It’s been a tough month. But it’s not like I was away and unable to handle depressing news.
Why didn’t somebody mention that Bitch Ph.D. was calling it quits there?
Will somebody at least have the good manners and grace to let us know where those people end up? Somebody? Anybody?
1 Comment | 
Weblogs | Tagged: Bitch Ph.D., blogging | 
Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You’d probably have to probe the archives of Dr. Demento to find it, but there was a modest little hit in a humor song years ago, a parody of Jimmy Dean’s “Big John.” The song praised the life of Irving, a Jewish cowboy who was “the 142nd fastest gun [RIMSHOT] in the West.”
I thought of it immediately when I learned that, according to Wikio, this blog, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub, ranks 2,263.
No kidding. Not even enough swat to rank in a category.
So, why is Anthony Watts so ticked at this measly little mosquito of a blog?
4 Comments | Administrivia, Humor, Weblogs | Tagged: Administrivia, blogging, Humor, Influence, Wikio | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Karl Tupper of the Pesticide Action Network started blogging at PAN’s site, GroundTruth, a few days ago. His carefully-thought out, informative writing turns to the issue of bedbugs and DDT in his first post.
Is there room for another blog? Any blogging about science, with accuracy, is always welcome.
Karl’s second post updates us on EPA’s hearings on atrazine, and the industry campaign to slander any agency who dares to ask the tough questions about chemical safety. Shades of the 1962 campaign against Rachel Carson, eh?
1 Comment | DDT, Entomology, Science, Weblogs | Tagged: bedbugs, blogs, DDT, Entomology, Karl Tupper, Pesticide Action Network | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Is Andrew Breitbart’s blog the world’s largest collection of misanthropes and pathological sociopaths on the internet?
Is there any fool idea that crowd won’t celebrate? Is there any fact they won’t ignore? Is that the ultimate result of people whose ears are burned shut by listening to Limbaugh and O’Reilly?
Just curious, and appalled.
7 Comments | Accuracy, Politics, Rampant stupidity, Weblogs | Tagged: Andrew Breitbart, blogs, Incivility, Pathologies, Politics, Psychoses, Rampant stupidity | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Are you reading Tom Johnson’s Adventures in Pencil Integration?
Do you care about technology in your classroom, here in 1897?
You might even laugh. It’s well written, well worth the read. See his recent piece, “They’re Still Pencil Natives,” for example. His piece on the district’s blocking of phonographs is good, too. It’ll give you a new appreciation for “bandwidth.”
Leave a Comment » | Education, History, Leadership, Weblogs | Tagged: Adventures in Pencil Integration, Education, History, Leadership, Technology, Tom Johnson, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Management noticed the picket line, has agreed to discuss. Let us hope it’s a short-lived* strike.
_____________
* That’s pronounced with a long “i” if you care to say it correctly.
Leave a Comment » | Journalism, Labor and unions, Science, Weblogs | Tagged: Journalism, labor, Science, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Willis Eschenbach, whose credentials I do not know, is back for another guest post at Watt’s Up With That.
Eschenbach contests conclusions drawn by the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, about the effects of warming in New England.
In a probably-unintentionally humorous way, Eschenbach shows just how desperate grow the anti-warming camp. The purloined e-mails show no wrong-doing, and worse for denialists, no significant errors in the case that global warming occurs and is problematic. Legislation to fight climate change has a chance of passing this Congress. EPA promulgated rules on measuring CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution to stop EPA failed in the Senate. There was the hoax about the fourth-grade science project claimed to refute Nobel-quality research, and then there was the bungled story that mistakenly claimed a solar-energy company sent a non-working bomb to an economics professor in Spain in revenge for his paper against government support of green energy. One can see how such a string of losses might set back the hopes of even the most delusional denialist.
Either ignorant of Godwin’s Law, or so desperate he thinks it worth the gamble, Eschenbach quoted somebody (did he ever name who?) going on about the Big Lie technique attributed to the Nazis in establishing policy in Germany before and during World War II.
Mike Godwin, discoverer of Godwin's Law - Wikimedia image
Is there a more plaintive or pitiful way to say one is over one’s head and has run out of argumentative gasoline?
Eschenbach’s case is not particularly strong — he pulled temperature data (he said) from the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) to make charts showing, Eschenbach claimed, there is no 4°F rise in average New England winter temperatures since 1970.
After a couple of skirmishes to see whether Watts’ watchdogs still prevent my posting, I offered a small rebuttal that, of course, slipped quickly into the abyss of Watts Moderation. It may eventually escape that particular eddy, but in case it doesn’t, here’s the post:
PS Ed Darrell – do you have any evidence refuting the post?
Most claims of someone practicing “big lie” tactics are self-refuting, the opposite of a self-proving document under the law. Is this any exception? Mr. Eschenbach offers no evidence to suggest that a committee of Congress publishes material it knows to be wrong for propaganda effect. (The quotes relating to Hitler comprise a grand rhetorical tactic known as “red herring.” The mere presence of that material, were we to apply Godwin’s law, refutes Mr. Eschenbach’s case.)
There is no evidence to refute.
Mr. Eschenbach offers a few jabs at data that show the effects of warming in New England, but he does not appear to bother to look at the data the committee used. This is a bait-and-switch tactic of argumentation that most rhetoricians would label a spurious. Does Eschenbach rebut or refute the committee’s data? How could anyone tell?
The site of the committee, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, offers several arguments to suggest changes in New England from warming might pose problems. So far as I see, Mr. Eschenbach addresses only one of those arguments, and that one incompletely.
1. The committee claims that average winter temperatures in New England have risen by 4 degrees F since 1970. Eschenbach offers a chart that, so far as I can tell, confirms the committee’s claim — but Eschenbach uses a chart that covers a much longer period of time, and offers it in a way that makes it difficult to determine what temperatures are, let alone what the trend is (IMHO, the trend is up, and easily by 4 degrees in Eschenbach’s chart). Oddly, he illustrates the chart by showing a surfer in a wet suit, surfing in winter in New England. Surfing is generally a warm-weather enterprise, and though the man has a wetsuit, and though the Gulf Current would warm those waters, the picture tends to deny Eschenbach’s claim, doesn’t it? If it’s warm enough to surf in winter, it’s warmer than the Rime of the Ancient Mariner.
And look at the actual numbers — Eschenbach confesses a rise of 2.7 degrees, roughly 9/13 of the rise he intends to deny. Heck, that nearly-three degree rise is enough to cause concern, or should be.
2. The committee notes warmer temperatures would put more precipitation as rain, and not snow. Eschenbach offers no comment on this. Ski seasons in New England have suffered recently because it’s been too warm to keep natural snow, and too warm to make artificial snow (68 degrees F on January 6, 2007). (This is a national concern, by the way.) If the committee errs in this claim, Eschenbach offers no data.
And especially, he offers no data to back his “big lie” claim, that the committee knows differently from what it says.
3. The committee notes that warmer temperatures produce later autumns — a huge impact on tourist revenue in New England, where an enormous travel industry has built up around watching the changing colors of the trees. Such a change would be consistent with other long-term observations, such as those by the Department of Agriculture and Arbor Day Foundation, that the plant zones across America show warming (and some cooling).
Eschenbach doesn’t contest this in any way. Should we presume this is Eschenbach’s agreement that this claim is not a “big lie” claim?
3. The committee refers to warming oceans, and the potential effects on certain parts of the fishing industry, especially cod and lobster. This is caused by ocean warming, not atmospheric warming — so Eschenbach is again silent on this claim. The committee’s claim tends to undercut Eschenbach’s claim of a “big lie” here, and Eschenbach offers no support for his own argument.
4. The committee refers to greater storm damage due partly to rising sea levels. Eschenbach offers no rebuttal of any sort.
Eschenbach fails to make a prima facie case for his big lie claim, and his rebuttal is restricted solely to one measure of temperature that Eschenbach fuzzes up with an unclear chart.
May I ask, since you style yourself a skeptic, what evidence you found in the post that makes a case at all?
Will it ever see light of day at WUWT?
Update: Yes, it sees the light of day at WUWT. Maybe all my kvetching had an effect.
Don’t let crabby blog moderators frustrate you; share the information:
4 Comments | Climate change, climate_change, Geography - Physical, Global warming, Rhetoric, Science, Travel, U.S. House of Representatives, Weblogs | Tagged: Climate change, denialism, Fishing, geography, Global warming, Godwin's Law, New England, Science, Ski Season, Snow, Tourism, Travel, Watts Up With That | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Thursday evening WordPress had a glitch — a stray character in code caused the system to overwrite some material, to mess up a lot of blogs. It took a couple of hours to fix.
In the birther world, such things only happen “by design.” Because of a glitch that affected 50,000 blogs (including this one), the birthers feel singled out.
Seriously, at that site where the paranoia runs rampant, My Very Own Point of View, the discussion is on what can be discerned by differences in images from microfiche copies of the newspaper columns announcing births recorded in Honolulu, from the Hawaii Vital Records office, in 1961. In 5,000 words or so, the author determined that there are differences in the images because some of the microfiche is scratched, and some isn’t.
Ergo, the author says, Obama conspired to mess with every microfiche in the world, and he’s therefore an alien (probably from the planet Tralfamador, or maybe a waiter in the Restaurant at the End of the Universe).
I’ve read the piece three times trying to figure out what the point is, other than the author has never thought much about libraries or microfiche or newspapers ever before. Am I wrong?
No wonder there’s an aluminum foil shortage, eh?
Warning: Tinfoil Hat Wearers Too Close for Comfort
I suggested a less ominous meaning behind the scratches on the microfiche, but the blog owner found my comments offensive, and refused to post them. I asked why, and this was the response I got:
Because you are not civil. There is nothing about race in this material or in my posts. There is not a single “conclusion drawn”. If you have an INTELLIGENT debate to advance on the material then do so. If you do not, go post somewhere where your poison is not moderated.
Of course, I made no mention of race. I addressed solely the issues of library archival procedures and how they might make for differences in copies from different libraries. Here is the comment she’s talking about; you decide which of us is crazy, Dear Reader:
Why do you assume that microfilm copies should be the same in all locations? You’re assuming that there were not different editions of the same paper, which is incorrect; you’re assuming there is one source of microfilm copies, which is unlikely (many libraries used to make their own microfilm from paper copies in their collections — it’s unlikely, I think, that the Library of Congress would have used the same microfilm available at the University of Hawaii — in 1961 precedence was given to paper collections, and the microfilming was done later).
You assume that later flaws in the film are not introduced by dust, by reading machines that shred the film.
You assume much that is simply not so in the newspaper industry and in library archiving.
And in the end, what do you claim? A couple of periods disappear in photocopies? A new flyspeck appears?
You need to check the rules of civil procedure, specifically with regard to evidence and contemporary business records. I’ll wager you can figure out why most of what you worry about here is no issue in proving things up in a courtroom.
I don’t think I was uncivil. I think that birthers all fall into that category Euripides described, of those whom the gods destroy, they first make mad.
(And, please, if you can figure out what the complaint is about copies differing in quality at different libraries, please tell us what is going on, in comments.)
11 Comments | Barack Obama, Birth Certificate, Hoaxes, Libraries, President Obama, Rampant stupidity, Weblogs | Tagged: Accuracy, Birth Certificate, Birthers, Hoaxes, Libraries, Politics, President Obama, Rampant stupidity, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Seriously.
Especially if you’re a libertarian, anti-Obama, tea-partying American who thinks you’re living in a handbasket travelling faster than you can imagine to the place you claim to most fear. Go read Oh, For Goodness Sake!
If you can’t read this stuff and smile, you need to spend more weekends teaching Cub Scouts how to post, retire and fold U.S. flags.
Especially you, Orly Taitz.
Or, you may be a simple, rational person. Read it for the grins, kicks, and take-downs of tea-bagger, birther, and general nudnik error.
Leave a Comment » | Accuracy, Internet, Journalism, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
A new paper in the Journal of Science Communication offers a critique of the workings and effectiveness of science bloggers.
Happily for us, the paper is open access, freely available.
The article appears to be from some research for a Ph.D.:
Inna Kouper is a doctoral candidate in the School of Library and Information Science, Indiana University
Bloomington. Her current research interests lie broadly in the areas of language and information; the role
of science in society; and the evolution of information and communication technologies generally
described as social or participatory media (such as blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.).
Several bloggers say the paper gets wrong what science bloggers do, and what they should do.
Perhaps — you can read the paper yourself and compare it with the criticism.
I do want to call your attention to a very good feature of the paper. It analyzes postings on 11 of the top science blogs in the world.
1 Pure Pedantry scienceblogs.com/purepedantry
2 Synthesis http://www.synthesis.cc
3 MicrobiologyBytes http://www.microbiologybytes.com/blog
4 Wired Science http://www.wired.com/wiredscienc
5 BioEthics blog.bioethics.net
6 DrugMonkey scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey
7 Scientific Activist scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist
8 Pharyngula scienceblogs.com/pharyngula
9 Panda’s Thumb http://www.pandasthumb.org
10 ScienceBlog scienceblog.com
11 Cosmic Variance blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance
How can you tell the paper’s serious? The 11 blogs analyzed do not include any of the junk science blogs, like Uncommon Descent or Watt’s Up With That?
If you listen carefully, you can hear Bill Dembski and Anthony Watts stewing.
3 Comments | History, Journalism, Science, Weblogs | Tagged: Accuracy, blogs, Journalism, Science, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
It’s a day’s readership for Pharyngula. It’s a trifle compared to those sites that cater to woo and disinformation.
A few people, perhaps, have found use in the posts here. Two million looks passed about 8:00 a.m. this morning.
Thank you, readers.
5 Comments | Administrivia, Personal, Weblogs | Tagged: Administrivia, blogs, Millard Fillmore's Bathtub | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Or, perhaps, this is the sentence linking to the post you should read for your own piece of mind. This is the three word sentence, starting with “At,” which points to Coyote Crossing, and which lacks a subject and a verb. This sentence urges the reader to be sure to read the comments at the link.
What’s this? The masthead from Chris Clarke’s Coyote Crossing blog. Nice painting by Carl Buell.
2 Comments | Weblogs | Tagged: A Good Read, blogging, Chris Clarke, Coyote Crossing, Creative Writing | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Unless things really drop off the table, Millard Fillmore’s Bathtub will have its 2 millionth reader sometime this month, probably between the 14th and the 20th.
Update: No, that won’t happen. Such goofs come from posting when tired. We’ll click over 1.8 million readers, but not 2 million. What was I thinking?
Oh, I know what I was really thinking: The rest of the post is still good:
Gee. Thanks.
Leave a message when you drop by, would you?
4 Comments | milestones, Personal, Weblogs | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Kate closed down Radula, and moved all her blogging to Adventures of a Free Range Urban Primate.
Did you ever wonder what it’s like to work in the kitchen of a zoo? Kate has the lowdown.
From Urban Primate: "Just to see the scope of what's stored there, in one hand Allyson is holding meatballs. In the other, whole frozen birds . . . complete with feathers."
The photos from that post alone would make a good PowerPoint for some biology class, or a discussion of animals in an elementary class.
Leave a Comment » | Adventure, Museums, Natural history, Science, Weblogs, Zoology | Tagged: Animal Diets, blogging, Free Range Urban Primate, Museums, Science, Zoology, Zoos | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
Bing still has both his ears -- but look what they did to the ears of the kid in back of him. Help bring Bing home!
Bing Haubrich has made new friends in Japan, but they want to keep him there. In fact, they have threatened to hold him for ransom unless his American friends and family do two things:
1. Answer questions about Japan/Nippon culture and cuisine.
2. Donate money to help his mother pay the plane fare for his trip.
It’s tempting for a young man to stay in Japan, because so far he has found the food to be awesome and the shopping (even in vending machines) to be, let’s say, “unique.” In fact, the Japanese students think that if he stays long enough he could use his ninja powers to be Emperor someday. I don’t think that this would be a good thing for world peace, as Bing has not worked out his “Megalomania” issues and
So, here is one of the questions that they want you to answer:
15. In World War I, the Japanese:
a. Joined the Axis.
b. Joined the Allies.
c. Maintained a strict neutrality.
d. Considered it a European War.
Do you know the answer? Quick! Get over to Tangled Up In Blue Guy, and help bring Bing back!
(Hey, head over there if you don’t know the answer. Maybe you’ll learn something — I did!)
3 Comments | History, Japan, Travel, Weblogs | Tagged: Bring Bing Home, History, Japan, Travel | Permalink
Posted by Ed Darrell
You are currently browsing the archives for the Weblogs category.
Ed Darrell on Texas's Colorado River
Come on in, the water's fine. Come often: Cleanliness is next to godliness.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 