court. Not only is it a weak defense, but I find it personally repugnant that the band and crew have chosen to wash their hands of any responsibility for what happened.
Of course, the whole process of severe weather warnings and emergency preparedness had some serious deficiencies during the event, so Sugarland should not have to shoulder the entire burden of responsibility for the fatalities and injuries. There's plenty of folks with whom they can share that blame. But the blame game is a matter for the courts to work out. What I'm mostly concerned about is learning the lessons from this and similar recent events. If the band and crew walk away without having to accept some part of the responsibility for what happened, will any other band and crew be encouraged to take the extra effort and cost to construct an outdoor stage meeting the industry's (unenforced) code? Shouldn't there be a move in the industry to accept enforcement of this code, for the safety of those attending outdoor events?
The second news item concerns the discovery of the source for leaked documents that were confidential information regarding the misinformation campaign on global warming by the Heartland Institute, funded by the big oil companies and other right-wing "business as usual" groups/individuals. It seems that Peter Gleick, in seeking confirmation regarding the authenticity of documents he'd seen, obtained them directly from the Heartland Institute by posing in an email as one of the members of the institute's inner circle. Thus, he obtained his copies by what has to be considered as an unethical process, and the climate change deniers are all up in arms about this, howling for Gleick's blood. I certainly don't condone the unethical process by which Gleick received copies of the documents, but ...
I want to remind the climate change deniers, now in a self-righteous rage over this incident, that some of them used even less ethical methods when they hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Centre (the so-called "Climategate" affair), and obtained private emails of the scientists working at the Centre. The deniers were dismissive at the time about any concerns regarding the ethics of how the confidential emails were obtained - instead, they were howling for answers to the charges made against the scientists associated with the research. As it turned out, all of the scientists accused of wrongdoing were subjected to multiple investigations by various groups, and eventually were exonerated of any serious ethical breaches. The deniers have denied the validity of those investigations, of course! And the climate change deniers are still dismissive of any concerns about how the information leading to the "scandal" was obtained.
If the scientists associated with "climategate" were forced to answer the charges associated with revelations derived from illegally-obtained emails, then it seems to me that the Heartland Institute should be forced similarly to submit to investigations and answer to any charges derived from unethically-obtained documents. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander! If the ethics of obtaining information are irrelevant when considering the revelations in that information for one side of this controversy, then they should be equally irrelevant for the other side.
Of course, the whole process of severe weather warnings and emergency preparedness had some serious deficiencies during the event, so Sugarland should not have to shoulder the entire burden of responsibility for the fatalities and injuries. There's plenty of folks with whom they can share that blame. But the blame game is a matter for the courts to work out. What I'm mostly concerned about is learning the lessons from this and similar recent events. If the band and crew walk away without having to accept some part of the responsibility for what happened, will any other band and crew be encouraged to take the extra effort and cost to construct an outdoor stage meeting the industry's (unenforced) code? Shouldn't there be a move in the industry to accept enforcement of this code, for the safety of those attending outdoor events?
The second news item concerns the discovery of the source for leaked documents that were confidential information regarding the misinformation campaign on global warming by the Heartland Institute, funded by the big oil companies and other right-wing "business as usual" groups/individuals. It seems that Peter Gleick, in seeking confirmation regarding the authenticity of documents he'd seen, obtained them directly from the Heartland Institute by posing in an email as one of the members of the institute's inner circle. Thus, he obtained his copies by what has to be considered as an unethical process, and the climate change deniers are all up in arms about this, howling for Gleick's blood. I certainly don't condone the unethical process by which Gleick received copies of the documents, but ...
I want to remind the climate change deniers, now in a self-righteous rage over this incident, that some of them used even less ethical methods when they hacked into the computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Centre (the so-called "Climategate" affair), and obtained private emails of the scientists working at the Centre. The deniers were dismissive at the time about any concerns regarding the ethics of how the confidential emails were obtained - instead, they were howling for answers to the charges made against the scientists associated with the research. As it turned out, all of the scientists accused of wrongdoing were subjected to multiple investigations by various groups, and eventually were exonerated of any serious ethical breaches. The deniers have denied the validity of those investigations, of course! And the climate change deniers are still dismissive of any concerns about how the information leading to the "scandal" was obtained.
If the scientists associated with "climategate" were forced to answer the charges associated with revelations derived from illegally-obtained emails, then it seems to me that the Heartland Institute should be forced similarly to submit to investigations and answer to any charges derived from unethically-obtained documents. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander! If the ethics of obtaining information are irrelevant when considering the revelations in that information for one side of this controversy, then they should be equally irrelevant for the other side.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Congress blocks a NOAA Climate Service
Evidently, I've been living in some sort of insulated box lately, because for some reason I was amazed to learn only today - from a colleague's tip - that Congress acted in November to prevent NOAA from establishing a climate service! The reasons given for this decision are astonishing! Almost as astonishing are some of the comments about NOAA's data following the story - one apparently popular comment was that NOAA's data are "science fiction"! On what possible basis could such a statement be made by some nonscientist? It must be the result of the colossal misinformation campaign regarding anthropogenic global climate change being conducted by such propaganda machines as the Heartland Institute - advocates of right-wing "business as usual" policies that have been instrumental in delaying any meaningful response to the potential problems associated with human-induced changes to the climate. The climate change deniers have succeeded in this delaying tactic by using cynical political machinations, instead of providing scientifically-valid research in support of their blatant and unwarranted denial of the scientific consensus on this topic.
Months ago, I was aware that the establishment of a national climate service was being proposed by NOAA management in a rare case where management apparently was acting to provide a new service that would be helpful to the nation at a time when information about climate and climate change is critical for making important national policy decisions. Apparently, our Congress critters have come under the sway of the influence peddlers seeking to maintain the status quo. The decision by NOAA management to reprogram agency funds, rather than seeking new funding for this new service meant, of course, that some other NOAA services would have to be cut back or even eliminated. While I worried about the details of how NOAA management might wish to play this zero-sum game, I still believed strongly that establishing a national climate service in NOAA was a high enough national priority to accept sacrifices in other programs in order to have this new program.
It seems that the Congress critters see it differently - even as their campaign coffers bulge with funds provided by the influence peddlers. This must be a new low in Congressional behavior - for them to imply that NOAA is some sort of political animal can only be an example of narcissistic projection of their own faults onto this highly-respected agency. The people who work in NOAA's constituent agencies (like the National Weather Service, the National Climate Data Center, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, etc.) are human beings and have their own political views but they also have a deep commitment to serve the needs of the nation and have no significant history of letting their political opinions affect the integrity of their work in their agencies. It's outrageous to question the integrity of this service and, by implication, all of its employees. Of course, no agency is populated entirely by hard-working, ethical saints, but by far the majority of people I worked with in NOAA are quite far from the widely-accepted stereotype of the bureaucratic civil service parasite. Impugning their commitment to accurate, truthful data collection and analysis is simply an unacceptable insult to the good people I know (and the numerous good NOAA employees I don't know!)
I believe my stance regarding the administrative management of NOAA is well-known. If you're unaware of it, you can read about it here. When I worked for them, and since my retirement from NOAA, I've never hesitated to be critical of their management decisions when I felt those decisions were not supportive of the important work the agency needs to accomplish in order to provide the services mandated for NOAA. I'm certainly not a NOAA shill! I stand to gain precisely nothing from any decision by Congress regarding NOAA and its priorities. But I still know many people in NOAA who work very hard to provide accurate data and scientific analysis of those data to help the nation make decisions regarding the weather and climate. When NOAA management actually makes what I believe to be a good decision - creating a national climate service within NOAA - it's infuriating to learn that our elected representatives are blocking that decision for reasons that clearly are driven by right-wing political influence peddling!
We so much need to vote these bastards out of office! Any Congress critter who supported this decision to block the formation of NOAA's climate service has shown compelling evidence of being unfit for representing the public interest and needs to be put back on the street. They simply don't deserve the privilege of "serving" this nation!
Months ago, I was aware that the establishment of a national climate service was being proposed by NOAA management in a rare case where management apparently was acting to provide a new service that would be helpful to the nation at a time when information about climate and climate change is critical for making important national policy decisions. Apparently, our Congress critters have come under the sway of the influence peddlers seeking to maintain the status quo. The decision by NOAA management to reprogram agency funds, rather than seeking new funding for this new service meant, of course, that some other NOAA services would have to be cut back or even eliminated. While I worried about the details of how NOAA management might wish to play this zero-sum game, I still believed strongly that establishing a national climate service in NOAA was a high enough national priority to accept sacrifices in other programs in order to have this new program.
It seems that the Congress critters see it differently - even as their campaign coffers bulge with funds provided by the influence peddlers. This must be a new low in Congressional behavior - for them to imply that NOAA is some sort of political animal can only be an example of narcissistic projection of their own faults onto this highly-respected agency. The people who work in NOAA's constituent agencies (like the National Weather Service, the National Climate Data Center, Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, etc.) are human beings and have their own political views but they also have a deep commitment to serve the needs of the nation and have no significant history of letting their political opinions affect the integrity of their work in their agencies. It's outrageous to question the integrity of this service and, by implication, all of its employees. Of course, no agency is populated entirely by hard-working, ethical saints, but by far the majority of people I worked with in NOAA are quite far from the widely-accepted stereotype of the bureaucratic civil service parasite. Impugning their commitment to accurate, truthful data collection and analysis is simply an unacceptable insult to the good people I know (and the numerous good NOAA employees I don't know!)
I believe my stance regarding the administrative management of NOAA is well-known. If you're unaware of it, you can read about it here. When I worked for them, and since my retirement from NOAA, I've never hesitated to be critical of their management decisions when I felt those decisions were not supportive of the important work the agency needs to accomplish in order to provide the services mandated for NOAA. I'm certainly not a NOAA shill! I stand to gain precisely nothing from any decision by Congress regarding NOAA and its priorities. But I still know many people in NOAA who work very hard to provide accurate data and scientific analysis of those data to help the nation make decisions regarding the weather and climate. When NOAA management actually makes what I believe to be a good decision - creating a national climate service within NOAA - it's infuriating to learn that our elected representatives are blocking that decision for reasons that clearly are driven by right-wing political influence peddling!
We so much need to vote these bastards out of office! Any Congress critter who supported this decision to block the formation of NOAA's climate service has shown compelling evidence of being unfit for representing the public interest and needs to be put back on the street. They simply don't deserve the privilege of "serving" this nation!
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Theocracy means misogyny
Recently, the religious right-wing has used the hot-button issue of abortion and contraception to push forward assorted legislative efforts in several red states (including Oklahoma) designed to prohibit the use of contraception and to make all forms of abortion illegal, down to spontaneous abortions! This is a move I see as obviously motivated by those who seek to have christian theocracy in the USA. Somewhat ironically, these "christians" want to emulate the islamic way of reducing women to mere slaves of men, barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, subject to whatever their men choose to inflict on them.
The decades since women's liberation began in the 1920s apparently have been targeted by the theocratic agenda. The hard-won gains of the women's movement are under attack, and the vehicle - the excuse - for this assault on women is religious dogma. The religious reich has employed the usual "right to life" argument to push such extreme legislation. The smokescreen is to limit the discussion by reducing it to the essentially endless "debate" regarding the arbitrary definition of when life begins, even as the real issue at stake here is whether or not women can maintain control over their own bodies. Should the government even be involved in this? I think not, but in this apparently "special" case, the religious right-wing is actually seeking government intrusion: the control of women's bodies. They seek to make any form of abortion illegal, including many methods of contraception. This intended government intrusion is another ironic situation, given the right-wing's usual insistence on reducing government control. Of course, right-wing hypocrisy includes its unswerving support of welfare for the rich, even as it seeks to eliminate welfare for the poor. It seems this contraception-abortion conflict is in some sense consistent with other forms of right-wing logical chicanery.
I suspect the catholic church has been ecstatic to find an issue (insurance coverage including contraception for employees of catholic businesses) to distract attention from the continuing appalling revelations of child abuse by their "celibate" clergy. They choose to characterize this contraception issue as "war" on the catholic church to try to galvanize the believers to support the clergy. Personally, I think there should be a war-like commitment: to an effort preventing the catholic church from trivializing the awful crimes their priesthood has perpetuated on the children who look to the priesthood for guidance and support, many of whom have gotten instead only molestation and shame in return for their trust. The priests should be figuring out how to reestablish trust in a meaningful way before they even consider such things as counseling women how to control their bodies - a task for which a celibate, wholly-male priesthood is pretty poorly-qualified except in theological "theory". Of course, 90+% of catholic women are already using some form of contraception unapproved by their church. They've already spoken on behalf of themselves by their actions. There's a war going on here - it's that being waged by the catholic church against their own women, for the terrible "sin" of seeking to control their own bodies!
It's my sincere hope that the women of America will demonstrate their concerns regarding these issues in November - in the ballot box. Supporters of religiously-motivated misogynist legislation need to be voted out of office, and not even given the nomination of their party for the November elections. It's time for women to show their real power and their determination not to surrender the hard-won gains they've achieved so far. Not all men support the subjugation of women to a "morality" that has lived on from the brutal, primitive age of scriptural times, long after it should have become mere history. Perhaps together, we can fight for women's rights against the attack by the religious right-wing.
The decades since women's liberation began in the 1920s apparently have been targeted by the theocratic agenda. The hard-won gains of the women's movement are under attack, and the vehicle - the excuse - for this assault on women is religious dogma. The religious reich has employed the usual "right to life" argument to push such extreme legislation. The smokescreen is to limit the discussion by reducing it to the essentially endless "debate" regarding the arbitrary definition of when life begins, even as the real issue at stake here is whether or not women can maintain control over their own bodies. Should the government even be involved in this? I think not, but in this apparently "special" case, the religious right-wing is actually seeking government intrusion: the control of women's bodies. They seek to make any form of abortion illegal, including many methods of contraception. This intended government intrusion is another ironic situation, given the right-wing's usual insistence on reducing government control. Of course, right-wing hypocrisy includes its unswerving support of welfare for the rich, even as it seeks to eliminate welfare for the poor. It seems this contraception-abortion conflict is in some sense consistent with other forms of right-wing logical chicanery.
I suspect the catholic church has been ecstatic to find an issue (insurance coverage including contraception for employees of catholic businesses) to distract attention from the continuing appalling revelations of child abuse by their "celibate" clergy. They choose to characterize this contraception issue as "war" on the catholic church to try to galvanize the believers to support the clergy. Personally, I think there should be a war-like commitment: to an effort preventing the catholic church from trivializing the awful crimes their priesthood has perpetuated on the children who look to the priesthood for guidance and support, many of whom have gotten instead only molestation and shame in return for their trust. The priests should be figuring out how to reestablish trust in a meaningful way before they even consider such things as counseling women how to control their bodies - a task for which a celibate, wholly-male priesthood is pretty poorly-qualified except in theological "theory". Of course, 90+% of catholic women are already using some form of contraception unapproved by their church. They've already spoken on behalf of themselves by their actions. There's a war going on here - it's that being waged by the catholic church against their own women, for the terrible "sin" of seeking to control their own bodies!
It's my sincere hope that the women of America will demonstrate their concerns regarding these issues in November - in the ballot box. Supporters of religiously-motivated misogynist legislation need to be voted out of office, and not even given the nomination of their party for the November elections. It's time for women to show their real power and their determination not to surrender the hard-won gains they've achieved so far. Not all men support the subjugation of women to a "morality" that has lived on from the brutal, primitive age of scriptural times, long after it should have become mere history. Perhaps together, we can fight for women's rights against the attack by the religious right-wing.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Wild animal issues
Some programs recently aired about wild animals ... one on 60 Minutes about wild African species being raised for hunting in Texas, one about commercial fishing pressure (I forget the station), and one on NPR about keeping wild animals as pets. Zoos with captive wild animals have always struck me as rather sad. The animals seem either despondent or deeply traumatized by their captive condition. Modern zoos are better at this than they used to be, but wild animals in zoos have been taken from the environments where they belong and put into very different circumstances. Imagine if we were captured and put on display in some alien zoo! It's likely inappropriate to project our human feelings on animals, but watching caged animals has a very unpleasant effect on me.
The exotic African species being raised in Texas for the financial gain of the landowners via hunting permits is a troubling clash of ideals. I'm not a fan of hunting - the idea of killing animals for sport is simply absurd to me - but if it's true that these species are becoming extinct in their native habitats, this sort of "use" may be the only way to keep the species from vanishing entirely. Of course, the herds in Texas are very limited gene pools and so don't necessarily represent the best chance they would have for survival, which inevitably would be to allow them to roam free in the environment in which they evolved. What's truly sad isn't the debate about African antelopes in Texas; it's the process(es) by which these creatures are being swept from their native lands. Loss of habitat associated with the growth of human populations and their increasing impact on the land, exploitation of the land (including the native wild animals) for human gain, killing of animals for their "medicinal" value (often in folk remedies for impotence) ... all of these are manifestations of the assumption that humans are entitled to do whatever they want to other species. This is a kind of "species-ism" comparable to other prejudices we humans exhibit.
Yes, I realize that humans must kill something living in order to eat, even if someone eats no animals at all. A friend recently shared an image of wild goose carcasses pulled from a dumpster - slaughtered only for their breast meat. That's not the behavior of someone killing to survive - it's murder for greed. How many times is this sort of thoughtless act repeated around the world every day? We have domestic animals we raise for the sole purpose of providing us with meat. Is it really necessary to kill wild animals? I know that a few people in the USA have to supplement their diet with wild game, hunted legally during the appropriate season. I have no real problem with that. But when our population is allowed to grow (arguably as a result of agriculture, which can have the effect of destroying habitat, as well), and urban sprawl gobbles up more and more land, hunting pressure can become threatening to wild species. It makes no sense to me to hunt only for sport and not for survival. If it's a beautiful animal, does it make sense for us to kill it to satisfy primitive urges that have their origins in a time when we were hunter-gatherers?
Hunting has been justified also as a way to keep populations in check. Nevertheless, I think the animals would be better off if we returned their natural predators to the environment. We humans kill the trophy animals, not the sick and old and crippled and unfit. What does that do to the overall health of the prey species? I would think it provides negative selection pressure on the strongest, healthiest members of the population. But of course I'm not a wildlife ecologist, so I have to be cautious in any conclusion here.
It now is becoming apparent that commercial fishing is threatening many different wild fish species around the world. New technologies not only sweep the sea clear of target species but have the side effect of sweeping up and destroying any associated non-targeted species, as well. The commercial fishing industry seems bound and determined to put itself out of business by killing off their own livelihood in the name of big profits. I doubt it's sustainable.
Keeping wild animals as pets is generally pretty foolish. It has several problems: wild animals may attack humans even if they were hand-raised by humans, wild animals have requirements for their health and well-being that can be difficult and expensive for humans to meet, the pressure to supply pet owners with wild animal captives puts a great deal of stress on native populations, and exotic imported pet species captives can escape (or even be let go!) into the wild, where they can make it hard for the native species to survive because they have no natural predators to keep them under control. There have been attempts to make keeping wild animals as pets illegal but if there's money to be made catering to those who want to have a wild animal for a pet, the trade will continue even if it's made illegal.
I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but I feel very uncomfortable about how we behave with respect to wild animals. Wild animals have a role to play in their native ecologies that can create big problems for us when that role is not fulfilled because the animals aren't there. Like it or not, all species are in this together!
The exotic African species being raised in Texas for the financial gain of the landowners via hunting permits is a troubling clash of ideals. I'm not a fan of hunting - the idea of killing animals for sport is simply absurd to me - but if it's true that these species are becoming extinct in their native habitats, this sort of "use" may be the only way to keep the species from vanishing entirely. Of course, the herds in Texas are very limited gene pools and so don't necessarily represent the best chance they would have for survival, which inevitably would be to allow them to roam free in the environment in which they evolved. What's truly sad isn't the debate about African antelopes in Texas; it's the process(es) by which these creatures are being swept from their native lands. Loss of habitat associated with the growth of human populations and their increasing impact on the land, exploitation of the land (including the native wild animals) for human gain, killing of animals for their "medicinal" value (often in folk remedies for impotence) ... all of these are manifestations of the assumption that humans are entitled to do whatever they want to other species. This is a kind of "species-ism" comparable to other prejudices we humans exhibit.
Yes, I realize that humans must kill something living in order to eat, even if someone eats no animals at all. A friend recently shared an image of wild goose carcasses pulled from a dumpster - slaughtered only for their breast meat. That's not the behavior of someone killing to survive - it's murder for greed. How many times is this sort of thoughtless act repeated around the world every day? We have domestic animals we raise for the sole purpose of providing us with meat. Is it really necessary to kill wild animals? I know that a few people in the USA have to supplement their diet with wild game, hunted legally during the appropriate season. I have no real problem with that. But when our population is allowed to grow (arguably as a result of agriculture, which can have the effect of destroying habitat, as well), and urban sprawl gobbles up more and more land, hunting pressure can become threatening to wild species. It makes no sense to me to hunt only for sport and not for survival. If it's a beautiful animal, does it make sense for us to kill it to satisfy primitive urges that have their origins in a time when we were hunter-gatherers?
Hunting has been justified also as a way to keep populations in check. Nevertheless, I think the animals would be better off if we returned their natural predators to the environment. We humans kill the trophy animals, not the sick and old and crippled and unfit. What does that do to the overall health of the prey species? I would think it provides negative selection pressure on the strongest, healthiest members of the population. But of course I'm not a wildlife ecologist, so I have to be cautious in any conclusion here.
It now is becoming apparent that commercial fishing is threatening many different wild fish species around the world. New technologies not only sweep the sea clear of target species but have the side effect of sweeping up and destroying any associated non-targeted species, as well. The commercial fishing industry seems bound and determined to put itself out of business by killing off their own livelihood in the name of big profits. I doubt it's sustainable.
Keeping wild animals as pets is generally pretty foolish. It has several problems: wild animals may attack humans even if they were hand-raised by humans, wild animals have requirements for their health and well-being that can be difficult and expensive for humans to meet, the pressure to supply pet owners with wild animal captives puts a great deal of stress on native populations, and exotic imported pet species captives can escape (or even be let go!) into the wild, where they can make it hard for the native species to survive because they have no natural predators to keep them under control. There have been attempts to make keeping wild animals as pets illegal but if there's money to be made catering to those who want to have a wild animal for a pet, the trade will continue even if it's made illegal.
I can't offer much in the way of solutions, but I feel very uncomfortable about how we behave with respect to wild animals. Wild animals have a role to play in their native ecologies that can create big problems for us when that role is not fulfilled because the animals aren't there. Like it or not, all species are in this together!
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
An evaluation of the abrahamic god hypothesis
Sorry folks, this is going to be longer than usual. In what follows, I'm going to assume that all three major abrahamic religions (christianity, judaism, and islam) believe in what amounts to the same deity. They differ with regard to some details about prophets and other trivia, but they all buy into the basic notion of an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent deity.
On the one hand, we have the "god hypothesis" of the believers, and on the other hand, we have the rejection of that hypothesis by atheists (of various flavors). I want first to consider the case on behalf of the god hypothesis in terms of evidence.
There are extensive accounts of god in the scriptures of these abrahamic religions. These scriptures were written many centuries ago, long before the rise of empirical science as we now know it. It's not entirely clear just who the authors of these accounts actually are and it's quite likely that they were not actual witnesses to the events in those scriptures, so their chronicles are what now would be considered hearsay. In fact, many of the characters and events within the scriptures have not been validated in the historical record, despite their obvious importance, which should have been evident at that time, if the accounts are to be believed. Within these scriptural accounts (which include outright factual errors about the world and its creation, historical errors, contradictions, and logical dilemmas of all sorts), the case is made that a supernatural deity long ago made his will known directly, at least to his chosen prophets and through them to "his" people, and who performed a variety of acts we would consider to be supernatural by today's scientific standards concerning how the natural world works. The supernatural deity has not performed similar acts since the time chronicled in scripture, nor is there any credible evidence that this deity has made his wishes known to humans, directly or indirectly, since those times. There's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayers. This deity has not intervened in any evident and verifiable way in the affairs of humans over the centuries since the scriptures were written, notwithstanding the claims of those who believe the deity is "on their side" in a large number of wars, often between opposing religions.
There are various other arguments alleging to rationalize the faith believers have in the deity described within those scriptural accounts. Some of them focus on arguments for the development of order out of apparent chaos, claiming that it simply couldn't have happened by chance. There had to be a "designer" to explain the complexity of the natural world, by this argument. A similar argument is based on the "beauty" of the natural world. Beauty is a concept notorious for being relative to the eye of the beholder. Both of these arguments (and any related derivatives thereof) are fallacious and depend on the scientific ignorance of believers. The fact that science as yet cannot explain many aspects of the natural world doesn't mean logically that this creates a "gap" within which a creator must be inserted. Science makes no claim to know everything, but it already has replaced many of the deity-based myths proposed in the pre-scientific era as "explanations".
So the primary case for belief in this deity is based almost totally on an uncritical acceptance of the contents of ancient documents - hearsay accounts apparently plagiarized from earlier religious myths that have precious little historical credibility - and the extremely dubious claims of latter-day charlatans.
The case on behalf of atheism is entirely a negative one: the total absence of tangible, credible evidence for the existence of a deity as described in the abrahamic religions. It's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative by logic alone - and there's no need to, since logic puts the burden of proof on the believer, not the skeptic. It's up to the believer to make a case for accepting the god hypothesis. An atheist is under no obligation to prove that god does not exist. In fact, not all atheists actually think they know for absolute certain that god doesn't exist, so asking some atheists to prove this is to require them to prove something to which they don't subscribe.
Understand that rejection of the god hypothesis is not absolute proof there is no god. Rather, it's based on the notion of the preponderance of evidence, or in this case, the absence of evidence. Rejecting the god hypothesis is simply a provisional conclusion, forced on us when faced with a gaping hole in the very places where compelling evidence to accept the god hypothesis should be found. Atheists may be able to reject the god hypothesis with extremely high confidence, but many of them are willing to acknowledge they don’t have absolute proof. To be a freethinker, one first must accept our human fallibility and the limits on what science can do. Believers are admitting straightaway they're not freethinkers, but rather are shackled by their faith to an irrational belief. The god hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsoever and can’t be validated by rational thinking in the absence of evidence.
If this hypothesized deity is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then believers should be enormously advantaged in this world, and their intercessory prayers should mitigate any harm being visited on them. That this is not the case should be compellingly obvious - I don’t need to list the vast number of counterexamples. This then requires apologists to explain away the obvious failures of this aspect of the god hypothesis. There are various ways to do this but they all boil down to some form of "Our god has his own reasons and we must accept this sorrow as his will, despite the clear failure of our intercessory prayers, because we can’t possibly understand his reasons." This is nothing more than a convenient way to "save the appearances" of a failed hypothesis - a desperate attempt to explain the otherwise inexplicable contradiction of the evidence, when compared to the hypothesis. It's a rationalization that explains nothing, if by "explanation" we mean understanding the reasons for something.
What would a universe look like if there was no god? I propose that it would look exactly as it now looks! The preponderance of evidence is consistent with the rejection of the god hypothesis.
There could be another universe somewhere in which a supernatural deity intervenes in the affairs of humans on a routine basis. Presumably, in such a universe, there would be abundant, tangible evidence of the interference of said deity. One would need no faith to accept the hypothesis of the existence of this god because the evidence would be all around, all the time. Intercessory prayers would work or we'd know why not! Physical laws would be violated on a routine basis wherever and whenever the deity saw fit to interfere with those laws, and it would be clear to all that this was the result of the deity's interference, not a problem with those physical laws that necessitated revising our scientific understanding. Presumably, in such a universe, we would understand why the omnibenevolent creator did things, because he would explain things to us in terms we could understand, like any good parent would do. And the deity wouldn't use intermediaries (prophets) to relay information to all of us, so we'd all know exactly and directly what's going on and why. There would be no reason to threaten us with eternal damnation because believing in him would be a trivial issue, as we now believe in gravity. There wouldn't be thousands of different religions because it would be clear who the deity is and he would tell us clearly and directly what, if anything, he wants from us, his creations. And this deity wouldn't be so insecure as to need our worship - if we chose to venerate him for his gifts, it would be in gratitude for his kindness rather than being compelled to do so under the threat of his punishment. In such a universe, the deity would make sense and be worthy of veneration!
In our universe, the hypothesized "god" of abrahamic religion doesn't make any sense at all. This supposed deity is not substantially different from all the other mythical gods created by humans before the abrahamic revolution in the Middle East. The abrahamic deity has a number of human problems: "god" is psychotic (a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder), vengeful, bigoted (against his own creations!), a bully and a mass murderer, unworthy of the worship of a single human being. If a deity worthy of the name "god" exists in this universe, it surely doesn't resemble the abrahamic god-figure at all!
On the one hand, we have the "god hypothesis" of the believers, and on the other hand, we have the rejection of that hypothesis by atheists (of various flavors). I want first to consider the case on behalf of the god hypothesis in terms of evidence.
There are extensive accounts of god in the scriptures of these abrahamic religions. These scriptures were written many centuries ago, long before the rise of empirical science as we now know it. It's not entirely clear just who the authors of these accounts actually are and it's quite likely that they were not actual witnesses to the events in those scriptures, so their chronicles are what now would be considered hearsay. In fact, many of the characters and events within the scriptures have not been validated in the historical record, despite their obvious importance, which should have been evident at that time, if the accounts are to be believed. Within these scriptural accounts (which include outright factual errors about the world and its creation, historical errors, contradictions, and logical dilemmas of all sorts), the case is made that a supernatural deity long ago made his will known directly, at least to his chosen prophets and through them to "his" people, and who performed a variety of acts we would consider to be supernatural by today's scientific standards concerning how the natural world works. The supernatural deity has not performed similar acts since the time chronicled in scripture, nor is there any credible evidence that this deity has made his wishes known to humans, directly or indirectly, since those times. There's no scientific evidence for the efficacy of intercessory prayers. This deity has not intervened in any evident and verifiable way in the affairs of humans over the centuries since the scriptures were written, notwithstanding the claims of those who believe the deity is "on their side" in a large number of wars, often between opposing religions.
There are various other arguments alleging to rationalize the faith believers have in the deity described within those scriptural accounts. Some of them focus on arguments for the development of order out of apparent chaos, claiming that it simply couldn't have happened by chance. There had to be a "designer" to explain the complexity of the natural world, by this argument. A similar argument is based on the "beauty" of the natural world. Beauty is a concept notorious for being relative to the eye of the beholder. Both of these arguments (and any related derivatives thereof) are fallacious and depend on the scientific ignorance of believers. The fact that science as yet cannot explain many aspects of the natural world doesn't mean logically that this creates a "gap" within which a creator must be inserted. Science makes no claim to know everything, but it already has replaced many of the deity-based myths proposed in the pre-scientific era as "explanations".
So the primary case for belief in this deity is based almost totally on an uncritical acceptance of the contents of ancient documents - hearsay accounts apparently plagiarized from earlier religious myths that have precious little historical credibility - and the extremely dubious claims of latter-day charlatans.
The case on behalf of atheism is entirely a negative one: the total absence of tangible, credible evidence for the existence of a deity as described in the abrahamic religions. It's fundamentally impossible to prove a negative by logic alone - and there's no need to, since logic puts the burden of proof on the believer, not the skeptic. It's up to the believer to make a case for accepting the god hypothesis. An atheist is under no obligation to prove that god does not exist. In fact, not all atheists actually think they know for absolute certain that god doesn't exist, so asking some atheists to prove this is to require them to prove something to which they don't subscribe.
Understand that rejection of the god hypothesis is not absolute proof there is no god. Rather, it's based on the notion of the preponderance of evidence, or in this case, the absence of evidence. Rejecting the god hypothesis is simply a provisional conclusion, forced on us when faced with a gaping hole in the very places where compelling evidence to accept the god hypothesis should be found. Atheists may be able to reject the god hypothesis with extremely high confidence, but many of them are willing to acknowledge they don’t have absolute proof. To be a freethinker, one first must accept our human fallibility and the limits on what science can do. Believers are admitting straightaway they're not freethinkers, but rather are shackled by their faith to an irrational belief. The god hypothesis has no explanatory power whatsoever and can’t be validated by rational thinking in the absence of evidence.
If this hypothesized deity is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then believers should be enormously advantaged in this world, and their intercessory prayers should mitigate any harm being visited on them. That this is not the case should be compellingly obvious - I don’t need to list the vast number of counterexamples. This then requires apologists to explain away the obvious failures of this aspect of the god hypothesis. There are various ways to do this but they all boil down to some form of "Our god has his own reasons and we must accept this sorrow as his will, despite the clear failure of our intercessory prayers, because we can’t possibly understand his reasons." This is nothing more than a convenient way to "save the appearances" of a failed hypothesis - a desperate attempt to explain the otherwise inexplicable contradiction of the evidence, when compared to the hypothesis. It's a rationalization that explains nothing, if by "explanation" we mean understanding the reasons for something.
What would a universe look like if there was no god? I propose that it would look exactly as it now looks! The preponderance of evidence is consistent with the rejection of the god hypothesis.
There could be another universe somewhere in which a supernatural deity intervenes in the affairs of humans on a routine basis. Presumably, in such a universe, there would be abundant, tangible evidence of the interference of said deity. One would need no faith to accept the hypothesis of the existence of this god because the evidence would be all around, all the time. Intercessory prayers would work or we'd know why not! Physical laws would be violated on a routine basis wherever and whenever the deity saw fit to interfere with those laws, and it would be clear to all that this was the result of the deity's interference, not a problem with those physical laws that necessitated revising our scientific understanding. Presumably, in such a universe, we would understand why the omnibenevolent creator did things, because he would explain things to us in terms we could understand, like any good parent would do. And the deity wouldn't use intermediaries (prophets) to relay information to all of us, so we'd all know exactly and directly what's going on and why. There would be no reason to threaten us with eternal damnation because believing in him would be a trivial issue, as we now believe in gravity. There wouldn't be thousands of different religions because it would be clear who the deity is and he would tell us clearly and directly what, if anything, he wants from us, his creations. And this deity wouldn't be so insecure as to need our worship - if we chose to venerate him for his gifts, it would be in gratitude for his kindness rather than being compelled to do so under the threat of his punishment. In such a universe, the deity would make sense and be worthy of veneration!
In our universe, the hypothesized "god" of abrahamic religion doesn't make any sense at all. This supposed deity is not substantially different from all the other mythical gods created by humans before the abrahamic revolution in the Middle East. The abrahamic deity has a number of human problems: "god" is psychotic (a paranoid schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder), vengeful, bigoted (against his own creations!), a bully and a mass murderer, unworthy of the worship of a single human being. If a deity worthy of the name "god" exists in this universe, it surely doesn't resemble the abrahamic god-figure at all!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
