Reuters: Iran, Nicaragua deepen links despite U.S. concerns
Kinda funny really. The U.S. sells arms to Iran, and uses the profits to fund the (right wing) Contras against the government in Nicaragua (here), no problem (here).
Ortega (left-wing Sandinista) asks for help with power and infrastructure from the Iranians, then we're "deeply concerned."
Guns and bombs, fine. Power and water, not in our back yard.
Monday, August 6, 2007
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and Saipan
The Saipan story has been around a while, but it looks like it might get some traction now, with DeLay gone and Democrats running the House. Looks like it's time to write to our Senators and Representatives and encourage support for these people.
Ms. Magazine: Paradise Lost
Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists (Spring 2006)
The backstory:
Saipan is an island in Micronesia, part of the Marianas islands, and more importantly a commonwealth of the United States. It's citizens are considered U.S. citizens and are subject to U.S. laws, like Puerto Rico for instance. Big clothing companies contract production facilities there because they can produce garments with labels that say "Made in the USA" on them. The problem is that for some reason our labor laws and immigration laws are not followed there, and it's created a terrible situation for immigrant workers. They're convinced to immigrate from China and other southeast asian nations with a promise of a job in "America", then strapped with a "recruiting fee" of $7000 (give or take) which they're required to pay back while working for sub-minimum wage pay. Many end up working unpaid overtime, having abortions because they'll lose their jobs, or turning to prostitution to try to repay their recruiting fees. The Ms. article linked above goes into all the details, but the worst part of all is how the U.S. Congress could end the problems but hasn't, thanks in large part to Jack Abramoff and pals like Tom DeLay.
The latest news:
Saipan Tribune: New federalization bill introduced in US House (July 20, 2007)
Saipan Tribune: Nonresident group asks for 'green card' (July 26, 2007)
Saipan Tribune: Over 1,000 alien workers, kids converge in Susupe (July 27, 2007)
In case you're wondering if the Saipan Tribune is biased towards the workers:
Saipan Tribune: Boycott Schmoycott (July 27, 2006, Editor, Saipan Tribune)
More about Saipain:
Saipansucks.com
Ms. Magazine: Paradise Lost
Greed, Sex Slavery, Forced Abortions and Right-Wing Moralists (Spring 2006)
The backstory:
Saipan is an island in Micronesia, part of the Marianas islands, and more importantly a commonwealth of the United States. It's citizens are considered U.S. citizens and are subject to U.S. laws, like Puerto Rico for instance. Big clothing companies contract production facilities there because they can produce garments with labels that say "Made in the USA" on them. The problem is that for some reason our labor laws and immigration laws are not followed there, and it's created a terrible situation for immigrant workers. They're convinced to immigrate from China and other southeast asian nations with a promise of a job in "America", then strapped with a "recruiting fee" of $7000 (give or take) which they're required to pay back while working for sub-minimum wage pay. Many end up working unpaid overtime, having abortions because they'll lose their jobs, or turning to prostitution to try to repay their recruiting fees. The Ms. article linked above goes into all the details, but the worst part of all is how the U.S. Congress could end the problems but hasn't, thanks in large part to Jack Abramoff and pals like Tom DeLay.
The latest news:
Saipan Tribune: New federalization bill introduced in US House (July 20, 2007)
Saipan Tribune: Nonresident group asks for 'green card' (July 26, 2007)
Saipan Tribune: Over 1,000 alien workers, kids converge in Susupe (July 27, 2007)
In case you're wondering if the Saipan Tribune is biased towards the workers:
Saipan Tribune: Boycott Schmoycott (July 27, 2006, Editor, Saipan Tribune)
More about Saipain:
Saipansucks.com
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Al Gore, Hypocrite Bogeyman
So I was sent this link by a family member who's a climate change skeptic. I'm not against those who want to do their own research and decide where they stand for themselves, but this kind of stuff is just silly. Here's the link, my research and rant about it follows.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
I'd say consider the source. Snopes is great for debunking myths or email hoaxes, but this sort of thing has a grain of truth to it, in that it's a report of something that somebody said. True or not, this guy (or these people) said it. To dissect this one for truth/fiction you'd have to actually read the article and try to reconcile the statements with their sources and facts. So let's get started.
First up, the author. Let's figure out who's telling us this stuff, just for context and to determine his journalistic credentials. Tom Harris is the author, here are a couple links about him:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=42&tstamp=200606
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_%28PR_director%29
He is (or at least was) Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a PR company dedicated to spreading the message of whomever pays them the best. In other words, they lobby the government on behalf of industry. Here's their web site:
http://www.highparkgroup.com/default.htm
Harris writes these sort of articles as part of a larger package of services that seeks to discredit mainstream views on climate change. Here's more of his work:
Another similar article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647835/posts
"Climate Change Articles mostly with Professor Tim Patterson"
http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris/
And here's somebody who takes exception to his methods:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/climate-skeptic-response.html
Like my brother-in-law said, even a hypocrite can speak the truth, so there's no reason to assume everything he says is false. Anyway, knowing that he's got a pretty clear agenda, let's see how he goes about making his point.
"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
The article's central argument is that the scientists Al Gore relies on for his "majority opinion" are not actual climate scientists. Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, either. He's a Marine Geologist, and apparently not well thought of in the Australian scientific community. According to the article, the claims of scientists who are not climatologists shouldn't be listened to. Sorry Harris, your rules.
Here's the next expert quote: "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball.
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-finding-new-ways-to-fudge-his-credentials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
I'm afraid Timothy Ball was never a climatology professor. It seems that until his retirement, he was a professor of geography (not even geology). Only after his retirement from the U did he start calling himself a professor of climatology. Not sure who granted him that title. Ball is also linked to what are called "astroturfing" groups. The idea is that when a big company or industry wants to affect change and make it seem like "the people" are calling for it, they fund smaller groups to start "grass roots" movements on an issue. Because the grass is paid for by industry, it's essentially fake - hence "astroturf". I guess we're back to "consider the source."
Next the author makes a point about computer models. They aren't completely accurate "predictions", just models of things that could happen. I suppose if you run enough scenarios you're bound to hit on a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Calling them useless or saying that the researchers who use predictive computer modeling are not real researchers is like saying geologists who study earthquakes aren't real geologists if they work in the field of predicting the outcomes of possible tectonic shifts. The author bring this point up merely to pare down our field of scientists qualified to comment on climate change. How many we started with is still a mystery, as he studiously avoids naming names.
Next up, Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa:
"Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."
"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun."
Patterson is in my opinion (so far) the most credible researcher cited by the article, having no known ties to industry groups or lobbyists, nor boosting his own credentials disingenuously. I don't see any reason to think he's being intellectually dishonest in his views or his research, though I can't vouch for him personally of course.
His statements however do run counter to prevailing research, which is why he's brought to us here. He dismisses CO2 as a cause of warming but acknowledges the warming itself. His theory is that the varying brightness of the sun itself has caused the warming. Not a preposterous theory by any means, and only recently discredited:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1740858.htm
I'll grant that that article alone is not rigorous proof that the sun isn't the guilty party, but the important thing is to realize that Patterson and other like him are not ignored because their research shows some plausible alternative that climate change cheerleaders don't want to hear. The 'warming sun' theory has been studied and taken seriously, but it hasn't yet held up under scrutiny.
"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun." [italics mine]
So the correlation of CO2 with climate change is not convincing to Patterson, but the correlation of brightness of the sun is enough for him? Keep in mind that any scientist will tell you that correlation does not imply causation.
I hate to give up early on this article, as I'm sure there's more juicy stuff to play around with, but it'll have to wait for another day. Perhaps a second post to finish off this article will be forthcoming...
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
I'd say consider the source. Snopes is great for debunking myths or email hoaxes, but this sort of thing has a grain of truth to it, in that it's a report of something that somebody said. True or not, this guy (or these people) said it. To dissect this one for truth/fiction you'd have to actually read the article and try to reconcile the statements with their sources and facts. So let's get started.
First up, the author. Let's figure out who's telling us this stuff, just for context and to determine his journalistic credentials. Tom Harris is the author, here are a couple links about him:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=42&tstamp=200606
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Harris_%28PR_director%29
He is (or at least was) Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a PR company dedicated to spreading the message of whomever pays them the best. In other words, they lobby the government on behalf of industry. Here's their web site:
http://www.highparkgroup.com/default.htm
Harris writes these sort of articles as part of a larger package of services that seeks to discredit mainstream views on climate change. Here's more of his work:
Another similar article:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1647835/posts
"Climate Change Articles mostly with Professor Tim Patterson"
http://www.iosphere.net/~tharris/
And here's somebody who takes exception to his methods:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/postings/climate-skeptic-response.html
Like my brother-in-law said, even a hypocrite can speak the truth, so there's no reason to assume everything he says is false. Anyway, knowing that he's got a pretty clear agenda, let's see how he goes about making his point.
"Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter
The article's central argument is that the scientists Al Gore relies on for his "majority opinion" are not actual climate scientists. Bob Carter is not a climate scientist, either. He's a Marine Geologist, and apparently not well thought of in the Australian scientific community. According to the article, the claims of scientists who are not climatologists shouldn't be listened to. Sorry Harris, your rules.
Here's the next expert quote: "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball.
http://www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-finding-new-ways-to-fudge-his-credentials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball
I'm afraid Timothy Ball was never a climatology professor. It seems that until his retirement, he was a professor of geography (not even geology). Only after his retirement from the U did he start calling himself a professor of climatology. Not sure who granted him that title. Ball is also linked to what are called "astroturfing" groups. The idea is that when a big company or industry wants to affect change and make it seem like "the people" are calling for it, they fund smaller groups to start "grass roots" movements on an issue. Because the grass is paid for by industry, it's essentially fake - hence "astroturf". I guess we're back to "consider the source."
Next the author makes a point about computer models. They aren't completely accurate "predictions", just models of things that could happen. I suppose if you run enough scenarios you're bound to hit on a kernel of truth in there somewhere. Calling them useless or saying that the researchers who use predictive computer modeling are not real researchers is like saying geologists who study earthquakes aren't real geologists if they work in the field of predicting the outcomes of possible tectonic shifts. The author bring this point up merely to pare down our field of scientists qualified to comment on climate change. How many we started with is still a mystery, as he studiously avoids naming names.
Next up, Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Ottawa:
"Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame."
"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun."
Patterson is in my opinion (so far) the most credible researcher cited by the article, having no known ties to industry groups or lobbyists, nor boosting his own credentials disingenuously. I don't see any reason to think he's being intellectually dishonest in his views or his research, though I can't vouch for him personally of course.
His statements however do run counter to prevailing research, which is why he's brought to us here. He dismisses CO2 as a cause of warming but acknowledges the warming itself. His theory is that the varying brightness of the sun itself has caused the warming. Not a preposterous theory by any means, and only recently discredited:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/2006/1740858.htm
I'll grant that that article alone is not rigorous proof that the sun isn't the guilty party, but the important thing is to realize that Patterson and other like him are not ignored because their research shows some plausible alternative that climate change cheerleaders don't want to hear. The 'warming sun' theory has been studied and taken seriously, but it hasn't yet held up under scrutiny.
"Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun." [italics mine]
So the correlation of CO2 with climate change is not convincing to Patterson, but the correlation of brightness of the sun is enough for him? Keep in mind that any scientist will tell you that correlation does not imply causation.
I hate to give up early on this article, as I'm sure there's more juicy stuff to play around with, but it'll have to wait for another day. Perhaps a second post to finish off this article will be forthcoming...
Let the ranting begin
I figured I could use a space to rant on stuff and provide myself a little soapbox. I'm under no delusions that people will actually read the stuff I post, but it'll be a better record than email.