Global Political Economy and the body

I wrote a post on a shared blog I co-author, An Embodied World, that has relevance for this generally GPE-focused blog:
Putting the human body (back) in GPE 

A personal post: my weight loss

I normally use this blog for commenting on global political economy issues, and I tweet my posts to publicize.  This post is more personal: Nothing embarrassing, nothing that I am unwilling to share with friends and acquaintances and even strangers, but certainly not professional.

Over the past year, I have lost a lot of weight tracking my food intake and exercise.  This has been gradual, so people who see me every day may not really notice.  But I posted a picture of my new self on Facebook, and people who haven't seen me for a while are astonished.  It's a big change.

Lots of people have asked how I did it.  The short answer is by carefully tracking my food intake and exercise using myfitnesspal.com, which I can access on my computer, my cell phone, and my tablet.  The longer answer has to do with my relationship to food and exercise.

First came a more serious commitment to exercise several years ago.  My goal has been at least ½ hour cardio exercise 5 days a week.  I decided I deserved to enjoy exercise: I deserve to enjoy "play-outs," not suffer through workouts.  I enjoy listening to music, watching TV, or reading for pleasure (magazines, junky novels) while walking on the treadmill, peddling an exercise bike, or using the elliptical.  We purchased both a treadmill and an elliptical, both strategically placed near TV screens. Even better is walking around a track (more comfortable than a treadmill), so I knew I wanted to join a gym.  When we moved to Baltimore and I joined the Hopkins faculty, I quickly discovered that the recreation center on campus has something that makes it truly wonderful: separate dressing rooms for faculty/staff.  I figure I can exercise with my students, but I was not going to shower and change clothes in the same dressing room.  Combine that with a really reasonable cost for faculty, and I was sold.  Oh, it's not glamorous, but it has what I need.  There are treadmills, exercise bikes, and an indoor track. A typical exercise session might be connecting my phone to the wifi and then accessng  Pandora's "cardio dance radio," and off I go around the track: 30 minutes of not working, just enjoying the music and walking along.  That's 30 minutes of fun that I simply deserve in my life. 

It was important to me, too, to realize that the gym was not just for perfect, already fit and skinny people.  It's not just that I was not the only person there with extra poundage, nor was I the only person walking (and not running) around the track.  It was more fundamental than that. I decided that I had a right to my play-out sessions.  I belong in the gym just like everyone else there.

More fun was to be had when a Zumba class for faculty and staff started on campus.  I'm a regular every Monday.  More recently, a sophomore started an Israeli dance group at Hillel.  I'm a regular there, too.  And as I started losing weight, I began to combine my walks around the track with a little bit of running and strength training.

My changes in diet started after I started exercising more.  An ophthalmologist told me that my migraines were being caused by the aspartame from all the Diet Coke and other aspartame sweetened things I was consuming.  Well, I wasn't sure if he was right, but I decided to give up aspartame to see what would happen.  I told my internist about his advice, and her response was: "No one has ever shown that people lose weight because of artificial sweeteners.  Your body knows what to do with ordinary sugar.  It does not know what to do with the chemicals in artificial sweeteners that produce super sweetness."  At about the same time, I read an article summarizing research that suggested that artificial sweeteners make us crave more sweet stuff, not less.  So, I decided to give up all zero calorie artificial sweeteners.  I also, to the extent possible, eliminated high fructose corn syrup from my diet.  It, too, is manufactured to be extra sweet.  I made one other diet change: At my husband's urging, I started trying to buy products with lower sodium content.

I did not switch from diet to regular soda.  Instead, I gave up soda, except for seltzer (which I love), either plain, with a squeeze of lemon, or with a little fruit juice.  We bought a SodaStream seltzer maker.  I also make pitchers of iced tea.  If I want it sweetened (and I often don't), I limit the sugar or honey to 1 teaspoon per 12 ounces or so.  That takes the bitter edge off the tea and makes it a little sweet, but not overly so. 

With these changes, I started tasting flavors better: more flavors became apparent when my senses weren't overloaded with salty and sweet flavors.  That appealed to my inner foodie!

Then, Michael Pollan's book, In Defense of Food, came out and was covered widely in the press.  Full disclosure: I never actually read the book, but I did read the summary:  "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." And:  "Don't eat anything that your great-great grandmother would not recognize as food."  This really resonated with me.  I know enough about the political economy of the American and global food industry to understand how the interests of Big Agribusiness skew policies that structure food supply in the US market to be cheap and "processed."  Added sweeteners and salt in those processed products is one part of the story.  Other additives are another part.  So, to the extent possible, I started eliminating additives from my diet.  (Trader Joe's has been quite helpful here, though a lot of its food is still too high in sodium.) By changing the quality of the ingredients I used, the food I prepared started tasting even better.

That was sufficient incentive to get me to bring my lunch to work most days.  For my beverage I drink hot tea in the colder weather, and I bring 20 oz. glass bottles of homemade iced tea for warmer weather.  (Aquasana glass water bottles are perfect for this purpose.)  Sometimes my lunch is dinner leftovers; sometimes it's a sandwich or a can of sardines and crackers.  I always toss in some fruit and usually some sort of vegetable. I bring healthy snacks along, too.  Eight nuts is a surprising good pick-me-up.

In general, I began cooking more "from scratch," but I have been taking only a little more time to cook because I'm cooking simple, tasty things.  Instead of opening a jar of spaghetti sauce, I started to quickly make my own sauce, often using pre-chopped onions or mirepoix from Trader Joe's.  (Quickly sauté some onions or mirepoix in olive oil, add garlic [either crushed, chopped cloves or garlic powder], add plenty of dried oregano, toss in a bay leaf, then add a can or two of no salt added chopped tomatoes. Add some no salt added tomato paste, if desired.  Presto: Nice, chunky, flavorful tomato sauce that can be used for many purposes.) 

To this point, I was making behavioral changes for getting more physically fit and eating "purer," tastier food.  I wasn't losing weight, though I did lose an inch or so from getting more muscle.  I did not gain weight even though I stopped using artificial sweeteners.

Then, last March, I had to have a medical treatment that usually results in weight gain for me.  I decided I was going to do something to avoid gaining weight this time around.  I searched online for a calorie log and found the USDA's Supertracker program, which I could use online and as an app on my Android devices.  I started recording everything I ate and my exercise, and something completely miraculous occurred:

I started losing instead of gaining weight while on this treatment.

This wasn't hard.  I was already eating pretty healthy foods, and by using the tracking program I realized that I needed to carefully measure and weigh to get the portions right.  If I ate a cup of ice cream, I entered a cup of ice cream and I could see immediately how that contributed to a reasonably balanced diet (calories, nutrients).  Then I realized that a half of a cup of ice cream still meant I got to eat ice cream, but the smaller amount fit better into my daily nutritional profile. And so it went.  If I want spaghetti, I weigh out a 2 oz portion.  I can eat what I want in moderation.

Supertracker is great, and I do recommend it because it really gives a full picture of nutritional value of foods, but when I found myfitnesspal.com, I switched.  Myfitnesspal crowdsources nutritional information.  If I enter "Trader Joe's sunflower salted" into the search field, up pops "Trade Joe's Roasted and Salted Sunflower Seeds," with all the nutritional information from the package, which had already been added by a fellow user of the program.  Also, I can type in the ingredients of my own recipe and add that to the stored information on my account.

One thing to be careful about with myfitnesspal is that it keys your recommended food intake to your exercise.  If you have your settings set to lose about a pound a week and you don't exercise on a particular day, myfitnesspal will tell you eat only 1200 calories.  If you do exercise, the recommended calorie count will be closer to 1400.  I know that 1400 is a minimum for me, and 1450 is even better.  I was not in a race.  In fact, I initially suggested to myself that three years would be a reasonable amount of time to take off the weight I wanted to lose for my health.  Instead, it took me slightly less than one year, but I was careful not to go too fast.  And I'm careful to eat a balanced diet.

A month or two after I started tracking my calories, I read news reports about how this method was the best for losing weight and maintaining weight loss.  Yay!  I had stumbled on a winner.

But for this method to work, one needs to really track.  I measure and weigh.  I bought a digital food scale, extra measuring cups, and extra measuring spoons.  I write down everything, even if it's a day when I indulged and blew my calorie budget.  I am brutally honest with myself.  I try to record breakfast and lunch by mid afternoon.  That way I know what my afternoon snack and dinner budget will be.  I try not to eat too late at night.  I also try to spread my calories out through the day so I don't leave most of them until dinner, as tempting as that might be.

Back in September, I saw a Living Social offer for half-priced body composition testing, metabolic rate testing and nutritional counseling at the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Weight ManagementClinic.  By this point, I had lost quite a bit of weight and was about two thirds of the way to what I assumed was a healthy goal, but I wasn't really sure of what my goal should be.  I bought the offer and had a very interesting appointment.  Being able to bring my food diary, printed out from myfitnesspal, made it much easier for the nutritionist to counsel me.  On balance I was doing pretty well.  The trainer recommended that I add strength training to my exercise routine (I have done so) and the results of the body composition and metabolic rate tests allowed for more precise recommendations about weight goals and appropriate calorie counts to get me there.  The nutritionist checked over my food diary and found it well balanced, reassured me that slower weight loss was normal as I neared my goal, recommended that I not eat most of my calories at dinner, and suggested I limit myself each day to either alcohol (i.e., a glass of wine with dinner) or a dessert (I make a bittersweet hot cocoa), but not both.  She also told me that I would probably always need to track my food intake, perhaps not every day once I reach my goal, but most days.  Also, I would never be one of those mythical people who gets to eat 2000 calories a day.  1500 or 1600 would probably be my limit. 

By the end of January, I met my goal.  I have never been this thin in my adult life before.  I was heavier than this for most, if not all, of high school.  I am not skinny, but I am at a healthy weight and a good level of fitness.

When I look back on my path, I see that I actually made lots of changes over a long period of time.  I have come to believe that cheap, super sweet and/or salty food is poison, whether the sweetener has calories or not.  Those of us with a familial (nature or nurture or both) predisposition toward obesity are constantly being sabotaged by food advertising, packaging, contents, etc. 

My advice to those who want to lose weight:

Eat good food only.  Quality matters.  Retrain your palate to taste real food, and avoid dulling your ability to taste by consuming  too much salt or sweeteners.

Eat good food in appropriate quantities. Measure and weigh.

Exercise not because it's a chore that has to get done, but because it's fun to move and it's something you get to do even if you are really busy.  It's a break that we get to have not because we earned it but just because we are human.

Making a small change is better than not making any changes.

Exercising for five minutes is better than not exercising at all.

Scrupulously logging food and exercise every day using websites and apps really does work, but you have to actually fill out the log.

Don't try to lose weight quickly. 

Learn how to make simple, tasty dishes from scratch quickly.

Vegetables are great.  They have a low calorie density, and they taste good.

Make room in your calorie budget for a little bit of chocolate (if you like chocolate).  For me, bittersweet cocoa (8 oz of low fat, lactose free milk, 1 tablespoon of sugar, and 2 heaping tablespoons of unsweetened cocoa) does the trick.

Focus on health goals.  I think that the science suggests that a modest weight loss that you can maintain is healthier than a big weight loss that you can't.

And one other thing.  This is not the only way.  This worked for me.  Someone else I know has had a similarly dramatic weight loss not counting calories, but instead using the "paleo diet."

PG County Board of Education: Are you crazy???

Answer: Apparently.  See:
This and this.

The Prince Georges County (Maryland) Board of Education is trying to assert ownership of the copyright of employees' & students' works in a REALLY broadly construed way.  In addition to claiming copyright on what could reasonably considered "works for hire," such as the school system's website, the Board wants to claim ownership of copyright for basically anything that educators create for the classroom (like their lesson plans, handouts, and bulletin board displays), regardless of whether the work is produced during work hours and on school property or elsewhere.  Furthermore, any works created by employees OR STUDENTS "during school/work hours, with the use of school system materials, and within the scope of an employee's position or student's classroom work assignment(s) are the properties of the Board of Education."

There are just so many things wrong with this.

First of all, if the policy works you could have all sorts of stupid scenarios:

• "I'm sorry, Mommy.  We made valentines for you in art today, but we're not allowed to give them to you because they belong to the school."
• That essay you were going to send in with your college application as a writing sample?  Sorry!  It was a class assignment and you researched it during period 4 using the school system's resources.  It's not yours and you are not authorized to make a copy of it to send to the college of your dreams (or to any other college for that matter).
• Sure the school will let you publish that novel that started as a class writing assignment.  Perhaps the school will even allow you to have a small percentage of the royalties!  (The idea that students might publish works that started as school projects is not as far fetched as it seems.  The Washington Post article I linked to above refers to a book, written "in elementary school for a project" that the young authors published.)

Second, what happens to the teachers who move to another school district? Do they have to recreate all their teaching materials from scratch?

Third, such sweeping claims of copyright are counter-productive. Why should students think about heeding appropriate copyright restrictions when they are faced with such ridiculous ones?

Fourth, this is total chutzpah.  By what right can the Board of Education simply tell students that they do not have rights to their own work? (The situation with employees seems more complex to me because of work for hire rules.) Students have no reasonable alternative if they are unhappy with the Board's usurpation of their rights.  It's not like a contract where they can either agree to the terms or go elsewhere.  (Yes, I know private school is a possibility, but it's not a realistic option for the vast majority of students.)  On the bright side, I suspect that this law is likely not going to stand up to court challenges.  From the Washington Post article linked to above:

Peter Jaszi, a law professor with the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at American University, called the proposal in Prince George’s “sufficiently extreme.”
Jaszi said the policy sends the wrong message to students about respecting copyright. He also questioned whether the policy, as it applies to students, would be legal.
He said there would have to be an agreement between the student and the board to allow the copyright of his or her work. A company or organization cannot impose copyright on “someone by saying it is so,” Jaszi said. “That seems to be the fundamental difficulty with this.”

Peter, in his lawyerly way, politely points out the problems with the policy.  I'll be less polite: This is a stupid, stupid policy.  And I'm hoping that Peter and his colleagues will litigate this if the Board of Education doesn't quickly revoke the new rules.

And finally, I'll immodestly add in a link to my book, Knowledge Power: Intellectual Property, Information, and Privacy, for those interested in an introduction to the history, politics, and global political economy of intellectual property rights.

Missed opportunity to STEM the decrease in US innovative capacity

The US used to have a lot of students going into STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) fields.  That is no longer the case, which is rather disastrous for US innovative capacity.
 
BUT US universities remain extremely attractive to foreign students pursuing graduate degrees these fields, and these students would often prefer to remain in the US after the completion of their studies.  Unfortunately, it is rather difficult for them to do so, given current immigration law.  Congress failed to act to fix this problem. The bill, HR 6429, introduced by Lamar Smith (R-TX), as far as I can tell without reading it really carefully, was a corrupted version of a Democrat-sponsored bill -- corrupted in a way that would reduce opportunities for legal immigration, so Democrats voted against it.

Some conservative commentators also opposed the bill that was voted on because they said, that would make it more difficult for US students to get in to STEM graduate programs.  There's just one problem with this logic: The US students are not there.  There are not enough qualified US students applying for   graduate school in STEM fields to take up the available slots.

Here's the emailed blurb from the AAAS that I received:

STEM Jobs Act Fails in House. Last week the House of Representatives failed to pass a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) immigration bill introduced by Judiciary Committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). The STEM Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 6429) would have replaced the current system of awarding permanent residency visas via a lottery system with one that would award visas to foreign nationals who have earned a Ph.D. or master's degree from a U.S. university in a STEM field. Smith's bill was introduced after negotiations over broader immigration reform failed, but there are hopes that some compromise may be reached during the post-election lame-duck session. A competing approach that would maintain both a lottery visa system and a STEM-degree visa system was Rep. Zoe Lofgren's (D-CA) bill, the Attracting the Best and Brightest Act of 2012 (H.R. 6412). Ultimately, the Smith bill became caught in a political divide over the importance of maintaining the existing lottery system which benefits immigrants from developing countries such as Africa. Smith's bill received 257 votes in support, with 158 opposed, but the measure fell 20 votes short of the two-thirds majority that was required by having the bill rushed to the House floor without committee approval.

More information can be found here:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/09/stem-visa-bill-falls-short-in-us.html?ref=hp

I hope something gets accomplished in the lame duck session.  Sending really smart physics PhDs and engineers with MS degrees back to China because we don't want to allow them to stay in this country is a policy that ought to be changed.

Yes, there is a global political economy side to all this.  Ibn Khaldun, a 14th century social theorist, would not have been surprised at how the US is slipping relative to the rest of the world in innovative capacity. That happens to polities, Ibn Khaldun would argue, once the people get comfortable with their lives.  Americans are rich and comfortable.  We're not as driven as we used to be.  The Cold War is no longer providing a rationale to invest in STEM fields in order to beat the Soviets; the comfortable standard of living that we have (for the most part) and the continuing myth of US leadership in tech fields means that we don't have a compelling incentive to push ahead further relative to the rest of the world.  We're happy to rest on our laurels.  And that, Ibn Khaldun would argue, is a sign of a declining polity.  I am enough of an economic nationalist to want the US to be a STEM leader in the world.  On the other hand, I am not interested in a renewal of the Cold War, and my laurels seem pretty comfy.  (I didn't pursue a STEM field!)  So is there a way to escape the creeping mediocrity that Ibn Khaldun predicts?  Is encouraging immigration of tech savvy folks the answer?  I think it is at least part of the answer, especially in a globalized world in which corporations are increasingly likely to outsource R&D.

A Global Political Economy museum in Stockholm?!

During a day of touring in Stockholm, I was looking for a restroom, so I wandered in The Royal Coin Cabinet.  I'm not too interested in coin collecting, but I'm very interested in clean restrooms, so in I went.  Stockholm Card in hand, the museum was free, so, I rationalized, why not take a quick look?

The Royal Coin Cabinet website

Wow!  Was I glad I did!!!!

Shortly into my visit, I came upon this:

Huh?  But wait!  They look familiar!  Here they are closer up:

Colbert (the dead Frenchman, not the live comedian), Smith, Marx, Keynes, and Friedman looking down upon us from the heavens?  (And why doesn't Friedman have wings?  He does have a wristwatch, though.)

The sign to the left of this display apparently gives the soundbite version of GPE theories (Mercantilism, Liberalism, Socialism, Keynsianism, Monetarism):

And if you would like to learn more, the shelf next to this text provides the longer versions:

Specie (exemplified by the really big & heavy copper coin below) and fiat money (the early bank note in the next image), and regional and global monetary regimes were the subject of other exhibits:

Global trade was not left out either.  This wall mural of a lively Swedish dinner records where all the food comes from.

There was more, too.  I neglected to get a picture of the display on the relationship between war and inflation.

The museum was beautifully done, and it struck me that this was an ingenious way to teach visitors about the economy and how money works.  I wish I could bring my GPE students on a field trip.

Climate change, the Wall Street Journal, and the politics of supposed expertise

The Wall Street Journal published a letter from "Sixteen Concerned Scientists" who question conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists that global climate change is happening (the mean temperature of the earth is increasing) and that the cause is human; they further question the vast majority of scientists (including those of us in the social sciences) who see the global warming and the consequent effects on the environment as a very bad thing.  (Just ask the citizens of Vanuatu.)  So who are these sixteen concerned people?

Bottom line: They are not an impressive group and they are not representative of the overwhelming consensus within the scientific community.  With the caveat that I have neither the time nor resources to do a systematic fact checking of the following information, I still think it is worthwhile to show the information below that was collected from online sources.  If anyone has more reputable evidence that contradicts any of the information below, I will be happy to publish a comment that reflects that.

And a further note: I have met the "expert," Ivar Gievar, quoted in the letter signed by the sixteen.  Yes, the man is a Nobel Laureate.  No, he is not a climate scientist, either.  The talk I heard him give was stunning in its logical flaws and incorrect assertions.  Even I -- also not a climate scientist! -- could tell that he was not making credible scientific claims.  But I am competent to assess one claim that Gievar made because that was an assertion about the social consequences of global warming.  He said that it could be better for the world to be warmer.  In other words, global warming could have good consequences for people around the world.  For that claim to make sense at all, a whole bunch of not probable assumptions must be true.  Chief among them in my mind is the implicit assumption that people are mobile.  If your island country sinks under rising sea levels, you just move to another counter; if your rivers and lakes dry up and you have no rain, you just move some where else.  If the plants you grow and the animals you raise no longer grow in your locale, you just find greener pastures, so to speak.  Really?  Everybody's going to throw open their borders for climate refugees?  Resources will miraculously appear to provide for those who are not lucky enough to "benefit" from global climate change?  Sell the man a bridge in Brooklyn.

Back to the actual signatories:

Color key: 

Black -- Wall Street Journal's Identification of the Signatory

Red --  comment based on quick web research; not fact checked.

1.  Claude Allegre

“former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris”

Summary of extensive debunking here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/

which includes stating that he makes things up, states the obviously incorrect, and “improving the data”

Age 74

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

2.  J. Scott Armstrong

“cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting”

Professor of Marketing, Wharton School – he is doing short-term data fits, but the global climate change model is a long term model.

Rebuttal:  http://interfaces.journal.informs.org/content/39/4/353

“We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting [Armstrong's method] are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.”

Armstrong complains that his papers were not cited and his methods were not used by climate scientists

Age 74

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

3. Jan Breslow

“head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University”

Age 68

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

4. Roger Cohen

“fellow, American Physical Society”

Recently retired from ExxonMobil

an expert in technology development and commercialization

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

5. Edward David

“member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences”

President of Research and Engineering for Exxon Corporation, 1977-1985

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

6. William Happer

“professor of physics, Princeton”

“Happer has been on the board of the George C. Marshall Institute since at least 2002, and is currently its director.  The institute receives a sizable portion of its funding from ExxonMobil.  Out of an operating budget of about $800,000, an average of $91,428 per year from 2001-07 comes directly from ExxonMobil.  They also receive $250,000 per year from the Scaife oil fortune, and we see almost half of the Institute is funded by oil money.”

http://brutishandshort.com/2011/06/14/quellenkritik/

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

7. Michael Kelly

 “professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.”

PhD in solid state physics

Age 63

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

8. William Kininmonth

“former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology”

a retired Australian meteorologist

 “According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Kininmonth has not published any research in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change.” --- http://desmogblog.com/william-kininmonth

Lavoisier Group member

“The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia.”  “The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation”  “Most of the members are over 60 years old.”  “In 2001 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote that the Lavoisier Group is ‘devoted to the proposition that basic principles of physics...cease to apply when they come into conflict with the interests of the Australian coal industry.’ ”  http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lavoisier_Group

Age ???

Calls himself a Climate Scientist

9.  Richard Lindzen

“professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT”

MIT atmospheric physics. Reasonable to call him a climate scientist

Lindzen's graduate students describe him as "fiercely intelligent, with a deep contrarian streak."

Age 71

10.  James McGrath

“professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University”

Polymer science

Board of Directors, ChemFab Inc.

Customers include:  Irving Oil, BP Canada Petroleum, Marathon Oil,Esso Petroleum Canada, Shell Canada Products, Sunoco, Union Gas Limited

Age 78

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

11.  Rodney Nichols

“former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences”

“His industrial consulting has included the research laboratory of GTE and Shell Technology Ventures.”

He is on the CRDF Global Board of Directors, with funders including Bechtel (mining, oil and gas), King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST), King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Qatar National Research Fund

Associated with the Marshall Institute (with Happer)

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

12.  Burt Rutan

“aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne”

Age 68

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST (also not a scientist)

13. Harrison H. Schmitt

“Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator”

Age 76

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

14. Nir Shaviv

“professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem”

Age 39

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

15. Henk Tennekes

“former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service”

Studies turbulence (aeronautical engineering & meteorology)

Objected to increased computational power for meteorology based on biblical texts

“Stressed the limited predictability of complex systems and the limited value of predictions based on scientific modeling.”  Wikipedia

Age 76

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

16. Antonio Zichichi

“president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva”

Nobel Prize laureate Hans Bethe on Zichichi: “excellent organizer, mediocre physicist”

Committed to demonstrating that there is no contradiction between science and his strongly held Catholic faith.

"There is a need to do more work, with a lot more rigour, to better the models being used."

Age 83

NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST

(By the way, note that, with the exception of Shaviv, this are rather old people.)

 ----------------------------------------------------

 But maybe certain things don't require that one is a climate scientist.  The first step in analyzing data, I have always told my students, is to "eyeball the data."  What do you see?  So, here is a picture from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/

Is there a long term slope in temperature?

Is it up or down?

Is this subtle?




And then, and if we're just counting letter signers, I'll bet these folks against the sixteen skeptics any day  They are the members of the National Academy of Sciences who signed a letter printed in Science magazine, a major scientific journal, in which stated:

(i) The planet is warming due to increased 

concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our 

atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington 

does not alter this fact.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentra-

tion of these gases over the last century is due 

to human activities, especially the burning of 

fossil fuels and deforestation. 

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in 

changing Earth’s climate, but are now being 

overwhelmed by human-induced changes.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many 

other climatic patterns to change at speeds 

unprecedented in modern times, including 

increasing rates of sea-level rise and altera-

tions in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concen-

trations of carbon dioxide are making the 

oceans more acidic.

(v) The combination of these complex 

climate changes threatens coastal communi-

ties and cities, our food and water supplies, 

marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, 

high mountain environments, and far more. 

P. H. GLEICK,* R. M. ADAMS, R. M. AMASINO, 
E. ANDERS, D. J. ANDERSON, W. W. ANDERSON, 
L. E. ANSELIN, M. K. ARROYO, B. ASFAW, 
F. J. AYALA, A. BAX, A. J. BEBBINGTON, 
G. BELL, M. V. L. BENNETT, J. L. BENNETZEN, 
M. R. BERENBAUM, O. B. BERLIN, P. J. BJORKMAN, 
E. BLACKBURN, J. E. BLAMONT, M. R. BOTCHAN, 
J. S. BOYER, E. A. BOYLE, D. BRANTON, 
S. P. BRIGGS, W. R. BRIGGS, W. J. BRILL, 
R. J. BRITTEN, W. S. BROECKER, J. H. BROWN, 
P. O. BROWN, A. T. BRUNGER, J. CAIRNS JR., 
D. E. CANFIELD, S. R. CARPENTER, 
J. C. CARRINGTON, A. R. CASHMORE, 
J. C. CASTILLA, A. CAZENAVE, F. S. CHAPIN III, 
A. J. CIECHANOVER, D. E. CLAPHAM, W. C. CLARK, 
R. N. CLAYTON, M. D. COE, E. M. CONWELL, 
E. B. COWLING, R. M COWLING, C. S. COX, 
R. B. CROTEAU, D. M. CROTHERS, P. J. CRUTZEN, 
G. C. DAILY, G. B. DALRYMPLE, J. L. DANGL, 
S. A. DARST, D. R. DAVIES, M. B. DAVIS, P. V. DE 
CAMILLI, C. DEAN, R. S. DEFRIES, J. DEISENHOFER, 
D. P. DELMER, E. F. DELONG, D. J. DEROSIER, T. O. 
DIENER, R. DIRZO, J. E. DIXON, M. J. DONOGHUE, 
R. F. DOOLITTLE, T. DUNNE, P. R. EHRLICH, S. N. 
EISENSTADT, T. EISNER, K. A. EMANUEL, S. W. 
ENGLANDER, W. G. ERNST, P. G. FALKOWSKI, 
G. FEHER, J. A. FEREJOHN, A. FERSHT, E. H. 
FISCHER, R. FISCHER, K. V. FLANNERY, J. FRANK, 
P. A. FREY, I. FRIDOVICH, C. FRIEDEN, D. J. 
FUTUYMA, W. R. GARDNER, C. J. R. GARRETT, 
W. GILBERT, R. B. GOLDBERG, W. H. GOODENOUGH, 
C. S. GOODMAN, M. GOODMAN, P. GREENGARD, 
S. HAKE, G. HAMMEL, S. HANSON, S. C. HARRISON, 
S. R. HART, D. L. HARTL, R. HASELKORN, 
K. HAWKES, J. M. HAYES, B. HILLE, T. HÖKFELT, J. S. 
HOUSE, M. HOUT, D. M. HUNTEN, I. A. IZQUIERDO, 
A. T. JAGENDORF, D. H. JANZEN, R. JEANLOZ, 
C. S. JENCKS, W. A. JURY, H. R. KABACK, T. KAILATH, 
P. KAY, S. A. KAY, D. KENNEDY, A. KERR, R. C. 
KESSLER, G. S. KHUSH, S. W. KIEFFER, P. V. KIRCH, 
K. KIRK, M. G. KIVELSON, J. P. KLINMAN, A. KLUG, 
L. KNOPOFF, H. KORNBERG, J. E. KUTZBACH, J. C. 
LAGARIAS, K. LAMBECK, A. LANDY, C. H. 
LANGMUIR, B. A. LARKINS, X. T. LE PICHON, R. E. 
LENSKI, E. B. LEOPOLD, S. A. LEVIN, M. LEVITT, 
G. E. LIKENS, J. LIPPINCOTT-SCHWARTZ, L. LORAND, 
C. O. LOVEJOY, M. LYNCH, A. L. MABOGUNJE, T. F. 
MALONE, S. MANABE, J. MARCUS, D. S. MASSEY, 
J. C. MCWILLIAMS, E. MEDINA, H. J. MELOSH, 
D. J. MELTZER, C. D. MICHENER, E. L. MILES, 
H. A. MOONEY, P. B. MOORE, F. M. M. MOREL, 
E. S. MOSLEY-THOMPSON, B. MOSS, W. H. MUNK, 
N. MYERS, G. B. NAIR, J. NATHANS, E. W. NESTER, 
R. A. NICOLL, R. P. NOVICK, J. F. O’CONNELL, P. E. 
OLSEN, N. D. OPDYKE, G. F. OSTER, E. OSTROM, 
N. R. PACE, R. T. PAINE, R. D. PALMITER, 
J. PEDLOSKY, G. A. PETSKO, G. H. PETTENGILL, 
S. G. PHILANDER, D. R. PIPERNO, T. D. POLLARD, 
P. B. PRICE JR., P. A. REICHARD, B. F. RESKIN, 
R. E. RICKLEFS, R. L. RIVEST, J. D. ROBERTS, A. K. 
ROMNEY, M. G. ROSSMANN, D. W. RUSSELL, 
W. J. RUTTER, J. A. SABLOFF, R. Z. SAGDEEV, 
M. D. SAHLINS, A. SALMOND, J. R. SANES,

R. SCHEKMAN, J. SCHELLNHUBER, 
D. W. SCHINDLER, J. SCHMITT, S. H. SCHNEIDER, 
V. L. SCHRAMM, R. R. SEDEROFF, C. J. SHATZ, 
F. SHERMAN, R. L. SIDMAN, K. SIEH, E. L. SIMONS, 
B. H. SINGER, M. F. SINGER, B. SKYRMS, 
N. H. SLEEP, B. D. SMITH, S. H. SNYDER, R. R. SOKAL, 
C. S. SPENCER, T. A. STEITZ, K. B. STRIER, 
T. C. SÜDHOF, S. S. TAYLOR, J. TERBORGH, 
D. H. THOMAS, L. G. THOMPSON, R. T. T JIAN, 
M. G. TURNER, S. UYEDA, J. W. VALENTINE, 
J. S. VALENTINE, J. L. VAN ETTEN, K. E. VAN HOLDE, 
M. VAUGHAN, S. VERBA, P. H. VON HIPPEL, 
D. B. WAKE, A. WALKER, J. E. WALKER, 
E. B. WATSON, P. J. WATSON, D. WEIGEL, S. R. 
WESSLER, M. J. WEST-EBERHARD, T. D. WHITE, 
W. J. WILSON, R. V. WOLFENDEN, J. A. WOOD, 
G. M. WOODWELL, H. E. WRIGHT JR., C. WU, 
C. WUNSCH, M. L. ZOBAC




http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf  (I don't know if you need a subscription to get to that page or not since I subscribe.)

My politically conservative friends and I will differ on what policies should or should not be used to address problems of the global commons, but I really hope that they do not fall into the trap of believing that the climate skeptics are somehow as reasonable as the vast majority of scientists who see global climate change happening, happening because of humans, and having likely deleterious effects.

The Income Distribution Facts We Can't Escape: Increasing Inequality

Go to the OECD website OECD Statistics on Income Inequality and you will find a handy-dandy form for looking up income distribution information about countries of the world.

A particularly useful statistic is the Geni Coefficient.

Gini coefficient The Gini coefficient is defined as the area between the Lorenz curve (which plots cumulative shares of the population, from the poorest to the richest, against the cumulative share of income that they receive) and the 45° line, taken as a ratio of the whole triangle. The values of the Gini coefficient range between 0, in the case of "perfect equality" (i.e. each share of the population gets the same share of income), and 1, in the case of "perfect inequality" (i.e. all income goes to the individual with the highest income).

Put simply: A lower Gini coefficient means a more equal society; a higher Gini coefficient means more inequality.

Check out a few countries to see relative Gini coefficients before taxes and transfers and after.  I looked at Norway, Portugal and the US.  (Portugal is one of the poorest countries in Europe.  Norway is a wealthy country that has low social inequality.)  Here's the way the Gini coefficient has been moving over time in these three countries.  (You can click on the graph to see it in larger format.)  Notice how similar the US is to Portugal in terms of inequality.  In equality has been going up for all three countries over time, however.

Now look at this table:

OECD Countries, From Greatest to Least Inequality
Country		Gini Coefficient, after taxes and transfers mid-2000s
Mexico			0.47
Turkey			0.43
Portugal			0.38
United States			0.38
Poland			0.37
Italy			0.35
New Zealand			0.34
United Kingdom			0.34
Ireland			0.33
Canada			0.32
Greece			0.32
Japan			0.32
Spain			0.32
Korea			0.31
Australia			0.3
Germany			0.3
Hungary			0.29
France			0.28
Iceland			0.28
Norway			0.28
Switzerland			0.28
Austria			0.27
Belgium			0.27
Czech Republic			0.27
Finland			0.27
Netherlands			0.27
Slovak Republic			0.27
Luxembourg			0.26
Denmark			0.23
Sweden			0.23
OECD Total			0.31

This is a list you don't want to be on the top of.  The US is up there in terms of inequality with Mexico, Turkey, Portugal, and Poland.

These are the issues of Occupy Wall Street.  Not only is income inequality increasing globally, the US is particularly bad.  Our policies favor the rich, allowing them to get richer at the expense of the poor and increasingly the middle class.

When inequality is great, democracy fails.  When the rich can simply use dollars to out-vote the middle class and the poor, the fundamental tenet of democracy, that adult citizens are equal and their votes are of equal value, falls apart.

Ibn Khaldun, the 14th century Arab social theorist, wrote that "group feeling" was required to make a state great.  The loss of group feeling signaled the loss of greatness.  In my view, we are faced with a serious loss of group feeling.  The few at the top at the economic heap reap huge benefits and do not care, for the most part (Buffett is a notable exception!) that they are benefiting at the expense of others.  The end of group feeling -- the end of caring for the well-being of the community as a whole -- marks our country's decline.

A part of me is simply sad.  But a larger part of me is angry, especially at the distortions of economic theory that are spouted by those who choose to continue pushing the Gini coefficient higher and higher (inequality getting worse and worse).

That's why I am proud that disgruntled Americans have been exercising their American rights of free speech in the Occupy movement.  We cannot compete with those who seek greater inequality by spending more money; our opponents have more money.  We can compete with voice.  Sensible people raising their voices loud enough and persuasively enough with these simple facts can -- I hope, I hope! -- make a difference.