Map of life expectancy at birth from Global Education Project.

Monday, May 23, 2011

Back in Action

Things have been a little hectic around these parts -- in fact I am now in Miami Beach for the annual International HIV Adherence Conference, so yesterday was spent strapped into aluminum cocoons and running through airports in between. Anyhow here are a couple of items.

I wrote recently that Scientific American has dumbed it down for the contemporary declining intellect but is still worth your while. However, they have gone beyond the sin of mere middlebrowitude to an outright assault on the cause of science by running a fawning interview with climate change denialist Richard Muller, which noted climatologist Michael Mann is calling libelous. I'll let Joe Romm (at the link) do the dirty work for you.

They have flirted with climate change denial before, and I must say that I cannot remember a serious piece on climate recently. Naturally people are wondering what the hell is going on. Sold out to their advertisers, maybe? Sure looks like it.

On another subject, everybody treated the Harold Camping doomsday prediction with ironic detachment and deadpan humor, but hey, it's no joke. This psychopath destroyed thousands of lives -- not just people foolish enough to believe him, but in many cases their spouses, children and other loved ones who did nothing to deserve it. And his scam raked in hundreds of millions of dollars. However, it isn't criminal because it's religious, get it? I don't see any clear distinction from other religions, but maybe this will help a few people see that there's something essentially dangerous and destructive about faith.

I'll give you the latest from the conference later today.


Daniel said...

OK, I'll read this article again just to confirm my initial impression.

For the record, I've been involved in energy since my first job out of college 30 years ago. I'm on board with the scientific consensus on climate change.

My reaction to the article you link to is that its an undeserved hatchet job on the SciAm article. I'm not defending everything he has said in the past.

BTW, initial data from his research confirms the other models on climate change.

Cervantes said...

Can't agree with you Daniel. When I first read that I was appalled. He endorses Anthony Watts and slanders Mann. Yes, he didn't give the deniers what they wanted with the BEST review but that doesn't excuse everything else.