Cheney Against War with Iraq

GF Teen View beat me to this, but it bears repeating. Wow.

re: "Kids global warming book 'deceives'"

Roving over my RSS feeds, I came across this article and had to say some things about it. The author attempts to make a propagandistic mountain out of a molehill (an idiom I usually try to avoid). It reports that one graph in the book, although supporting a central theme, is incorrect. This one note of error is set upon to subtly discount the threat of climate change. In this blog post I call attention to the article's contrivances to expose the art of prevarication and for the sake of my own critical thinking.

Article titles are all-important when considering those who don't read an entire article for their news, or think critically about the content as a whole. "Kids global warming book 'deceives'" delivers a very direct and misleading notion (read: deceives), without having to read the article. Anyone who has a preconceived bias against global warming will at a glance have renewed faith in their stance. Anyone uncertain of the issue, may be prodded further from an objective standpoint.

Name dropping is a method of appending validity to an argument. In this case, why say that findings were published by "the Science and Public Policy Institute" when you can say they were published by "the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C.?" Glorifying a source of information by associating it with a realm of authority is a cheap trick. Washington, after all, is the home of our national government. Such name recognition might cause the most skeptical of readers to wonder whether it's an official government agency that produced the data.

Another step removed from the dignity of scrupulous news reporting, is the inappropriate use of popular reference. A quote from the book is attributed not to "Laurie David, a global warming activist and producer," but instead to "[Laurie] David, who was married to "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David." Such labeling deemphasizes her individual importance, associates her with work not to be taken seriously, and is irrelevant to the article's topic. The only other biographical description she's allowed names her as "Hollywood political activist Laurie David." This description repeats the location-association tactic and alleges political motive in environmental activism.

The article goes into more detail explaining how the graph of concern, used in the book and Gore's film, is deceptive. With underlying hyperbole, the articles claims "the central premise of the book argues CO2 drives temperature," aiming to erode the entire book's credibility. A more accurate summation of Gore's implications describes "long ice core records of CO2 and temperature (from oxygen isotope measurements) in Antarctic ice cores to illustrate the correlation between the two" as explained in Eric Steig's critique of An Inconvenient Truth on realclimate.org. Steig goes on to say that "Gore is careful not to state what the temperature/CO2 scaling is. He is making a qualitative point, which is entirely accurate. The fact is that it would be difficult or impossible to explain past changes in temperature during the ice age cycles without CO2 changes. In that sense, the ice core CO2-temperature correlation remains an appropriate demonstration of the influence of CO2 on climate." Eric Steig is an isotope geochemist, with a PhD in Geological Sciences.

To end, I'd like to ask who Robert Ferguson is, and what credentials the Science and Public Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. has to offer. (Note: It seems there are two Science and Public Policy Institutes in Washington, here's the other one.)
From the Science and Public Policy Institute web site:
President: Robert Ferguson has 26 years of Capitol Hill experience, having worked in both the House and Senate. He served in the House Republican Study Committee, the Senate Republican Policy Committee; as Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002. He has considerable policy experience in climate change science, mercury science, energy and mining, forests and resources, clean air and the environment. His undergraduate and advanced degrees were taken at Brigham Young University and George Washington University, respectively.

Ferguson's history is strongly Republican which, while not necessarily, quite possibly influences bias against a cause taken up largely by Democrats. His "considerable policy experience in climate change science, mercury science, energy and mining, forests and resources, clean air and the environment" is not detailed anywhere I searched. Mind you, policy experience doesn't equate to advocacy. Anyone? According to heartland.org, his undergrad degree was history and his "advanced degrees" consisted of a master's degree in legislative affairs. Neither screams environmental expertise (not that history isn't a viable major). Is there any reason they weren't specifically cited?

The Institute itself admits a focus on climate change, with a page entitled "Climate Debate in Focus" devoted to it in their "About Us" section. Their summary conclusion? "Energy is the real problem. Primary energy sources, particularly fossil fuels, are becoming scarce and expensive, and are increasingly in the hands of unstable regimes that are unfriendly to the West. Energy prices are already rising, but could rise very much more quickly in the coming years." With that, the Institute infers that climate change is ultimately an economic concern. When economics dictate decision-making, I recall the saying "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

The Silence About Harry

Nobody seems to want to talk about it. There had been plenty of magazine articles building up to it and some immediate follow-up pieces, but any further analysis seems to carry a begrudging inflection. I realized today that, by and large, people don't want to discuss the final volume of Harry Potter.

Generally, after one of the earlier books would come out, conscientious readers would avoid spoiling the story for those not as far along in the book. But after time, the readership would want to confer, to voice their queries and pitch their hypotheses. After the Deathly Hallows, only briefly did I encounter muted conversations, and no more have followed. This goes beyond kindness to trailing audiences.

Is it mourning? Shock? Denial? Rowling's books had a life. I suppose it was a soap opera, in its way. People loved discussing why things happened, what things meant, who was going to have their moment to shine or fail. And there was always the possibility of our questions being answered, until we'd finished the 'Hallows. Life came to an end.

Our expectations would never be addressed in the same way again. Any questions we still have might still be answered, should the author choose to authorize their release through her website or some behind-the-scenes feature. But the story, the delightful weave of plot and circumstance, the turning of corners with the characters, and the measured exploration of an endearing reality have ended. Rowling said she would not continue the tales of Potter and company.

So, we've lost a source for our curious or conspiratorial relishing. We'll take our time to digest the loss, not only personally, but as a group. Harry Potter created a social paradigm that supported a community for a decade. Given our exposure to such a network, we might be more eager than otherwise to seek new opportunities to read, enjoy, and share.

2007/10/23 UPDATE: Now we find that Dumbledore was gay. Wow. What a brilliant marketing device. All the people disappointed that nothing new would be available in Harry Potter stories; they now have a new perspective with which to read them again. It's like getting to the surprise ending of a movie and having to watch it again for all those hints you might have missed. Very smart keeping that bit of information out of the books until the time was right.

Minding a Moment

As a parent, I occasionally introduce my kids to personal joys of my youth, often framing reminiscences in a context they might appreciate. The sharing means a great deal to me, whether it be technological -- video games with blocky, two-dimensional graphics or the aural delight of my old LP records, featuring Muppets, Disney songs, and Scooby Doo, too; locational -- taking a trip to my hometown elementary school playground or out into the countryside to explore the breezy nature of the plains; or intellectual -- reading books once read to me (such as The Silver Crown by Robert C. O'Brien), or regaling my especially interested son in the moral lessons of my more mischievous episodes. The worth of our lives is cemented in the passing of knowledge and wisdom, if at times providing more entertainment than practical value.

Innocent memories of childhood hover in my heart with a warmth and curious sort of joy. When the mind's eye steals a moment from real time to savor experiences past, we have the opportunity to blissfully disconnect from whatever concerns reside in the present. Then we can either relegate the bright dwellings of memory to a state of loss or draw some of that old reality into the here and now. When I close my eyes and look down upon the old public swimming pool, at the bottom of a hill we would sled on in wintertime, I can see quite clearly the scattered play of children, smell the warm summer wind, and hear the pool "boom box" echoing snippets of 80s and early 90s pop and rock songs amid the splashes and shouts. Demolished years ago, it remains a place only in the aether, sustained by emotions, to be visited with longing. It's a buried treasure, the imprint of being small and energetic, free and naive of any wrong in the world. This memory and others like it aid not only my own emotional well-being, but present a window to the kind of happiness I want for my children.

Conducting this mode of thought, extracting emotion from the reservoir of memories, is usually one of those transient experiences, like waking from a dream you know you were enjoying. When I wrote the two paragraphs above, I was "in the zone." The thoughts are still with me, but the sense of wonder and inspiration has shifted out of reach. That is OK. My patience has been tempered by years enough seeing good ideas and events come and go independently of my will. I've learned to allow my mind to embrace them on their own terms.

While I have no regimented system for maintaining peace of mind, there are some habits I've taken over the years to nudge my brain away from depression and anxiety. To accept happiness as fleeting, as fond memories permit, reminds me of my Intro to Psychology instructor who shared with the class a simple exercise for meditation. It began with the regular bit about closing your eyes and focusing on your breathing. The key suggestion was to acknowledge the world around you rather than trying to force its existence out of your thoughts. During his calmly guiding instruction, the ventilation system powered up and began its low, thrumming consistency, to our potential distraction. Our instructor responded by telling us "You hear the fan now and can think to yourself 'That's just me noticing the fan coming on' and let that thought go."

Aside from gaining mental quietude, the lesson conferred was that any interruption can be incidental, mentally filed away from the target activity or purpose, such as the act of appreciation commonly known as happiness. For better or worse, we have the capacity to allow the world to go on around us, however persistently intrusive it may be. The beneficence of such ability: A more focused and positive mindset. It pays to disregard the noise of fear and anxiety, worries that are out of your control. Instead, pay due attention to the thoughts and deeds that remove you from mires and mundaneness.

And, for some weird web wanderlust, you can go to the top of the 'distraction Google' heap.