Donald Trump and Climate Change: California edition

So here's what the potential dumbass-in-chief had to say in regards to the lack of rain in California over the last few years: "there is no drought." And he follows up with "If I win, believe me, we’re going to start opening up the water, so that you can have your farmers survive so that your job market will get better,"

This is how I envisions Trump's understanding of how droughts work:

and how he'll fix it:

easy peasy

Merry Holidays and Happy Christmas

While we are in the closing days of the annual (war on) Christmas season, I wanted to address a meme that floats around yearly. It showed up in my Facebook feed a bunch of times and is a meme spread by FAUX news for the last few weeks.

This clever sounding sound-bite makes a clear point: Christmas is the only holiday we are allowed to care about. Not Hanukkah, not Kwanza, not the solstice, definitely not the new year, nor the oxford comma. I expect some people promoting this meme are generally well-meaning and not the douches they seem to be. So with some limited holiday spirit in mind, I want to take a minute to let you know what 'It's not happy holidays, it's Merry Christmas!' means and doesn't mean to me.

What it means: It means you fail to recognize your Christian privilege. You assume that since Jesus is important to you, he should be important to them too. You assume that since in your tradition you choose to have the winter solstice represent the birth of Jesus that everyone else should too. No matter what someone else's religious, non-religious, cultural, tribal, or other background is, they must enjoy this time of year as you deem fit.

What it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that you are expressing goodwill or joy or happiness or any other positive feeling to others (Christian or otherwise). You are making a political statement. Your 'Merry Christmas' is not actually a message of hope that I am merry on the 25th of December. It's a demand that I prostrate myself to your overbearing and extremely limited interpretation of Christianity. 

What it means: It means that the first amendment means little to you except a protection of your religious beliefs. When states make laws demanding that stores are closed on Christmas (interfering with the free market), it has to be (and has been) justified from a secular standpoint. Of course everyone knows these kind of laws are only established to benefit Christianity, the justification promoted uses a reach around approach to avoid this obvious position.

What it doesn't mean: It doesn't mean that all people in this country are equal under the law. Or maybe I should say that all people are equal under the law, but some animals are more equal than others (thank you public education).

What it means: It means that when a stranger tells me Merry Christmas, I now have to wonder if they actually are expressing well-wishes and happiness or being douchebags like the people who post pictures like the above on Facebook. For that, I want to wish you a:

(I wasn't going to write this post, but then I came across the Grumpy Cat picture, which made me laugh so hard, my 11 year old wanted to know what was so funny. After that I had to write this post. So thanks and Happy Holidays to all the Grumpy Cats in the world (and a Merry Christmas to everyone).)

In Defense of Ignorance: Heffernan Edition

An article making the rounds on Yahoo does a great job of reinforcing societal loathing of science. You know that stupid activity being done everyday by jerk wads and has given us things like clean water, antibiotics, the ability to feed 7+ billion people, wifi, etc.

Heffernan is not a scientist nor someone in a technology field and that's ok. Most people aren't.  But like most people, Heffernan likes the benefits provided by science and technology. For instance you might note she is publishing an article at Yahoo that was certainly written on a computer. She also admits to owning a smartphone. Clearly this is someone who embraces technology, even if she doesn't understand how it works.

She gives up the game in the first paragraph.

As a child I fell in love with technology, but I have to admit I never fell in love with science. I kept hoping that messing around with Macs and Atari and eventually the Internet would nudge me closer to caring about the periodic table, Louis Pasteur and the double-blind studies that now seem to stand for science. As it was, I only cared about the double-blind studies that told me what I wanted to hear—that potatoes are good for you or that people of my height are generally happy—and I liked the phrase “double-blind” when it was on my side because it meant “true” and “take that.” (emphasis mine)

See, she admits to not falling in love with science and what science gave us. She only cared about science when it told her what she wanted to hear. Someone should probably inform her that that is not how science works. That is actually more like how religion works. Interestingly, throughout the early parts of the essay, Heffernan establishes religion as being oppressed by science and those evil practitioners of science. And as you might expect, Heffernan ultimately admits to being a fundamentalist Christian. Of course she is not direct about and does an end around to try to hide her intentions from her 'dear readers.' (As a person who admits to only caring about information that reinforces what she already believes, she likely assumes most people are like her and will not think too deeply about what she is doing.)

Upon admitting that she is a creationist, she tells us that the last person she actually said that to stormed off in a huff. I suspect that is bullshit, a lie, a fabrication. I could be wrong, but I am sure there is more to the story than being said. As a rational skeptic and scientist, I think it is more likely she is lying or leaving out important information than a person up and left a restaurant simply because she said she was a creationist. Based on my reading of Heffernan, I do not think I would like hanging out with her, but if we were at a restaurant having an appetizer and a cocktail, I would still not up and leave simply because she admitted to being a moron.

Upon telling us she read many books, which she seems to read for pleasure and style focusing on the prose not the content, she then states 

I still read and read and listen and listen.

Remember this is the person who tells us she only cares about things that agree with what she wants to hear.

And I have never found a more compelling story of our origins than the ones that involve God.

Ok, for a humanities Ph.D. trained person complaining about scientific prose that is one god-awful sentence. 'than the ones' suggests she is lumping all magical creation stories into this sentiment. Basically suggesting that any mythology is better than reality. But no. Heffernan is clearly only talking about Genesis as interpreted the way she interprets it. We don't need to consider all those silly New England theologians who believe Genesis is metaphor. We can discount all those Catholics and other Christian denominations that believe Genesis is not true, because she has it all figured out.

Heffernan then tries to bring up the fact that science is always changing (it's not, at least not how she believes it does). As we get more information we understand the universe in which we live better, thus we revise our conclusions. Because of this cars get 40+ mpg instead of 2 mpg. Because of this we get more food per acre than we used to. Because of this we have the internet. I don't see Heffernan lamenting the fact she has to upload a crap pile of an article to Yahoo instead of using a good old fashioned telegraph to transmit her thoughts across the country. Stupid science.

See the bible never changes. The book of Genesis is still around in its original form, unlike that pesky science. Genesis has never been translated from the original texts, which we definitely have. And the ideas supported by the bible like slavery and murder of adulteresses have not changed. Ideas that women, even those named Virginia, being responsible for all sin and subject to men haven't changed. Or maybe they have and Heffernan only cares about things that affirm what she wants to hear. But why should I think that.

Support the artist

Yahoo Can Do Better

Dear Yahoo,

When you post an article about 'nightmare bacteria' I suggest not using a picture of someone holding a petri dish covered with mold. Just sayin'.

Best,
Lorax

No Rape Republicans: Dumbasses

Republican Assholes: 2nd recipients of this prestigious award

For some reason it seems that an entire major US political party has unilaterally decided that rape does not exist. Or maybe it is better to say that true rape does not exist, it's probably just some liberal media myth like climate change and intellectual honesty. I realize not all, and maybe not most, republicans share this worldview, but this is the problem you get when you embrace fundamentalism.

The patriarchal fundamentalist does not believe in rape, because a woman does not own her body. A woman's body belongs to her father until such time as he bequeaths it to her husband. This is why we, as 21st century first-world Americans still spend time worrying about the hymenal status of the bride, but could care less how often the groom shot his rocks off. This is what a large proportion of the gay marriage ban community means by traditional marriage. Women are property damnit.

Since women are property, they cannot be raped, because it isn't up to them what happens to their bodies. OK, maybe I'm being a bit hyperbolic. It does seem like some douchebag fundamentalist republicans acknowledge that rape is at least theoretically possible. Todd Akin acknowledges legitimate rape. However, if a woman becomes pregnant it can't be rape because the magic uterus prevents all the sperm cells from finding the egg and fertilizing it (note: this magic effect must occur pre-fertilization or otherwise an intact whole human being would be aborted and that would make baby Jesus cry.). Ron Paul noted that there is honest rape, which you can identify because the woman goes immediately to the emergency room, does not pass GO nor collect $200. Paul Ryan identifies forcible rape as a possible event, as opposed to those non-aggressive or maybe unenforcible rapes.

Regardless, most republicans seem to agree that the sex that occurs between a man and a non-compliant woman is really the woman's fault. That's why Roger Rivard noted that some girls just rape easy. Probably the only way men can be expected to not rape those women is to cover the 'easy rape women' from head to toe in some dark garments. Oh wait, Muslims already do that and they are evil, so we'll have to come up with another plan.

Potential devil worshiper 

With that recent history, we come to Richard Mourdock republican douchebag fundamentalist du jour. His actually disagrees with Akin and suggests that a woman can be become pregnant from a rape, however that's ok, because it's a gift from god. Mourdock might be right, if Mourdock worships the devil. Let's consider the ramifications of Mourdock's viewpoint. If a woman is forced to gestate and deliver a resulting baby from a rape, then why not force her to raise it. Also don't expect me or anyone else in society to help you raise your rape-baby, because that's just socialism or something.

What about the rapist? Can we prosecute him? I mean what if the woman was an 'easy rape' and how can we tell? Hell, if the rape-baby was Mourdock's devil-god's will, then can the rapist be held responsible? Obviously not, the rapist has no free will here, it was devil-god's decision, Mourdock said so. If anyone knows what the devil is thinking, I expect it is someone like Mourdock.

Opinion piece uses 14th century ideas as a counterpoint

The last day of July 2012 went out with a fizzle in the Twin Cities. This is the day the Star Tribune, arguably the paper of note in the 20th largest population area in the USA, published a counterpoint piece in the Op/Ed section. The initial article described how a creationist learned about the scientific evidence of evolution and came to change his opinion. It's a quite personal account that does a great job personifying the issue. The article yesterday by Ross S. Olson (not to be confused with less ignorant Ross Olson's) is a supposed counterpoint to Peter M. Leschak's initial article.

Olson starts with the premise that he went from being a creationist to a supporter of evolution back to being a creationist. 

Peter Leschak described his change from belief in biblical creation to evolution. I went through that transformation, too. But later I went beyond it -- back to young Earth creation, backed up by scientific evidence.

Note the 'backed up by scientific evidence.' We'll deal with that, but first Olson seems to have gone from being a supporter of evolution to young earth creationist when he read "The Creation of Life" by A.E. Wilder-Smith (published 1970). Wilder-Smith argued that the order seen in life requires intelligence to arise.

"The Creation of Life," which showed clearly that order of the kind seen in life does not arise spontaneously by natural law and requires an intelligent intervention.

Three Stooges Rock Formation

Ripples in underwater sand

Obviously order can not occur naturally and interesting and inspiring rock formations were carved by Hephaestus and underwater sand ripples were put there by Poseidon.

Why was I never shown this evidence before? I began to read widely.

Because a book is not evidence, although it can contain evidence. By widely read, I assume you mean Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 with additional Christian literature, but no scientific journals.

We recognize an arrowhead as a product of intelligent manipulation -- even though it is theoretically possible that erosion might form one. A living cell is as complex as a city; the human brain is as complex as the Internet; no natural process produces things like the Encyclopedia Britannica. In fact, time and chance degrade information.

Ftz expression in Drosophila

I think Olson is trying to use Paley's discounted watchmaker analogy without actually saying so. Basically if Olson doesn't understand how something arises, ergo god. If we kick up the sand ripples or smooth them out, does Olson think angels descend from heaven to pile them up into beautiful patterns? Does Olson think the Archangel Michael creates the pattern of gene expression observed in a fruit fly maggot?

Then comes the warblegarblefarble. How is a cell complex like a city? Do bacteria have wifi or is that only eukaryotes? In what way is the human brain like the internet and what does that make a squirrel's brain like? Obviously no natural process could produce something like an encyclopedia. I mean only humans, which are totally fucking unnatural, could have done such a thing (It's life Jim, but not as we know it.)

The mathematical odds of forming, by chance, a single protein molecule from its component parts can be shown to be so unlikely that it could not have happened anywhere in the known universe in 30 billion years. Much less could it be combined with the hundreds of other components to form the simplest possible living cell.

Been there, done that. The nice thing about creationists is that the arguments never change, once you write a response, you can simply link back when the next idiot shows up.

Similarity of form does not prove common ancestry. It can also mean common design. (Young Earth creationists believe that the original Genesis kinds were intrinsically capable of great diversification, something we have seen with the breeds of dogs -- who remain dogs, nonetheless.) And fundamentally, fossils require rapid burial. Closed clams, seen all over the world, were covered before they could open in death.

Similarity of form could indicate common descent or common design I suppose. However, we have a lot more information than that. First, the similarity of our protein sequences demonstrates common descent. The amino acid sequences of our proteins are essentially identical to our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, which are more similar when compared to a mouse, which are more similar when compared to a frog, which are more similar when compared to baker's yeast. Same for our nucleotide sequences. Second, the order of our genes on the chromosome is essentially the same as the chimpanzee. This is not necessary to 'design' a human or a chimpanzee and strongly demonstrates common descent. Indeed the order of genes is similar in a mouse, which is more similar than the order in a frog, and not similar to baker's yeast. These facts support descent not design. (Importantly, descent was hypothesized long before we knew anything about DNA, genomes, or protein structure). Third, within our genomes are the remnants of dead viruses. Many of these dead viruses are found in the exact same positions in the genomes of our nearest relatives (primates). This demonstrates either common descent or design by a capricious and evil little shit of a god.

Olson the pediatrician then tells us that all of geology and physics is wrong. This means that the methods used by oil companies to find new deposits is wrong because it's based on science that disagrees with his interpretation of the bible. One thing I want to note:

Recently the project called RATE has shown that rocks contain too much helium to be millions of years old and also there is measurable carbon 14 in all fossils, oil, coal and even diamonds when it ought to be totally gone, implying a young and similar age for all those materials.

It is true that there is carbon 14 in things like coal. Since carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years, it should be gone after several tens of thousands of years. Olson therefore concludes that these deposits cannot be millions of years old. Most carbon-14 we think of comes from neutrinos smashing into nitrogen in the atmosphere. However, that's not the only place it comes from. The radioactive decay of uranium-thorium in rock generates carbon-14. Microbes, which will contain some amount of carbon-14, can and will contaminate the deposits as they are mined. Of course, we won't mention those well known sources of carbon-14 in the editorial. Olson also ignores all the really long lived isotopes, like potassium-argon, that demonstrate an old earth. 

Evidence of coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is vigorously opposed by the evolutionary establishment but is actually quite convincing. Human and dinosaur tracks have been found in the same strata and have been uncovered on film to prove that they were not manufactured.

Really? Human and dinosaur tracks? We doing that one again? I'm surprised that human fossils have not been found in the same strata as dinosaurs then. Why no bunnies in the precambrian? 

Recently a T Rex bone was found that contained blood vessels, cells and collagen fibers in the marrow cavity. Rather than admit that this specimen could not be 65 million years old, the response was to claim that we need to rethink how soft tissue is preserved for long ages. In a demonstration of the incredible power of professional peer pressure, the discoverer, a self proclaimed evangelical Christian, claimed that young Earth creationists were "hijacking" her data.

This is probably the paper he's referring to. Note Olson's approach, when we get new data, we do not think about it. It's funny because the 'widely read' Olson doesn't need to think about information like genome similarities, the fossil record, biogeography, the entirety of physics, geology, biology,  chemistry, archaeology, and paleontology.

Also note how the conspiracy is everywhere. The lead author capitulated to those evil scientists. And although Olson never comes out and says it, all those biology and physics programs in universities and colleges all over the globe are caught up in a vast conspiracy to hide the truth of young earth creationism. That must be the case because the alternative is that a dimwitted pediatrician is wrong.

But bucking peer pressure, plant geneticist J.C. Sanford, asked, "Can natural selection improve the human genome?" The result is in his book, "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome."
The conclusion? Natural selection cannot improve the human genome. It cannot even prevent steady deterioration. There are at least 100 new mildly deleterious mutations in each surviving individual with each generation. (The severe defects do not survive.) The overall fitness of the human race is decreasing by about 1 to 2 percent per generation. He concludes that we are headed for extinction as a race and that the human genome cannot yet be a thousand generations old or we would already be extinct.

"Natural selection cannot improve the human genome." Clearly, Sanford, a UMN alum (horticulture) does not understand natural selection. He also doesn't understand sexual reproduction (condolences to his wife if he has one). If he were correct that fitness deteriorates by 1-2%/generation, how come bacteria haven't gone extinct already? or most flowers? or most insects? or almost all animals except the few with long generation times?

This, of course, is contrary to evolution but fits completely with the Biblical account of a perfect creation, spoiled by sin and with a world that will someday -- perhaps very soon -- come to an end.

BWAHAHAHA. If creation was so fucking perfect, how could it be spoiled by sin? Maybe your definition of perfection and mine are not the same. Anyway, thanks Star Tribune for publishing any old horse shit you can find. Next week, please publish an opinion on the use of astrology to make important decisions or homeopathy to cure malaria or how scientology is the one true religion. Dumbasses.

Of all the crazy.....Editor's edition

I serve as an editor for several scientific journals. Basically I assess submitted manuscripts at a general level to see if the work is appropriate for the journal. I also make sure the work appears valid at a most basic level. If the manuscripts meet these requirements, I recruit a number of expert reviewers to rigorously assess the data and conclusions of the paper using criteria specific to the journal. (There is significant overlap in criteria between journals, but each journal has some specific issues or requirements.) Once the reviews come in, I have to integrate the reviewer assessments as well as my own and reach a decision on the paper: accept, revise, reject, etc.

Today I was looking at my new assignments and saw a paper that based on the title and abstract was appropriate for the journal. I quickly skimmed through the paper, which looked a little light, but seemed to relate some useful new information. So I went looking for some reviewers (I try not to use the same reviewers, because we are all busy and it's important to spread the workload around). One of the easiest way to identify reviewers is through a simple pubmed search. Enter a couple of relevant keywords related to the paper and voila instant potential reviewers.

Except today. I enter two obvious keywords, hit return, and get ~100 articles. The first of which is on the same topic as the paper I'm handling (I can tell from the title). Well that sucks, but it happens. Separate groups work on similar problems. Hopefully there will be enough differences between the papers that the one I have can still move forward.

Oh wait, the published paper is by the same group! FUCKITALL. I looked through the just published paper and see that there is minor difference, but the papers are essentially the same. On the plus side, there was an additional data set included to a figure in the paper in my hand. On the negative side, there was an identical figure. (The word you are looking for is plagiarism, and yes you can plagiarize yourself.)

This pisses me off, because authors agree when they are submitting papers that their work is not being considered elsewhere. For the authors, they can maximize the chance of getting published. But the authors are wasting everyone else's time. Half of the reviewers are wasting their time assessing the rigor of a paper that is not and will not be publishable. Add in the waste of time on the editors and journal associated staff and it is bad practice.

Congratulations you earn the:

Amy Dickinson: Dumbass

Amy Dickinson: First ever awardee!! Grats Amy!

This week in the Star Tribune advice column (it's next to the crossword so I often read it), Amy Dickinson responds to a young adult grappling with their non-belief. The concerned 16 year old no longer wants to attend services and is worried that when the subject is broached, their mother would enroll them in some kind of religious counseling. Admittedly, this is a tough one and these kinds of discussion can tear families apart. However,  it is my experience that it is the religious person that tears the family apart, not the non-believer. The religious authoritarian mother or father can not abide the non-believer/gay/evolution supporting/democratic/sexually active child and throws them out or worse. Now these specific parents may be completely ok with their child having different beliefs, but there are reasons why this 16 year old may be concerned.


So what is Amy's 'advice'?

You could show how mature you are by seeking the advice of your clergy on your own before discussing this with your folks.
This is a familiar issue, and a compassionate pastor may actually encourage your parents to give you more space.

Yep, if you do not believe a certain religious dogma, then you should seek the advice of the sellers of the dogma. If you want to stop smoking cigarettes, don't consult a doctor, go see a Philip-Marlboro representative. If you are concerned you are gay, don't talk to a counselor with expertise in sexuality, go see Marcus Bachmann's faith-based reorientation counselors.


Did it occur to Amy that the clergy member has a vested interest in retaining this soul for Allah, Jesus, Zeus, whomever? Yes, a compassionate pastor may be helpful, but is it worth the risk to the 16 year old to take this chance? What if you are wrong Amy? It is worth noting the 16 year old is concerned about being entered in religious counseling. Doesn't that suggest the parents may not belong to the most empathetic sect on the planet? Why send the young adult to the clergy and not a humanist? It seems Amy's advice serves to cater to the parents' potential needs and not the 16 year old's.