About a year ago, an enormous iceberg split off the Petermann glacier in Greenland. Taken by the current, it headed south, and just last month was off the coast of Labrador. The iceberg was over 20 km (12 miles) long. On August 22, NASA’s Terra satellite took a look at it and saw this: I [...]

With such an amazing guest post on Wednesday, I didn’t get to post my own DeSmogBlog piece (which is actually related to, but far less consequential than, Andrea Kuszewski’s). So I thought I would do it now.

Basically, the piece looks at new data showing that Tea Partiers are considerably worse than mainline Republicans in their rejection of global warming. What I find most disturbing about this is the level of certainty among Tea Party members that they’re right–e.g., the people who are most wrong are most sure of themselves.

Once again, reminds me of Yeats:

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Yeats thought this state of affairs signaled the Second Coming was at hand. Unfortunately, I think it’s part of human nature and will be with us as long as we’re on this rock.

Anyway, more specifically with regard to Tea Partiers’ certainty:

“Tea Party members are much more likely to say that they are ‘very well informed’ about global warming than the other groups,” according to the Yale study. “Likewise, they are also much more likely to say they ‘do not need any more information’ about global warming to make up their mind.”

What do we make of this? Why would this be? Here’s my attempt to answer:

Well, the study also shows that Tea Partiers are more likely than other Republicans to be “born again” Christians and to doubt evolution, and highly individualistic and anti-egalitarian in their moral values.

In short, what we appear to be seeing in them is a kind of merger of right wing free market views on the one hand, and the unwavering certainty associated with certain forms of fundamentalist religion on the other.

They know they’re right, they know that liberals and scientists—and most of all, President Obama—are wrong, and there is no swaying them in that. (There is also some reason to think that Tea Party members are authoritarian in their outlook, wanting to impose various types of Christian views in government.)

When you merge this with previous data on white male conservatives and climate change, it becomes apparent that the person least likely to change his mind on this issue and accept the science is a 1) white 2) male 3) conservative 4) Tea Party American.

You can read the full DeSmogBlog item here.

Umbilicus as a fitness signal in humans.

“Typically, mammalian umbilical cord forms a tiny, stable, and asymmetrical scar. In contrast, humans have a clearly visible umbilicus that changes with age and nutrients gathered. Based on this, I propose that umbilicus, together with the surrounding skin area, is an honest signal of individual vigour. More precisely, I suggest that the symmetry, shape, and position of umbilicus can be used to estimate the reproductive potential of fertile females, including risks of certain genetically and maternally inherited fetal anomalies. The idea is supported by a comparative study where symmetrical t-shaped and oval-shaped umbilici of fertile females were considered the most attractive. Further support comes from observations that abnormal velocity of umbilical cord has been associated with fetal brain development, diabetes, and other fitness-related properties with a strong genetically or maternally inherited component. In addition, umbilicus and the umbilical skin area may reveal nutrimental competitive ability, and need for social care in small children and pregnant females. The novel hypothesis explains why umbilicus has aesthetic value, and why umbilicus has had a distinctive role in different cultures. If further research confirms the signalling hypothesis, female umbilici may be routinely measured to detect risk pregnancies of several fetal abnormalities.”

Image: flickr/jessicafm

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Attack of the belly button lint!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: The nature of navel fluff.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: An explanation for the shape of the human penis.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

Last year, while I was working on a profile for the New York Times of a virus hunter named Ian Lipkin, he told me he was consulting on a Hollywood movie about the outbreak of a new pathogen. Kate Winslet would be an epidemiologist. Lawrence Fishburne would work at the Centers for Disease Control. He [...]

Patient Data Posted Online in Major Breach of Privacy: A medical privacy breach at Stanford University’s hospital in Palo Alto, Calif., led to the public posting of medical records for 20,000 emergency room patients, including names and diagnosis codes, on a commercial Web site for nearly a year, the hospital has confirmed. Since discovering the [...]

Krishna with milk-maids Unlike in some Asian societies dairy products are relatively well known in South Asia. Apparently at some point my paternal grandmother’s family operated a milk production business. This is notable because Bengal is not quite the land of pastoralists. In much of North India milk and milk-products loom larger, in particular ghee. [...]

Many birds sing to woo females, but some hummingbirds go to great lengths to do so. They climb to between 5 and 40 metres before plummeting past perched females in death-defying dives. They pull up at the last minute, spread their tail feathers and produce a loud chirpy song. The song comes not from the [...]

One thing that came to the fore in late 2008 was the worry that a financial regulatory regime which had been exceeding lax was now more conscious of the excesses of the previous era. The problem being that one will not necessarily be prepared for the next crisis. Similarly, terrorist actions such as those of [...]

It is time for an announcement. Well, two actually. Or maybe three.

What can I say: I’m a liberal. I have an unfortunate and ill-advised tendency to data dump.

So…for the past year, I’ve been working on a book that I’ve remained mum about, though you have definitely seen me blogging and doing articles on related themes (and publishing guest posts on them)–because one can hardly help oneself. And those of you that enjoyed my first book, The Republican War on Science, will be pretty interested, I think, in the new one. Especially as the campaign heats up.

Now, the deadline is approaching, even as my travel threatens to pick up again–and I find that I could use some research assistance.

In particular, I’m looking for someone willing to help me collect a set of easily available data together into a “study” format where these data can be analyzed—nothing very painful or intensive, but still a little laborious. (But oh, what we shall find! Uh, I think.)

Preferably, this will be someone with statistics training or a social science background. But it doesn’t have to be. Just someone organized would do.

Aspiring helpful folks can email me or contact me on Twitter or Facebook.

…yeah.

Second, and also kind of important: The blog known as “The Intersection” has been through many changes and iterations over its nearly 10 year existence. And now it is time for another.

We’ve been showing sustained traffic highs here over the past several months, with the help of some great guest bloggers (Jon, Jamie, and occasional others). But Discover & I are nonetheless parting ways.

“The Intersection” is instead relocating to become the central blog of Science Progress, the science policy website of the Center for American Progress.

My intention is certainly to continue to have lots of guest bloggers over there, in addition to myself. So contact me if you want to get involved (links above).

The move will take effect, if all goes swimmingly, on September 12/13. Old posts will remain here, and a permanent redirect update post will be put up. There is no URL yet for the new blog, so stand by on that.

I will also continue my twice weekly climate science posts at DeSmogBlog. And hosting Point of Inquiry once every two weeks, on Monday.

Okay, that’s a lot….but I hope you will all continue to tune in for the new book and new blog!

Was Canada mocked one too many times at the last UN meeting/G20 powwow? Because they seem to be satisfying a serious manpower inferiority complex with plenty of…blimppower.

The floating objects are NOT blimps, says Hybrid Air Vehicles, the company that makes them and is selling 45 to Canadian flight company Discovery Air—they’re lighter-than-air vessels. But they look pretty blimpy to us. And combined with the Canadian military’s recent purchase of a prototype stealth (wait for it) snowmobile, we see the seeds for an epic motion-picture event: the Great Canadian Wars of 2012. Waterworld at -12 degrees!

But who, exactly, would they be fighting up there? Canada has no northern neighbor, except for wee harp seals and lemmings (there are polar bears, of course, but they’ve got bigger things to worry about). The blimpish vehicles, which lift off using buoyancy from helium and carry up to 55 tons, will be used for moving heavy cargo for industrial projects in the far north, according to a press release from HAV (though the vessels are also useful for military surveillance and materiel transport, according their site). Getting places in the northern climes, where extreme cold and ice make plane and car travel difficult, is a toughie, and these babies need no runway, can hover like a helicopter, and can carry massive amounts of stuff from point A to point B.

But the military snowmobiles? Who knows. Even if Canada is prepping for the resource-rush that will likely ensue as the Arctic melts, they’d be better off investing in ships. Or, maybe, more blimps.

[via New Scientist]

Image courtesy of HAV

It is dawn in a European forest, and gypsy moth caterpillars are looking for somewhere to hide. With early birds starting to rise, the caterpillars will spend the day in bark crevices or buried in soil. But one of them is behaving very strangely. While its peers head downwards, this one climbs upwards, to the [...]

So, last night was another debate among the Republican candidates for President. While Ron Paul appears to have done quite well, at least according to an MSNBC poll, it was Rick Perry who is grabbing headlines. Of course, that’s because what he said was outrageously awful. About climate science, he said, "…just because you have [...]

So, is Facebook trying to get me to move to New Hampshire? So which should I choose? Live Free or Dye? Note: the picture above is real, and I have Emily’s permission to use her friend request for this post. The person going by "Live Free", however, withdrew their request for some reason. I searched [...]

[Ed note: This isn't exactly a ROFL, but we thought this story was too crazy for our readers to miss.]

Full-sibling embryos created by anonymous gamete donation in unrelated recipients.

“OBJECTIVE: To report the rare occurrence of full-sibling embryos in unrelated women using independently chosen donor sperm and donor oocytes in two different cycles unintentionally created at our IVF program, and to discuss the concept of disclosure to the patients. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: Academic IVF program. PATIENT(S): Two women independently undergoing donor recipient cycles with anonymous donor oocytes and donor sperm. INTERVENTION(S): Both women received oocytes from the same donor several months apart and then by coincidence selected the same anonymous sperm donor to create anonymous full-sibling embryos. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy after donor-recipient IVF cycle. RESULT(S): Both women conceived using the same donor sperm and donor oocytes in independent cycles, resulting in simultaneous pregnancy of full siblings. CONCLUSION(S): As providers with the knowledge that anonymous full sibling embryos have been created, we may have an obligation to disclose this information to the patients.”

Via: Oransky’s Thoughts That Won’t Go Elsewhere
Photo: flickr/Nina Matthews Photography

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Get this baby out of me!
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: That’s one miraculous conception.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!

This is a guest post by Tim Broderick, a Chicago resident with a keen interest in science and science education.

One of the most painful moments in the film “Jesus Camp” (and there are many) comes when a parent homeschooling her children talks about evolution. The kids are shown watching creationist videos mocking science, and are then led, in a lesson, to reject and question science for no other reason than for a religious fundamentalist view of the world.

Contrast that with the image of a church congregation whose members join together to honestly explore their faith through exploration of science.

Now, think about at least 90 congregations wanting to do that.

St. John’s Episcopal Church, located on the northwest side of Chicago, is one of those 90 congregations. It’s a church that’s diverse in its politics as well as in beliefs. Yet St. John’s also blessed same-sex unions before they became legal in Illinois, promotes environmental causes, works with a local homeless mission and hosted two Darwin Day celebrations in the past three years.

As one of the instigators of those Darwin Day events, I was approached earlier this year by Rev. Kara Wagner Sherer, the pastor of St. Johns, to help put together a grant proposal. The grant – Scientists in Congregations, sponsored by the Templeton Institute – sought to help congregations identify scientists among them interested in teaming with a religious leader to design a program to explore science and inform a dialogue about faith. The long-term aim of the the grant was to create a model program that other congregations could use as well.

We put together what we felt was a pretty interesting program – looking at the Dover evolution trial, global warming, cosmology and neuroscience.

And then an interesting thing happened last week.

We didn’t get the grant. It turns out we were one of about 90 churches interested in elevating the voices of scientists in our congregation. Looking back, I suspect we likely drew too much on the opportunities afforded us by the world-class museums located here in Chicago. It’s not something that a small church in Mississippi, for instance, could easily adopt.

But what’s interesting isn’t that we didn’t get the grant, it’s that after our proposal was turned down, the people involved in putting it together expressed an interest in going ahead with our program anyway.

The first portion – centered around a reading drawn from the exerpts of the Dover evolution trial transcripts – is planned for our 2012 Darwin Day celebration.

As we go forward, we’ll see what we can pull from the other modules. Funding will be a challenge, but there are likely other opportunities for grants that we can explore. I’m particularly interested in doing something with global warming because there has been some skepticism expressed about the science. I think it would be an interesting discussion.

In the raging debate online about science-religion compatibility – a debate I’ve participated in – these kind of efforts gets lost. It’s important to remember that for many people, the question of whether science and religion is compatible isn’t very interesting.

Exploring how they’re compatible is, even if it means challenging one’s own beliefs.

I’ve decided I need to become a programmer again. As an undergrad, and to a lesser extent as a grad student, I wrote code all the time. But since I started doing research, it’s been pencil-and-paper almost all the way through, with occasional dips into Mathematica or plotting programs.

That must end, so I’ve decided to learn Python. I just need something simple for number-crunching and graphics, and everyone in the know seems to have nice things to say about the language. (Secretly I would like to play around with genetic algorithms and cellular automata, but I’m not going to admit that.) I tried to get Fortran, my previous language of choice, up and running on my Mac … it didn’t go well.

So… any tips? Pointers to well-written resources and tutorials (online or in print) would be especially helpful. Keep in mind that the target audience is an aging theoretical physicist who hasn’t programmed in 20 years, and for that matter has been pretty much command-prompt free (working on my Mac) for the last five.

The things I admit in public on this blog, sheesh.

Risa already blogged about James’ Op-Ed piece in the LA Times. We should also mention another excellent Op-Ed piece by an astronomer in the past week: Priya Natarajan discussing math education in the Huffington Post. She starts:

This has been the summer of our numerical discontent.
As a nation, we’ve been riveted by the debates over the debt-ceiling crisis, the credit downgrade, the dizzying ascents and descents of the stock market. But how many people actually understand the numbers they’re watching?

Priya decries the general innumeracy we see everyday, writ large and small. She argues persuasively for an increased focus on math education, especially in light of the current fiscal troubles.

It is critical that the science community reach out to the general public, and opinion pieces in newspapers are an incredibly effective way to do this (blogs aren’t too shabby, either). Op-Eds allow individuals from all walks of life to communicate directly with the public, without being mediated by reporters, radio hosts, or TV producers. And they reach literally millions of people. These two terrific examples from Priya and James will hopefully help encourage other scientists to get involved, and make their opinions known.

If you were this man, you’d be smiling too. The man is Lee Berger, a paleoanthropologist at the University of Witwatersrand in South Africa. He’s holding the skull of Australopithecus sediba, a 1.98 million year old relative of humans, otherwise known as a hominin. In April 2010 Berger and his colleagues first unveiled the fossil [...]

When I first saw this picture of NGC 2100, I thought it was a globular cluster. But I was wrong. That happens sometimes. Still, it’s worth it to see such a magnificent photo: Yegads! What a shot! [Click to enstellarnate.] Globular clusters are tightly packed collections of thousands of stars in a roughly spherical shape [...]

Self-perceived technical orientation and attitudes toward being flattered.

“An investigation was done of the relationship between scores on the Technical Orientation Scale and self-ratings of liking to be flattered among 103 working adults. As hypothesized, scores for technical orientation were negatively correlated with two self-report measures of liking to be flattered. Women had a significantly stronger rating for liking to be flattered. We conclude that a technical orientation may be a moderator variable for the potential of liking to be flattered.”

Photo: flickr/inkjetprinter

Related content:
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Okay, so when are men *not* thinking about food, sex, and sleep?
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Why women like men in red cars.
Discoblog: NCBI ROFL: Apparently women (but not men) like monkey sex… literally.

WTF is NCBI ROFL? Read our FAQ!