Thanksgiving Science 2015

In the mood for some science on Thanksgiving? Me too, science is the one thing that has not...

Poll Averaging Was No More Accurate In 2012 Than It Is Now

In 2012, the enthusiasm for poll averaging reached a fever pitch. Very few people were critical...

Fossil Fuel Divestment: An Intellectual Placebo For The Wealthy College Near You

“Here’s my bet: the kids are going to win and when they do, it’s going to matter,” prophesized...

Would Shoppers Be Happy If They Know Organic Trade Groups Use Member Fees For Hate Speech?

Organic food has managed to wrap itself in both a health and ethical halo and a lot of the credit...

User picture.
picture for Josh Bloompicture for Norm Bensonpicture for Robert H Olleypicture for Bente Lilja Byepicture for Mi Cropicture for Tommaso Dorigo
Hank CampbellRSS Feed of this column.

I'm the founder of Science 2.0® in 2006 and, since July of 2015, the President of the American Council on Science and Health.

Revolutionizing... Read More »

US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, according to a bold statement published in a BMJ press release.    The press release is about a paper called 'Retractions in the scientific literature:  do authors deliberately commit research fraud?' in the Journal of Medical Ethics.   How did he arrive at that conclusion?   Language and apparently poor understanding of statistics.
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, had a life-changing event occur almost one year ago.   On November 19th, 2009, a thousand e-mail messages and documents, many his correspondence, were released to the public.

Many stressed that those messages were stolen(1), as if the process vindicated the content (would it do so if damning emails had been from Exxon or BP?) but that was small solace because climate science was already suffering backlash and climate science detractors had a field day alleging the entire process was tainted.
Blogging really only became a communications whirlwind when President George W. Bush was in the White House so, for the most part, science blogger outrage focused on his actions as President, and those of the Republican Congress.

Criticisms of Bush were so prevalent it seemed like Republicans must be anti-science because so many Democratic science bloggers said so (and there were no Republicans in science blogging to dispute it), with charges of reports being edited and various unpopular (and later, it turned out, not evidence-based) restrictions on areas like human embryonic stem cell research.
Let's be honest; life began on land.  I know, I know, that is blasphemy and Neil Shubin will stand on high and strike me down with my inner fish for saying such a thing, but while life began in water, life began on land.   

And that took land plants.  Thanks, embryophytes!

Generally, I have never cared much about plants.  I am kind of an anti-vegetarian in the sense that I don't eat plants, instead I regard plants as those things food eats in order to become bigger food.  I get the importance of plants scientifically, though.
Hurricane forecasts were way off again last year so if you're still wondering if a trained chimp 'can predict hurricanes better than NOAA'(1) a Nature Geoscience article has good news for you; forecasts can still be wrong 75% of the time but now can be wrong for years in advance too.
University of California president Mark G. Yudof has issued an 'open letter' to California to talk about the budget problems the system is facing and how they want to deal with the issues facing the state- "I am writing today to let Californians know about the fiscal realities that confront the university, and also about some recommendations I intend to bring next week to our governing Board of Regents. First, though, I'd like to provide a bit of background."

So I will list what he writes and then translate that into economic reality, as seen by people who actually live here but are not employed by the state.