Author Archives: Freince Charles

Glenn Beck Show Claims Tea Partiers are Better at Science—But Mangles the Research

by Freince Charles Posted on October 21, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Last week, Glenn Beck was elated to uncover some data suggesting that the mean things people say about tea partiers—”maybe you’re a conspiracy theorist, or maybe you are somebody who’s crazy, or you’re uneducated, or you’re rude,” as the conservative talker summed it up on his radio show—are just false. Instead, explained Beck and his on-air cohorts, the new evidence suggests that members of the tea party have a better grasp on science, on average, than other Americans.

But in highlighting this, Beck and his gang managed to show that they don’t understand statistics.

Beck and his co-hosts were citing the research of Yale psychology professor Dan Kahan, who had been analyzing some data and found a slight positive relationship between scores on a science “comprehension” scale and identifying with the tea party. How slight? For data nerds, the correlation was .05. Correlations range between 0 and 1, where 1 is a perfect positive correlation, and from 0 to -1, where -1 is a perfect negative correlation. In social science (or any science) a correlation of .05 would be considered “weak” or perhaps even “trivial,” because it is pretty close to zero. (For a very approachable explanation of correlations, see here.)

At the same time, Kahan also found a similarly small relationship, but negative, between science comprehension and being a conservative Republican (-.05). And he found a somewhat larger, but still quite modest, negative relationship between religiosity and science comprehension (-.26). Keep all of this in mind.

Now, back to The Glenn Beck Program. “It turns out there is a strong correlation between scores and sic the science comprehension scale and identifying with the tea party,” declared Beck’s fellow talking head Steve Burguiere (A.K.A. “Stu”). But there isn’t. It’s a very weak correlation at best.

Stu appeared to be quoting Kahan, but the researcher had actually written something quite different:

It turns out that there is about as strong a correlation between scores on the science comprehension scale and identifying with the Tea Party as there is between scores on the science comprehension scale and Conservrepub conservative Republicans….

(Italics are mine.) What he’s saying is that there’s just as slight of a positive relationship between being a tea partier and comprehending science as there is a negative relationship between being a conservative Republican and comprehending science.

Kahan went on to add:

Again, the relationship is trivially small, and can’t possibly be contributing in any way to the ferocious conflicts over decision-relevant science that we are experiencing.

Beck and gang managed to miss this pretty important point.

What’s the actual takeaway from this study? Tea partiers are a teeny bit better at science comprehension than non-tea partiers—even as liberal Democrats are a teeny bit better at science comprehension than conservative Republicans.

In truth, it’s not surprising to find a small correlation between science comprehension and those who affiliate with the tea party. The tea party is, in significant part, a libertarian movement, and libertarians have been found to outscore both liberals and conservatives on the cognitive-reflection test, which is a measurement of how you fare on tricky math problems.

Science acceptance among Democrats, Republicans, and Tea Partiers. Public Religion Research Institute

But whether tea partiers have basic science comprehension and whether they accept what science has to say are two different things. Tea party members score even lower than Republicans when it comes to accepting established scientific knowledge about evolution and climate change. Democrats and Independents score much better.

What’s more, we also know that on the right, more knowledge about science can lead to less scientific acceptance. Kahan’s research itself is a major source of this finding. He shows that as conservatives become more scientifically literate, they also become stronger deniers of climate science.

So, in sum: The Glenn Beck Program, in trying to show that tea partiers are good at science, muffed the statistics. More important still, it missed the point.

Beck himself then ended the segment by veering toward some conspiratorial thinking about academia. To quote from an online write-up of the segment on Beck’s website:

In theory, Kahan could have chosen to hide his results or manipulate the data to prove a different point, but, instead, he openly admitted that while he was surprised by his results, this is the results his research turned up.

“I think this is great. Dan Kahan will be looking for a job soon,” Glenn said laughing. “I hope you have tenure, Dan, because Yale’s not going to keep you around, dude.”

Update: Kahan has blogged at length about how extensively his research has been misunderstood on the right, writing:

My observation that the size of the effect was “trivial,” and my statement that the “statistical” significance level was practically meaningless and as likely to disappear as reappear in any future survey (where one observes a “p-value” very close to 0.05, then one should expect half of the attempted replications to have a p-value above 0.05 and half below that) was conveniently ignored (indeed, writers tried to add force to the reported result by using meaningless terms like “solid” etc. to the describe it).

Also ignored, of course, was that liberals scored higher than conservatives on the same measure and in the same dataset.

Did these zealots feel the sting of 50,000 logic arrows burrowing into their chests moments after they got done beating on them? Doubt it.

Original article – 

Glenn Beck Show Claims Tea Partiers are Better at Science—But Mangles the Research

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Glenn Beck Show Claims Tea Partiers are Better at Science—But Mangles the Research

Obama’s Big Syria Conundrum

by Freince Charles Posted on August 30, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Just because you should do something doesn’t mean you ought to.

That might sum up one way of thinking about whether the United States should bomb Syria in response to the horrific chemical weapons attack presumably launched by regime forces against civilians earlier this month. The assault, which led to the deaths of 1,400 Syrians, including children, was a dramatic step over President Barack Obama’s “red line” and prompted the administration to move toward a punitive strike that would be designed not to affect the ongoing balance of power in the continuing Syrian civil war but to deter President Bashar al-Assad and his military forces from further use of chemical weapons. Immediately, a trans-Atlantic debate ensued over whether such military action would be appropriate, effective, and wise. And this afternoon—as the White House released a four-page unclassified assessment declaring that Assad regime officials “were witting of and directed the attack on August 21″—Secretary of State John Kerry made a public statement presenting the case for a limited attack.

In the face of public opinion overwhelmingly opposed to US military action in Syria, Kerry argued that the United States had a humanitarian obligation to respond to Assad’s use of chemical weapons and a duty to preserve America’s credibility and that of the civilized world:

It matters to our security and the security of our allies. It matters to Israel. It matters to our close friends Jordan, Turkey, and Lebanon, all of whom live just a stiff breeze away from Damascus. It matters to all of them where the Syrian chemical weapons are—and if unchecked they can cause even greater death and destruction to those friends. And it matters deeply to the credibility and the future interests of the United States of America and our allies. It matters because a lot of other countries, whose policy has challenged these international norms, are watching. They are watching. They want to see whether the United States and our friends mean what we say.

Killing people—no doubt, some civilians would perish in a limited strike—to demonstrate credibility and toughness is not the most high-minded of arguments. Should innocents die because Obama (perhaps in a misguided move) drew a line in the sand? But there is some merit to the contention that a tyrant should not be permitted to deploy unconventional weapons with impunity.

A few days ago, I asked David Kay, the former UN weapons inspector who led the search for the nonexistent WMD in Iraq after the 2003 invasion, why he supported an attack on Assad in response to the chemical weapon massacre. He noted:

It is a terror weapon of extraordinary power…I believe if Assad gets away with showing other regimes how they can use CW to gain the upper hand in a conflict…it is something we should not want. Imagine if the Libyan rebellion had not occurred first, but were to be about to start. In this interconnected world we should want to maintain a ban on the use of weapons that can have large and sudden impacts. To kill 100,000 has taken Assad more than a year…Unless we now take action the wrong lesson is likely to have been learned.

It is hard to watch the videos of the victims of the chemical weapons attack and shrug. But all actions have their costs—even justifiable actions. And the question here is this: Can Obama mount a limited, targeted, and effective strike that will indeed deter Assad without drawing the United States deeper into the ongoing civil war, causing unacceptable unintended consequences (say, a high number of civilian casualties), and/or further inflaming conflicts within the region? That’s a tall order. Perhaps he and his military aides can devise such an assault and thread this needle. But Kerry, who took no questions after delivering his statement, neglected to discuss various options. Which was natural, for the administration understandably has no desire to telegraph the specifics of what apparently now is an inevitable strike (with or without any explicit approval from Congress, which is hardly rushing to vote on the matter).

In his tough-worded statement, Kerry, the onetime anti-war activist, resorted to a familiar rhetorical device. “What is the risk of doing nothing?” he asked. (George W. Bush repeatedly used similar language in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.) Yet decrying doing nothing does not justify a specific action. The Hippocratic Oath counsels: First, do no harm. A military strike would do some harm. Will the gain outweigh the harm? Obama is often adept at working through complicated calculations. But in war—and in the Middle East—intelligent calculations can look rather different after the fact.

Source: 

Obama’s Big Syria Conundrum

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Big Syria Conundrum

Rick Perry’s New Quest: Middle East Peace

by Freince Charles Posted on July 12, 2013

Mother Jones

On Monday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry announced that he won’t run for re-election for a third time. That leaves the former presidential candidate with a little bit of free time on his hands, and now, by way of an interview with the Washington Times, we know he plans to spend it: international conflict resolution.

“We will be going to Israel to bring together Arabs, Christians and Jews in an educational forum,” Mr. Perry told The Washington Times in an interview just three days after he announced he would not seek an unprecedented fourth term as Texas governor.

Most Christians living in the Middle East are Arabs. The people Perry should be inviting are called Muslims. Then again, counting to three has never really been his forte.

See original:

Rick Perry’s New Quest: Middle East Peace

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Rick Perry’s New Quest: Middle East Peace

Bank Robbery Suspect Wants NSA Phone Records to Prove His Innocence

by Freince Charles Posted on June 14, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This is genuinely fascinating. A guy named Terrance Brown is on trial in Florida for allegedly masterminding the robbery of a Brinks armored truck. Prosecutors have used phone records to track the movements of one of Brown’s codefendants, but guess what? They don’t have phone data for Brown himself because his carrier apparently didn’t keep it.

You can see where this is going, right? Here’s the LA Times:

On Sunday, after federal officials acknowledged the NSA trove, Brown’s attorney, Marshall Dore Louis, filed a midtrial motion asking the NSA to turn over Brown’s phone records. “The records are material and favorable to Mr. Brown’s defense,” Louis wrote, adding that the request was “not intended as a general fishing expedition.”

Everyone quoted in the article expects the federal government to fight back like crazed weasels against this order, and I don’t doubt that they’re right. They’ll probably win, too. But it would certainly be an intriguing case for the Supreme Court to decide, wouldn’t it?

Link – 

Bank Robbery Suspect Wants NSA Phone Records to Prove His Innocence

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Bank Robbery Suspect Wants NSA Phone Records to Prove His Innocence

U.S. and China team up to fight climate-changing HFCs

by Freince Charles Posted on June 10, 2013

U.S. and China team up to fight climate-changing HFCs

By John Upton

White House / Pete SouzaXi Jinping and Barack Obama, having a tie-less chat about cyberespionage and climate change.

Hydrofluorocarbons, the climate-changing twins of ozone-ruining chlorofluorocarbons, had best watch out. The world’s two most powerful countries have agreed to join forces to prevent the harmful chemicals from entering the atmosphere.

Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping spent Friday and Saturday talking in California. They couldn’t find much middle ground on cyberespionage, or on a handful of other security issues. But they agreed that their two countries will work together to tackle one of the world’s greatest climate threats.

“[N]either country by itself can deal with the challenge of climate change,” Obama said at a press conference with Xi.

The use of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) has been sharply curtailed under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, which is one of the world’s most successful international agreements. But the protocol has led many manufacturers of fridges and other appliances to switch from CFCs over to hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), which, while harmless to the ozone layer, are among the most potent of the greenhouse gases.

For years, environmentalists and governments, including the U.S., have been pushing the idea of expanding the Montreal Protocol to also cover HFCs to help tackle climate change. And now China and the U.S. have agreed to do what they can to make that happen. From the White House:

For the first time, the United States and China will work together and with other countries to use the expertise and institutions of the Montreal Protocol to phase down the consumption and production of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), among other forms of multilateral cooperation. A global phase down of HFCs could potentially reduce some 90 gigatons of CO2 equivalent by 2050, equal to roughly two years worth of current global greenhouse gas emissions.

David Doniger, policy director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate program, described the White House’s announcement as “a big deal.” From his blog post:

For the past four years, support has been growing among both developed and developing countries for tackling HFCs under the Montreal Protocol. This treaty has a proven formula that combines phase-down commitments by both developed and developing countries, with the latter receiving extra time and financial assistance. Every country in the world is a party to this treaty, and together they have already eliminated more than 97 percent of the chemicals that damage the earth’s fragile ozone layer.

Despite the widespread support, progress was slowed in past years by opposition from China, India, and Brazil. But this U.S.-China agreement is a strong signal that things are about to change. There have also been signs of change from India as well.

The Europeans are also launching a big push to use the Montreal Protocol to phase out the use of HFCs. From a June 3 Bloomberg article:

International coordination to reduce hydrofluorocarbons, known as HFCs or F-gases, could have a “significant impact” on reducing emissions, said Artur Runge-Metzger, the European Commission’s lead envoy at United Nations climate talks that began today in Bonn. HFCs make up about 1 percent of greenhouse gases and may account for more than 20 percent by 2050, he said.

The EU is seeking ways to expand the global fight against climate change before 2020, when nations plan to bring a new emissions treaty into effect. The bloc is pushing to delegate HFC reductions to a different treaty, the Montreal Protocol, which was established in 1987 to eliminate chlorofluorocarbons, the so-called CFC gases found in aerosols and solvents.

“We and others believe that the best framework for implementing the phase-down is the Montreal protocol,” Runge-Metzger told reporters. “It has 25 years of experience in addressing fluorinated gases and dealing with the industry sectors that are affected.”

It’s no deal on CO2, but it’s something.

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

Read the article: 

U.S. and China team up to fight climate-changing HFCs

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, oven, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on U.S. and China team up to fight climate-changing HFCs

When is 2 About the Same as 70 Million?

by Freince Charles Posted on May 21, 2013

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A “twin prime” is a pair of prime numbers that differ by two. For example, 11 and 13, or 857 and 859. The “twin prime conjecture” states that there are an infinite number of twin primes. To this day, nobody has ever been able to prove this. It’s one of the great open conjectures of number theory.

Recently, however, an unknown mathematician proved a theorem that, according to the experts, is almost the same thing. It turns out that there are an infinite number of prime pairs that differ by some number N. And what is N? We still don’t know, but Yitang Zhang of the University of New Hampshire has demonstrated that it’s less than 70 million.

This is why I love number theory. I mean, what’s a difference of 69,999,998 between friends? Also this:

Without communicating with the field’s experts, Zhang started thinking about the problem. After three years, however, he had made no progress. “I was so tired,” he said. To take a break, Zhang visited a friend in Colorado last summer. There, on July 3, during a half-hour lull in his friend’s backyard before leaving for a concert, the solution suddenly came to him. “I immediately realized that it would work,” he said.

Isn’t that just perfect?

See more here: 

When is 2 About the Same as 70 Million?

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , | Comments Off on When is 2 About the Same as 70 Million?

Canadian officials in uproar over pipeline video game, not over actual pipelines

by Freince Charles Posted on April 1, 2013

Canadian officials in uproar over pipeline video game, not over actual pipelines

By John Upton

Pipe Trouble

This computer game lets players connect with their inner pipeline-loving capitalists.

You can now tap into your inner evil capitalist and lay virtual oil pipelines through meadows and fields while trying to avoid conflicts with virtual farmers and virtual environmentalists. Sounds like fun, right?

Well, not according to a number of government officials in Canada, where the game has been kicking up controversy since its release last month. Their big complaint is that the game includes pipeline bombings. From CBC News:

[W]hen the game play gets too heated, a level is sometimes ended with the bombing of the imaginary pipeline, which brings to mind several unsolved bombings that took place in B.C. in 2008 and 2009.

Oh, and they’re also not happy that the game was developed with taxpayer funds. From CTV News:

The game, called “Pipe Trouble,” was released by TV Ontario, the province’s public broadcaster. …

The game is described on a TVO blog as a “companion ethical game” to a documentary called “Trouble in the Peace,” which addresses local opposition to pipelines and the bombing of pipelines in Peace River, B.C.

Pipe Trouble

A virtual farmer issues a virtual warning.

In Pipe Trouble, you race against a clock to clear plots of land and connect pieces of oil-carrying pipeline to earn money. Lay a pipeline too close to wildlife or livestock and the animals flee. Bulldoze a tree and a protest ensues. Piss off a farmer and you’re in real trouble.

TVO has removed the game from its website while it is being independently reviewed.

More from CBC News:

Alberta Premier Alison Redford said it is disappointing for a taxpayer-funded game to depict the blowing up of pipelines, and Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne said she’s looking into the matter.

B.C. premier Christy Clark said there is no place for positions that advocate violence.

“In British Columbia, we have a long history of strong, vigorous debate on issues and it is always done in a respectful way,” she said.

“There is no place in debate for positions that advocate violence and it is disappointing this video would even suggest that approach is appropriate.”

According to the Canuck killjoys, the only real fun begins when you remove “virtual” from the scenario and start moving around actual bitumen that causes actual environmental catastrophes and makes actual evil capitalists richer.

Just wait ’til these boring old spoilsports learn what happens in Grand Theft Auto. Hooboy, once they find out about the computer games that kids are actually playing these days, their heads will explode like a tar-sands oil pipeline passing through a quiet Arkansas neighborhood.

John Upton is a science aficionado and green news junkie who

tweets

, posts articles to

Facebook

, and

blogs about ecology

. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

johnupton@gmail.com

.

Read more:

Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original article here – 

Canadian officials in uproar over pipeline video game, not over actual pipelines

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Canadian officials in uproar over pipeline video game, not over actual pipelines

Interested In Green Energy? This Is For You

by Freince Charles Posted on March 16, 2013

A lot of people are concerned about the environment, but don’t have a good idea of what they can do to help. Interestingly, an environmentally friendly energy industry has been emerging to serve customers who are interested in making a difference. This article provides many tips so you can live a green lifestyle.

Go ahead and do some research on solar panels. You can find out a lot about how they truly benefit the environment. Don’t become discouraged at their price, a lot of companies offer payment plans when you purchase solar panels for your home. The government also helps you by giving you a tax write off.

Some forms of insulation do not require professional services but rather can simply be pushed into an open area. These types of insulation are an ideal way to improve the energy efficiency of everything from your attic to your crawl spaces to your basement and the spaces between floors. This type of insulation can also be inserted whenever you repair drywall.

Invest in solar power for your home. Adding a few solar panels to your roof can actually decrease the cost of heating or cooling your home by up to 50%! Talk to a professional about where best to install them on your roof, as the placement is very important to get the optimal amount of direct sunlight.

Buying energy-efficient light bulbs is a great way to save money and use green energy in your home. These light bulbs take a couple minutes to use their maximum brightness. This delay allows less energy to be used when turning on the lights in your home, which is a great way to save energy!

You can make your kitchen greener by only buying products with minimal packaging. Avoid using waxed paper, aluminum foil and baggies by packing the family lunches in reusable containers. Save even more energy by purchasing reusable water bottles to go with the lunches. This saves the energy used to make the plastic disposable bottles and saves landfill space as well.

One of the cheapest and easiest ways to make your home more energy efficient is by replacing all of your standard light bulbs with green versions. Not only do such bulbs reduce your energy bill through lower wattage and higher efficiency, but these bulbs are also made to last longer, giving you a two-fold return for your investment.

A great tip to help save energy is to utilize daylight in your house. Rather than turning on your lights during the day, open up your shades, and let the sun naturally light up your home. You may even want to consider installing a skylight to really help illuminate your home.

In order to save energy at home, plug your electronics, including televisions and DVD players, into power strips and when you are not using them, turn off the power strips. Not only will you be preserving energy by doing this, but you will also be saving money on your electricity bill.

As this article mentioned before, there are many people who are looking to make a difference in the environment and are seeking to reduce their carbon or environmental footprint. If you have the right information, it’s easy to implement green energy solutions in your life. Use the advice in this article and green living is just around the corner.

Whenever you are in search of Metal Floor Decking Dimensions you could finish up paying out excessively so be careful. The Composite Steel Deck Floor System is likely to make the house more powerful and more long lasting

Posted in green energy | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Interested In Green Energy? This Is For You