Speaking of climate change skeptics...

...actually, there's a difference between climate change skeptics and deniers. The latter are closed-minded, selectively ignorant, and have an agenda that can only be categorized as anti-science and anti-truth. And in recent news Frenchman Claude Allegre is the poster boy of all this. French scientists are asking science minister Valérie Pécresse to officially denounce his latest book L'imposture climatique (The Climate Fraud). Hopefully she will, but you know what? I have absolutely no problem with Allegre representing the climate-change-denier-camp. Check this out:


Up or down? Paleoclimatologist Håkan Grudd says his temperature graph (red) doesn't match one drawn by Claude Allègre (black). Caption and picture published in the 9 April 2010 issue of Science.

Yes, it's true - this dude's book actually includes hand-drawn graphs of made-up data. Are you kidding me? Allegre must have some balls thinking he can twist around other scientists' data to fit whatever he wants it to say - and think that said scientists wouldn't notice this and call him out on it?! So yeah, nice job, Allegre - thanks for communicating loud and clear how you deniers operate.

Queer the census

My "Queer the Census" sticker finally arrived in the mail today, but I had given up waiting for it and had sent in my form so I wouldn't be bugged by door-to-door census workers. What is "Queer the Census" all about? This article explains it well. I think it's awesome that the Census Bureau encourages same-sex couples to indicate they're married, if they wish. It's nice to know at least one small sector of our federal government is fair-minded and progressive.

Skeptical Science website

In my DISCCRS newsletter this week there was a link to this website that addresses the skepticism surrounding global warming. I've spent about half an hour browsing around the site and so far I am thoroughly impressed. Climate change science is multi-disciplinary, complex, constantly changing, and extremely difficult to communicate in a clear, understandable way. But John Cook and contributors do a commendable job at this. Everything they present is carefully explained and referenced with recent, high-impact primary research articles (although many of the links to these references were broken or you'd have to have an account with the journal - and they should have a reference list in addition to these links). It appears to be updated often - it's only April 1, but there were 2010 publications referenced, though it appears they have not yet added the recent study in Geophysical Research Letters that finds that the temperature increase from greenhouse gases will overwhelm the cooling due to a solar minimum (Feulner & Rahmstorf 2010 - this would be appropriate in discussing if we're heading into a new Ice Age).

Here's what it says in the "About" section of the website:

The goal of Skeptical Science is to explain what peer reviewed science has to say about global warming. When you peruse the many arguments of global warming skeptics, a pattern emerges. Skeptic arguments tend to focus on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the broader picture. For example, focus on Climategate emails neglects the full weight of scientific evidence for man-made global warming. Concentrating on a few growing glaciers ignores the world wide trend of accelerating glacier shrinkage. Claims of global cooling fail to realise the planet as a whole is still accumulating heat. This website presents the broader picture by explaining the peer reviewed scientific literature.

Often, the reason for disbelieving in man-made global warming seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - "it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism". As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove". However, what is causing global warming is a purely scientific question. Skeptical Science removes the politics from the debate by concentrating solely on the science.

As someone who is terribly passionate about clear, accurate, and effective communication of science, I wholeheartedly endorse this idea of separating the science from the politics, even while realizing that ideally we do need the former to guide the latter.

Baseball season is coming!

Yay! Only a week until baseball season starts. The Orioles are gonna suck again, but that's okay, they're still the best team when it comes to their fans and stadium and cuteness!

Response to TH

I did read your comments, TH, and neither you, me, nor anyone else was adding anything new to the argument that's going on between both sides of the health reform debate. That's because none of us are professors in health care economics! Man, this thing only recently passed, and already I'm getting tired of the same, hackneyed arguments on both sides! If I'm wrong and you do have something new to add - well, geez, don't write it on my stupid blog - write a letter to your editor! I did not mean to insult you - I know for a fact how intelligent, caring, and hard-working you are. You and I just try to keep ourselves informed as best we can, but really, we're not experts despite our brilliance, and even if we have all of our facts straight, we ARE indeed biased and never going to agree. Sorry - by "bias" I mean our philosophies and principles that form who we are and what we believe in. For example, someone recently told me that even if this healthcare reform works our perfectly and fixes all the problems it promises to, they are still wholeheartedly against it because they are against the principle of the government requiring them to buy something. I am NOT against this principle at all. I think it's smart, makes sense, and in no way significantly threatens anyone's personal liberties. Obviously, this person and I will never agree on this, even a little bit.

Oh, and you're probably now asking why I started the conversation in the first place if I think it's stupid and adding nothing new. All I did was post a link to an article by Nicholas Kristof claiming that this reform will increase access to health care. I thought it was interesting, but I actually didn't think that it was controversial or made a very original or new point - we'd heard this before, but it was still interesting and thought-provoking. Then someone commented in such a way that I felt I had to write a post in response to that comment. THEN someone commented on THAT, and once again I felt a response was needed. And so forth - and I actually did solicit opinions on that last post, but I was expecting one response, NOT a rant of like 8 comments in a row! And that's when it starts to feel silly, because really, we're all just scouring the internet to find info that supports our opinions - we're not doing careful, scholarly research on the topic. That's not what we do, and I certainly don't have time for that - in fact, gotta run to church now! I realize the fact that I maintain this blog in the first place and post pictures of cats and shit like that gives the impression that I have time to kill and nothing to do. But in reality I have a crapload of important work to do, and I've wasted more than enough time on a pointless conversation that will lead nowhere but an impasse.

Earth Hour and Evil Twin

I almost forgot - this evening at 8:30 ET is Earth Hour. Turn your lights off from 8:30-9:30 to save electricity, reflect on our overconsumption of energy, and remain mindful of how we've remarkably influenced the Earth's climate. Look, even the Duke Chapel is participating!

Look who was spotted this morning - Madeline's Evil Twin! This is the best look I've gotten, and now I see that he/she has a spot on their nose, whereas Madeline does not. Still, the similarity is pretty striking.

Simmer down, now!

Wow, I just tuned into my own blog this evening to find ELEVEN comments on the last post. I only had time to skim them, but looks like you're ready to start your own blog, TH! The bottom line is even though I'm interested and trying my best to stay informed, I actually have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to healthcare reform AND NEITHER DO ANY OF YOU (with the possible exception of K). Actually, nobody really does - I think Ruth Marcus lays this out well. Don't get me wrong, I know for a fact that TH, CG, and K are all intelligent, clear-thinking people. But we're also forming our opinions on healthcare reform from very biased perspectives, and there's simply no sense in trying to get a Hillary Clinton campaign volunteer to even slightly agree with someone who listens to way too much Rush :)

Anyway, let's use our anger over health care and channel it to something else! My Ph.D. is in environmental science, so I'll start a new debate on something I actually know something about: the issue of re-opening the Baikal Pulp and Paper Mill. You can read a bit about the issue here and here. At the last ASLO conference I attended there were several presentations involving Lake Baikal, and I've gotta say that the recent science being done in this UNESCO World Heritage site is fascinating and important. I intend to sign this petition, and if I come across a similar petition that others can sign, I'll be sure to post it here!

Even more on health care reform!

Hey TH! Read this and tell me what you think!

Boy, we could go all day! I think you're wrong, TH (regarding the comment on the "Health Care Reform" post). Requiring companies to cover pre-existing conditions will NOT result in outcomes 1 or 2 because the insurance companies will have substantially more customers - about 30 million or so. Also, don't talk to me like I'm a moron - I fully understand why most companies don't cover pre-existing conditions (and I'll even admit that the story I linked above may not be representative of the whole industry). But I also understand how many people with such conditions become bankrupt even though they're hard-working people who have paid plenty of health insurance premiums over their lifetime. I believe we shouldn't live in a country where you lose everything you worked so hard for just because you got sick. I'm sure you agree, TH, that we need to do everything we can to prevent what happened to Patrick Tumulty or Nikki White or LoShonda Holloway or Sarah Wildman.

Andrew, in response to your comment to the same post, I think the Republicans have made it abundantly clear by their lack of votes that they think the status quo is better than the reform bill that was just passed. You have to agree they've spent more time and energy speaking out against this bill than delineating an alternative plan. Fine, I agree that we need a cap on malpractice, but this is not gonna fix the whole frickin' system!

Health Care Reform - oops

Regarding the bit in my last post about children with pre-existing conditions, it looks like there are actually some snafus with the new law, but hopefully these will be resolved we can look forward to the end of an era when both children and adults are screwed over by the insurance companies. Whether it's an issue of pre-existing conditions or the complicated fine print you missed ("oh, you thought that procedure was covered? You must have missed the exception on page 594 where it clearly says it's not covered for left-handed people receiving treatment on Tuesdays!) too many things are not working for too many people.

Health Care Reform

I decided my comment in response to Andrew deserves a new post.

Actually, with the exception of this Hyde Amendment stuff you shouldn't look at this as if the government has more control over YOU and your choices - they don't, and if more people understood that there wouldn't be so much opposition to reform. No, it's not you the government has more control over - they now have more control over the insurance companies who have been screwing over so many Americans. This is a good thing, despite all your notions of free-market blah blah. I don't understand why people defend these companies and the status quo in general. It's time someone defended those hard-working people who have been screwed over, taken advantage of, and bled dry by these companies!

Come on, you've heard all this before. Just one example of the screwing over: prior to this reform insurance companies could deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. What would you do if you had a chronically ill child, you lost your job and health insurance, then found a new job with new insurance, but that new insurance company (or ANY company that you could afford) refused to cover your child? This is why more government control is better - they won't allow such situations to happen (or at the very least they'll be minimized).

The exception to this is the abortion provision stuff - that is indeed a horrendous example of the government controlling what health care poor women should receive assistance for. Abortion is a legal medical procedure that should be covered by an affordable health insurance plan. I am disappointed in the Hyde Amendment still standing, and it's unfortunate that this was the only way this bill could pass.

World Water Day 2010

Today is World Water Day, and I wish I had fun fact for you instead of this sobering one: across the globe more people die from polluted water every year than from all forms of violence combined, including war. Even after teaching a course called "Freshwater Resources and Societies" I was unaware that 3.7% of all deaths worldwide are due to water-related diseases, according to the U.N. It's so easy for us more fortunate ones to take for granted our easy access to cheap, clean tap water.



While some progress is being made in providing better access to clean, potable water, this progress is too slow in too many regions, especially the world's most water-deprived countries. Niger, for example, ranks near the bottom of the Water Poverty Index and has received paltry World Bank funds for water infrastructure improvement. Water access appeared to be sustainable in the riverside village of Atteforme, Niger (shown above in 2004) where my sister worked in the Peace Corps. But I wonder how the flow of the Niger River is affected and will be affected by climate change and increased withdrawals from a rising population.

Marathon PR

Today was the Tobacco Road Marathon, a race I had been anxiously awaiting since my "swine flu" marathon back in November (North Central Trail Marathon). I had told everyone my goal was to shave an hour off my North Central time of 4:52, but I realized that was a little ambitious. Still, I was hoping was around 3:55, as I was confident I could run at least a 9 min-mile pace or faster. But I am happy with my time of 3:58:38, a PR by 59 seconds, I think (can't find my 2007 Columbus Marathon time online and if I try to retrieve my box of race stuff from under the bed I'm pretty sure I won't be able to get up off the floor). I came in 8th in my age group, which sounds kinda good when I say it (though there were only 33 women in the 30-34 age group). A couple of friends snapped pictures of me, so perhaps they'll send them along and I can post them (or more likely delete them, b/c I was struggling at those points!). This was my 9th marathon, 6th road marathon (I count North Central Trail Marathon as road), but only my 2nd time under 4:00.

I don't think I could have done this without the encouragement of the 4:00 pace group leader whose name may be Dan or Ben based on the gun time results. He was the best, and when I was chatting with him at the end and mentioned how I PRed he commented on the heat and said that it was a "tough day to try to PR". I actually hadn't noticed it being too warm (but it was in the mid-60s by the finish), but thanks, I'll take that as an excuse and explanation for how I've not reached my full potential!

But I think a key reason I wasn't as fast as I could've been was that my mile splits were ALL OVER THE FRICKIN PLACE! I really was trying to maintain an even pace, beginning around a 9:10 pace and then gradually speeding up to my goal pace of 8:51. I ran with the 4:00 pace group at the beginning so I wouldn't start out too fast, but they started out too fast! I stayed with them for about 4-5 miles before Dan or Ben advised me to speed up if I wanted to make my 3:52 goal. It was at mile 23 where his group caught up to me, but yay, I managed to not let them pass me. So here are my CRAZY splits:

Miles 1-2 - 17:56 (missed miler marker 1, was shocked to see 4:00 group pass me)
Mile 3 - 9:03
Mile 4 - 9:08
Mile 5 - 9:23
Mile 6 - 8:49
Mile 7 - 8:55
Mile 8 - 9:03
Mile 9 - 8:50
Mile 10 - 8:46
Mile 11 - 8:39
Mile 12 - 9:06
Mile 13 - 9:04
Mile 14 -8:32
Mile 15 - 8:59
Mile 16 - 8:48
Mile 17 - 9:11
Mile 18 - 8:39
Mile 19 - 9:35
Mile 20 - 9:05
Mile 21 - 9:37
Mile 22 - 9:21
Mile 23 - 9:54
Mile 24 - 9:48
Mile 25 - 8:53 (thanks Ben or Dan!)
Mile 26 - 9:29
Mile 0.2 - 1:53

Up until now I've been resistant to fancy gadgets, but now I'm reconsidering. If I want to improve my marathon, I need to learn to run at a consistent pace, and perhaps some Garmin Whatever will help me do that.

Access

This is for you and your dad, Andrew! Nicholas Kristof's article presents yet another well-reasoned argument for why health care reform will improve the health and life expectancy of our nation.

Prom Canceled Because Girl Just Being Herself

This is bullshit. Yeah, it's the conservative rural south, but come on. I can't believe school officials would ban the whole frickin prom just to prevent the girl from attending with her same-sex date. So sad that stuff like this actually happens.

Stray cats

A whole bunch of stray kitties have been lurking on our street recently. I think this cute grey one was pretending he/she belonged to my neighbor (that's her back porch where it's sitting). My camera ran out of batteries, but after the orange and white cat ran through her yard, a third stray cat ran through the next yard, and then a FOURTH cat - Madeline's evil twin - showed up. Seriously, four stray cats in like 45 seconds!



Surprisingly, Madeline was mostly oblivious to these kitties. She did pause in her munching to peek through the fence (I think the orange and white cat was on the other side), but mostly she was busy eating grass:

Basking in the sun

Yesterday Madeline spent more time outside than she had in a long time. We were both enjoying the sunshine and spring-like weather!

Divorced Before Puberty

Check out Nicholas Kristoff's column on the story of Nujood, an amazing 12-year-old from Yemen. The end of Kristoff's article reminds me of Greg Mortenson's philosophy as expressed in "Three Cups of Tea":

The United States last month announced $150 million in military assistance for Yemen to fight extremists. In contrast, it costs just $50 to send a girl to public school for a year — and little girls like Nujood may prove more effective than missiles at defeating terrorists.

Toxins and Autism

Check out Nicholas Kristof's recent column in the New York Times. Actually, I think the possible autism-toxin linkage may just be the tip of the environmental toxin iceberg.

Carolina snow

It's all gone now, but we've had a decent amount of snow this winter. I love snow, and I'm disappointed I didn't get to experience my hometown's Snowpocalypse. I'm also bummed that what little snow we did get interfered with Andrew's visit for my birthday. We were going to have dinner with his sister, brother-in-law, and nephew, but the roads were too nasty to get together. Here's what it looked like:



Then last weekend we had just an inch or so overnight, enough to make everything look really pretty. These pictures don't do it justice - if I had felt like carrying my camera on my run to Whipoorwill Park I could have gotten some lovely shots. For only about half an hour or so the clouds cleared and the snow was still on the trees against a bright blue sky background.







It completely melted away by the time my mom arrived at 2:30.

Abstinence only?

If you know me or have read my blog for a while you know how I feel about "abstinence only" sex education. However, you also know how I feel about carefully conducted scientific research, so perhaps in light of this study I need to rethink my position. Yes, it's true - the study actually found that an abstinence education program was more effective at delaying sex in a group of teens compared to a comprehensive program. One noteworthy difference between this abstinence program and some of the religious based ones was that this program "did not disparage condoms" and did not encourage delaying sex until marriage, but rather until one is ready.

So it does sound a bit different from the Bush-funded abstinence only programs, but I dunno, I'm still a bit skeptical (and I'm not the only one; for example, this Washington Post blogger gives some valid reasons for using caution in drawing strong conclusions from the study.) Delaying sex is almost always healthier for both the individual and society, and that should be the goal we're all working toward. However, I still stand firm on my belief that EVERYONE who intends to have sex sometime in their life, married or not, needs to know about STDs, contraception, pregnancy, hormone cycles, and anything else important and relevant that I'm leaving out. Delaying sex until marriage does not make you immune to STDs and unwanted pregnancy! People might as well learn the basics about sex at the same time they learn the basics about everything else: in school! In the aforementioned study, 33% of the teens who went through the abstinence program had sex within two years of the program. So what I'm wondering is, among the teens who did not delay sex in both groups, abstinence and comprehensive, who was the most well-equipped? They say that the abstinence approach had no negative effect on condom usage, but condoms aren't everything, you know.

On a separate subject, if there are other people out there who use blogger and know how to prevent or minimize spam comments, please enlighten me! Ugh.