I usually don't bother wasting my time with pundits unless they offer some actual entertainment value. And even then, I don't consider them to be accurate sources of information and always check the validity of any drivel that they unleash.

But the crazy that I have been hearing about from a Mr. Glenn Beck has piqued my interest enough that I decided to search for some clips and see if this guy is really the nutcase that he appears to be.

The first clip I came across is an older one about global warming from his days at CNN. Literally less than a minute into the clip and I am laughing at this guy. He is either consciously deceptive, but it seems more likely that he is just clueless. He starts off with a statistic- always a red flag. In his argument against potential dangers from global warming, he states:

"Deaths per year from extreme weather are down 95% since the 1920's".

Uhhh....Glenn, that may be due to I don't know, things like satellites in space which can help us forecast extreme weather, among other technological advances in architecture, medicine, and first response abilities that all help us to save lives. Agencies like FEMA usually do more good than harm as well. Not a good start as far as giving me confidence in your ability to rationally consider topics.

He goes on to say that espousing such views will make you "unhip and friendless". And I'm sorry you feel unhip and friendless Mr. Beck, but your personal self-esteem issues don't really fit into the cold world of logic. If used appropriately, rational thinking will lead you to an accurate conclusion- there are no guarantees that it will be a warm and fuzzy conclusion that makes your life easier. Sometimes the correct answer is a painful truth. However, there is some comfort in that presented with the same data, those who employ logical reasoning will frequently arrive at similar conclusions. Sort of like how almost all the experts and rational scientists who specialize in climatology and related fields have analyzed the data and reached the conclusion that global warming is very likely to be a true phenomenon, and that it is very likely that humans are contributing a significant amount to the process.

He then goes on to discuss the fact that John Coleman, co-founder of the Weather Channel, wrote an article stating that AGW is a scam. Glenn, maybe you are impressed that he helped found the Weather Channel and that he is a television anchorman. But that doesn't make him a well-informed scientist. He got his degree in journalism from what I can tell. I mean, would you trust Hugh Laurie to diagnose a serious disease? Would you let him perform your next hemorrhoid operation? No? Because he's not a real doctor, right? You see, you want someone specialized and scientifically knowledgeable about such things. Here's a sample of Coleman's reasoning skills:

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming
frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the
voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex
theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is
based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil
fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is
manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The
Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant
global warming.

...

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component
of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is
absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to
trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we
humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a
naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s
all there is to it; it can’t.

No rational opponent just simply declares their opponent wrong. Look at the red herrings and fallacies in this argument. It's ludicrous. The fact that CO^2 is natural has no bearing whatsover on its role as a greenhouse gas. We naturally produce hydrochloric acid in our stomachs, does that mean it is fine for John Coleman to drink a glass? Sulfur Dioxide is a naturally occuring invisible gas as well. It doesn't mean it's good to have in the atmosphere. Then he finishes with a classic argument from ignorance fallacy- I don't see how it could have an effect, therefore it must not have an effect. I think this should be renamed the arrogant prick arguing from their own perceived omniscience fallacy.

Beck does call it an opinion, but I have a bad feeling he is going to use it like a fact. I won't have time to finish this analysis right now, but will finish it during the upcoming week and then move on into exploring some of the other Beckisms that so far do not seem far-fetched.

Stuck in the Middle with You.

Did you know that there are extremists on both the right and left of the political spectrum? No, really. Because it seems that some people don't acknowledge extremes. Thus the uproar over the past few weeks about a report from homeland security that suggests (I'm paraphrasing) the current political and domestic atmosphere may encourage activities, including violence, by right wing extremists or terrorists.

Now, for the average citizen who leans right politically, or even adopts the label, right-wing, this should be neither cause for alarm nor surprise. But yet, some seem to have had that reaction.

Bob Bennett (R), from Utah, wrote to HS secretary Janet Napolitano saying,

"Do you truly believe that our returning war heroes, and all citizens who are gun owners, are not only unpatriotic, but threats to the state?"

Did the report make this claim? Here's the offending part of the report.

"The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today,"

In other words, after Gulf War I, a very small percent of returning vets who possibly had psychological or other problems joined extremists groups. Of course, people from all walks of life with similar problems join radical groups. Why would homeland security focus on vets? Just a guess, but I'd say it was because they have MILITARY TRAINING. Call me crazy, but I think our military is the best trained, most lethal force in the world. If my beer-swilling overweight racist neighbor living on disability joins a radical organization, I don't worry too much. But a former SEAL sniper, or military demolitions expert, etc... who joins such a group causes me a bit of alarm. Not because they are more or less likely to harbor violent intent, but because they are much more capable of successfully acting out any violent intentions that may develop. Case in point, Timothy McVeigh who is sighted in the report. McVeigh is not singled out as an example of the character of vets. He is singled out as an example of the capabilities and threat posed by a combination of extreme ideology and military training.

Abortion clinics have been bombed. Timothy McVeigh did exist. Jim Adkisson and Richard Poplawski were real people who killed real people. These people do not represent that average conservative. They do no represent the average right wing American. I have several conservative friends. They do not act like these people. My conservative friends have a name for right-wingers like these guys...what do they call them? Oh yeah- EXTREMISTS. Just like the report said.

How is this so difficult. Either people like Pat Robertson (who is having a fit about this, even questioning the sexual orientation of those composing the report) have such profound ignorance that they don't know these people really exist. Or perhaps they just want something to bitch about and hope that the average conservative American will jump on the bandwagon- once again proving my hypothesis that modern conservative rhetoric depends heavily on the listener being ignorant and not thinking about it.

The final possibility which I hope is not the case, is that these people complaining honestly can't distinguish between their own views and the views of extremists- in which case the report really was about them.

I'll leave with a story about protests against some left-wing extremists. I'm talking about animal rights extremists. There was a counter protest, creatively named Pro-Test, on Earth Day in support of scientists who do conduct research on animals. It had a great turnout- far more than the animal rights wingnuts. Good for them. Read more about it at Scienceblogs.

Galactic insurer nightmare

This is a really cool picture from hubble.

It shows a collision of 4 galaxy clusters. The Bad Astronomer has an informative write up on his blog.

A couple of other blog entries that have entertained me today.

About a recent Sarah Palin appearance:

Addressing an addled sampling of Indiana's populace at the Vandeburgh County
Right-to-Life dinner tonight, Palin once again exposed both her basic lack of
intellectual candlepower and her 10-kiloton hypocrisy, prating on about the
importance of abstinence despite the fact that she was well aware of her
daughter Bristol's sexual involvement with Levi Johnston, delivering more
plaintive and dishonest pro-life tripe, and just sounding--again--like a madly
winking anus would sound if backed by a sufficiently strong and steady supply of
searing intestinal effluvia.

From Kevin Beck at Dr. Joan Bushwell's Chimpanzee Refuge

About the Teabaggers around America:

Comrade PhysioProf walked through one of these wackaloon teabagger parties
yesterday. Looking at and listening to the people in attendance, it was
abundantly clear that they represent the most ignorant stone-cold-fucking-stupid
dregs of the dregs of remaining sewage of the sick-fuck right wing of American
society. These selfish whiny pig people are repugnant to decent Americans.

That's the entire post. Concise and vitriolic. I like it. From Comrade Physioprof

Funny

Hate to send anyone to Myspace, but this is hilarious. Not the most talent, but terrific message.

Keep Your Jesus Off My Penis Song

Add to My Profile | More Videos

Top 5 Mind Expanding Scientific Ideas

1. Schrodinger's Cat- The whole dual nature of quantum particles in quantum mechanics is one of the most mind-blowing concepts I have ever tried (and I do mean tried) to wrap my brain around.

2. Relative Time- The idea in Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity that time is not an objective force but is relative and subject to manipulation, especially as one approaches the speed of light.

3. "We are Star Stuff"- In the beginning there was hydrogen. Astrophysics tells us that this hydrogen formed the first generation of stars and inside them, the processes of nuclear fusion created all heavier elements. As this initial generation finished it's lifespan, the release of these newly created heavier elements through supernova, and in star generations to follow spread all heavier elements found in the universe today, including the atoms in our bodies. Our atoms were forged in the hearts of stars billions of years ago.

4. Implications of the Speed of Light- Understanding that light has a speed and therefore over the great distances within our universe, we may "see" the past. Knowing that some of the stars you see at night may be long dead, but their light is just completing its long journey to your eyes, allowing you to see it as it was. Also, with lightspeed as the ultimate limit in the universe, light can determine the volume of space for which you exist in the universe- you cannot affect anything outside a sphere with a radius equal to the distance light could travel from the moment of your existence.

5. The interconnectedness of all life- From Darwin's Theory of Evolution we understand that all life on earth is connected, bound together as family descending from a common ancestor.

Un-American

This is the lack of understanding of American values that is sad and really pisses me off. Those who interrupted this are truly un-American, un-patriotic, and plain ignorant.