Saturday, November 28, 2009
There's a lot going on in the world, but I have more time for linking than thinking this morning, so a tab dump it is.
All about the history of statins, Lipitor, and what the expiration of its patent means for Pfizer. Sounds boring, but isn't.
The supply of oil: "splitting the difference" between optimists and pessimists.
John Burns, one of the NYT's truly great reporters, ruminates on Afghanistan and President Obama's looming decision to send more soldiers to fight there. I have decried Obama's indecision on previous occasions; he does not seem to understand the importance of showing decisiveness in addition to actual deliberation. But, if he has used this time to develop a clear argument for our mission there he will have used his time wisely (and, I might add, clearly surpassed his predecessor in at least one aspect of our national security policy).
The gender gap in unemployment.
The unemployment rate for men, 11.4%, based on seasonally adjusted data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, outpaces the rate for women, 8.8%. We now have the largest jobless gender gap since tracking became possible in 1948. The gap reached its previous peak, 2.5 points, in 1967 and 1978. Today's gap has exceeded that for three months. It's endured at two points or above for an unprecedented length, eight months and counting.
One would think that this would get more attention from the outcomes-oriented folks who parse statistics to find evidence of discrimination.
A climate scientist who
What ClimateGate says about the legacy media. As if you needed reminding.
Norway, of all countries, decides that the Islamic Republic of Iran is run by brutish thugs. Of course, the Norwegians have long used the Nobel Prize to make one or another political point against the hope, really, that it would insulate the recipient against the bad guys. Now that Iran has apparently called that bluff the game is probably over; the Nobel Prize may in the future amount to a target, rather than a shield.
More later, if I get back to my computer before I set out for the UVA-VT game.
As one of those lost souls (along with TH I might add) who believes that the weight of evidence supports AGW, I have to admit that the Climategate story really causes me pause.
It's not that these scientists violated science, if you will; after all scientists are humans and history shows that humans succumb to all types of seductions.
No, what is most troubling is that none of their unethical behavior was caught before now. It took a hacker to reveal these transgresions.
Why didn't the scientific process call out these individuals beforehand? From the revelations in the e-mails it seems to me that all kinds of alarms should have gone out during the peer-review process.
That it didn't, again, is more troubling for me than the actual misdeeds.
Quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?
Re: oil production: the risk of a peak before 2030 "needs to be given serious consideration."
I love the predictions that we'll produce 120 million barrels of oil a day in 2020. Why? Because that's the best estimate of what the demand will be!
The frauds involved in most petroleum forecasting are of the same ilk as the AGW frauds. Start with the answer and make the data fit. The difference is, if the earth doesn't actually cook, then well good. But if we've seen peak production, or will anytime soon, we are screwed so hard. More people should be talking about this.