Denialism Blog

Denialism Blog

  • What's killing the bees? IAPV apparently

    Another update on Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the surprisingly devastating attack on the honeybee that occurred last year that was responsible for huge losses of bee colonies and a great deal of concern about crops pollinated by this insect.

    Originally we mocked the idea that CCD was caused by global warming and alarmist calls from people like Bill Maher that suggested a correlation between CCD and cell phone use (ha!). Critical at the time were initial experiments showing that irradiation of hives allowed recolonization, suggesting an infectious process. Now it seems this has been confirmed.

    Signs of colony collapse disorder were first reported in the United States in 2004, the same year American beekeepers started importing bees from Australia.

    The disorder is marked by hives left with a queen, a few newly hatched adults and plenty of food, but the worker bees responsible for pollination gone.

    The virus identified in the healthy Australian bees is Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus (IAPV) — named that because it was discovered by Hebrew University researchers.

    Although worker bees in colony collapse disorder vanish, bees infected with IAPV die close to the hive, after developing shivering wings and paralysis. For some reason, the Australian bees seem to be resistant to IAPV and do not come down with symptoms.

    Scientists used genetic analyses of bees collected over the past three years and found that IAPV was present in bees that had come from colony collapse disorder hives 96 percent of the time.

    So far the data is correlative, but it’s a very strong correlation, as well as a highly plausible biological explanation. Introduction of the pathogen to healthy colonies will be the definitive test.

    Here is the paper in Science, as well as more perspective from Bug Girl.

  • WSJ: Oppose CAFE! Ignore Reality! Why, Because I Know Econ 101!

    In today’s Journal, Robert Crandall and Hal Singer argue that America shouldn’t drink the corporate average fuel economy standard (CAFE) Kool-Aid. Why? Well why do you think? Because the market is perfect and thus there is no problem! Bring on the Econ 101!

    i-e80414ff40124a19710b000fc9c565bc-2c.jpg

    …if there was [sic] fuel-saving technology out there that cost $1,000 but generated $2,500 in the discounted present value of fuel savings over the life of the vehicle, carmakers would surely voluntarily embrace that technology…
    i-c2389d448fdaa3a787a1059c5a46809d-6c.jpg

    No need for regulation there. With large numbers of vehicle producers and well-informed consumers, the market is so efficient, in fact, that it ensures that all such transactions will occur, generating the socially optimal level of fuel economy…
    i-9d936ebcbb671ac98c18d0fb1b4e58c6-4s.jpeg Are these guys parodying economists? I wonder, because this is so ill informed, and so unsophisticated that it is difficult to take them seriously. Our “socially optimal” level of fuel economy is so poor because many carmakers have used technology to increase power and performance instead of efficiency. We have hybrid cars that use the electric engine to provide more horsepower rather than save gas!

    But it gets worse, ladies and gentlemen, because they feel compelled to explain what they learned in class today–the idea of “market failure:”

    Any call for regulation must be based on a market “failure” — that is, failure of private markets to provide the proper incentives for contributing to social value. In the case of the current call for increases in CAFE, the market failure is generally identified as global warming or national security. But CAFE is a horribly inefficient mechanism for reducing carbon emissions because it does nothing to reduce emissions from power plants, older vehicles, home furnaces or industrial facilities. Nor would it apply to any emissions outside the U.S. Even if one accepts the debatable proposition that less reliance on oil would improve our national security, we should focus our attention on all oil consumption, not just that used in new vehicles. The cost of trying to reduce the harmful external effects of any form of consumption by arbitrarily taxing just 5% of it is extremely costly. A smaller tax on a much wider tax base always reduces the distortions caused by the tax.

    Where to start with this? Because CAFE doesn’t address old home furnaces, it isn’t worth pursing?

    My favorite part about this absurd oped is how often they bemoan the benighted state of politics, because the public ignores economists:

    Aside from economists, whose voices often carry little weight in Washington, there is virtually no opposition to this form of regulation. Not even from a Republican president.

    […]

    When exposed to the piercing light of economic analysis, the alleged benefits of more stringent CAFE standards burn away. Too bad these proposals will not be subjected to economic scrutiny before they become law.

    […]

    Ask any economist and he’ll tell you that estimating the private costs and private benefits of increasing fuel economy is a fool’s errand.

    Maybe we should have an “ask any economist” contest. What, exactly, should be the response to someone who asserts, “any economist would say X.” Should “so what?” be the response? My favorite response comes from one of my brainy students here at Berkeley: “being an economist means never having to say you’re wrong!”

    I could go on forever, but will leave it with this:

    Mr. Crandall is senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Singer is the president of Criterion Economics. They have advised General Motors on CAFE issues.

    Oh, maybe this explains why no one wants a GM car! Instead of leading like Toyota and Honda on fuel efficiency, they think the market has solved the problem. GM should fire these guys.

  • Mythbusting – it's harder than you think

    The Washington Post reports on research that correcting mythical beliefs is more difficult than you’d think. The interesting finding seems to be that if you repeat the myth in the course of correcting it, people are more likely to forget the correct information and remember the myth!

    When University of Michigan social psychologist Norbert Schwarz had volunteers read the CDC flier, however, he found that within 30 minutes, older people misremembered 28 percent of the false statements as true. Three days later, they remembered 40 percent of the myths as factual.

    Younger people did better at first, but three days later they made as many errors as older people did after 30 minutes. Most troubling was that people of all ages now felt that the source of their false beliefs was the respected CDC.

    The psychological insights yielded by the research, which has been confirmed in a number of peer-reviewed laboratory experiments, have broad implications for public policy. The conventional response to myths and urban legends is to counter bad information with accurate information. But the new psychological studies show that denials and clarifications, for all their intuitive appeal, can paradoxically contribute to the resiliency of popular myths.

    It’s interesting the examples that they use as popular myths that have become ingrained through repetition.

    This phenomenon may help explain why large numbers of Americans incorrectly think that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in planning the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and that most of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi. While these beliefs likely arose because Bush administration officials have repeatedly tried to connect Iraq with Sept. 11, the experiments suggest that intelligence reports and other efforts to debunk this account may in fact help keep it alive.

    Similarly, many in the Arab world are convinced that the destruction of the World Trade Center on Sept. 11 was not the work of Arab terrorists but was a controlled demolition; that 4,000 Jews working there had been warned to stay home that day; and that the Pentagon was struck by a missile rather than a plane.

    So hear that framers and mythbusters? If you want to change popular perception of science, and myths about everything from global warming to 9/11 conspiracies, one major thing to remember is to not repeat the myth.

    Mayo found that rather than deny a false claim, it is better to make a completely new assertion that makes no reference to the original myth. Rather than say, as Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently did during a marathon congressional debate, that “Saddam Hussein did not attack the United States; Osama bin Laden did,” Mayo said it would be better to say something like, “Osama bin Laden was the only person responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks” — and not mention Hussein at all.

    There you have it. I admit this would be difficult to do. For the most part, when I take on something that is patently false as part of a skeptical response, I often repeat the claim in order to take it apart. This research would suggest that by merely repeating the myth, I’m shooting myself in the foot.

    So the question is, when writing skeptically about myths that people believe and repeat, how do you challenge individuals making the claims without mentioning what claim they made? I’ll have to keep this research in mind in the future I think, and while I’ll still mock people for really stupid statements, the focus of skeptical writers should be on providing positive statements of correct information, while avoiding repetition of the false information.

  • Will Global Warming Increase Heart Disease?

    I was surprised to see this article in the International Herald Tribune suggest that global warming might cause increased incidence of cardiovascular death. In particular one statement struck me as being somewhat absurd.

    On the sidelines of the European Society of Cardiology’s annual meeting in Vienna this week, some experts said that the issue deserved more attention. It’s well-known that people have more heart problems when it’s hot.

    During the European heat wave in 2003, there were an estimated 35,000 deaths above expected levels in the first two weeks of August. In France alone, nearly 15,000 extra people died when temperatures soared. Experts say that much of that was due to heart problems in the elderly worsened by the extreme heat.
    …
    The hardening of the heart’s arteries is like rust developing on a car. “Rust develops much more quickly at warm temperatures, and so does atherosclerosis,” said Dr. Gordon Tomaselli, chief of cardiology at Johns Hopkins University and program chair at the American Heart Association.

    In higher temperatures, we sweat to get rid of heat. During that process, blood is sent to the skin where temperatures are cooler, which opens up the blood vessels. In turn, the heart rate rises and blood pressure drops. That combination can be dangerous for older people and those with weakened cardiovascular systems.

    That’s interesting. It makes you wonder why all those old people move to Florida if increased heat is actually dangerous for older people. There are problems with this report, and while increased temperatures do cause some cardiovascular problems, they decrease others, and the picture is more complicated than this article would suggest.
    (more…)

  • Create a Blog Ad…for PETA!

    Opportunity knocks for all of you creative people out there! PETA is holding a blog advertisement contest! This could be fun. Perhaps we could have our own countercompetition in the comments? PETA is offering a $500 gift card to the winner. For our contest, I’d totally be willing to take you out for some hot dogs. Let the competition begin! Here’s my first shot:

    Go Vegan! Who Needs B12 anyway?

    Or

    Go Natural: Eat Meat!

  • Is the surge working? (or why I need more metrics)

    Here’s an excellent opportunity to use the hive mind to look for classic techniques of deception for political benefit on the question of the “surge”.

    Reading the news stories about the progress in Iraq, I can’t help but notice a certain partisan nature to interpretation of events. You have the conservative Washington Times saying The Surge is Working, meanwhile, the liberal Washington Post (although as supporters of the Iraq war I feel this designation is non-descriptive for WaPo) indicates the results are at best mixed. We have a GAO report indicating poor performance with only a bare minority of benchmarks being achieved that is regarded as “strikingly negative”. And on top of all that the last three months in Iraq civilian deaths have been increasing. The proponents of the “surge is working” side seem to indicate that military victories and insurgents killed should be a measure of success. However, this is reminiscent of the death ratios in Vietnam which were ultimately meaningless in terms of “success”.

    So, what metrics do people feel are more informative? I am of the opinion that military victories are largely meaningless – we can win every battle and lose the war as long as no political solution is reached – consistent with the failings described in the GAO report. The pro-war types seem to think that as long as we’re killing the enemy we’re successful, however against an insurgency I don’t think this is a meaningful result. It’s just whackamole, and insurgencies are historically resistant to suppression by force.

    I would like to see the data from the pro-war side that demonstrates that progress is actually happening. I don’t want to hear about new hope in the streets, or markets safe enough for senators to walk through with a brigade of soldiers with them. I want to hear metrics that indicate Iraq is moving towards a peaceful stable state. Are there any?

    I guess what I’m saying is, I’m seeing all the signs of a belief forming that is due to wishful thinking, and no real hard data. All the pro-surge people seem to be using three of the tactics, cherry-picking data, getting positive reviews of the surge published in friendly publications, and moving the goalposts. Ad hominems and other fallacies are a given. All they need is a conspiracy and we’ll have a full-fledged denialist campaign to suggest that the Iraq war is being won, when all the data I see suggest the opposite. Increasing deaths, increasing magnitude of violent attacks indicate continued worsening of the situation. Last month a single attack killed 250 – possibly more – the deadliest attack since the beginning of the war. Suicide bombings for this August were almost twice what they were last August. If you look at our casualties there is no indication of a decrease – if anything this looks like the deadliest year yet.

    So we have a report indicating no political solutions emerging – the most critical factor for a lasting peace. We have increasing numbers and magnitude of suicide bombings. We have more civilian deaths. We have more soldiers dying. We have millions of refugees who have left the country. We have decreasing provision of public utilities and fuel. I simply can not find any data suggesting things are getting better. Instead, all the usual suspects, including Bill Kristol (or Krissandra – the mythical figure who is never right but is still listened to) are arguing it is working with no clear information to back it up.

    How is it working? Tell me. I’m asking in good faith because I want to know, where are the positives? Please, something more than whackamole with insurgents. Give me data. Prove to me this isn’t just a classic denialist disinformation campaign.

  • How to write a terrible science story

    Genomicron has an excellent description for how to write a terrible popular science story. I agree 100%. And when he hit #10, I had to cheer.

    10. Don’t provide any links to the original paper.

    If possible, avoid providing any easy way for readers (in particular, scientists) to access the original peer-reviewed article on which your story is based. Some techniques to delay reading of the primary paper are to not provide the title or to have your press release come out months before the article is set to appear.

    Damn right. It’s the internet age, it’s not only possible, but easy to include a single embedded link to the critical source material.

  • Making Booze II!

    Also this weekend we also made beer. So it’s time for another alcoholic photo-essay, this time on beer homebrewing and a brief history of beer in America.

    It all starts with a beautiful mixture of malted barley. Here’s about 20 lbs of barley, in Rick’s recipe there is a mixture of light and dark grains, all imported from Germany, in a Rubbermaid cooler which homebrewers have found handles hot temperatures well. Beer is made from 4 ingredients, water, malted barley, hops and yeast (though not part of the final product – used for the fermentation).

    i-d52706f7f41add04ba617e568cf5adc7-barley.jpg

    In this country, before prohibition, there were 1600 breweries in this country and in the late 1800s breweries peaked at about 4000. Basically, whichever immigrant group settled your area made beer. There was incredible variety and tradition in beer. Then prohibition came. Psychotic zealots like Carrie Nation ran around with axes attacking innocent cannisters of booze. People think alcohol is the cause of all of life’s problems and forget that it is also the solution to all of life’s problems.

    Since beer is mostly water you also need a big pot to heat some in- here’s a modified keg being heated by a big propane heater.
    i-2955020406eae5ec21156a48b9e2cbe8-heatingwater.jpg

    Rick tells us at this point that Anheuser-Busch beer is good for one thing – providing kegs to serve as cooking vessels.

    After prohibition ended, only the the big brewing companies survived, and the small local breweries, long driven out of existence, did not return. Beer was now a major industry, with only a few players. Many breweries reappeared after prohibition, but then died off in the face of competition from the mass producers. In 1950 there were about 500 breweries, in 1960 there were 230. Beer comes in cans, not bottles.

    More below the fold…
    (more…)

  • Making Booze!

    This was a good weekend spent making lots of different kinds of booze. A long hot summer led to some really nice chardonnay grapes at the parents’ farm.

    i-a1831c28f2489beeff218009117afdfc-grapes.jpg

    It wasn’t a large yield, but the sugar, or brix were really high, hopefully yielding a nice end product. If you want to see how we make white wine, more pics are below the fold.
    (more…)

  • UD gets pwned

    i-c7596962698edd637841f53589d33bc8-muntz.gif

    For a scene of pure hilarity and joy, get ye over to Uncommon Descent as they try spin the rejection of a “Evolutionary Informatics Lab” by Baylor University.

    Yesterday, the Baylor University administration shut down Prof. Robert Marks’s Evolutionary Informatics Lab because the lab’s research was perceived as linked to intelligent design (ID).

    Hah. Perceived as linked? It probably doesn’t help to have Dembski linking it as his one example of an ID research program. That’s a little damning. Continued:

    Robert J. Marks II, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor, had hoped that a late-August compromise would save his lab, but the University withdrew from the previous offer yesterday morning. While President Lilley was not at the meeting, an insider senses his hand in the affair, noting that Lilley was the only person with the authority to overturn what the Provost, who was at the meeting, agreed to.

    You see, when a Christian University, and a Baptist one at that, decides that ID is so distasteful and unscientific, that they won’t even lend their name to an off-site, non-existent lab associated with ID, this is a dark day for the cranks. It’s a real bind. Their usual refrain to events like these is to yell Conspiracy! Or even better yet, persecution! They’re like Galileo! But they can’t say that given how religious a university Baylor is. They can’t turn on the Baptists after all, that’s half of their constituency.

    Denyse still manages to crazy it up, and her take is pretty crankerific, ranging from “thought control” to evil materialist conspiracies.
    (more…)