<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/">
<title>Dean's World</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/</link>
<description>Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:date>2008-02-20T00:02+00:00</dc:date>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203465677.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203021506.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1202494775.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199743319.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199460148.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199381114.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1198859858.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1197478481.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1196286282.shtml" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1195577881.shtml" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203465677.shtml">
<title>Largest Global Temperature Drop In 130 Years?</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203465677.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-20T00:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<a href="http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/giss-jan08.png">Wow</a>.<br />
<br />
Maybe there's something to <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/13/where-have-all-the-sunspots-gone/">that "Dalton solar minimum" idea</a>.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203021506.shtml">
<title>Living Large</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1203021506.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-14T20:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
Great video from Drew Carey on <a href="http://reason.tv/video/show/61.html">how life keeps getting better for Americans</a>.  Even with all its challenges, this truly is a Platinum Age, and tomorrow will be better yet.<br />
<br />
Drew blames the media for creating these images of doom and gloom, and he's right, but it's important to remember news is always going to skew negative. This is not because news programs want to bum everyone out, but because humans have (not surprisingly) evolved a strong information-seeking preference for bad news over good, so the news media give us what we want (else we would watch their competitors). <br />
<br />
The survival value of such a preference for bad news for early humans in a very hostile prehistoric world is probably self-evident enough to need no explanation.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1202494775.shtml">
<title>In Soviet Russia, Globe Warms You!</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1202494775.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-02-08T18:02+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
Via <a href="http://www.instapundit.com">Glenn</a>, <a href="http://liberalfascism.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzNkMTRhN2Y1N2JiNGIzN2Y2OGU4OTBmMzk3NzUwMmE=">this</a> is horrifying:<blockquote>The authors conclude that an authoritarian form of government is necessary, but this will be governance by experts and not by those who seek power.</blockquote>These are precisely the same arguments that gave us Communism.  100 million dead later, some people still haven't learned.<br />
<br />
Or, as Burke put it:<blockquote>The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion.</blockquote>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199743319.shtml">
<title>Great Balls Of Fire</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199743319.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-07T22:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_%28nuclear_propulsion%29">Project Orion</a>, re-imagined and <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avsbVBy-shc&mode=related&search=">visualized</a>.<br />
<br />
I'm always amazed by the fact the proposed Orion "super" spacecraft had a mass of 8 million tons.  For comparison, a modern <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercarrier">supercarrier</a> is about 100,000 tons.<br />
<br />
(via <a href="http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php">TalkPolywell</a>)<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE</b>: More video on Project Orion <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Lxx2VAYi8&NR=1">here</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE:</b> In the comments, CaliforniaJOSH raises an objection:<blockquote>Dishman, in all fairness, you must understand that the moon has a thriving ecosystem, and any human intervention could in theory turn it into a lifeless hunck of dead rock and dust.</blockquote>
<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199460148.shtml">
<title>Indicting The Lancet on Iraq</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199460148.shtml</link>
<description>A case for gross scientific incompetence. With more background here. (Via Glenn.)...</description>
<dc:creator>Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-04T15:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p class="firstinpost">A <a href="http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm">case for gross scientific incompetence</a>. With more background <a href="http://pajamasmedia.com/2006/10/joisting_with_the_lancet_the_p.php">here</a>. (Via <a href="http://www.instapundit.com">Glenn</a>.)</p>

<p>I think it was made obvious what The Lancet's really about for quite some time, based on the hate-based lunatic rantings of one of its editors, Dr. Richard Horton:</p>

<p><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/v7BzM5mxN5U&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/v7BzM5mxN5U&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object></p>

<p>The world of peer reviewed publications, especially high profile ones, is increasingly dominated, it appears, by political partisanship and economic self-interest.</p>

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199381114.shtml">
<title>The Great Global Coldening of 2012?</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1199381114.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2008-01-03T17:01+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
A Russian coldenist <a href="http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html">speaks</a>:<blockquote>Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer.<br />
...<br />
The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions—a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect.</blockquote>Sorokhtin makes some other points, such that the CO2 concentration might affect atmospheric volatility but not temperature, and that the oft-mentioned CO2 lag in historical temperature cycles may be explained by greater CO2 emissions from warmer oceans. <br />
<br />
I found this <a href="http://biocab.org/Emissivity_CO2.html">gray-body emissivity argument</a> interesting as well.  Is it even possible for CO2 to warm the planet?<br />
<br />
Overall, I have to be a bit suspicious of the climate change industry.  Yes, there are lots of scientists involved, but there are lots of ideologically-driven environmentalists involved too, and billions in funding are at stake.  It still bothers me that James Hansen once worked on a project that ascribed global <i>cooling</i> to manmade pollutants; that really makes climate change activism look like a  solution in search of a problem.<br />
<br />
Guess we'll find out who's right in a few years.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1198859858.shtml">
<title>The Toba Catastrophe</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1198859858.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-12-28T16:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
Is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory">this</a> why <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humans">humans have relatively little genetic variance</a> compared to most species?<blockquote>Geneticists Lynn Jorde and Henry Harpending of the University of Utah proposed that the variation in human DNA is minute compared to that of other species. They also propose that during the Late Pleistocene, the human population was reduced to a small number of breeding pairs — no more than 10,000 and possibly as few as 1,000 — resulting in a very small residual gene pool. Various reasons for this hypothetical bottleneck have been postulated, one of those is the Toba catastrophe theory.<br />
...<br />
According to the Toba catastrophe theory, 70,000 to 75,000 years ago a supervolcanic event at Lake Toba... The theory was proposed in 1998 by Stanley H. Ambrose of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.<br />
Within the last three to five million years, after human and other ape lineages diverged from the hominid stem-line, the human line produced a variety of species.<br />
...<br />
According to the Toba catastrophe theory, a massive volcanic eruption severely reduced the human population. This may have occurred around 70–75,000 years ago when the Toba caldera in Indonesia underwent an eruption of category 8 (or "mega-colossal") on the Volcanic Explosivity Index. This released energy equivalent to about one gigaton of TNT, which is three thousand times greater than the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens. According to Ambrose, this reduced the average global temperature by 5 degrees Celsius for several years and may have triggered an ice age.</blockquote>When I read theories like this, it always brings to mind the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation">Drake equation</a> and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_anthropic_principle">weak anthropic principle</a>, and makes me wonder just how incredibly unlikely a chain of coincidences we rode on the path to intelligence.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1197478481.shtml">
<title>Global Warming Models Not Pretty </title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1197478481.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-12-12T16:12+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
<a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071211101623.htm">Uh oh</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere.<br />
….<br />
"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? "It seems that the answer is no."</blockquote>Yeah, that’s a problem.  When you're proposing massive global energy taxes to address a problem based on computer models, it's a little inconvenient when they turn out not to work.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200712/NAT20071211a.html">CNS version of the story</a> has much more entertaining quotes than the ScienceDaily piece:<blockquote>"This means that the greenhouse effect - while real - is not very important in producing climate change," he said. "It's a lot smaller than what the models calculate."<br />
<br />
Singer said the reason why the models "overestimate the effectiveness of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is that the models ignore what are called negative feedbacks which occur in the atmosphere, such as clouds, which reduce the effect of the greenhouse gases."</blockquote>But non-skeptics like Bracken Hendricks are skeptical, and they have irrefutable evidence for their position:<blockquote>"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is not just a report. It's not just a random gathering of scientists. It's the largest scientific body ever assembled," he said.</blockquote>Apparently many scientific studies are "just reports" produced by totally random gatherings of scientists.  Good that he clarified that the IPCC <s>report</s> <i>manifesto</i> isn't one of those.<blockquote>"Their most recent assessment determined that there's 90 percent certainty that global climate change is happening and that it is caused by human beings."</blockquote>Of course, that also means this massive throbbing nonrandom <i>superbrain</i> of scientists admits there’s a 10% chance that they’re completely wrong and all this time and effort we’re putting into global warming is a gigantic waste of resources.<blockquote>"We don't want to be gambling with the fate of the planet."</blockquote>...said the man proposing to gamble trillions on reducing CO2 emissions that may or may not have any positive impact on climate change, based on unreliable computer models that don’t even accurately predict the <i>past</i>. <br />
<br />
Who’s ultimately going to be right on the climate science?  Hard to say for sure.  But Hendricks’ grasp of economic principles doesn’t inspire confidence in his camp:<blockquote>Hendricks countered, saying that alternative energy will be a multi-billion dollar industry and "an opportunity to revitalize our global competitiveness" through innovation and job creation.</blockquote>Yeah, and if we pay little kids to break windows, then the glassmakers will have more business, and they will order more from their suppliers, and <i>they’ll</i> order more from <i>their</i> suppliers, and it will create this huge ever-expanding bubble of prosperity… what?  What do you mean, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy">broken windows fallacy</a>?  <br />
<br />
Of course, what will actually happen is that China will chortle and build another thousand cheap CO2-spewing coal-fired power plants, and we’ll be stuck paying higher energy prices, thus further <i>reducing</i> our competitive advantage.  But not to worry: we'll lead the world in the lucrative market for inaccurate computer models!<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1196286282.shtml">
<title>Did We End The Universe Prematurely By Observing It?</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1196286282.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-28T21:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
Short answer: no, <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ns-hws112107.php">this</a> is just technobabble.<br />
<br />
Less short answer: outside of sci-fi, quantum "observations" have nothing to do with whether a human brain perceives them, and humans are very unlikely to have produced any kind of particle/force interaction so novel to the universe that it creates a species of quantum wavefunction collapse that hasn't happened trillions of times before.<br />
<br />
There's about a million fictional allusions to this idea, perhaps best exemplified by a line from an Aeon Flux episode: "Light, in the absence of eyes, illuminates nothing."  It's fun idea and a great plot device, but unserious.<br />
<br />
Here's the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment">classic "quantum observation" experiment</a>.  Note that the results have nothing to do with whether a human happens to be standing there watching it.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1195577881.shtml">
<title>We Have Top Men Working On It Now</title>
<link>http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1195577881.shtml</link>
<description>...</description>
<dc:creator>Dave Price</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2007-11-20T16:11+00:00</dc:date>
<content:encoded><![CDATA[<br />
Who?<br />
<br />
<a href="http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/those_united_nations_scientists/">Top... men</a>.<br />
<br />

<center>
<script type="text/javascript"><!-- 
google_ad_client = "pub-7294830314900512";
google_ad_width = 468;
google_ad_height = 60;
google_ad_format = "468x60_as";
google_ad_channel ="2377647278";
google_color_border = "336699";
google_color_bg = "FFFFFF";
google_color_link = "0000FF";
google_color_url = "008000";
google_color_text = "000000";
//--></script>

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
</script>
</center>]]></content:encoded>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>