Fewer Americans Value A College Degree? A Possible Explanation

                                                    Loyola student cracks his physics text


In the WSJ of  September 18 (p. A3)  one finds the article 'Fewer American Value College Degree, Poll Finds' by Josh Mitchell and Douglas Belkin.  The breakdown by age and gender is shown in the graphic above.   Some of the findings summarized:

- A slim plurality (49 %) of Americans believe a 4-year degree  will lead to higher earnings

- 47 % don't believe that

Four years earlier the spread between these groups was 13 points, so the pessimists have gained significantly

- Among Americans 18 to 34 years old skeptics outnumber believers 57% to 30%

- Democrats, urban residents and Americans who consider themselves middle or upper class generally believe a college degree is worth it.

- Women by a large margin still believe college is worth it.

- Men - who approved of college 4 years ago by a 12 point margin, now disapprove by 10 points, a 22 point flip.

Let's consider some explanations, starting with the last. All kinds of surveys now show males bailing out of college as females comprise a larger and larger proportion of students. In general, men remain for much shorter periods, often dropping out after a year or two, while most women stay the course. Men in general are also not performing to the same academic level as females in many universities. See e,g,

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?mcubz=0


Excerpt:

"Women work harder in school, Mr. Kohn believes. "The girls care more about their G.P.A. and the way they look on paper," he said. A quarter-century after women became the majority on college campuses, men are trailing them in more than just enrollment.

Department of Education statistics show that men, whatever their race or socioeconomic group, are less likely than women to get bachelor's degrees — and among those who do, fewer complete their degrees in four or five years. Men also get worse grades than women."

So this explains why women have a more positive attitude toward college. In terms of Americans aged 18 to 34 being more "skeptics" that is simply traced to so many of them drowning in student debt (now $1.3 trillion) or with siblings who are.  Many of the older set may have also fallen behind in student loan payments.

Part of this negativity may also be linked to how many currently see college as a "trade school for the elite" (WSJ, 'College Is Trade School for the Elite', Aug. 7. p. A17). Therein Allen Gelzo makes the case that too many are simply paying a bundle of money for an education that in the end isn't needed for the job they ultimately get.  So, though they may have taken loads of math courses including abstract algebra, differential equations and advanced calculus, they don't get to use it - say as a real estate broker or car salesman or plumber.

So, wouldn't it have been better then to just go to a vocational training school or community college without blasting a hole in one's finances with a 4 year degree at a university?  According to Gelzo:

"Vocational training is what higher education has been doing without even realizing it."

How is this? Well take a peek into classes at most 4-year institutions and you find (ibid.): "Literature majors are being taught as future literature professors, history majors - in department after department - being taught as future history professionals". 

Of course, one can also say that for most physics and astronomy departments! The profs come in and teach you as if you will be a future physics or astronomy researcher. Only later, after you graduate, do you grasp you won't need most of the courses taken - unless you move on to more advanced degrees and graduate with those. Even then there's no guarantee.

An editorial in an AAS Newsletter noted, for example, that more than 6 out of 10 jobs for Ph.D. degrees in astronomy were outside the academic marketplace. The percentage was slightly better (5 of 10) for Masters recipients.   The newly minted astrophysics or astronomy Ph.D. basically faces a herculean task in getting his or her foot in the academic door. First, he must compete with postdocs - those with Ph.D.s already in hand who now are hired at lower than standard pay rates to teach classes and work for 3-5 years "earning their stripes". Next on the totem pole are the graduate teaching assistants who teach tutorials as well as lower level classes and problem-solving sessions. Finally, there are the adjunct lecturers, who are paid by the hour only and hired just to teach a course or two.

All of this, obviously, would entice Gelzo to reinforce his "elite trade school" argument.  But is it really? Lost in the mix is the intangible value of a college degree which no monetary yardstick can capture.   The most perceptive take  on this appeared in an article('The Myth of Higher Education') by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

Mason adds that it "teaches a person to live - not to earn a living" and that living encompasses an impetus for further learning just for its own sake. If a fantastic, well-paying job also comes with it, that's icing on the cake.

Of course, the trade school route ought not be overlooked either. In the first WSJ piece (from which the graphic was taken)  the account of one 32-year old caught my eye, who chose to attend a trae school "earning a certificate as a mechanic". He now earns a base salary of $50,000 a year and "has never gone 3 weeks without a job".

So definitely the vo-tech route needs to be considered. For others, who aren't sure which way to go - trade school or 4-year college-  the best option might be a community college.  That  this is a definite solution that is both realistic and rational is a no-brainer. Especially given that nearly 60% of incoming college students (mainly males)  now don't finish their degrees.

Thus, a student who can't finish a 4-year degree will now have an option, in most cases,  before s/he comes to the point of quitting. So rather than waste tens of thousands of dollars the student  will come away with something (A.A. degree or trade certificate) allowing them to economically advance. Community colleges also provide a major economic solution because they can be accessed for half the cost or less of state universities, mainly because they aren't research institutions

Indeed, a recent article ('All The Places You Can Go To College For Free') in MONEY magazine (Oct., p. 82) singled out programs across the nation, e.g. The Oakland Promise, where interested high school students can partake and get a financial award to complete college - without needing an 'A' average. (In the Oakland case, described on p. 82, students need at least a 2.0 average).

The point is that there are indeed options for those who do wish to advance their education but without going into decades of debt.   Even someone with a low opinion of 4 year colleges and universities at least has a shot entering a program at a community college, say in  automotive mechanics or nursing, that could lead to a better job in  the future.

INTERTEL'S Resident Libertarian Deniers Again Ignorantly Spout Off On Climate Change

It was coincidental yesterday that not long after a lunch conversation with our friend Nan, the monthly 'Port of Call' (Intertel's Region 7 NL) arrived in the mail.   Why coincidental?

At lunch, Nan bemoaned her fundamentalist sister who accused her of being "anti-Christian" because she accepted Darwinian Evolution as a fact. Nan was asked : "Do you really understand evolution?" Nan simply replied "No'"  Whereupon her sis "Rita" challenged her good sense: "Then why do you believe it?" Nan simply replied: "Because actual scientists have unearthed the evidence for it, including for natural selection, mutation."

But at the end the two remained at contretemps. Such is also the case with climate change deniers, or what I call pseudo-sophisticated climate change denier enablers. These people often have attained high education credentials - say in psychology or economics. However,  they are convinced they can opine on issues outside their specialty fields like global warming - or the alleged absence for it- without doing any hard work or proper research. . They believe they can simply bloviate from their armchairs or keyboards. They also invoke the comeback that "well, because the proponents -scientists can't put it into simple words" then it must be wrong or at least not compelling.

Such is the case with  Dr. Steven B. Mason:

in one of the two Port of Call 'letters to the editor" taking me to task for my original take on Carol Dane's infantile book review that appeared in PoC some months ago, e.g.  http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/02/a-high-iq-book-reviewer-shows-she-can.html

Mason begins his missive by quaintly asking: "How can I believe anything when what I believe changes?"   This is actually a misrepresentation of his stance when what he really means is "How can I believe anything when the science behind it changes?" And seen in this light, one wonders if Mason was ever a genuine scientist at all, because the very nature of the scientific enterprise is to mount new discoveries, via new findings obtained from ever more refined instruments and techniques. Hence the change from the old epicycles-based Ptolemaic solar system to the heliocentric one. Or, the change from Bohr's simple 'planetary' model atom to the wave model of Schrodinger, Born et al. Or the change from Newtonian gravitation to general relativity (though the former is still used for space trajectories, missions).

The point is that a real scientist - even a psychiatrist or psychologist- would know and understand science HAS to change for our understanding of the cosmos, nature to evolve. It is unscientific and naive to expect findings to remain static.

He then compares the Moon landings ("99 % sure") to extraterrestrial visitors ("1% sure") though interestingly he cites no "changes" in scientific evidence pertaining to either.  He claims from this he "prefers to hover around 50%" in  terms of his belief, but seems to forget or doesn't care that actual scientific acceptance of a hypothesis comes from testable evidence or confirmed data from a prior experiment (e.g. the LIGO finding for gravitational waves)  not "belief".  This is astonishing given Mason has not only been a  scientist - well, at least a psychologist, but also a college prof.

Then he drags climate science into his muddled mix along with Moon landings, "angels and devils" and "extraterrestrials".   He writes:

"I remember when experts were predicting another Ice Age and I figured why not? The ice was once a mile thick over Central Park....But now the experts are predicting it will get hot and I figure why not? Is global warming a fact? If so is it man-made, ...can it be reversed? Clearly I don't know but then who does?"

Actually,  a lot of hard working actual climate scientists  trained in a field a hell of a lot more complex than psychology or modern psychiatry.. A field (atmospheric science) wherein they have to actually produce testable data, such as from analysis of ice cores, changing cloud albedo etc. and  can't beg off on the basis of there being no confirmations or "ambiguity".  One such professional climate scientist,   Gunter Weller -  I met while at the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks, AK in 1985-86.

By late 1986  Prof. Weller had shown the abnormal heating of the Arctic - some 5 - 7F greater than the continental U.S.

The ice cores available at Dr. Weller's  Atmospheric Physics lab (part of the Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks) were extracted from Arctic ice at depths corresponding with geological time frames dating back over 80,000 years. His results showed that the greatest ambient temperatures corresponded to the highest CO2 concentrations recorded in the ice cores. Also the largest increases in ambient temperatures have occurred over the past 50-60 years, during which the CO2 increases have been largest (now approaching 400 ppm). Since then this relationship has only been further corroborated. Does Steve Mason know this, or has he made any  effort to learn about it? Obviously not. It's easier to make glib comments to be on the "50 percent" line regarding global warming than extend one's mind outside an academic comfort zone.

Regarding Mason's dilemma on once being told about "global cooling" and Ice ages, this is a common misstep of those semi-educated on climate change or the trajectory of research which has now unimpeachably led to accepting anthropogenic global warming. It reminds me of the appearance of the  WSJ's resident denier Brett Stephens on the Real Time show a year and a half ago.

WSJ denier Brett Stephens much likc Steve Mason "once read about global cooling"

Stephens spouted out to host Bill Maher: "What I'm saying is if you look at a Newsweek from 1975 you will see it"  Whereupon  Maher moaned, 'Oh no, not the cooling thing!'

To which Stephens responded: "Yes, the cooling thing!"

For those who may not know, including Mason, global cooling was once all the rage--  briefly! Some popular  'zines picked it up in the mid to late 70s but it was soon left in the scientific dustbin. (Much like the Ptolemaic solar system based  on "epicycles") This was after it was discovered a decade or so later, that it had been incepted by particulates and aerosols in the atmosphere.  After the Clean Air Act and similar bills were passed overseas (e.g. in the UK), those particulates largely disappeared and the cooling was no longer evident. Aerosols remained and gave way to the global dimming phenomenon which also concealed the worst of global warming - but when aerosols were also controlled - after similar legislation, global dimming receded and warming assumed dominance. Rising temperatures ever since have confirmed the effects.

Mason then reveals his almost complete failure to grasp the nature of physical science with this idiotic remark (p. 4):

"If you look up Herd Animal you might as well find a guy in a lab coat and a bow tie...The reason is simple...scientists are even more protective of their reputations than teen girls of a generation ago. And they have to be. Make one false step and no one will get on an elevator with you at conferences".

Seriously?   The utter arrogance here of a prime member of a herd discipline (psychology) to write off physical scientists this way is beyond belief.   It also shows me  that he has about as much comprehension of the actual scientific process as a kindergartner has of quantum measurements and the role of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  The second line is also choice and makes me wonder if Dr. Steve has even attended any conferences other than parent-teacher for his kids.

Having attended many conferences (solar physics, astrometry, celestial mechanics, space physics)  I have seen colleagues make the occasional "false step" (as in a paper presentation)  but no one held it against them because each realized it's entirely possible  to be wrong on occasion. Who wants to make a snark critique in the question period when his turn might be next? Only in religious realms, or maybe in Mason's psychology, do we have something approaching a "priest hood" with its dogmas and "beliefs" - as embedded in psychiatry's Diagnostic and Statistics Manual. (For an excellent expose all the psychobabble within it, check out 'The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry'.)

Like many before him, Mason is stuck in neutral believing that all or most of modern climate science is based on "appeal to authority".  Thus "many scientists agreeing as though it were proof of a concept".  Errr no, Dr. Steve. They don't agree "because others agree."  They do so because actual analyses - like of Gunter Weller's ice cores- point to actual changes of CO2 concentrations in  different layers of ice extending back thousands of years.  This connection was most powerfully explicated by Gale Christianson in his book, 'Greenhouse' noting that there has never ever (from the ice core data) been an ice age when the CO2 concentration was over 200 ppm.

Observing increasing concentrations of CO2 with a warming climate, it is then possible to craft the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels and a warming climate are inextricably linked. And since the most  profound rise has been from the Industrial Revolution there is a direct connection to human activity in generating CO2 from burning fossil fuels  This stuff isn't "rocket science" but appears to be for Mason who also referenced asking a physical scientist friend if he could explain a complex theory in simple words and his pal answered 'no'. But then this is the same Mason who in one Integra article admitted he understood nothing of quantum mechanics either, such as the wave-particle duality. He then extrapolated from that to assert that he "didn't think others understood it either"- using his own limited grasp of a subject as a standard for all.

Mason's take here seems to be that if it can't be  reduced to simple language then there's not much reason to accept it. But if that is so there is a hell of a lot of modern science most people would not accept, i.e.  general relativity, quantum mechanics, stellar evolution, gene splicing...to name a few.. But are the objectors truly in a position to express skepticism? I doubt it! To do so one needs to  at least possess the relative backgrounds and/or some  exposure to the material approximating that of those who've done the work!

Incredibly, in his last paragraphs Mason then jumps to the Chicxulub (asteroid impact) event that eliminated the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, based on the work of Luis Alvarez. He claims he "asked the younger Alvarez" about a "smoking gun" and was informed "not to worry there is an embarrassment of riches". Translation: there is so much disparate data to choose from that anyone - even his dad- could find just about any explanation desired. Which is total asinine nonsense.   The point missed by Mason is that the isotope Iridium 192 is used as a key marker for whether an asteroid (or meteoroid) is of extraterrestrial origin. This is because it occurs with much higher abundance than in Earth's crust. It was this discovery (for Ir 192 in specific layers near Chicxulub)  that provided the basis for Luis Alvarez' theory.

Mason goes on to babble::

"I find it hard to disagree with the majority (on climate science). However, I also find it hard to disagree with those like Kort Patterson whose opinion I value"

Really? Then you are allowing your subjective emotions (friendship?) to cloud your objective judgment.  It also shows me that you truly do not agree with the majority (the vast climate science research community) if you can also accept Patterson's climate codswallop including his belief in a global conspiracy to promote alarm.  One cannot on the one hand accept the bona fide science, and on the other the inflated and erroneous opinions of a climate know nothing who by virtue of his IQ thinks he's entitled to spout off on anything. (Does Mason also accept evolution at the same time as another friend's creationism? No, didn't think so, anymore than he believes one can square the circle!)

The last statement by Mason is truly pathetic and shows he cares not a whit for the welfare of future generations who are likely to experience heat waves and floods that make the current events seem like minor inconveniences

"The only thing about which I'm confident is that the Global Warming issue needn't generate anywhere near the heat it does".

However, as with his tenuous grasp of basic thermal science, Mason fails to appreciate that most of that 'heat' is a result of the obdurate deniers who calumniate and disparage  the actual climate scientists while they fancy themselves the exponents of real science and its traditions.

The case in point here is one Brewster Gillett, who is supposedly the "proof reader" for PoC  and scribbled the second letter taking me to task, writing that I (along with another writer, Karl Schlotterbeck) evidenced "reduced capacity for appreciation of subtlety in writing". No, I have the appreciation for sure. But NOT when dealing with lame deniers like Kort Patterson whose pseudoscientific claptrap needs to be bluntly exposed, not subtly, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/06/intertels-kort-patterson-conjures-wacko.html

"Subtle" then doesn't cut it if a guy really believes (and bloviates)  that "celestial mechanics" (Milankovitch effect) and solar changes are fully responsible for climate change and that global warming is taking place on Mars. Such a bozo needs to be hit with the metaphorical equivalent of a 2 by 4.

Gillett then bloviates like Patterson before him of the "massive amounts of deception" complaining  we (AGW proponents) somehow embrace "global economic justice" as our real reason to educate fellow citizens' on global warming. Thereby employing the common Libbie trope that global warming science is a "Trojan Horse" for overturning market economics and interjecting socialism or some such B.S.  This sort of tripe isn't even worth dignifying with a full response - only to say it shows the complainant has his head up his ass. (Apart from which no serious scientist would ever be published in a peer reviewed journal if he submitted a paper conflating economic justice with climate change).

Gillett then claims to "have followed the controversy from the very beginning" but one is left to wonder how much he really grasps (if indeed he has grasped any), given he then writes:

"Not one of the alarmists has yet shown any concrete proof that the Industrial Revolution has been responsible for whatever amount of warming the globe is currently experiencing"

But I have on a number of occasions, and not merely in blog posts but also in Port of Call articles and letter. In particular I cited and discussed at length solar physicist's John Eddy's contributions pertaining to the ratios of C14 to C12 over time.














As Eddy observed concerning this output ('The New Solar Physics'. p. 17):

“The gradual fall from left to right (increasing C14/C12 ratio) is…probably not a solar effect but the result of the known, slow decrease in the strength of the Earth’s magnetic moment.[1] exposing the Earth to ever-increased cosmic ray fluxes and increased radiocarbon production.

The sharp upward spike at the modern end of the curve, representing a marked drop in relative radiocarbon, is generally attributed to anthropogenic causes—the mark of increased population and the Industrial Age. The burning of low radiocarbon fossil fuels- coal and oil- and the systematic burning off of the world’s forests for agriculture can be expected to dilute the natural C14/C12 ratio in the troposphere to produce an effect like the one sho wn,"

In other words, we have the "smoking gun" that the onset of accelerated global warming actually commenced in the Industrial Revolution. Add in the fact that the CO2 molecule has an atmospheric lifetime of up to 100 years, and it is essentially 'case closed' for this hypothesis   Indeed, even more information can be extracted from the graph which was originally put forward by P.E. Damon ('The Solar Output and Its Variation', The University of Colorado Press, Boulder, 1977)

Assuming the validity of the arbitrary norm (zero line or abscissa) for 1890, then it is clear that the magnitude of the Middle Ages warming period (relative C14 strength of -18), for example, is less than about ½ the relative effect attributed mainly to anthropogenic sources in the modern era (-40). Even if one fourth the latter magnitude is assigned to solar activity (based on solar variability component detected over 1861-1990 amounting to 0.1- 0.5 W/m^2 vs. 2.0 to 2.8 W/m^2 for heating component arising from greenhouse gas emissions, cf. Martin I. Hoffert et al, in Nature, Vol. 401, p. 764) the anthropogenic effect is at least 3/2 that for the last (exclusively solar) warming period.

These examples disclose a major misunderstanding on the part of these Libertarian climate change deniers: naively expecting deterministic outcomes from disciplines based on stochastic processes. .Thus, a reasonable skeptic must allow for a higher threshold of fuzziness than allowed in celestial mechanics where I can very exactly predict Jupiter's position in 50 years. Further, complaints like Mason's and Gillett's betray an ignorance of the distinction between the predictive standards of different scientific disciplines. A layman with no physics background can be forgiven for overstepping but not  members of a high IQ society which ought to be dedicated to objective inquiry as opposed to hiding behind a political ideology (In this case blatant Libertarianism)

Another ignorant remark by Gillett is:

"the loudest proponents of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) have been deliberately lying and destroying data"

This, again, harks back to the email hack of a few global warming scientists back in 2011. The belief expressed by those like Gillett and his buddy Patterson, doubtless originated from a WSJ article from Nov. 28, 2011 by James Delingspole ('Climategate 2.0", p. A13) . Delingspole wrote at the time that a new release of mails showed that top scientists in the field fudging data, conspiring to bully, and silence opponents and displaying far less certainty about the reliabiity of anthropogenic global warming theory than they ever admit in public"

Delingspole, who is as bad at propaganda as the WC  hacks trying to pass Lee Harvey Oswald off as JFK's assassin, then names the "usual suspects": Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia, and Michael Mann of Penn State University. This, despite the fact that three separate independent investigations found the researchers at East Anglia to be guilty of nothing more aberrant than academic hubris, some mild snark and poor decision making. Certainly nothing to merit expulsion from any professional organizations or dismissal from their university positions as some hysterical deniers demanded.

Another news item missed by this braying  ilk? How a once  prominent climate change skeptic – Richard Muller- decided to use the emails kerfuffle to investigate matters for himself . (The Denver Post, 'Skeptic No Longer Cool to Warming', 11/28/11,  p. 9A). Muller, an atmospheric physicist who was based at the University of California-Berkeley and the Lawrence Livermore National Lab,  completed an extensive study - partly funded by the global warming denier Koch Brothers - which showed land temperatures crept to 1.6 F degrees warmer than in the 1950s, even taking into account the "heat island" effects near cities .

Muller in his research proceeded to plumb a range of data, and went all the way back to the era of Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson for readings in the 18th century. The accumulated evidence from all his data showed agreement with the mainstream global warming research community, that Earth's land temperatures are increasing and more rapidly than ever. Muller presented his results at a subsequent climate conference  asserting (ibid.):

"Greenhouse gases could have a disastrous impact on the world"

That a front and center climate skeptic could utter these words discloses that the claim of "fudging data" is total horse shit. Hence Gillett, and by extension Kort Patterson, are full of total horse shit.

That the likes of this clown Gillett then has the absolute chutzpah to rail about the "abuse of scientific traditions" is the epitome of irony. Because it is HE and his lot of brainwashed minions who are manifestly debasing scientific traditions in the interest of a market economics which ignores real world physics. But we've seen this before and it is the basis of agnotology. This is the term used by Stanford historian of science Robert Proctor to the trend of skeptic science sown deliberately and for political or economic ends.

Sadly, it is a sordid technique employed by the libertarian  intelligentsia of the high IQ societies to try to undermine actual science.  Those interested can read more details here:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/01/as-i-noted-in-earlier-blog-httpbrane.html

Gillett again:

"So the lies go forward and even putatively intelligent people like Stahl and Schlotterbeck apparently accept those lies uncritically as do the masses."

An astounding remark emanating from the keyboard of a person I'd not even regard as "putatively intelligent" given that absurd statement which turns the meaning of actual science on its head. In fact, I do hope that his future proofreading exploits avoid any further genuine scientific contributions.

But maybe he can handle a few from Dr. Steve Mason!

The most amusing sentence in Gillett's wasted space? His final assertion:

"And no, Stahl and Schlotterbeck, I have not now or ever have been in the employ of the petroleum industry."

Missing the point that one doesn't have to be "in the employ" of the fossil fuelers in order to be brainwashed by their propaganda. As Gillett manifestly is, at least to the same extent as his buddy Patterson.

Look, one more thing: I've no objection to those like Gillett, Patterson, Mason or any others arguing from strict economics that they dislike climate research pointing to advancing warming - a result of human activity.  Thereby making the case that economic pain will be a result of accepting the data. But do not dare invoke a specious science of your own ignorant fabrication to try to make an opposite case, and especially to besmirch actual climate scientists like Prof. Gunther Weller who've spend decades accumulating their ice cores' data.

The view reinforced in these latest diatribes is that AGW critics from high IQ societies are basically lazy and aren't prepared to exert their brains by doing actual research and plowing through formal climate science papers. They are also myopic in failing to see beyond their own subjective commitment to economic aspects of their Libertarian ideology.  These aspects obviously would be adversely affected if climate change is real - which it is.

Suffice it to say I don't plan to  submit a response to Patterson's PoC which more and more has become a sounding board for his silly libbie POVs on everything, not just climate change.  First, because it  would be  a waste of time, and Patterson would either cut it short or insert another of his daft "editor's responses", and second, because it would merely elicit more nonsense from the Intertel libbie peanut gallery. It's clear as I said before, that these folks represent perfect examples of what one gets when intelligence runs amuck without guidelines or specialty disciplinary critical thinking to ground it.

Sad, but it discloses that - as my wife Janice put it this morning. -  a high IQ isn't any guarantee of having common sense or even a basic operative intelligence for accurately  perceiving reality. (I.e. the ability to do genuine critical thinking to filter out propaganda and PR). If any of these Intertel climate change critics were serious they'd spend less time in their Libertarian echo chamber of denial and more perusing the site for actual climate science:

www.realclimate.org

These inveterate climate change naysayers could also do themselves a favor by consulting the  "State of the Climate Report" put together by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


Note (8/3): The day before our friend Nan arrived we endured a hail storm almost right out of the hail scene in 'Day After Tomorrow' e.g.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpIeyg8Axs


The insurance assessor came today and inspected our roof then took photos showing it essentially destroyed by impacts estimated to be from hail between tennis and softball size. The inspector acknowledged the massive damage throughout our area including windows blown out, roofs shattered from impacts and decks, fences destroyed. Related to climate change? Of course!
-------

To see the actual policy statement of the American Geophysical Union, the broad organization for most climate research, go to:

http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/files/2013/07/AGU-Climate-Change-Position-Statement_August-2013.pdf

"These are the people who think that intelligent design is real and that climate change is not. They do not want to know better. They do not want to be disputed with “facts” and “statistics” .... Bless their paranoid, passive-aggressive, willfully ignorant hearts"-
Mary Elizabeth Williams, on salon.com

What's the Point of a Professor? More Than You Might Imagine

Evidently,  Emory professor Mark Bauerlein's recent NY Times essay really raised a hue and a cry. In his piece Bauerlein asked “What’s the Point of a Professor?” and answered (in part) that what they should be is examples of “moral authority,” but for a number of reasons they are increasingly becoming morally bankrupt “accreditors” instead.  I'd go even further and say they are almost becoming redundant appendages or even jokes, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-prof-tries-to-fail-his-whole-class.html

Bauerlein's piece inevitably stirred up the proverbial hornet's nest as many professors took umbrage at both Bauerlein’s definition of what a professor should be and his own entitlement to make such assertions.. Indeed, University of Rhode Island History professor Erik Loomis  argued whether Bauerlein should even be in the position to be deciding what other professors are supposed to be. But, good cripes, as a professor with valid experience at one in a 4-year university, why shouldn't he be?

For his part, Bauerlein - in a salon.com interview-  emphasized that his target was four-year colleges where students pursue BA and BS degrees, which is certainly a limitation on the commentary.  He observed:

"The situation at two-year colleges and with vocational education is certainly different. And within that four-year population we have differences among liberal arts colleges, religious institutions, large state universities, etc. But I stand by the general drift, which is sustained by data from NSSE, the American Freshman Survey, the College Senior Survey, Academically Adrift, and longitudinal studies of grade and homework time."

Bauerlein also pointed out that it is even more important that professors impress upon students the moral meaning of their studies. College is a unique time of life, and it passes quickly, and it shouldn't be all about beer keggers, sports, sex hookups and goofing off.  In fact, as Bauerlein put it, most college students will "never again have the chance to discuss why Paolo and Francesca have to suffer so long [for the sin of lust in Canto V of Dante's "Inferno"], what makes the opening measures of Wagner’s “Tristan” so great, who the Neocons were…"    And I would add, never again have the chance to investigate the physics of light or atoms in a properly equipped lab, or learn about the innards of stars.

Bauerleitn's point was impressing upon students a higher eloquence of knowledge, including the significance of the past, the cultivation of taste, the basis for scientific discovery and all the other things that youth culture and mass culture  currently disregard. Indeed, students that dismiss these aspects of college education are likely squandering the most long lasting capital - more important than any job (which may only last a few years). The most perceptive take  on this appeared in an article('The Myth of Higher Education') by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

Mason adds that it "teaches a person to live - not to earn a living" and that living encompasses an impetus for further learning just for its own sake. If a fantastic, well-paying job also comes with it, that's icing on the cake.  This pretty well dovetails with Bauerlein's message as well.

Regarding critical thinking, Bauerlein is also on the mark, relating the importance of having background knowledge of a subject before one can apply critical thinking. We need to build familiarity with significant historical, cultural, political, scientific  phenomena as a prerequisite to critical thinking. (This is the longstanding argument of E.D. Hirsch’s cultural literary project.) The question is what counts as significant. Those who think that critical thinking can be cultivated as easily through the study of “Breaking Bad”  or 'Dexter' as through the study of “Paradise Lost” are naive. We need great books and high culture, works of gravitas and  genius as well as close examination of  events of historical import, political theory and religious doctrine.  We need to inculcate in students to give attention to creations that have stood the test of time, that possess aesthetic excellence and introduce youth to the full range of human experience. Identity is no criterion of selection, nor is political correctness, nor ideology.

Bauerlein raised similar points in his book,“The Dumbest Generation,”, on how all these serious facets of knowledge were more and more being ignored by the younger generation in favor of superficial, social media dilettantism and  time wasting. If any subject was then considered too difficult or troublesome it was ignored.

The result has created a generation of adolescent infants who,  while physically mature, think and behave like overgrown toddlers. Much of this, according to Bauerlein, began with the impetus to "youth self-authorization" in the mid twentieth century - and particularly the invention of a new species of American social creature: the teenager.

Before 1955 or so and the beginning of the 'rock 'n roll' era, teenagers didn't exist. The culture of rock music in tandem with its promoting media (e.g. 'American Bandstand', Ed Sullivan Show) created them with the constant reference to "teenagers"  -reinforced by the rock song titles ('Teenager in love', 'Teen Angel', etc.) Thereby granted specious autonomy as a distinct culture, the "teens" went one further and also extended themselves separate authority - including the authority to render judgments on the adult world and its doings.

What began as the counter culture (and in fact, helped to end the Vietnam War and racial segregation etc.) then became warped and grossly segregated from the larger society in the digital age. As Bauerlein notes:

"The digital age has accelerated the process of “age segregation.” With social media, youths can now spend all their time communicating with one another. It’s easy to tune out the grown-ups: just open that screen."

But, the downside is the kids that have succumbed to this vapid electronic social media void are left in a self-reinforcing bubble of infantile choices, obsessions and thinking. How can it be otherwise when they are so enslaved by their smart phones and texting they can't attend to the education they're supposed to be participating in?













Me, giving an astrophysics lecture in 1980. The idea of pulling out a small device to act as a personal distraction would have been unthinkable back then  - even if they existed.

Back in the early 1980s such distractions as miniature electronic devices, e.g. cell phones, smart phones, Apple watches etc. didn't exist. Students in courses - whether English Lit or astronomy - gave their undivided attention and were the better for it.  Even if such devices did exist, I am convinced these gadgets wouldn't be misused like they are now. Contrast that with the current situation where it's been found Americans now possess an attention span of 8 seconds, a degradation almost certainly to be blamed on addiction to digital media.


Bauerlein again:

They spend ever less time paying attention to grown-ups, and so when a teacher insists that they come in to the office for a face-to-face exchange, many of them falter and resist. We have to break through their reserve and show them that the peer-absorbed world they generally occupy is something to escape in college, not extend.

Most interesting is Baeurlein's take on those who have responded negatively to his book, observing:

The vast majority of emails are blunt, trivial exercises, a way of avoiding substantive contact. The tool invites it. It promotes quick info and casual address. (Some being, “Hey…”) This is one reason I disallow laptops and tablets in class. Close that screen!

Baeurlein's complaint is one I've made a number of times in different posts. That is, the very nature of most electronic media (e.g. Twitter, Facebook) is such that it facilitates 'shoot from the hip' reactions as opposed to reflective ones.  Such digital dumping can occur with mindless responses to a serious matter, such as Marilyn Mosby's recent announcement of charges on 6 Baltimore cops, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/05/conservative-twitterati-try-to-go-after.html

Or it can manifest as imbecilic rants from racists - say to the selection of a "Miss America" candidate they see as "un-American" e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/09/dumbass-racists-lash-out-at-beautiful.html

The point is that the built in limits (140 characters for tweets) almost ensures blatherskite and bombast as opposed to thought. The repetition of such reduced communication almost ensures - along with the diminishing attention span  - we may end up like the nation portrayed in Mike Judge's spoof  'Idiocracy'.

Bauerlein's other point about prompting "quick info" - e.g. from rapid Googling, is also on the mark,  and some would argue it's the only way to get information. To which I'd respond, that if you don't also know how to go to one of those old fashioned buildings called libraries (even if they have computers) and use them to locate actual source periodicals and books, you are fooling yourself.

You may also wish to consider what will transpire that fateful day, 100 years past Peak Oil (estimated to have been in 2005),  when electronic devices only work for limited periods or require special generators since the main power grids have all collapsed - both from lack of maintenance and .....energy to drive them.

Sadly, Bauerlein's call for imparting moral authority will likely fall on deaf ears, since most profs and students have already been acculturated to the Neoliberal mode of consumption as the only "authority", i.e. for the "marketplace".

Yes! A 4-Year College Degree Should Be Required of Presidents!

The topic for discussion at the end of Chris Hayes' 'All In' last night was whether or not Presidents - and hence Presidential candidates  - ought to have 4-year college degrees. Hayes played some clips from the usual clowns on 'Fox n' Friends' that rejected the idea as "typical liberal elitism"  and one of the Fox dunderheads actually cited "Jesse Ventura, Barbara Streisand, Mark Zuckerberg and Steve Jobs" as not having 4-year college degrees.

Yeah, but none of those luminaries or celebs will ever have their hands on the nuclear football! Sorry, but call me a "liberal elitist" - I want  a person to at least have that qualification before assuming the highest office in the land.

The Fox clowns also cited the fact that "31 million Americans left college before getting their degree" - a point Hayes also reinforced while playing Devil's advocate. But again, none of those 31 million would be contending for the highest office in the land anyway. So the point is irrelevant.

One of the other guests acknowledged that the issue probably comes to down to whether you want a "President you can have a beer with" or a "President who knows a thing or two about a thing or two". Well, since neither I (or anyone else) would ever have a chance of having a beer with any Prez, it's immaterial - hence a foolish barometer by which to judge Presidential caliber. About as foolish as using John Stewart as a medium to get your political information. (About which I will have more to say in a coming post).

I'd like to refer once more to the take ('The Myth of Higher Education') offered by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel.  As he writes:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

This is totally germane to any person who aspires to the Presidency. Especially the last two sentences on contributing to a better understanding of language and culture, and expanding horizons while replacing faith and belief with reason and logic. These are exactly the ideals or ideal attributes which the citizen ought to demand in his President. (Of course, a President could still turn into an illogical dummy or ....more commonly.....might be known to be such before election, as Dumbya Bush was in 2000. But that's on a Supreme Court that shoehorned him into office, as well as his then FLA governor brother (Jeb), who with his Secretary of State put tens of thousands of African -Americans on felons' rolls so they couldn't vote).

Chris Hayes also raised the point that Scott Walker, for example, had already finished 3 1/2 years at Marquette University - a "fine private school" (to use Chris' parlance)  just like Loyola which I attended for two years before moving on to Univ. of South Florida where I could specialize in astronomy and astrophysics. Chris, again as Devil's advocate, asked why that can't be enough.

Well, here's the deal, almost getting a degree, irrespective of university, isn't the same as actually getting it!  One has to carefully plan and apportion courses - required and electives- semester by semester, with the credit hours needed, and which are specifically demanded by the particular department. This is not that easy and often courses or credit hours can come up short - showing poor oversight or lack of planning. But one of the traits we want in Presidents is precisely attention to detail when a particular objective is in sight and also competent planning toward that end.

Scott Walker's failure to get his degree - never mind his excuse of going to "work in Chicago"-  still doesn't let him off the hook. And to that end, if he wants to remain Governor of Wisconsin, fine (though I do object to his right wing politics) but not to become President. Scott's three and a half years and lack of finishing is ok for the state job, but not getting near to the nuclear football -with the ability to launch nuclear missiles, at Russia say.

I want a person who's gone the whole way and finished what he started, demonstrating foresight and planning capabilities. The degree doesn't have to be from Harvard or the Ivies but it ought to be from a real, certified school - preferably not an online school.  (But GRE scores can always be required from  the latter types to validate quality.)

Chris asked if this should be a "deal breaker" and in my mind, yes it should. All other things being equal - and hey, if we suspect they aren't - we can always demand to see the potential President's GRE scores in history and political science!

See also:

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/26/the_rights_fear_of_education_what_i_learned_as_a_former_conservative_military_man/

Is College Really the "Worst Decision" a Young Person Can Make? That Depends!

LEFT: Loyola freshman Theology class, ca. 1964.





BELOW: One night's freshman Theology homework for Loyola University, (Sept. 1964)















According to salon.com writer Matthew Saccaro attending college is the "worst decision" a young person can make. He writes:

Each autumn, millions of young Americans parade into colleges with cheap plastic furniture in tow, expecting their work over the next four years to result in a career worth going into debt for. Instead, they jeopardize their futures. There’s not a worse decision a young American can make than attending college sans parental money or massive scholarship. 


When I went off to Loyola University on scholarship in September, 1964, I really had no idea whether it would be a good decision or bad. All I knew is that I was offered a full tuition scholarship so why not take the opportunity? (I took out a student loan to pay for room & board.)  After all, I'd hoped I hadn't spent 3 years on Mgsr. Pace High's Honor Roll for nothing!  If you're excelling in the academic domain, why not continue in that domain?

After arriving at Loyola, and seeing all the theology courses I had to take, I began having second thoughts - given I was a religious skeptic already, and on the path to atheism. But the science and math subjects more than made up for it. As things turned out, college was the right decision - not because it enabled me to make more money - but because it exposed me to people and ideas I'd never have encountered otherwise. In other words, it helped me grow, as well as develop the critical thinking skills I have.

Saccaro again:

Let’s start off with the basics. In 2012, 71 percent of all students who graduated accrued some amount of student loan debt, with the average amount of debt soaring to $29,400. More than half of student loans officially became delinquent or in deferral in 2013. New information indicates this trend will only worsen; recent college graduates face the worst unemployment rate in more than 20 years, as well as severe underemployment, with 44 percent of grads saying they could find work but not enough of it. Not even the vaunted STEM fields are immune from the perils of cheap labor, smartsizing, and the Great Recession. 

All of this is true, of course, but doesn't necessarily mean college is a terrible decision or the "worst decision" a young person can make. As far as the loan debt and delinquency this has arisen because the loan burdens are much greater today than in my era when National Defense Student loans were available, at 1 percent interest, and the draconian measures to demand payback weren't in place.

The STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) fields are affected adversely because the investments in research have declined - a phenomenon almost in lockstep with our nation's refusal to continue to invest in its infrastructure. Earl  Shorris, the author of  'A Nation of Salesmen: The Tyranny of the Market and the Subversion of  Culture', has pointed out that one reason support of culture and abstract research has declined is on account of too little saving by Americans as a whole, giving rise to a bottom basement commercial culture.  We'd rather spend, spend and spend.....on foolishness, than put it into support for learning and research. Why else have so many states' voters rejected essential tax increases for state universities, as here in Colorado - which leaves them with no choice but to raise tuition? Of course this means higher loans are needed by their kids to attend college, and it will take longer to pay them off. But the parents would rather buy a new HDTV than invest in higher education.

Saccaro then throws what he obviously believes is his best punch:

Here’s where college apologists will say debt used to acquire a degree is “good debt” since it ultimately pays off in the end — both because the degree will land you a job and provide “intellectual enrichment” and “critical thinking” and other impossible to quantify, dubious buzzwords used in college marketing pamphlets across the country. 

This baby boomer-esque sentiment is garbage. 

Not really! The points about intellectual enrichment and critical thinking ARE well taken, provided the college student takes full advantage of acquiring such benefits. If he just attends to pledge a fraternity or attend keg parties, then obviously the debt amassed is for bad reasons and counterproductive.  As for "getting a job"- especially a high paying one, no one is promised that. And no college degree can guarantee it..

 A highly perceptive take ('The Myth of Higher Education') offered by Dr. Steven B. Mason in an issue of Integra (No. 9, Oct.  2010) the journal of Intertel, is that a huge error of American education is orientating it explicitly for the utilitarian purpose of making money or getting a job. As he writes:

"the bottom line regarding a well -rounded education is that it has nothing to do with any kind of bottom line. Its value (non-monetary) is to be found in the quality it adds to one's life. It allows one to better appreciate music, art, history and literature. It contributes to a better understanding of language and culture, nature and philosophy. It expands rather than limits horizons and replaces faith and belief with reason and logic"

Mason adds that it "teaches a person to live - not to earn a living" and that living encompasses an impetus for further learning just for its own sake. If a fantastic, well-paying job also comes with it, that's icing on the cake.

Again, whether Saccaro accepts this is Boomer piffle or not is irrelevant. At least for those who DO attend college for the best reasons there IS a payoff, and it inheres exactly in what Steve Mason  describes.  I would also add that the college experience also incites the curiosity and desire for continued learning as well. Thus, many of us with college degrees continue to avail ourselves of academic exposure - such as in the open courses at MIT or Yale - not to mention continue to do research, and access current academic papers to stay abreast of our specialties.

Sure these are "impossible to quantify" but that's not a benchmark to use to reject the argument that college can be beneficial for a significant percentage of young people  - even if they don't land a job on Wall Street, or in some bank. 

There are other points that Saccaro makes which can be taken more seriously, and these also concern some issues with which I've also had a beef regarding current higher Ed. He writes:

In 2011, a Chronicle of Higher Education study found that “large numbers of U.S. college students can be accurately described as academically adrift. They might graduate, but they are failing to develop the higher-order cognitive skills that it is widely assumed college students should master.” To put it in less pedantic language, students are paying tens of thousands of dollars for a degree and walking away equally empty-headed as they were when they graduated high school, straight-A’s notwithstanding. The degree, which failed to get them a job, failed to educate them as well

This is spot on and in earlier blogs I highlighted my pet peeves with many universities in the modern era. As long ago as January,  2011 I pointed out that barely one -fifth of  college freshman are required to take any course in which they have to read more than 30 pages per week, or write (compose) more than three, 3-page essays or homework papers per term. To top this off, the plurality leave college or university with next to zero critical thinking skills, as betrayed by one stat which indicated most of these graduates were unable to read an editorial or newspaper page and discern the facts presented from opinions!

My recollection of my own first year college experience (e.g. at Loyola University, New Orleans, 1964-65) was in stark contrast. Escaping writing? You've got to be kidding! Attached for example, is one night's homework from the Freshman Theology class. Each of these questions had to be finished to completion with sound and well-reasoned responses provided - no short cuts and no doing the equivalent of copying from books (for today's students)!

This type of assignment, which usually consumed at least seven written pages, sometimes eight (depending on the questions) was given three times each week conforming with the frequency of the class. In addition, more detailed questions would often be asked in the class pertaining to the assignment.

Given the recent U.S. college survey results, it appears not 1 in 20 of today's students would be able to keep up with such a course. I warrant most would probably take a drop class before two weeks elapsed.

Even more appalling to me, is how today's students seem to be getting breaks galore regarding grades.  One stat that struck my eye recently was that 60% of ALL grades awarded at Harvard were A's! Of course, this is preposterous and renders the A given meaningless. You simply cannot have three fifths of all grades awarded in the 'excellent' category. Even if ALL your students are putatively 'excellent' the A's among that group can't be more than 10% at most, meaning if there are 300 students in a large class only 30 can get an A. (And a prof's tests, mid-terms and final exams, as well as homework assignments ought to seek such discrimination via a Gaussian or normal distribution!)

The rule at Loyola (as at many other universities at the time) was that to garner a Gentleman's 'C' you did 2 hours of outside study for each hour in class attendance. (This did not include written assignments). To get a 'B' for a typical 18-credit hour (normal- at that time) load, one would have to invest at least 3 x 18 = 54 hours a week in study! In other words, nearly all these college kids today would have flunked out at Loyola. Which leads me to conclude that most Cs given back in the 60s are equivalent to most As today!

So why are they such high fliers? Much of the problem to do with grade inflation began with the absurd "teacher evaluations" - which placed a power in  immature students' hands that was hitherto unavailable. Trouble is, the power has been misused and abused to the point profs are terrified of giving anything less than a 'B' for fear of retribution on the eval form! (Which many universities and colleges egregiously use for judging whether the prof is tenure-worthy - or worth just retaining in a assistant professorship-   as opposed to being relegated to the realm of the adjunct.)

Notwithstanding all these grievances and complaints, I still maintain the serious student can get his money's worth from even a university that doles out A's like free popcorn. The chief way is to realize that you may be part of an elaborate con and you need to use other measures to ensure you're really as good as your class grade says. For example, a physics B.Sc. graduate can gauge his academic creds by way of the GRE Advanced test - or just taking the GRE sample test problems I've posted on this blog. Are you really an 'A'  Physics student?  Did you really graduate summa cum laude? Then you ought to get at least 93 of the 100 problems I post correct!

Beyond that, the serious student can still develop his critical thinking skills to the fullest in the college environment by always delivering homework assignments - especially written ones - to your maximum effort. Don't take short cuts and even if most of your peers finish their assignments in 1 hour, make sure that yours are much better, even if they take two or three times longer.

Saccaro leaves his best insights for last:

All this horror awaits if you succeed at college and get your degree in four years. Your fate is worse if you attend but then decide academia, even at its lowest level, isn’t for you. Failing to jump through the hoops carries a steep price of debt and unemployment; more than half of unemployed Americans have attended at least some college. Attending college might be the worst decision you can make as a young adult in America. You’re paying for nothing that you can’t get elsewhere for less money or free, save for the piece of paper with a con man’s signature on it.

He is, of course, correct that if you're really diligent you can get the same course content (pretty much) for free. For example, taking a set of courses at the MIT open courseware site, e.g.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/audio-video-courses/

 that embodies pretty well all that would be required for a B.Sc. or B.A. degree.  But is taking a set of courses online the same? No it isn't.   Any intelligent student is bound to encounter problems or difficulties in any course. In the online setting, you're on your own. There's no chance to meet one-to-one with a professor and hash out the difficulty. At Loyola, for example, professors were always available and also conducted tutorials (weekly meetings with only a few students for problem solving or question resolution purposes. ).   When I taught  Space Physics (including labs) at the University of Alaska-Fairbanks, I always set aside office hours to meet one- on- one with students having difficulties. Often the resolutions were fairly simple, but sometimes they required tutoring students in their  math methods - which  they already ought to have under their belts..

A student- I don't care how diligent he or she is-   simply can't obtain the same measure of mastery without that intense contact which is directed to the sole purpose of resolving the difficulty. It simply isn't the same as staring at a passive computer monitor - or even 'participating'  in an online tutorial or physics class -  when you can't get answers to questions or immediate feedback at that instant.  (Let's not even get into the difficulty of doing proper labs, say in physics and chemistry, without an instructor to guide you in terms of correct technique, methods.)

Thus, grabbing all your free content from courses online, though it may seem to be the same, isn't really - because you've not had the benefit of professional guidance or direction. Nor will you have had the benefit of thrashing out arguments with your peers in what we used to call 'bull sessions' - all equally important to developing critical thinking.

Finally, you won't have had the experience of attending seminars in person given by terrific thinkers   - such as Jean -Paul Sartre at Loyola, in 1965, or William Fowler and Martin Schwarzschild at Univ. of South Florida in 1970. 

In terms of cost vs. benefit each young person certainly has to make his or her own determination on whether college is worth it.  My advice again,  for what it's worth, is that if you're considering college exclusively as a 'meal ticket' then it's probably the wrong decision.

Yep, Lots of Snow....But There's Still Global Warming!

Graph of radiocarbon (C14) excess over C12 over ~ 2,000 yr. period. The zero level is an arbitrary norm referenced to 1890. This is some of the best evidence for man-made global warming but few who have never taken physics can grasp its significance.


Wifey and I while shoveling out our driveway the other morning joked about all the snow, and how some lamebrains might pick up on it and deny - on the basis of the latest huge snowstorm- that global warming /climate change is real.  And, truth be told, when you see some of the idiotic comments in the blogosphere, you realize just how many in our population aren't able to make the subtle but necessary connections.

This false cognitive dissonance phenomenon, as well as others (i.e. fundies trying to recruit astrophysics to support their creationist codswallop) reminds me of a recent article ( ‘Darwin’s March’) in the Intertel journal, INTEGRA (Feb., p.27), by Dr. Steven B. Mason.  He notes that in some public schools, the teaching of evolution (or "Darwin's march") must share equal time with "creation Science", adding:

‘Mostly this is a system of explaining by inventing and couldn’t be further from the understanding, predicting and controlling of a true science. But it sounds good to those that don’t know better and most people don’t. Learning a hard science like mathematics or chemistry or  physics is, well, hard  The vast majority of humans are simply incapable of doing so. And yet this obvious fact is sure to be hooted and hollered down.”

Indeed! And on that basis, Mason correctly refutes the silly notion that "we're all capable of learning whatever we put our minds to".

But in order to puncture that myth that anyone can learn anything, and hence idiot fundies are as entitled to expostulate on general astrophysics - stellar structure - the Big Bang - as I am, is what requires those of us who have studied the hard sciences to post tests of aptitude from time to time, to see if these windbags can walk the walk as well as talk the talk.

For similar reasons, climate deniers (like fundie creationists) are equally childish and uneducated. Mainly they don't learn the physics of climate or atmsopheric research themselves, but google it from assorted whacko freaks who pride themselves on an abiding ignorance.  Also, they have extreme difficulty processing blogs that present actual scientific data and report them accurately, see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2010/12/carbon-isotope-ratios-and-climate.html

Thus, it's not surprising they'd have extreme difficulty reconciling the huge recent snowfalls, and even blizzards, with the reality of global warming.  But the answer lies in atmospheric physics, if one is prepared to dig it out.  The basics? Well, a warmer atmosphere can hold, and hence 'dump', more moisture including as snow. In fact, two soon-to-be-published studies demonstrate how there can be more giant blizzards yet less snow overall each year. Projections from such studies are therefore that such anomalous events are likely to continue with manmade global warming. This will remain until a critical threshold is reached, probably when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere hits 550 ppm. Then, we will have the first year of no seasons, and no more snow-blizzard events, only warming. And how it will warm!

Consider the anomalous aspect: The United States has been walloped by twice as many of the most extreme snowstorms in the past 50 years than in the previous 60 years, according to an upcoming study on extreme weather by leading federal and university climate scientists.  Yet the Global Snow Lab at Rutgers University says spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has shrunk on average by 1 million square miles in the past 45 years.

Another anomaly: computer models predict annual global snowfall to shrink by more than a foot in the next 50 years. According to Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer:

""Shorter snow season, less snow overall, but the occasional knockout punch.That's the world we live in."

Other climate scientists assert that the idea of less snow and more blizzards makes sense: A warmer world is likely to decrease the overall amount of snow falling each year and shrink the snow season. But when it is cold enough for a snowstorm to hit, the slightly warmer air is often carrying more moisture, producing potentially historic blizzards. According to Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center


"Strong snowstorms thrive on the ragged edge of temperature—warm enough for the air to hold lots of moisture, meaning lots of precipitation, but just cold enough for it to fall as snow. Increasingly, it seems that we're on that ragged edge."

As Exhibit 'A',  look at the last few years in the Northeast. Or take Chicago, which until late January had 335 days without more than an inch of snow. Both have been hit with historic storms in recent years.

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann points to the recent Northeast storm that dumped more than 30 inches in some places. He said it was the result of a perfect set of conditions for such an event: arctic air colliding with unusually warm oceans that produced extra large amounts of moisture and big temperature contrasts, which drive storms. Those all meant more energy, more moisture and thus more snow, he said.

And Princeton researcher Sarah Kapnick adds:

"The world is warming so precipitation that would normally fall as snow in the future will probably fall as rain once it gets above the freezing point."

This will plausibly happen when the 550 ppm threshold is reached. So we can look for an ugly world divided by extreme drought and torrential rains, that pour and pour. For others, living in the 'heat zones', unremitting and unbearable heat will be the order of the day as temperatures regularly hit 115F in the shade and night time temperatures seldom dip below 100F. This will be amongst the first omens to signal the approach of the runaway greenhouse.

Will the poppets who deny global warming take note? Of course not! They all think - like too many of the fundies- they can blather on about anything to do with physics, or biology or chemistry, despite never having taken and passed a single university course!