Scientific literacy cannot be measured by a litmus test such as belief in the Big Bang or evolution.

Every two years the National Science Foundation produces a report, Science and Engineering Indicators, which surveys the public’s attitudes toward science. (1) The report found for instance, that the public’s opinion of scientists ranks at the top of 23 other occupations and there is broad support for public funding of science research.  In spite of that, Dr. Lawrence Krauss, is unhappy because a section of the 2010 report about the public’s  science literacy was omitted.

In a Scientific American article, he responds:

“And every two years we relearn the sad fact that U.S. adults are less willing to accept evolution and the big bang as factual than adults in other industrial countries. Except for this time. Was there suddenly a quantum leap in U.S. science literacy? Sadly, no. Rather the National Science Board, which oversees the foundation, chose to leave the section that discussed these issues out of the 2010 edition, claiming the questions were ‘flawed indicators of scientific knowledge because responses conflated knowledge and beliefs.’ In short, if their religious beliefs require respondents to discard scientific facts, the board doesn’t think it appropriate to expose that truth.”

However, the National Science Board was right that the section  confused knowledge and beliefs. For example, there is evidence for the Big Bang theory and many people know about it, but they have not incorporated it into their beliefs.  Only physicists and mathematicians would likely know what a singularity is, let alone believe the universe arose from one. Then, there is the problem of how the singularity came to be. Likewise, many people know of the adaptation of species to their environment such as resistance of viruses and bacteria to antibiotics and of insects to DDT. They may also be aware of our ancestors such as Luci and Ardi and know of the evolution of the horse. However, if you insist that the spontaneous generation of life is part of evolution, it may be rejected.

Dr Krauss is missing something important.  Aristotle established science as a method for understanding nature by using observation and reason. It is not a body of facts to be memorized and believed. As scientists gather more evidence, what we now regard as fact may be replaced with better ideas. We should not make “accepting evolution and the big bang as factual” a litmus test for science literacy. Just as scientists think religion should not be dogmatic, scientists should also refrain from dogmatism. Insisting people accept scientific theories which conflict with their religious beliefs  just makes them more likely to mistrust science on issues where it really matters.

As a practical matter, it is not likely that someone’s mind can be changed by claiming their beliefs are wrong or that they are based on mythology. Science teachers must deal with students who already have a belief system established. Their strategy should be to present science as a method that uses observation and reason to understand the physical world. Teachers must focus on the background knowledge and the evidence, and hope that at some point the student would see any conflicts and try to resolve them.

1)http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/c7/c7h.htm

2) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faith-and-foolishness

Economist Mike Moffatt has identified the likely winners and losers under the Fair Tax proposal. Winners would be people who are inclined to save, people who can shop in other countries, those who can avoid sales taxes by unscrupulous means, and the wealthiest one percent who will get an average tax cut of about $75,000.

The losers would be the working poor, families with incomes less than $200,000, people who derive income from the current system (tax accountants, IRS employees and income tax lawyers), and seniors who have already paid a lifetime of income taxes and would now be taxed on spending as well.

The “Fair Tax” proposal would shift more of the tax burden to middle and lower income groups, those groups already benefiting the least from recent tax cuts. Our present graduated income tax code is based on the ideas that those who profit most from our country’s wealth, resources, and opportunities should pay a greater share of their bounty in taxes. The current system seems fairer and more pragmatic than shifting taxes to those who could least afford to pay.

For more information and references, click Here.

There was a hike in the Social Security payroll tax (FICA)in the 1980s so that baby boomers would pay a bigger share of their own retirement. That hike created a surplus which went into the SS trust fund. The trust fund is projected to grow and reach its peak in 2027 at nearly $6 trillion. From that and collections, there will be sufficient money in SS to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041.

A few small changes now could extend the trust fund far into the future. A poll conducted for USA Today by Gallup shows that 67% of Americans would support lifting the cap on FICA contributions. That change alone would extend the SS trust fund until 2083.   More, and references  Here.

Why Do Many Believe Social Security Is Going Broke? It is because many politicians and financial advisers are telling them so. The claim that SS was going broke was part of the PR created to try to justify privatizing SS. Privatization would have been a boon to the financial services industry and money poured in for promotion and campaign donations. Privatization eventually failed, but the idea that SS was going broke has lived on. The theme that “SS is going broke” has now become a talking point used by unscrupulous politicians to blame political opponents, inspire fear, convince voters that the government isn’t working, or to justify changes to the system to benefit friends and donors. The theme is also a useful marketing tool for retirement funds who wish to convince potential customers that no matter how much money they have saved, they will eventually run out – unless they invest with them. Of course, a solvent SS ruins that argument.

Won’t the Baby Boomers Use SS Up? No. There was a hike in the Social Security payroll tax in the 1980s so that baby boomers would pay a bigger share of their own retirement. That hike created a surplus to handle the crunch of baby-boomer retirements and the surplus went into the SS trust fund. The trust fund is projected to grow steadily until 2027 and after that, it is estimated that SS funds will be sufficient to pay 100 percent of benefits until 2041. After that, payroll tax revenue alone will be sufficient to meet 78 percent of the program’s obligations – even if no changes are made.

Should Changes Be Made? The SS trust fund could be extended by either increasing the retirement age, reducing  benefits, increasing the payroll tax, or raising the cap on earnings.(2) The latter might be the fairest and most popular. Earnings above $106,000 a year are now exempt from SS taxes. As the inequality in earnings between top and average wage earners has grown over the years, the cap has exempted a larger share of top wages from taxes – and thereby reduced SS collections. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office shows that if the cap were lifted, the Social Security trust fund could be extended through 2083. A poll conducted for USA Today by Gallup shows that 67% of Americans would support lifting the cap. (3)

Social Security was created by the Social Security Act of 1935 in the midst of the Great Depression to provide for retired workers who had lost their life savings. It did that, and since has become one of the most relied on government programs. Many economists think future retirees may be even more dependent on Social Security because of the disappearance of traditional pensions. Social Security provides a safety net so that no matter how fortunate or unfortunate Americans are in their lives and choices, they will not be destitute when they retire. A few thoughtful changes now will insure that SS will be around when those who are now babies reach retirement age.

1) http://www.ohio.com/news/american_dream/27325314.html

2) http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/115xx/doc11580/07-01-SSOptions_forWeb.pdf

3) http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/8/2/889034/-Proof-that-the-Social-Security-problem-is-easy-to-fix

This  guest article is a letter by a small businessman sent to the Wall Street Journal:

The Wall Street Journal has published many articles on climate change. Most all claimed the science was unreliable and discredited the scientist, whose emails were stolen. However three investigations have cleared the scientist. I have both a major in Journalism & Business and I am ashamed of the yellow journalism the Wall Street journal has discredited itself with in this area. Is it that  Rupert Murdock’s News Corporation* backs the skeptics; is it his desire for sensationalistic headlines;  or, is it the paper has incompetent or biased writers and editors in the area of climate science?

I fear the one paper I buy almost daily at the newsstand and depend on for business information has lost its credibility. How can I make reasonable business decisions without undistorted facts.  I have been a businessman for 30 years in the oilfield through boom and bust.  How can I depend on the world’s top business paper if it does not investigate and check its facts. Now, the question is “Can I depend on your paper to give me the facts I need for my small oilfield drilling service to survive?”

At this juncture, I wonder if I can count on the Wall Street Journal to make your grievous errors right?  At age 57, I hope so for my children’s and my grandchildren’s  sake. I want them to have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink at a cost of 4/10 of 1 percent of their income  in the future, as I do now.

Guest author: David Moore

*Editors note:  Rupert Murdoch also owns Fox News and the NY Post.

An article recently appeared in the Daily KOS containing a video making fun of Boren’s ads and criticizing him for supporting a “Flat Tax” scheme. (1) True to form, in the tree scene in the video, Boren is wearing the unofficial state color – camouflage. He is the  only Democrat among 61 Republicans in Congress supporting the “Flat Tax”(or “Fair Tax”) scheme.

Boren apparently hasn’t thought that Flat Tax scheme through. My Congressman, Frank Lucas (R-OK), also favors a “Fair Tax” scheme that would replace income taxes with a national sales tax ( a consumption tax) (2). Boren says it would be a sales tax of 30%. It  may need to be higher for it to be “revenue neutral” as we have to raise a certain amount of revenue to support our government and that would not change. What the “Fair Tax” would change is that more of the tax burden would shift to the middle and lower income groups, those  already benefiting the least from state and federal tax cuts. (3)

While many like the idea of the Fair Tax’s simplicity, that may turn out not to be the case. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was supposed to bring us “simplification” of  our income taxes but there is little evidence that it has worked. Adopting a national sales tax will have a ripple effect across our economy with unknown consequences. For instance, we would have to tax internet purchases and raise import duties to keep the wealthy from shopping overseas for major purchases.

Economist Mike Moffatt has worked out who would be the likely winners and losers under the Fair Tax proposal: (4)

Winners:

• People who are inclined to save: People who do not consume as much will benefit from the plan.
• People who can shop in other countries: People who take a lot of overseas vacations or living near the Canadian or Mexican borders.
• People who can avoid sales taxes: Those who can exchange or barter services and goods, or the unscrupulous who can buy for personal use and claim as a business use.
• The wealthiest one percent: They will see an average tax cut of about $75,000 per person.

Losers:

• The Poor: The working poor pay little income tax but they must spend a larger proportion of their income to survive. They’d pay a larger percentage of their income in taxes than wealthier individuals.

• Families: Tax breaks such as dependent deductions, earned income credits and child care credits would disappear. It would hurt families with incomes less than $200,000 but help families with income above $200,000, due to the dramatic reduction in the top tax rate.

• Tax Accountants, IRS Employees and Income Tax Lawyers: Yes, but they’d survive somehow.

• Seniors: They’ve already paid a lifetime of income taxes and this would now tax them again on consumption as well. They would end up paying a disproportionate share of taxes.

Overall, the Fair Tax is fairer to some than to others, and it looks to be most fair to the wealthy. Our present graduated income tax code is based on the ideas that those who profit most from our country’s wealth, resources, and opportunities should pay a greater share of their bounty in taxes. The rich may not think that’s fair, but that’s fairer and more pragmatic than shifting more taxes to those who have little.

(1) http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/7/3/881389/-Dan-BorenCongress-Worst-Democrat-Has-A-Primary

(2) For an in depth analysis of the consumption tax see:  http://mises.org/daily/1768

(3) For historical top tax rates see:

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=213

(4) http://economics.about.com/cs/taxpolicy/a/fairtax_5.htm

“A cap-and-trade policy will send a signal that will be heard and welcomed all across the American economy. And the highest rewards will go to those who make the smartest, safest, most responsible choices.”

And he was right. Having to pay the true cost of fossil fuel use is fair and would create incentives for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Cap-and-trade was once considered to be the market solution to reducing carbon emissions. While popular, a number of key Republicans, such as Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) went on record as endorsing the policy. Even Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), only two years ago, while supporting a version of a cap-and-trade bill in the Massachusetts legislature said:

”Reducing carbon dioxide emission in Massachusetts has long been a priority of mine. Passing this legislation is an important step … towards improving our environment.”

But somewhere amid lobbying, big donations from power companies, and criticisms from so called conservatives who don’t really want to conserve much, the Republicans are now calling it cap-and-tax, essentially making fun of what was once their own idea.

The Sticker Shock Distortion Flop: In an effort to kill the bill, Republicans such as Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) are now claiming cap-and-trade would cost each U.S. households about $3,100 a year, a cost that has considerable sticker shock. However, that number was fabricated by doing some misleading  additional math on a MIT study. Dr. John Reilly, the economist who authored the study, has criticized Republicans for distorting his work. In his words,

“It’s just wrong, It’s wrong in so many ways it’s hard to begin.” Not only is it wrong, but he said he told the House Republicans it was wrong when they asked him. “That’s just not how economists calculate the cost of a tax proposal”, Reilly said. “The tax might push the price of carbon-based fuels up a bit, but other results of a cap-and-trade program, such as increased conservation and more competition from other fuel sources, would put downward pressure on prices.” Moreover, he said, consumers would get some of the tax back from the government in some form. (2)

What Is the Uninflated Cost? The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the entity responsible for providing Congress with nonpartisan analyses of economic and budget issues, estimates that the net annual economywide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion—or an average of about $175 per household. That figure includes the cost of restructuring the production and use of energy but it does not include the economic benefits and other benefits of the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and the associated slowing of climate change. Households in the lowest income bracket would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020 while those in the highest bracket would see a net cost of $245. Overall, net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income. (3) That doesn’t seem so bad, particularly as the CBO experts also estimate the climate and energy bill now stalled in the Senate would reduce the federal deficit by about $19 billion over the next decade. (4)

The High Cost of Doing Nothing: The cost of doing nothing may be unacceptably high in the long run because of resource scarcity, environmental damage, and the risk of reachng catastrophic tipping points. A recent report by the National Academy of Sciences details the high economic costs of reduced streamflow, rainfall, and crop yields (5). Estimates by the World’s top economists such as Britain’s Nicholas Stern (6) or the US’s Paul Krugman (7) are that right now it would cost about 2% of the worlds GDP to mitigate environmental damage – but if delayed, that amount could rise to 20% or more of the world’s GDP and put us at risk of an environmental catastrophe.

A Flip is Needed: What is it worth to have clean air, clean water, a more sustainable economy, and a less risky future? Can we risk doing nothing? We need a flip by our Republican leaders.

(1) http://www.grist.org/article/2010-06-29-remember-when-republicans-liked-cap-and-trade/

(2) http://flavcountry.blogspot.com/2009/05/mit-economist-john-reilly-calls.html

(3) http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=300

(4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38130006/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

(5) http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_15536630

(6)   http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTINDONESIA/Resources/226271-1170911056314/3428109-1174614780539/SternReviewEng.pdf

(7)  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html

“Anyone who is an engineer or scientist can understand what turned Anthony from a believer in anthropogenic global warming to a skeptic.”

That’s apparently money, influence, fun, and perhaps a little revenge.

Watt’s Career: Watts began his career at Purdue University where he studied Meteorology and Engineering. He has not been forthcoming about how long he attended, whether he graduated, or whether he is “AMS Certified”, as sometimes claimed. After he left college, he worked as a radio and TV weather presenter until he founded Whatsupwiththat (2), a website that posts anti-science literature and commentary. Whatsupwiththat is rife with misquotes, cherry-picking, unsubstantiated claims, title inflation, attacks on scientists, and distorted research. (3) Still, Watts has a number of faithful followers who apparently are made up of disgruntled ex-scientists, those excluded from science by the required rigor, those who profit from the status quo, and members of institutes and think tanks funded by fossil fuel companies.

The Surfacestations Project: Watts has limited credentials in the field of climatology and, though amateurs sometimes make great discoveries, that is not true in his case. While at Purdue, Watts worked part time at their weather  temperature collection site. Building on that experience, Watts has established the Surfacestations Project, a study of weather stations aimed at discrediting NOAA’s temperature data. To counter his repeated attacks on the scientific data, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) did a thorough study of the temperature stations and found that their results were reliable (4). Watts lost any credibility he might have gained as a scientist when the AGU asked him to participate in the research – and he declined. And, though the Surfacestations Project is now completely discredited, Watts is still collecting donations to fund it.

The AGW Conspiracy: To justify his attacks on science, Watts claims there is a worldwide conspiracy of scientists which distorts his True Science,  the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) conspiracy. There are advantages to inventing a worldwide conspiracy to explain why  Skeptics can’t get their ideas published? It’s not the lack of credible research, it’s “censorship” by the AGW who controls the peer review process. Skeptics can’t get funding? It’s not lack of reasonable and competitive research proposals, it’s because the AGW controls the government and its funding processes. Skeptics can’t make unfounded Climategate charges stick? It’s because of the AGW whitewash. Skeptics can’t get their claims to agree with scientific evidence and reason? It’s because the AGW controls Reason. ??? Wattsupwiththat?

Watt’s goes on in the interview:

“I think that if you want skeptics to have an even keel in the debate, skeptics need to push their position more often and that means writing more letters to the editor, to newspapers, to magazines and trade journals and to scientific journals.”

The skeptics would, of course  have a more even keel in the debate if they did the research necessary to back up their claims. Instead, they repeat disproven hypotheses, dispute peer-reviewed research without evidence, personally attack scientists, and refuse to follow the methodology or the ethics of science.

Noble Cause Corruption: Watts has even found a psychological disorder to explain the AGW’s motives… Noble Cause Corruption, a malady once reserved for law enforcement vigilantes. According to Watts:

“A less obvious but perhaps even more threatening type of misconduct in law enforcement is Noble Cause Corruption… Noble Cause Corruption is a mindset or sub-culture which fosters a belief that the ends justify the means…. The officers who adopt this philosophy lose their moral compass. Noble Cause Corruption is a belief that what you’re doing is so much more important than what anyone else is doing because your cause is noble, you’re saving the planet, and because you’re saving the planet, you are doing it for the good of mankind…. And so all of those things combine to put a blinder on you as to what you’re really doing.”

That’s a nice bit of sophistry. Scientists who wish to be good stewards of the Earth are actually, according to Watts, guilty of Noble Cause Corruption. If that is true then his followers, who would let the Earth be destroyed through ignorance and greed, are guilty of a much worse malady called Ignoble Cause Corruption. If we believe Watts and his followers, then we may indeed end up the “Doomed Planet”.

(1) http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/06/anthony-watts-interviewed

(2) wattsupwiththat.com

(3) Some examples, but not nearly an exhaustive list, are

• Wattergate: Tamino debunks “just plain wrong” Anthony Watts
• Hits charade: WattsUpWithThat hypes itself with dubious webstats, while lowballing other blogs
• Watts not to love: New study finds the poor weather stations tend to have a slight COOL bias, not a warm one
• FoxNews, WattsUpWithThat push falsehood-filled Daily Mail article on global cooling that utterly misquotes, misrepresents work of Mojib Latif and NSIDC
• WattsUpWithThat says it has “nothing to do with the dreaded Climate Change” and “has an unappreciated benefit”!
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/jan/27/climate-sceptics-global-warming
• http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week
• Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
• Diagnosing a victim of anti-science syndrome (ASS)

• Must read from Hansen: Stop the madness about the tiny revision in NASA’s temperature data!
• Exclusive: New NSIDC director Serreze explains the “death spiral” of Arctic ice, brushes off the “breathtaking ignorance” of blogs like WattsUpWithThat
• http://nyghtshayde.newsvine.com/_news/2010/03/19/4040277-message-to-anthony-watts?last=1269186136&threadId=819176&sp=0&pc=25#last_1
• .
• .
• .

(4) Menne, Matthew J.; Claude N. Williams, Jr., and Michael A. Palecki. Journal of Geophysical Research – Atmospheres (American Geophysical Union) http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf.

Researchers are required to keep records of their research so that any other scientist with comparable training and skills could reproduce the research. The “reproducibility” of the research is an important factor in the reviewer’s evaluation of the research. The public has a right to information produced by publicly funded research and that may be requested through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Usually a “Gatekeeper”, such as the project’s director, is designated to handle FOIA requests. That Gatekeeper has a responsibility to see not only that the public’s rights are upheld, but also to see that the FOIA process is not abused and that the scientists are protected. (1)

Only a few things are kept confidential to preserve the integrity of the peer review process.  The main barriers preventing a better understanding of science by the public is not “secrecy”, but poor science education, the lack of responsible and informative reporting by the media, and an ongoing campaign to spread misinformation by those who find the conclusions of science inconvenient to their ideological or financial interests.