CapitalistImperialistPig

I suppose there is a sort of Anna Karenina principle for scientific error: every correct scientific argument is the same, but every erroneous argument is erroneous in its own way, but there are some general strategies: put in some correct stuff, put in some related equations but at the critical moment equate some things that aren't actually equal or derive something from an inappropriate equation. Above all, though, make your argument complicated, so that it's really hard to see exactly where you went wrong. In this last respect I can't say that ex-Professor Motl's Post is a model, because he's really quite clear in his argument and it's pretty obvious exactly where he goes off the tracks in his calculation of climate sensitivity. Of course he does emit a lot of smoke after that point, but it's way too late too hide the dirty deed by then. To set the scene, let's remember that CO2 causes planetary warming by increasing the outgoing impedance to radiativ...

At least if checking the truth of what you say isn't a priority. Not quite free, though, it seems. According to the following link, it seems that Koch industries, a privately held oil and otherwise diversified conglomerate has spent almost $50 million funding the climate denial industry . It seems that the Koch brothers have funded most of the usual rascals in the climate change racket: Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Moncton and so on. You can contribute to their cause by buying ...such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra.

I made the mistake of drinking coffee tonight and couldn't sleep. Trying to understand math usually works, so I started thinking about the famous formula: exp(i*x) = cos(x) + i*sin(x) It seemed to me that that equation combined simplicity and great beauty. So how to understand it? If you realize that exp(i*x) lies on the unit circle in the complex plain at angle x wrt the real axis, it's obvious, but how do you get to that? Comparing the power series works, but somehow appealing to the full machinery of differential calculus seemed like a cheat too. I wanted to understand it in more fundamental terms. Suppose you multiply a real number a by the imaginary unit i. If you think of a as a point a distance a to to right of zero on the real axis, i*a is a similar distance up the imaginary axis. Similarly, the point a + i*b can be reached from zero by going 'a" to the right and then up 'b'. It thus lies at an angle arctan(b/a) from the real axis at distance sq...

I grew up in the Catholic Church and have mostly positive memories of it. I was an altar boy and was never abused by any of our priests nor did I have reason to suspect anybody else was. Some of the nuns were a bit physically abusive, its true, but given the absurd costumes they had to wear, its hard to really blame them. The big problem with the Catholic Church is its organizational structure: it was patterned on the Roman Empire of Constantine, and wound up with most of the vices of that organizational structure. The Pope was only responding to the character of that institution when he chose to deal with the sexual abuse scandal with secrets, lies and a cover up. The time has come to move the Church a bit closer to the twenty-first century. A good way to start would be with the Pope's resignation, replacement by a term limited (ten years?)Pope elected by all Bishops - themselves elected by the congregations for limited terms. One of the problems with the current lifetime election...

The Washington Post won the undying enmity of the American right by occasionally reporting some facts, including those that led to the exposure of the crooked doing of Nixon and friends. In recent years, that same Post has labored tirelessly to make amends, mostly by getting rid of competent reporters and replacing them with right wing hack columnists, but I suspect they labor in vain - except for the fact that liberals and other people paying attention now hate them even more than the conservatives do. Robert Samuelson has long been the Post's economics columnist. Aside from an undergraduate degree in political science and longevity, his qualifications for that post seem to be that: (1)He has the same last name as a famous economist, and (2)He reliably spouts the Republican talking points of the day. Brad DeLong and Menzie Chinn are not amused.

I wouldn't want to get Shephard Smith in trouble with his employers, but is he one of the under appreciated ironists of our time or what? Interviewing the ex-fiancee of the leader or the newly arrested militia/terrorists, the dialog went a bit like this: Ex f: He thought the government was try to take away his freedoms. Shep: His second amendment rights? Ex f: He loved his guns, he was afraid to lose them. Shep: Has he always been like this? Ex f: Yes, but especially since Obama was elected. He thought he might be (or bring?) the Anti-Christ. Next, with the retired FBI conspiracy guy: FBI: They believe the government is conspiring against them, is going to take their guns. Shep: Where do they get these ideas?

I was watching Peggy Noonan vs. George Will on ABC's This Week compete in the Most Pompous Gas Bag event. I think I have to give the nod to Will for his cocksure spouting of self-inconsistent nonsense, but Peggy certainly deserves some sort of honorable mention for her buffoonish tone of psuedo-profundity. Jake Tapper, btw, wasn't at all bad. He paid attention, brought up some useful points, and asked reasonable questions. I'm still looking forward to Christiane though.