Ten Replies...Advocacy vs Science (From Helicity)

I came across a very interesting blog called Helicity that was replying to the replies of a climate change skeptic (to his earlier post). I thought many of his responses were both patient and insightful, and it's a topic I have covered myself. For those (like me) who aren't familiar with it, helicity is a meteorological term that, "in the most general sense, illustrates to what extent a fluid flows in a corkscrew manner. It’s used in forecasting the likelihood of tornadic development through the Storm Relative Helicity scale (SRH)." The blog's author, "Daniel ‘counters’ Rothenberg, a student of Atmospheric Science at Cornell University," uses helicity as a metaphor for the wild spinning of academic and everyday life.

It's a long post, and I highly recommend you read it. I hope Daniel won't mind that I've included a couple of excerpts here that I found interesting.

Regarding consensus:

"What does “consensus” mean? It means that the people that actually do climate science generally reach the same conclusions and interpretations of the data they work with. In climate science, there is a strong consensus that AGW is the best interpretation of the pertinent data. What this response fails to hit almost entirely is that it’s not the consenus that matters; it’s how that consensus came to be. In the case of climate science, AGW continues to be supported by new lines of evidence. It allows us to answer questions, but also to ask more questions. The important thing is that ain’t nobody done gone and knocked AGW’s knee-caps out! There is a consensus precisely because not only is AGW the most robust explanation of the data out there, but no one has come and falsified it yet."

Regarding peer-review (or lack of it):

"You know, when a skeptics scientific thesis can thoroughly be debunked and refuted in a short, few-paragraph blog post, is it any wonder that it can’t pass the muster of peer-review? Peer-review is far from a perfect, flawless process, and it certanly can insulate the scientific establishment from major changes - even changes which prove to be necessary. But the issue isn’t politics in the peer-review process; it’s flawed science wasting peer-reviewers time."

Regarding refuting data:

"If someone has a serious issue with the latest Mann paper (or any paper in the climate science literature), then it’s about time that they draft a formal refutation and publish it. I can guarantee that if the refutation is legitimate, it won’t have any problem making it into a respected journal. If skeptics are really sitting on AGW-shattering calculations and have better theories formulated, then they need to start publishing them. The problem is that they don’t."

As I said, these are only excerpts from the Helicity post. I recommend reading it in its entirety.

[And for those who are easily confused...this is a blog, so it isn't science, merely an opinion about science.]

Dueling Databases - Industry to Publish Global Chemicals Database

Data are power! I've said this before, and despite being a bit cumbersome as a phrase, it does highlight a growing trend. About a month ago I mentioned that the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) was looking at developing a global database of chemicals used in various products. The database is to be discussed in Geneva in May at the second session of the International Conference on Chemicals Management (ICCM2), which is part of the Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management (SAICM) process.

Now leading bodies of the global chemical industry are planning to publish their own global online database of chemical substances for stakeholders, which they are calling the Global Product Strategy (GPS). The organizations include the International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) and Cefic in Europe, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) in the US, and Japan's JCIA. While details are still being worked out, the industry plans to present the concept of GPS at the same ICCM2 meeting.

These databases follow on the heels of many other online resources, including databases that contain the summary results of many studies over many years. The High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical databases resulting from the voluntary HPV Challenges in the US, Europe and Japan are also online. As will the data being developed as a result of the new REACH law in Europe and the new Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP) in the United States.

Online databases are not entirely new, as chemical plant release data have been available for many years as part of the Toxic Release Inventory. But the near ubiquitous accessibility of the internet, combined with improved user-friendliness of interfaces and the increase in data collection, have contributed to what amounts to a boom of information available to the public. There are drawbacks, of course, of so much data - often too complex to understand - being available to everyone. But overall having access to information will help improve everyone's decision-making capability.

Our Stolen Informed Future - A New Database of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals

The organization run by Dr. Theo Colburn, famous for her book "Our Stolen Future" has launched a new web page called "Critical Windows of Development." The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) is sponsoring the site, which provides a interactive bar graph that allows the user to track stages of fetal development versus scientific studies that show the endocrine (hormone) disrupting effects of three major chemicals - bisphenol-A (sometimes known as BPA), phthalates and dioxin - in rats and mice. Needless to say, these three chemicals have been the subject of quite a bit of controversy and many advocacy groups are seeking to have them banned or regulated severely.

The first two are commonly used in plastics and so have widespread use in consumer goods, which is part of the concern. Some studies suggest both BPA and phthalates can affect critical stages of fetal and young children's development even at very low exposures. The third chemical, dioxin, is not actually commercialized but rather a common by-product of combustion.

In her statement at the web site launch, TEDX president Theo Colburn notes “The unprecedented global increases in endocrine-related disorders such as autism, other learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive problems, diabetes, obesity, thyroid problems, breast, prostate, and testicular cancer and more, signal the need for a crash program in ‘inner-space’ research...The roles of contaminants in the womb must be addressed before it is too late.”

According to Colburn, the site will expand from the initial three chemicals. TEDX expects to add bioaccumulative polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) flame retardants and the pesticide DDT by the end of this year.

The site represents a growing trend - online publishing of databases that contain the summary results of many studies over many years. This follows on the heels of the High Production Volume (HPV) Chemical databases that have resulted from the voluntary HPV Challenges in the US, Europe and Japan. The new REACH law in Europe will also put data on the web, as will the new US Chemical Assessment and Management Program (ChAMP).

The Future of Geography = Online Gaming?

There is no secret that the US has lagged behind on science, math, and geography. It seems every month there is someone doing a survey in which Americans can't identify whether names given are cities or countries, never mind where they might be in the world (or even in the states). Do we know the difference between Iran and Iraq? Can we find East Timor on a map? How about Somalia? Or more specifically, Mogadishu? How can we take action in places like Darfur if we don't even know whether it is a city, a region, or a country (or where in the world is Sudan)?

So how do we improve our geography skills? How do we stack up against other people in the world?

One way is to travel everywhere in the world. I'm doing what I can in that regard, but at 17 countries I'm hitting less than 10% of the nations on the planet so that doesn't seem like a viable option. We could also study maps and take lots of tests, but we all know how much most of us like doing that.

Geosense offers another option...one that takes advantage of our natural tendency to want to play online games. Geosense lets you play alone, or do real-time head-to-head challenges with people from all around the world. You can play with an interactive map of the world, an advanced map, just Europe, or just the US. You can even scramble it all over.

You'll be shown a series of city names. Depending on your map choice, a state or country name is also included. All you have to do is click the city's location on the map. If you play against others you will see your pick and their pick (as well as the correct pick). So there is pressure not only to know where the location is but to find and click on it faster than your opponent. Accuracy and timing add up as points.

Will it work? Will students (and their parents) get into the game and maybe learn a thing or two? I think it will help. We tend to be glued to our computers so why not take advantage of it to learn some geography.

Check out Geosense and let me know. It can be quite addictive.