Is the left really as anti-science as the right?

It is no secret that conservative mainstream political discourse includes quite a bit of anti-science rhetoric. However, is that also true on the left? Although there are plenty of liberal cases of anti-science, I have a few questions about any one of them:

1. Do a significant number of liberals support it?
2. Is it endorsed by liberal politicians?
3. Is it even part of popular political discourse on the left?

As Chris Mooney points out, the answer to all three of these questions seems to be no. A few things to note about this article. Chris Mooney points out a few examples of anti-science on the left that could potentially be candidates for "Yes" answers to these questions:

2) Nuclear power–this is a pretty good one, because for a long time the left really was anti-nuclear. However, I don’t think that is the case today, and in fact, President Obama’s administration is pretty much pro-nuclear. And again, the author makes no case that nuke opponents are factually wrong about, say, the risk of low-dose radiation. (Although some of them are.)

Conservatives are no strangers to anti-science about nuclear power. However their false statements generally come from the other extreme.

3) Vaccines–polling data suggests that distrust of vaccines is rather bipartisan, but I actually agree with the author in suspecting those data aren’t that good and that this is more of a left wing thing. But of course, liberal journalists like myself, and liberal commentators, have pretty much chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse. We’ve held our own accountable and really, you cannot defend this view any more without being pilloried.

I'm surprised Chris Mooney didn't point to his recent work on Bachmann's false allegations against the Gardasil vaccine. Make no mistake. Anti-vaxers are alive and well in the mainstream right.

Republican Delusions In Front of Holy Reagan

Political debates tend to be great forums for spreading misinformation. Of course, the September 7th, 2011 Republican debate at the Reagan Library was no exception. Three major fact checking sources have already taken aim at a few of the claims given during the Republican debates:

• Fact Checker: "Fact checking the GOP debate at the Reagan library"
• Politifact: "Fact-checking the Reagan Library debate"
• FactCheck: "FactChecking the Reagan Debate"

In addition to these, I thought I would share a bit more, as well as highlight a few major points.

Perry blew it

As conservative blogger David Frum put it "The revelation from the Republican presidential debate: Rick Perry and his team utterly failed to prepare answers to utterly predictable questions":

1. "Perry’s Social Security answer delivered President Obama the perfect clip for a 2012 negative ad"
2. “military adventurism”
3. Perry's performance was "Nervous, irritable, stuttering, floundering"
4. Perry failed to explain away the lousy statistic about health insurance coverage in his state.
5. "How could a Texas governor be unready to talk about immigration?"

Utterly unimpressive.... I can only hope it hurts is image solely with non-Republicans.
Of course the most memorable part of the night was when Rick Perry referred to Social Security as a "Ponzi Scheme". For a moment, let us set aside the fact that this may not sit well with the 75% of Americans who support Social Security. Politifact has already tackled this claim quite often in the past and found it to be incredibly misleading at best. This comment also motivated Glenn Kessler to write "A primer on Social Security"


Bachmann misses the market crash

Michelle Bachmann made an interesting comment during the debate:

Don't forget the day that President Obama took office, gasoline was $1.79 a gallon. It's entirely possible for us to get back to inexpensive energy.

Politifact rated the statement True. Of course they also pointed out how little the president can do about gas prices:

"Other than lip service, there is little any president or member of Congress can do about the price of gas, since 70 percent of the cost of a gallon is determined by the cost of crude oil," said John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for the mid-Atlantic region of the American Automobile Association... (emphasis mine)

So, although the statement is technically true, the context in which it was given (that it was Obama's fault and she can fix the problem), is almost entirely false.
However, what seemed to be left out of the analysis is that the reason gasoline prices were at $1.79 when Obama took office is almost entirely due to the fact that much of the world was falling into a deep recession, significantly lowering the demand for gasoline. There is little evidence that increased drilling would have nearly the effect on gasoline prices that Bachmann predicts. The only realistic way to get gasoline prices THAT low during a Bachmann presidency would be another massive recession (which may not be all that unlikely during a Republican presidency). Does Bachmann want that?

Perry gets it spectacularly wrong on Galileo

During the debate, Rick Perry made an interesting remark about climate change and Galileo:

“The idea that we would put Americans’ economy in jeopardy based on scientific theory that’s not settled yet to me is just — is nonsense. I mean, it — I mean, and I told somebody, I said, just because you have a group of scientists that have stood up and said, here is the fact — Galileo got outvoted for a spell.”

Henry Fountain of the New York Times dove right onto this statement (with some help from historian Thomas Mayer):

Galileo, whose astronomical observations confirmed the Copernican theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun, was basing his assertions on empirical knowledge and faced opposition from the Roman Catholic Church, which supported the Ptolemaic view of an Earth-centered universe.

Mr. Perry, by contrast, has said repeatedly that he does not believe the empirical evidence compiled by scientists in support of climate change, but that he does adhere to faith-based principles.(emphasis mine)

In other words, Perry got it spectacularly wrong. Galileo was not a "maverick" among scientists. Scientists often agreed with him. His real opposition was from the Church. And that was mostly due to disobedience, as well as his attempt to fit the Copernican model of the solar system to the bible.

Update 9-12-11: Chris Mooney brings up a few more points on the Perry/Galileo comment.

Job Spin

No political debate would be complete without a few politicians either taking credit or dishing out blame for job creation (or the lack thereof). Romney, Perry, and Huntsman each had a little share in this sort of fun. Of course, this tends to be an issue mostly with candidates who have previously held (or currently hold) executive positions (presidents/governors/mayors). In this case, all three of these candidates have had experience with such a position. FactCheck took on a few of these claims:

• Romney tried to take credit for reversing the job situation in his state when he assumed office. However, he left out the part where Massachusetts also ranked 47th in the nation in job growth.
• Perry once again attempted to spin his "success" with job creation as governor of Texas. However, he left out quite a few other statistics, ones that would not look so favorable. For instance, while actually being nothing special in regards to unemployment (27th in the nation at 8.4% in July 2011), Texas also has the highest percentage of hourly workers paid at or below minimum wage as well as the highest proportion of medically uninsured people in the nation.
• Huntsman used BLS survey data to support his claim that Utah was #1 in the nation in job growth from Jan 2005 to Aug 2009. However, using payroll data (a preference for most economists), Utah only ranked 4th (notably behind Texas).

Update 9-12-11: The Fact Checker takes a look at the claims of Perry, Romney, and Huntsman about eachother's jobs records.

Recently Republicans have had little trouble divorcing themselves from reality. These Republican debates provide no divergence from this trend.

Weely Roundup - Time, Income Inequality, Green Energy, Texas Jobs, and Hurricane Irene (8/28/11-9/3/11)

Welcome to the second edition of my Weekly Roundup, a collection of some of my favorite Facebook posts for the last week. I understand I post a lot of things Facebook and, for anyone who is interested but doesn't have the time to read them all, this will give them a chance to see what I think are the most important. I will also get a chance to elaborate a bit more on certain posts. I will try to do this on a weekly basis but we will see if it works out. I am busy with school so I may not get a chance to do this every week.


Sciencey kinda stuff
 For my science posts this week, I started off with an interesting post from Sean M Carrol presenting a few facts about time ever one needs to know. Skeptical Science debunks more claims from climate "skeptics" about the negative aspects of renewable energy. I also ensured to post a link to Conway's game of life, a great simulator to help demonstrate that complexity can arise from chaos. Skeptoid takes on a few student questions, including the abuse of the word "information" by creationists. Skeptical Science points out the fallacy in claiming CO2 is just a trace gas and can therefore not have a significant effect on global warming. Finally, Paul Krugman laments the days when at least Mitt Romney actually accepted modern science.


Sean Carroll: "Ten Things Everyone Should Know About Time"
‎Sean Carroll talks time metaphysics, relativity, human experience and memory, aging (even in reverse), complexity, and entropy:
On time metaphysics...

Intuitively we think that the “now” is real, while the past is fixed and in the books, and the future hasn’t yet occurred. But physics teaches us something remarkable: every event in the past and future is implicit in the current moment(emphasis mine)

On human memory...

When you remember an event in the past, your brain uses a very similar technique to imagining the future. The process is less like “replaying a video” than “putting on a play from a script.” If the script is wrong for whatever reason, you can have a false memory that is just as vivid as a true one.(emphasis mine)

On "reverse-aging"...

We all grow old, part of the general trend toward growing disorder. But it’s only the universe as a whole that must increase in entropy, not every individual piece of it.... As one biologist told me: “You and I won’t live forever. But as for our grandkids, I’m not placing any bets.”(emphasis mine)

Skeptical Science: "Michaels Mischief #2: Opposing Climate Solutions":
Climate "skeptic" Patrick Michaels makes some pretty poor errors for someone who posts in a business magazine. These are common errors seen among climate "skeptics" who ignore basic economics 101 in order to make the claim that renewable energy is inefficient:
Michaels claims that solar energy and wind energy markets are not doing so well, despite government subsidies. However:

"The U.S. solar power market grew a record 67% last year [2010], making it the fastest-growing energy sector... The story is similar for the wind industry, which is already rebounding from a brief stall in its growth in 2010"

Michaels complains about Electric Cars and Plug-in Hybrids, criticizing their current price tags. As a result he says they are not the wave of the future. However, this is an obvious economic fallacy:

Michaels seems to believe that for a technology to be "the wave of the future," it must immediately be available at a high "comfort level" and low cost. Perhaps Michaels needs to be reminded that the first cell phone weighed 2 pounds (~1kg), offered just a half-hour of talk time for every recharging, and sold for $3,995. Not quite cheap or comfortable, and yet they were undeniably "the wave of the future."

See the article for more rebuttals to Michaels' ridiculously amateur claims...


John Conway's "Game of Life":
The computer simulation is a great tool for understanding how complexity can arise out of apparent chaos. It shows how a few simple rules can create immensely complex systems. This should help out anyone who seeks an honest understanding of Reductionism and "bottom-up design," which have both become strong pillars of modern physics and biology.


Skeptoid: "Student Questions: Energy Shots and Sunscreen":
This recent episode of Skeptoid deals with some interesting questions sent to him by students. Here he tackles myths about "5-hour energy shots," as well as a common creationist abuse of the word "information" in regards to entropy. Although he does not give the best response to the "information" issue, the first comment on this thread actually does a good job. I even chimed in later. However, he is basically right that Creationists do abuse the term.


Skeptical Science: "CO2 is just a trace gas":
A common claim you may hear from Climate Change "skeptics" is that CO2 makes up a tiny fraction of the atmosphere and therefore shouldn't have any significant impact on temperatures. For example John Coleman has made such a claim before. This article does a great job pointing the fallacy in this idea.
One thing this article does not mention is that this "trace gas" is "the only thing between us and a frozen planet." (see link to John Coleman's statements)


Paul Krugman: "Republicans Against Science":
Even Romney is back-peddling from his once admirable pro-science views. This should give us a hint to his true character. However, anyone who has paid attention to the Wall Street Journal over the past few years knows that it is now increasingly promoting heuristics as a substitute for real critical thinking. Frum presents a few


What About Obama
 All of my favorite posts this week about Obama came from Conservatives. Bruce Bartlett, while criticizing the Obama Administration's plan to extend the Payroll Tax Cut, effectively presents a great argument against Republican calls for low taxes to stimulate the economy. David Frum lists 3 of what he considers to be Obama's biggest Mistakes. Finally, Greg Mankiw congratulates Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to chair the CEA.


Bruce Bartlett: "The Case Against a Payroll Tax Cut":
The payroll tax cut is often seen as an effective stimulus idea among politicians from both sides of the political spectrum. It is direct and instantly noticeable. Conventional Macroeconomics states that the extra money that goes back to workers, as a result of this cut, will increase aggregate demand. However, Bartlett gives a four reasons to be skeptical of the theorized effectiveness of this tax cut:

"First, the tax cut only helps those with jobs. While many have low wages and undoubtedly are spending all their additional cash flow, those with the greatest need and most likely to spend any additional income are the unemployed.
Second, the payroll tax cut helps many workers who have no need for it and will only pocket the tax savings.
Third, economic theory and the experience with tax rebates in 2001 and 2008 tell us that people are strongly inclined to save temporary increases in income. People only increase their spending when they perceive an increase in their permanent income.
Fourth, even if one assumes that the cost of employment has declined and employers can somehow capture some of the payroll tax cut, there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring....
Another issue is whether the Social Security tax is really a tax at all. A case can be made that it is really part of a worker’s compensation, rather than a reduction of it... ...workers may well view a cut in Social Security taxes as diminishing their future benefits, which may cause them to increase their saving rather than spend the additional cash flow."(emphasis mine)

David Frum: "Obama's three big mistakes":
Frum explains some of what he perceives as Obama's biggest mistakes:
1. Obama let Congressional Democrats Shape the stimulus instead of his own economists.
2. Obama sat by while the fed reacted to unjustified inflationary fears.
3. Toward the public, Obama treated this recession like a normal cyclical recession instead of the financial meltdown it truly was.
Although I fully agree with his second and third criticisms, I only half agree with his first. The individual tax rebates were definitely a poor move. And yes the stimulus was not perfectly designed. However, I have pointed out before that the stimulus actually did a bit better than its critics like to think. I would likely add the caveat that Obama's stimulus was not designed for the right kind of recession. This ties into his 3rd criticism. All it was really meant to do was stop the economy from free-falling. The assumption that the economy would then heal itself was clearly wrong (as this was not a cyclical recession, rather a financial meltdown).
Jared Bernstein critiques Frum.
David Frum responds to Bermstein.


Greg Mankiw: "Alan Krueger to chair CEA":
Former CEA Chairman and Harvard Economist Greg Mankiw commends President Obama on his nomination of Alan Krueger to replace Austan Goolsbee as chair of CEA. He also gives a few comments on the decision. One thing to note is that Krueger specializes in labor economics and not generalized Macroeconomics. We will see how this goes...
Paul Krugman also gives his take on the nomination.


Fact Checks
 This week I posted a great article for Liberals seeking to show how bad income inequality has become. FactCheck posts a comprehensive nonpartisan article looking at the details behind job growth in Texas (a must read for anyone planning on voting in this next election). Politifact points out a few important facts in looking at how the US fares on energy resources. Finally, Politifact once again dispels a popular Democratic myth about the GOP and medicare.


Politifact: "Robert Reich says ratio of corporate profits to wages is highest since before Great Depression":
A significant factor to this has been the recession/financial meltdown. Still, there has been a general trend toward this since the Great Depression.
One note on this: Dan Mitchell with the libertarian CATO institute blames this mainly on "a climate of economic uncertainty, largely thanks to the threat of more taxes and regulations." However, Bruce Bartlett has recently noted that "there’s little sign that labor costs are the principal factor holding back hiring." The real problem is a lack of sales. He notes that in "the latest survey [from the NFIB], 23 percent of businesses said poor sales were their No. 1 problem and only 4 percent cited the cost of labor." Since regulation and taxes primarily effect the cost of labor, there is little reason to consider future taxes and regulation a significant effect.


FactCheck: "Texas-Size Recovery":
Good overall view of the Texas job-growth situation:

"Texas job statistics are a mixed bag. Perry’s supporters and Perry’s detractors select the statistics that suit their spin. Here we'll just lay out a balanced look at the facts — good and bad alike — and leave the spin to others."

Politifact: "Michele Bachmann says U.S. is No. 1 in the world for energy resources":
Although this may be technically true. There are a few very important caveats that make the context in which this fact was cited highly questionable.


Fact Checker: "Biden’s claim that the GOP will ‘eliminate’ Medicare":
At least Obama now uses the caveat "as we know it." This is the Democrats' lie of choice, similar to the Republicans' "Obamacare is a government takeover of the health care industry." Sadly, it is this kind of tactical dishonesty that wins elections nowadays...
Note: Hochul ( "elections" link) skirted the line on the GOP medicare plan


Oh that crazy ole GOP
What would a good Weekly Roundup be without a bit of GOP bashing. Religion news service starts us out by making the case that Bachmann's "joke" about hurricane Irene may be seen as quite serious by a few of her constituents. David Frum asks the question on every one's mind. Krugman bashes Eric Cantor's hostage-taking of Hurricane Irene victims. Finally, I post an article showing more evidence the GOP may be in danger of losing support in the future.


Religion News Service: "Bachmann’s prophecy, joke or not, has lots of company":
Although Bachmann's remark about Hurricane Irene being a message from God was meant only as a joke. There is reason to think a substantial number of white evangelicals just might take it seriously...


David Frum: "Is Perry Dumb?":
Sarah Palin wasn't dumb. She was just ignorant and unqualified. Perry however may be another story...

Paul Krugman: "Eric and Irene":

The primary issue should be the extraordinary nihilism now on display by Mr. Cantor and his colleagues — their willingness to flout all the usual conventions of fair play and, well, decency in order to get what they want.
Not long ago, a political party seeking to change U.S. policy would try to achieve that goal by building popular support for its ideas, then implementing those ideas through legislation. That, after all, is how our political system was designed to work.
But today’s G.O.P. has decided to bypass all that and go for a quicker route. Never mind getting enough votes to pass legislation; it gets what it wants by threatening to hurt America if its demands aren’t met. That’s what happened with the debt-ceiling fight, and now it’s what’s happening over disaster aid. In effect, Mr. Cantor and his allies are threatening to take hurricane victims hostage, using their suffering as a bargaining chip. (emphasis mine)

Steve Landsburg critiques Krugman's blog post on this subject.
Krugman responds to Landsburg.


Eric Levine: "Minority data shows a grim future for the GOP":

"The latest wave of 2010 Census data, released this week, confirms what earlier surveys have strongly hinted: virtually half of recent births in the U.S. are minorities...
Unless the GOP is willing to fundamentally change a few of its sacred views, the party is in severe danger of losing support in the long term."

A little Fun
As most people with an iPhone know, the built in "auto-correct" function can sometimes be a hassle, often creating a few hilarious texts. damnyouautocorrect.com lists quite a few of these. After reading these, whether or not you decide to turn the auto correct on or off is up to you.