When climate journalists collide

False Balance in Matthew Nisbet’s Climate Shift Report
[Via The Intersection]

It’s quite the irony. In his contrarian report entitled “Climate Shift”–a report Joe Romm and Robert Brulle have seriously challenged–Matthew Nisbet claims that falsely “balanced” coverage of climate change is no longer a problem. Huh. Then in chapter 4 of the report, Nisbet goes on to provide falsely “balanced” coverage of an issue I happen to know a lot about:

During the Bush administration, many scientists mobilized in response to what they perceived as attempts by the administration to control the public statements of government scientists and to interfere with the conclusions of government reports. This debate received heavy attention at science-related blogs, from science journalists and via several top-selling books.

Here Nisbet is referring to me–although not by name. But note the language: “many scientists mobilized in response to what they perceived as attempts by the administration to control the public statements….” Actually, all these things were extensively documented (see below). There is no “perceived”; these are facts. Why is Nisbet applying phony balance to them?

[More]

There have been times I’ve agreed with Mooney or Nisbet and times I have disagreed. Both speak about finding the frames that will get people to listen, as they often do not simply listen to facts.

I am not sure what Nisbet is trying to do here, since his narrative – which many people have demonstrated is fairly weak – goes after the people who already acknowledge the facts and puts the blame solely on them.

He makes it sound like liberal scientists were all alike and aligned against conservative scientists – even though almost 70% of the conservative scientists agreed with the facts. In most cases, if we got 7-% to agree with anything, we would say that was probably something real to examine.

But NIsbet uses that as a negative point because the percentage of liberal scientists who acknowledged the facts was higher.

As Mooney states, these were facts being examined, not perceptions. But NIsbet often tries to find ways to frame the ‘facts’ without really saying so. Here he seems to be trying to get the climate denialists to listen to him by first crapping on scientists.

I’m not sure that abusing the people who agree with you is a good way to change minds. You may get those who do not acknowledge climate change to listen to you but you have alienated a lot of people.

And to use misleading numbers and arguments only move you further from the truth, not closer to consensus.

Great analysis for Apple’s mobile success

Anatomy of failure: Mobile flops from RIM, Microsoft, and Nokia can’t compete with Apple’s iPhone, iPad
[Via MacDailyNews]

“Research in Motion’s BlackBerry PlayBook is so bad that Verizon Wireless may not bother carrying it — a spokesperson said so the day after the PlayBook debuted to customers. AT&T won’t let BlackBerry users download the essential app (BlackBerry Bridge) that brings email and communications apps to the PlayBook. Carriers are arms dealers, selling weapons to anyone for a price, but even they are drawing the line at the PlayBook,: Galen Gruman reports for InfoWorld.

[More]

The original article is one of the best I have read regarding why Apple succeeds and others don’t.

One key aspect is that most companies do not have the ability to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances. They are stuck in the rut they created.

Apple seems to have found a way to route around that rut – first with the iMac, then the iPod, iPhone and now iPad. Each a response to the market that created new markets.

The rest just try and respond to Apple and they fail. How will they be able to respond to a wide open marketplace that is being created?

Adaptability and resilience are the hallmarks of a 21st Century company. Until more of them appear, Apple will have little competition.

Alternative nuclear power plant designs – can they work?

Small Modular Reactors: Safer and Cheaper?
[Via Climate Central - News, Blogs & Features]

In the wake of the Fukushima accident, and on the 25th anniversary of Chernobyl, the debate over whether nuclear power can be safe and economical enough to be a big part of the world’s energy future, especially for helping to reduce global warming emissions, is in full swing once again. The danger of a major accident that releases significant amounts of radioactivity is just part of it. Nuclear power plants also generate radioactive waste that has to be disposed of somehow, and the creation and transportation of nuclear fuel raises the risk of weapons-grade uranium or plutonium finding its way into the hands of bomb-makers. On top of this, how much it will cost to build enough power plants to make a dent in global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is uncertain — especially if Fukushima leads to tougher safety regulations.

For decades, though, some nuclear engineers have been pushing an alternate technology that they claim could address these concerns. Called Small Modular Reactors (SMR’s), these plants, which have been proposed with a variety of designs, would be inherently cheaper to build and safer to operate than conventional plants, for a variety of reasons — or at least, so their proponents argue. They may be right, but so far the nuclear industry hasn’t had enough real-world experience with any of the proposed designs to know how well their performance lives up to their theoretical promise.

[More]

I will be facilitating a discussion on nuclear power at the Sustainable Path Foundation’s Idea Club on Monday.

Nuclear will be part of our power production if we hope to make a full transition to a greener world. However, current plant design is not as optimized for the best generation of power as it is based upon Cold War military needs.

Much better reactor designs can be used if there is not any reason for weapons grade material. SMR’s hold some potential, as do a host of other designs being tested in different countries.

But, as seen here with this design, and with all the others, humans are the weakest link, often being the proximate cause for problems or making decisions leading to further difficulties.

One of the things we will discuss is how we can do a better job with this. For example, many people knew that the power generators in Japan were in a vulnerable position. In fact, the second generation plants built in Japan put the generators inside hardened buildings.

These newer plants also had pipes to directly inject sea water in case of a reactor problem. These plants were only a few kilometers from the catastrophic site at Fukushima yet suffered little of the problems seen from the earthquake.

So, how do we force a plant redesign and refurbishment? When it will cost a lot of money and probably shut down a plant for a time? How do we get the safety motive pushed as strong as the profit motive? I

f we cannot solve that, then these sorts of problems – and include the Gulf Disaster from last year here also – will continue to haunt us. Especially as we continue to operate at the very limits of our engineering abilities to find, control and exploit energy sources.

Why letting computers take over might be a bad idea

Amazon’s $23,698,655.93 book about flies
[Via it is NOT junk]

A few weeks ago a postdoc in my lab logged on to Amazon to buy the lab an extra copy of Peter Lawrence’s The Making of a Fly – a classic work in developmental biology that we – and most other Drosophila developmental biologists – consult regularly. The book, published in 1992, is out of print. But Amazon listed 17 copies for sale: 15 used from $35.54, and 2 new from $1,730,045.91 (+$3.99 shipping).

I sent a screen capture to the author  - who was appropriate amused and intrigued. But I doubt even he would argue the book is worth THAT much.

[More]

These two sellers were following each others prices, using a computer algorithm to stay close to each other. In this case, a slightly positive feedback loop generated these huge prices. By the time it was finally noticed, one seller had the book for sale for over $23 million while the other undercut it substantially – at over $18.5 million. Shipping was still under $4.

The explanation for this seems to be that each bookseller was using the other’s prices in an algorithm to decide on its own price. One bookseller was always 0.998 less that the other while the second was always 1.27 higher than the first.

As each price was updated during the date, this ratcheting effect created the positive loop. taking both prices way past the point of anyone actually purchasing the book.

The first bookseller obviously wanted to always undercut the price of the other. That makes sense. I someone offers it for $10, they’ll offer $9.98. By using computers they never have to check prices to know that they are the lowest seller. They have the book and they want to make a sale.

The second bookseller’s strategy does not make the most sense. Why would you always want to sell yours for slightly higher than someone else’s?

Michael speculates that the second bookseller is engaging in the same sort of arbitrage seen with shorting a stock. This bookseller does not actually have the book and will thus have to purchase it, perhaps from the bookseller that always has the lowest price. So if they make their price slightly higher than the other bookseller, they can make a profit based on the difference between what they ‘sell’ it for and what they can buy to for from someone else.

Just as when someone shorts a stock they do not have to own it, it might be that this bookseller is selling some books that it does not actually own but knows how to get  – for a lower price than what it sells its book for. Thus it knows it will not ever be caught short; that if it has to buy a book it can get it for cheaper than what it sells the book for.

That probably works really well most of the time. But here, since each algorithm was referencing the other, a nasty loop arose that took the prices into laughable territory. This took several days since the prices were updated once a day. But they could have been done once a millisecond, which would have taken them into a whole other territory.

That is what brings down wall Street every so often.

If this sort of arbitrage is common on Amazon, it raises the question of just how many copies of some books are really available? Maybe there is only one and the other booksellers are simply trying to make a buck with this system, even though they do not own the book.

Is there any way to make sure someone actually has the book in their possession when they offer it for sale? Or can you offer something for sale just because you know where to get it but don’t want to put the capital down until you know you have a purchase in hand?

If we let computers take over, they could run these all day and destroy us. Who would be there to stop this cycle as they book prices got greater than the entire US economy?

It would have been very interesting if someone had actually tried to buy the higher priced book. Amazon probably would not have very happy.

Other reasons than diet for obesity

by xJasonRogersx

Do Low-Carb Diets During Pregnancy Lead to Fatter Kids?
[Via 80beats]

What’s the News: Researchers have known for decades that what a woman eats during her pregnancy can impact her child’s weight later in life. Now, a new study shows a possible mechanism for how mom’s diet affects baby’s weight: Epigenetic changes—changes that can increase or decrease the expression of a particular gene but don’t alter the genetic sequence—to a gene involved in fat metabolism can be passed from mother to child during pregnancy.

How the Heck:

The researchers asked nearly 80 pregnant women in Britain about their diets during pregnancy (and checked their blood for traces of some foods, to provide a more objective measure of diet). At the birth of each child, the researchers took a sample of the child’s DNA from the umbilical cord. They analyzed the DNA for methylation, a common epigenetic change that occurs when a structure called a methyl group latches onto a particular point in a person’s DNA. When the children were nine years old, the researchers measured their body fat. Children with methylation of a gene called RXRα, which is important in helping fat cells develop normally and in regulating their metabolism, were more likely to be obese than children …

[More]

Epigenetic processes are often ones that affect gene expression rather than the genes themselves. It explains why people with exactly the same genes can have different metabolic processes.

Here they showed that methylation of certain gene promoters – the regions of the genome responsible for driving gene expression – resulted in fat kids. And that low carbohydrate diets o mothers correlated with higher methylation of these promoters.

So, the data seems to indicate that the diet of the mother can alter the gene expression in the offspring in such a way as to increase the chance of obesity. This is a smallish study and will need to be repicated by many others but it does demonstrate that the metabolic processes of the mother can have long term effects on the offspring.

This methylation pattern explains about 25% of the variance in weight – a better predictor of obesity than birth weight. And it did not matter if the mother was thin or not.

As we keep seeing, obesity is much more complex than simply saying “Eat less”.  In this case, it may be an adaptive response. If the mother is pregnant during a time with restricted carbs, then it would make sense for the child to have a metabolism that grabbed every carbohydrate they could find and convert that into fat.

As the article mentions, this has been seen before – mothers who have endured a famine while pregnant have  children that are more likely to be obese.

This is not the only cause for obesity but does appear to be a major part. And one thing about these sorts of epigenetic effects – they last the lifetime of the child. They seldom change.

So, making sure pregnant women have healthy diets their first few months of pregnancy could have a significant effect on obesity.

A poem for children of the Enlightenment

A Storm has arrived
[Via Bad Astronomy]

If you don’t know Tim Minchin, well, you should. He is an extremely talented songwriter and performer, a major skeptic, and also very, very funny. He has a song called “Storm”, what is essentially a nine-minute beat poem about an encounter at a dinner party with a woman of decidedly unskeptical thoughts. “Storm” is hilarious, and swept through the skeptic community like, well, a storm.

At the first TAM London in 2009, Tim announced that an animated short would be made to go with the song, and now it’s finally out! [NSFW language]

[More]

The video has one of the best rants. Not likely to change anyone’s mind, as the ending of the video suggests. But it is an interesting ride to the end.