As we learn that thousands are feared dead in New Orleans, Robert F. Kennedy lectures about the role Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol. Meanwhile, Russ Gelbspan educates us as to Hurricane Katrina’s real name, global warming, and writes, “Unfortunately, few people in America know the real name of Hurricane Katrina because the coal and oil industries have spent millions of dollars to keep the public in doubt about the issue.” It’s a tempting premise but there is no conclusive evidence that Katrina has anything to do with global warming. Stomping your feet and jumping up and down won’t make it so. There is certainly nothing wrong with exploring a connection. But I would advise RFK and others to consider that this catastrophe is still unfolding and that the knee-jerk politicization of the disaster will surely do nothing to convince global warming skeptics to come around.
August 31st, 2005
The Weather Underground’s resident blogger, Jeff Masters, is saying that Katrina is now the fourth strongest hurricane ever. He puts the odds of the city being submerged at 70%! How many people are in the city right now? 50,000? 75,000? 100,000? Jeff writes: “This scenario, which has been discussed extensively in literature I have read, could result in a death toll in the thousands, since many people will be unable or unwilling to get out of the city. I recommend that if you are trapped in New Orleans tomorrow, that you wear a life jacket and a helmet if you have them. High rise buildings may offer good refuge, but Katrina has the potential to knock down a high-rise building. A 25 foot storm surge and 30 - 40 foot high battering waves on top of that may be able to bring down a steel-reinforced high rise building.”
August 29th, 2005
First came Frist: “It isn’t just a matter of faith; it’s a matter of science. Embryonic stem cells have specific properties that make them uniquely powerful and deserving of special attention.” The surprise was not only the Senate Majority Leader’s (or “Dr. Frist” when he’s weighing-in on a medical-related issue) support of expanded embryonic stem cell research, but his no-nonsense endorsement of science.
This week, Bush is talking science. Bush had this to say about Intelligent Design yesterday: “I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought… You’re asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas. The answer is yes.”
Different schools of thought? Different ideas? Sounds more like a progressive Montessori teacher–not a president who often appeals to “sound science” when deriding the majority opinion of the scientific community.
People should be exposed to different ideas. But shouldn’t there also be criteria and metrics for evaluating the merit of those ideas? In the science classroom, where students are learning about the scientific process, what happens if Intelligent Design is determined to be outside the purview of science? Should it be thrown out? Would that be close-minded?
Rather than tossing around “sound science” or advocating a relativistic, wishy-washy position on the teaching of science (particularly as American students continue to fall behind in science and math), the Bush Administration would do the country a service by reflecting on basic scientific processes (testing, peer-review, reproducible research) and considering the purpose and limits of science when making off-the-cuff remarks that may have enormous cultural and policy implications.
August 2nd, 2005
I was just as excited to experience my first show at the famed Cat’s Cradle as I was to see Superchunk. It could have happened fourteen years ago. I remember visiting my grandmother in Winston-Salem and deperately wanting to sneak out the family car and drive to the club to see a band. Can’t remember who it was. In a rare instance of good judgment, I opted instead to watch 120 Minutes and drink little bottled Cokes that my grandmother stocked just for me in the downstairs fridge. Continue reading…
August 1st, 2005
