Inkwell: Authors and Artists

    
Andrew Trott asks: "I'm no scientist but I do know rhetoric and I'm
trying to understand why Mr. Mims thinks it's so important that (if)
the water vapor data do not conform to the models?"

Water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is the chief greenhouse gas. If it
is not properly measured and included in the models, how can the
models be trusted? Carbon dioxide is definitely increasing, but
total water vapor is not. The longest measurements of total column
water vapor by the Smithsonian (1926-1957), Mims (1990 to 2020),
NASA's global NVAP study, and others have no trend. That is simply a
fact, not rhetoric.  
  

    
My reference to "rhetoric" meant only that I am attempting to infer
the nature of the argument that you think springs from the premise
you are asserting. A syllogism that is only partially stated is more
likely to confuse than to enlighten.
  

    
The climate (UV etc) aspects are in Ch's 14-19 

I'm not arguing overall global warming. But there's a nice example
where "professionals" were criticizing Mims' "amateur" detector,
saying that high school kids would get the lenses sticky. Then you
discovered that THEIR supa-dupa detector was sitting in the mist of
a building AC system!

Also the saga where you detected that the official satellite system
had drifted in its calibration. And that the "officials" responded
by declaring its range to be a meaningless +- 35 % (?) .. eventually
settling on +-3%, still way in excess of your design.

[ details from memory ...  ]
  

    
<fmims>, when you started writing books who were you writing them for?
The general public?  People interestedin electronics and technology?
People (like me :-) who thought Radio Shack was the best store in the
world?
  

    

Plenty of people acknowledge warming as part of their soft denial, including
Bjorn Lomborg and Matt Ridley. No real surprise there, since the warming is
undeniable. But nibbling at the edges of the models is an easy way to
release chaff that can confuse the public. Mims says the models are
inaccurate. Hausfater and others whose work I've studied closely argue that
the models have been accurate, if a little conservative. All models must be
tested, retested and examined; blind trust serves no one. But neither does
obfuscating the power of the current models. Heck, Svante Arrhenius got
remarkably close with a pencil and paper – not that his models are used to
day, but I bring it up to point out that the science of climate change has
been remarkably potent in showing us where we're headed.

   Predictions of no snow sounds like the kind of thing journalists
interpreting the science say — hyperbolic.

   Let's stick with the science, not the hot air, please.
  

    
Well said and amen 
  

    

I support <jswatz> and <jonl>'s responses to Forrest's assertions on
climate change, and encourage folks who want to delve into them to
start with <https://skepticalscience.com/>. This is a well-regarded
resource for recording and rebutting skeptic and denial arguments,
and contributors include a combination of academic, professional and
amateur scientists, as well as people from other professions. 

The Wikipedia article about the project provides good background:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical_Science>


Great questions for Forrest in #54 from <jet>: "When you started
writing books who were you writing them for? The general public? 
People interested in electronics and technology? People (like me :-)
who thought Radio Shack was the best store in the world?"


(Jet, I was a late convert to the original Radio Shack, thanks to
Patrick. We went back and forth a lot to a local Radio Shack while
developing the gadgets in our "With Arduino" books.)
  

    
Wandering back to something you mentioned earlier, I saw Sarah's
page on the Smithsonian and NASA websites:

https://forces.si.edu/atmosphere/03_00_02.html

That is super impressive! I really admire how she, and you, are
doing interesting science with home-rolled equipment. Sometimes a
person could get the impression that new discoveries in science
require millions of dollars and supercomputers. 

Did anyone follow up to see whether those spores had any effect on
the local ecosystem? I saw this article but it's dated
https://grist.org/grist-video/its-alive-the-groundbreaking-research-on-the-mic
robes-in-wildfire-smoke/

I gotta confess, watching the first episode of "The Last of Us" ,
combined with learning about how mushrooms have vast underground
networks of 'mycelium' ("mycelia?")  jas aroused my curiosity about
spores.  
  

    
(oops forgot the NASA link to Sarah's work)
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SmokeSecret/smoke_secret4.php
  

    

  I would love to see this discussion come back to Mims' book, which I'm
sure is great.
  

    
Yes, his accomplishments are fascinating to hear about, given that
Forrest is a self-taught amateur scientist. It would be cool to hear
more about the instruments he's built and experiments he's run over
the years.
  

    
And how he choses the subjects of his experiments. 
  

    
We didn't have anything like Radio Shack in South Africa. The
closest I got is when a friend ordered an early Class D amplifier
from Sinclair in the UK.  

It sounded bad, and I used a signal generator
and  oscilloscope in my physics lab to confirm it. 
  

    
Mr Mims,

Certainly there have been eminent scientists who have believed in God. But
most I think would say that the realms of science and religion don't intersect
and leave regious beliefs out of their scientific work. Do you agree that a
good scientist--professional or amateur, maverick or not-- considers evidence
on its own merits regardless of whether it conforms to personal beliefs, and
is willing to change their mind when provided with when the evidence is
overwhelming? From what I understand (as a non-scientist) the fossil evidence
for evolution is so strong that the vast majority of scientsts have done just
that. Why do you reject that evidence in favor of an explanation that was
either crafted thousands of years ago in the age of alchemy and astrology
(i.e., the Bible) or is a modern-day attempt to teach religious beliefs as
facts in schools (intelligent design, "Got is testing our faith by misleading
us with fossils"). If you have scientific evidence that Darwin was wrong, why
hasn't it taken the scientific world by storm?
  

    
The Scientific American affair and its repercussions are in chapters

The American Association for the Advancement of Science
29 October 1990
Dear Mr. Mims:
The Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility of the
American
Association for the Advancement of Science has received the
materials you submitted in connection with your complaint regarding
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. The legal questions that may be involved in
this matter are beyond the purview of the Committee. However, the
Committee does wish to affirm its commitment to the principle that
articles submitted for publication in journals devoted to science,
technology and medicine should be judged exclusively on their
scientific merit. A person's private behavior or religious or
political beliefs or affiliations should not serve as criteria in
the evaluation of articles submitted
for publication.

We emphasize, in particular, the consensus of the Committee that
even if a person holds religiously-derived beliefs that conflict
with views commonly held in the scientific community, those beliefs
should not influence decisions about publication of scientific
articles unless the beliefs are reflected in the articles.

We wish to stress that, in expressing this opinion, the Committee is
not taking any position on the particulars of your dispute with
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN.
Sincerely,
[signed]
Sheldon Krimsky, Ph.D., Chair
Committee on Scientific Freedom and Responsibility
cc: Jonathan Piel7
  

    
My question stands independent of whether Scientific American should have
hired him.
  

    
Mr Mims has written (per his 1000's of entries publication list at 
<http://www.forrestmims.org/publications.html>  only three articles
on Evolution (one saying neither should be banned) .. c 1984-1990.

A technical note on Junk DNA vs NoP codes was not accepted for
publication.

An article ($$$) in Journal of Molecular Evolution
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00163847>
appears (no abstract) to be more on epistemology than scientific
details.

I also saw an exchange of letters in Science (but was on my fone, no
bookmark).

Mr Mims has never claimed to be an authority on evolution, so I
think an inquisition on his beliefs is out of place here.

Finally, a cursory review (both normal and AI searches) indicates
that there have been major changes in details of Darwinism since
1984.
  

    
He discusses elements of his skepticism of Darwinism in Chapter 13.
Quoting Darwin himself, not the bible.
  

    
NY Times 1990 coverage is at
<https://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/24/us/hire-a-creationist-a-nonbeliever-in-darw
in-not-at-a-proud-science-journal.html>
  

    
af, could you let Mr Mims answer for himself?
  

    
I am an official reviewer, so I've quoted from the actual book.
  

    
This afternoon I posted a rather lengthy response to various
questions and points about Scientific American, Darwinism, Climate
change, amateur science, etc. and clicked on "Post." But that post
has disappeared! Tomorrow (30 May) I will attempt to repeat the
highlights of that post in a Word document I can save. I will then
paste that response here and hope for the best. Meanwhile, detailed
responses to some of the questions can be found in "Maverick
Scientist." 
  

    
There are times when that has happened to me.  

I find that if I click the arrow to return to the previous page in
my browser, my text is still there to submit.  (Though that might
depend on the browser.)
  

    
I'm sorry you had that problem, Forrest. Please do try <chrys>'s
suggestion before giving up and rewriting your answers.
  

    <scribbled by ernie Thu 30 May 24 11:47>