Whoa!  Talk about being gone for awhile!

I've decided to reactivate this blog.  Reading through my previous posts, there's nothing I disagree with.  At this point, I'll make only one observation:  Obamacare is turning out even worse than I feared.  Every doctor I've talked to is extremely concerned.  Even the liberals among them think it will be a disaster.  A couple are going to retire.  They feel the government is more and more intruding between themselves and their patients.  And, of course, it's turning out that it will be WAY more expensive and cover WAY fewer people than promised.

At some point in the not-too-distant future, I'm going to be posting about a life-changing experience I've had recently.

Two other life-changing experiences since I last posted:  I got married and retired.  As you might have heard, being retired does not mean you have lots more time!

on being away

I haven't been on for awhile. It has to do with finding love and being busy with my job--thank God I've got a job! Life is good in every respect except for the unease I've been feeling about Obamacare. This "pass something--anything--mentality" is scaring the living daylights out of me. This is no way to run a country. The arrogance is breathtaking. Obama actually mused to Katie Couric about how nice it would have been to just put something academically approved in place without having to negotiate with all these people. The horror! Imagine that--having to negotiate stuff!!! How primitive!

The whole attitude makes me sick. As far as "academically approved" is concerned....well, I'M an academic. I know just how idiotic academics can be. We may be smart, we may have great ideals that get people thinking, but as for applying them....well, we'd all be Communists now if that had been possible. Thank goodness it isn't. That a sitting president would wistfully wish for such a thing is extremely scary. Yes, the health care system could use some reform, but what is proposed is not only unworkable, it will bankrupt the country....if stimulus I, II, and III ("jobs bill"--give me a break!) don't do it.

But fortunately I'm sane, still.....just....for having found love. I can hardly believe it. From widowhood to engagement in a few short months. I am indeed blessed.

So to all you 50+ widows out there, don't give up and don't lower your standards. We may outnumber men, and maybe most of the good ones are taken, but the "taken" ones might be widowers some day, and they'll still be good.

climategate

Here's a letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal. Too long, which is why it wasn't published, but at least I can put it here:

One of your letter writers asks “where’s the outrage?” in the scientific community about climategate, and Daniel Henninger wonders--to briefly paraphrase--surely there are those scientists who worried about the credibility of science as the rhetoric leading to this scandal accelerated. There are plenty of us who have worried about this, in my case starting two decades ago when the pathologies that led to climategate began to emerge. On the issue of climate change, the convergence of large sums of public (free!) money, egos, complex science, and politics led inevitably to where we are today. Some of us who saw it coming but did not speak out as vigorously or publicly as we could have are now thrashing ourselves for having naively thought that, somehow, it could never get as bad as we feared.

Now, of course, the rhetoric has become so heated that many are either afraid to speak out or exhausted by the thought of being shouted down after even the mildest dissent. I have been appalled at the reactions of colleagues whom I otherwise respect when I voice my doubts about one or another point of the science. There is a reason why, with the exception of some courageous scientists like Richard Lindzen, many of the most vocal critics of the AGW hypothesis are retired. They are not in their dotage and out of touch; it’s that they have nothing to lose. Those of us who are still practicing our science are reluctant to become the whipping boys of the rabid AGW-hypothesis believers (I use “believers” deliberately), if for no other reason than responding takes so much time away from our research, teaching, and students. For younger scientists, the consequence are even direr—they may not ever get grants, papers published, or promotion.

The level of the discussion in the emails downloaded from CRU (many of which I have read myself) is not business-as-usual, as some apologists for climategate have tried to imply. At best, the language is supremely arrogant in its callous disrespect for the science and its other practitioners. At worst, it is everything the talk show hosts claim—outright scientific fraud. The answer is perhaps somewhere in between, but anything less than transparency and honesty is unacceptable. We scientists must hold ourselves to a higher standard, the more so if our science has a direct impact on society. We must not just tolerate criticism, but embrace it. This is all beside the fact that the participants knew full well that their emails were subject to Freedom of Information requests yet still used such intemperate language. That some of the emails “don’t read well” is an appallingly weak excuse from such intelligent people and only serves to highlight their arrogance.

In the science of complex systems—and few physical processes are more complex than climate--there will always be data that do not fit the favored hypothesis. We are obligated to honestly present all the data and, if we exclude some from our analyses or alter some, we must nevertheless still present the raw data and be forthright about our reasons for omitting or altering it. Why? One reason, of course, is that it is the honest thing to do. But more importantly, those data are critical for other scientists who might want to replicate our results, replicability being the hallmark of good science. And those data may be the very data that prove critical to a new understanding as the science advances. If one works on complex systems, one will inevitably and eventually be wrong. That is nothing to fear because if we are proved wrong, it means the science has advanced; we were right at one time in the context of what was known, but as more is known, we often must revise our conclusions. No scientist has suffered from this process.

But enter politics, and all that changes. The scientists of complex systems must speak in probabilities. Policymakers don’t want to hear “probable”, they want to hear “certain”. Scientists, being good citizens, try to comply, but if the issue becomes important enough, an amplification takes over, with the policymakers pushing for ever-more certainty and the scientists trying ever harder to comply because their research funding comes to depend on it. If the scientists then taste political power, they believe their own certainty and become entrenched in their hypotheses. It is this entrenchment—whatever drives it—that gets scientists into trouble. This has happened over and over in the history of science. What is remarkable about climategate is the scale and the potential consequences. I hope Daniel Henninger is wrong that this could harm all of science; I fear that he might not be.

Cash for Clunkers

The "Cash for Clunkers" program has been termed a huge success by the mainstream media. $1 billion dollars spent in a week when it was supposed to last until November 1st. What this has succeeded in doing is to provide a means to unload some excess inventory from the dealers lots they have been having trouble selling. This will not increase production of automobiles, or steel to make automobiles, or plastics to make automobiles, or tires to put on automobiles or seats, or floormats, or anything else that goes into making automobiles. It' s just a blip in sales and now it's over.
What is needed to restart this economy is something that will be long termed and sustained. Something like letting people keep their own money and letting them spend their own money instead of pouring it down the rat hole that Washington has become. In addition, get the federal government out of many things that is none of their business, such as education and get serious about reducing the size of government.
Thanks

LIving a full life

Thanks to the Wall Street Journal,  I just found Greg Mankiw's blog.  Mankiw is an economics professor at Harvard.  In addition to discussions of economics, he has a list of links to topics such as "Advice for Junior Faculty".  Mankiw has a sense of humor!  Most refreshing in a professor.  His advice is excellent:  live to do research and publish papers.  Have no friends or family unless they will publish with you.  Above all, avoid having children!  He then goes on to indicate what might happen at the Pearly Gates.  Priceless.

My fellow faculty members ask how I can possibly have taken the time to learn to fly.  As doing so has had, if anything, a salient effect on my career, the question leaves me non-plussed.  The only possible answer is, "I made the time."  That is the key to being successful and still living one's dreams, or having a family, or whatever else you need to do to become a whole person and not just a brain.  

Of course, if your ambitions are to be the acknowledged very best at what you do, to be on the Time 100-people-to-watch list, to be a "widely cited expert", or whatever you consider to be the pinnacle of success, by all means go for it.  But then again, you might not make it, and then where will you be?  Do well, work hard, and have fun, and you never know where you'll end up.  You might be surprised.

Sarah Palin--you go, girl!

Like a lot of people, I was surprised when I heard Sarah Palin was stepping down.  But after hearing her speech, I get it completely.  She's accomplished what she set out to accomplish in Alaska, she's got a shot at a bigger stage that might not be so powerful if she waits until the end of her term, she's got some strongly held beliefs, and she's seeing a chance to have an impact on those issues she cares most about.  It's been a hoot listening to the pundits who just....don't....get....it.

Watch out, world!  I think Sarah's going to be around for a long time holding the nation to its ideals the same way she held Letterman accountable.  Woo hoo!

health care--Obama trapped

As he pushed through the stimulus package so quickly Congress did not have a chance to read it, Obama is now trying to push through changes in health care, which the pundits are saying makes up 1/6th of the nation's budget.  It's been pretty interesting watching the knots he's tying himself in to satisfy all his constituents.  So far, he's not succeeding very well.

In a speech to the AMA, he said he "understands" the constraints put on doctors by concerns about malpractice suits, and acknowledges that they do a lot of testing they might not otherwise do as "defensive medicine", one of the practices that makes our system so cumbersome and expensive.  As the doctors started to cheer, though, he stopped them and, without really saying so, also hinted that tort reform is off of the table.  So Obama is trapped between the doctors represented by the AMA (about 1/3 of US doctors, and arguably the more liberal 1/3) and trial lawyers.  How can he satisfy both?

At the same time, many members of his own party are digging in their heels because of the cost.  He's promising to have the CBO estimated $1T paid for with cost-savings by increasing efficiencies (i.e., less defensive medicine, among other things), but, well, see the previous paragraph for how that's working out.

Another idea he's thrown out is to pay for it by taxing health benefits above a certain minimum, i.e., targeting employer supported health insurance.  But some of the richest such plans are the ones the unions benefit from, and Sen. Dodd, for one, has pretty well scotched that idea.  

Then there are the hospitals--yet another idea he's thrown out is reduced payments to hospitals.  They are already stressed, having already faced cuts from Medicare and HMOs.

So, hospitals, doctors, unions, lawyers, other Democrats:  all pulling in different directions.

Gee, what a surprise!

CAVU