James Fallows

James Fallows is a national correspondent for The Atlantic and has written for the magazine since the late 1970s. He has reported extensively from outside the United States and once worked as President Carter's chief speechwriter. His latest book is China Airborne. More

James Fallows is based in Washington as a national correspondent for The Atlantic. He has worked for the magazine for nearly 30 years and in that time has also lived in Seattle, Berkeley, Austin, Tokyo, Kuala Lumpur, Shanghai, and Beijing. He was raised in Redlands, California, received his undergraduate degree in American history and literature from Harvard, and received a graduate degree in economics from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. In addition to working for The Atlantic, he has spent two years as chief White House speechwriter for Jimmy Carter, two years as the editor of US News & World Report, and six months as a program designer at Microsoft. He is an instrument-rated private pilot. He is also now the chair in U.S. media at the U.S. Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, in Australia.

Fallows has been a finalist for the National Magazine Award five times and has won once; he has also won the American Book Award for nonfiction and a N.Y. Emmy award for the documentary series Doing Business in China. He was the founding chairman of the New America Foundation. His recent books Blind Into Baghdad (2006) and Postcards From Tomorrow Square (2009) are based on his writings for The Atlantic. His latest book is China Airborne. He is married to Deborah Fallows, author of the recent book Dreaming in Chinese. They have two married sons.

Fallows welcomes and frequently quotes from reader mail sent via the "Email" button below. Unless you specify otherwise, we consider any incoming mail available for possible quotation -- but not with the sender's real name unless you explicitly state that it may be used. If you are wondering why Fallows does not use a "Comments" field below his posts, please see previous explanations here and here.
  • Important and negative Chinese human rights development

    I am remiss in not mentioning the news from earlier today that Xu Zhiyong, a prominent citizens-defense lawyer in China, was taken from his home at 5 am in Beijing and has not been seen since.  Xu has been a major figure in a group called the Open Constitution Initiative, or Gong Meng (公盟), and is well known for representing groups and individuals against corporations and the state. For instance, last year he represented families whose children had been poisoned during the Sanlu tainted-milk scandal.

    The official rationale for taking Xu is that he was suspected of income-tax irregularities. This claim is not believed anywhere outside the public-prosecutor's office and probably not by many inside it. A number of similar legal-rights organizations have been closed in the last few days and other lawyers detained. As one Chinese associate of Xu's wrote me today,

    Ever since the first indictments came, I have feared something like this would happen, but to know they actually detained Dr. Xu, a highly respected lawyer and a people's representative of Haidian District [the northwest university/tech district of Beijing], just as they do to any other petitioner is just shocking. This means that nobody is safe from random detainment, or free from the fear of it.

    Stories about the case here, here, and here, and statement from the Chinese Human Rights Defenders organization here (in Chinese here). If this had happened two days ago, during the generally upbeat "Strategic and Economic Dialogue," US officials could not decently have avoided commenting on it directly to their Chinese counterparts. They should say something publicly now.

    This whole crackdown is being presented inside China as part of the tightening necessary before the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic this fall. What a commemoration.

  • Rose Garden beer call

    From a purely beer-oriented point of view, mainly missed opportunities. (PS: the Atlantic has ample other commentary on this crucial issue.)

    Pres. Barack Obama: Bud Light. Oh, please.

    Prof. Henry Louis Gates: Red Stripe. Bud Light with a more interesting label and pedigree. Without the label, not many people could tell this from the watery Tsingtaos and Yanjings that were until recently the bane of my existence. Truth of the modern age: lagers the world round whose brewers go easy on hops and malt have a certain je ne sais quoi nothingness.

    Sgt. James Crowley: Blue Moon Wheat Beer. OK. Faux-microbrew. I don't like wheat beer, but at least it's an identifiable flavor.

    VP Joseph Biden: Non-alcoholic Buckler. Can't criticize that.

    What would have seemed the obvious, gimme choice for the host: Sam Adams. Respectful to the Boston guests. All-American. Patriotic. Available in many styles. Beyond reproach on flavor.

    Backup choice: From the Veep's own home state, anything from the imposing Dogfish Head line. Delaware is tiny but, on the strength of this brewery, the Pocket Hercules of beermakers.

    Update: H.L. Gates goes for Sam Adams Light on the second round. Well done!

    By the way, on the "life is unfair" front, I still cannot get over the fact that, after scrounging across Asia these past years for the rare bottle of hop-flavored beer, in America I can walk into the neighborhood Safeway and walk out with (on deep-discount sale) ...

    or go into the nearest deli and find:

    USA! USA!

  • Col. Timothy Reese on Iraq

    Since, atypically, this appears not yet to have been mentioned by any of my on-the-news Atlantic.com colleagues, let me refer anyone who has not seen it to the full text of Col. Timothy Reese's memo urging a rapid exit from Iraq, "It's Time for the U.S. to Declare Victory and Go Home." I first saw it this morning at the Washington Independent site, here, and recommend the full thing to anyone who has read only news summaries.

    Opinion has always varied widely within the professional military about the prospects and best options for America's presence in Iraq. So this obviously does not represent a new military "consensus." But it makes a big difference to have this case argued by a senior U.S. military officer on the scene. Well worth reading.

  • Atlantic obesity debate: let's go to the pics (updated)

    As the Atlantic's tribe of online voices has expanded, it naturally supports a range of views, opinions, subject matter, personal obsessions, styles of argument, and so on. Sometimes we have unintended overlap -- as when Lane Wallace and I were independently impressed by the same innovations on display at this week's Oshkosh air show. Sometimes we have  straight-out differences of opinion, as here and here, and now between Marc Ambinder and Megan McArdle on whether obesity is a real public health problem or another instance of nanny-state moralizing. McArdle's posting is here, and Ambinder's reply is here.

    I am 100% with Ambinder on this one, and would be 1000% with him if that term weren't assumed to be sarcastic. It is notable, though not noted in the original item, that the obesity-skeptic Paul Campos with whom Megan McArdle conducts an extensive, sympathetic interview is a law professor rather than a doctor, public health official, epidemiologist, etc (which of course doesn't disqualify his views but should be mentioned); and that the word "diabetes" does not appear in the discussion in which he pooh-poohs the public health effects of obesity.

    If you've been around the US as long as I have (ie, if you're as old), you have seen very significant aspects of public-health behavior change in your own lifetime. When my dad went to medical conventions in the 1950s and 1960s, most of his fellow doctors smoked. By the time he retired in the 1990s, very few of them did. For better and worse, smoking has become a class-bound phenomenon in America: better for the people who don't smoke any more, worse as one more disadvantage of being poorer and less educated. The difference is startling and obvious if you spend time in, let's say, China, where many more people of all classes smoke. As individuals, Americans have the same human nature as they did 40 years ago, and the same nature as people in China. Will power, compulsions, addition-seeking instincts, etc. But their overall behavior about smoking has changed. Some individuals did not or could not change their behavior. (One of my grandmothers, who had started smoking as a flapper in the 1920s, died of a horrible case of emphysema, sneaking cigarettes on her last conscious days.) But average behavior changed dramatically. In my view, no sane person can deny that public anti-smoking campaigns have made a huge difference.

    What I also know first-hand is that the average physical size of Americans has changed in my lifetime. Go look at some old clips from 1950s versions of The Honeymooners and check out Jackie Gleason. At the time, he was famed for being an enormous fatso. That was part of the joke when he came on screen. Here is the gargantua who drew those laughs:

    Similarly with Alfred Hitchcock, whose portly silhouette on his 1960s TV shows was the definition of impressive girth.

    Or the tubby Raymond Burr as Ironside in the 1970s:

    (To spell out the joke, just in case: none of these people would draw a second glance now.) If you've spent any time in the rest of the world, you know -- first hand, for real, and no doubt -- that Americans, along with Germans, really are heavier on average than other people, and that this is significantly more so than it was 25 years ago.

    Our basic nature as human beings can't have changed in that time. Nor can our genetics. If you've lived in Asia, you know that Japanese and Chinese people are on average taller and much heavier than they were a generation ago. I have met old women in China who looked barely four feet tall. In Beijing or Tokyo 25 years ago, I was always the tallest person on the subway or in a crowd; now, I usually see a few young men over 6'2". But in these countries there's an obvious explanation: poor nutrition artificially limited people's growth before, and the limit is being removed.

    Exactly what this means in policies is beyond my time or ambition here. Basically I agree with Marc Ambinder's statement below. I chime in on the issue mainly to express this view: denying that America's obesity situation has changed; or that it has harmful consequences; or that it could, like smoking, be affected by public policies strikes me as antifactual denialism.

    From Ambinder's reply:

    "McArdle is right that it it's not fair for government to lecture people about weight loss and exercise, but she's right for the wrong reason: policy choices -- ag subsidies, zoning laws, education and budget priorities -- create a flow that, absent any intervention, are sweeping many young kids, particularly poorer kids of color, into obesity. Government's role isn't to scold; it's to make better policy choices. She's wrong about the interventions, too: some, like a physical education project in Somerville, Mass., seem to be working. Taking fast food vending machines out of schools and weighing children at least once a year has arrested the obesity growth rate in Arkansas.  Nationally, the obesity growth rate also seems to be be slowing."

    Update: I will go 1001% with Marc Ambinder's second-round post.

  • Industrial glamor for the future

    I mentioned earlier the beautiful old airplanes from the glamor days of air travel on display at the Experimental Aircraft Association's annual "Airventure" show in Oshkosh. That was yesterday; what about tomorrow?

    Without getting into all the details -- I was only there for a day, I'm already fantasizing about the the full ten-day session one of these years --  here are a few:

    The Terrafugia flying car -- or, more precisely, drivable airplane. Back in March, the Terrafugia took its first test flight:

    Here's how it looks on the ground:


    And, in a company video, in land-bound mode:

    Another flying car, the Maverick, from a missionary/explorer named Steve Saint who is teaching indigenous Amazonian people to fly it to bring in supplies or get medical help.
    More on Saint and his jungle flying projects here and here.

    Honda's personal jet:

    Cirrus Vision personal jet (Cirrus officials doing the polishing)

    A potential customer and his airplane, cruelly separated by a million dollars or so.

    Electric-powered made-in-China airplane, the Yuneec. (Get it?!?)
    This one I didn't actually see myself: photo and more info here.

    Questionable adverising strategy:
    The same talisman Amelia wore! Hmmm....*

    More slyly charming advertising strategy, for a plane in the "light sport" category from a Czech aircraft works.**

    There's way more  but this will do for now.

    : I was typing this up this morning, went away for a while to ail from swine flu or some similar malady, and come back to see that my colleague Lane Wallace has just now mentioned many of the same airplanes and same companies! So you now have independent verification from two sources of the interesting-ness of these innovations. Lane is a "real" aviation writer, too, so her judgment is probably more credible.
    * Note to the young: Amelia Earhart was lost in the Pacific in 1937. ** Note to the old: the Czechs are playing off their country's role as source of other kinds of models who might incite jealousy.

    More »

  • Tech notes: Bing v Google

    SInce its debut a few weeks ago, Microsoft's search engine Bing has received a lot of respectful press attention, from sources that range from David Pogue of the NYT to Derek Thompson of our own Atlantic Business Channel.

    I agree about the attractive potential of many Bing UI features. But in the last while I've tried using it as a tool for actual work, and have found one consistent result: It doesn't cover as much data, or comparably fresh data, as Google does. An illustration that came up just now:

    For reasons I won't get into, I wanted to track some recent comments by one-time NY Lt. Governor Elizabeth "Betsy" McCaughey about the Obama Administration's health care proposals. Ms. McCaughey has had three big moments in the spotlight in talking about medical care. One happened in the early Clinton years, when she was a prominent (and, as I argue here, completely misinformed and destructive) voice opposing "Hillarycare." Another was early this year, when she again launched a willfully misinformed attack, this time on "Obamacare." The third is just this month, when she has come up with another wild assertion about provisions of Obama's plan.

    I wanted to track what she'd been saying recently, so I went to both Bing and Google and entered "Betsy McCaughey Obama health care proposal." The side-by-side results are below, from the very useful Bing-vs-Google site. Click for legible full-screen version:


    What you'd see if you could read these listings -- and what you'll probably see if you run the same search for yourself -- is that on Google all of the first screen and most of the next few are about McCaughey's recent comments. The top hit was 8 minutes old when I ran the search. But the lead items on Bing and most of the first screens are about her comments back in February. The first item there is from February 9, and there isn't much at all about what she's said this summer. (If you run the search again now, Bing might have caught up.)

    I have found this in other searches too. Bing's approach is interesting and can be useful. But it just doesn't seem to cover as much stuff. I'm always skeptical of the significance of "total results found" in any search engine. But the different you can see on the screenshot above -- 24,700 for Bing, versus 426,000 for Google -- feels about right as a gauge of the difference in the two systems' scope.

    Yes, yes, too much information can be as bad as too little. Yes, Bing is presenting itself as a "decision" tool rather than a pure search engine. But most of what I do is outright searching, and for that it does not yet seem a real contender.

    (Offsetting disclosures: I once worked at Microsoft; I have good friends both there and at Google.)

  • Speaking of industrial glamor

    Or at least technological glamor, there may be new hope for Microsoft among the hip.

    Thirty seconds in is the part that makes it all worthwhile to me. No, not any frogs involved, but the next best thing. Thanks to Dave Proffer.

  • Is China Making The Smoot-Hawley Mistake?

    Several months ago in this Atlantic story, I explained what some economists thought was the biggest danger in the Chinese government's response to the world business collapse. Obviously the Chinese government had to do something to offset the tens of millions of layoffs happening all at once. Its predicament was in a way like America's at the start of the Great Depression: having had an abnormally large share of the world's manufacturing jobs and export earnings when times were good, it had more of them to lose when demand crashed. But China's situation was worse, because it is so much poorer than America was, and because exports represented a bigger share of its employment base.

    Continue reading this post by James Fallows at his blog here.

    More »

  • Smoot-Hawley redux watch

    Several months ago in this Atlantic story, I explained what some economists thought was the biggest danger in the Chinese government's response to the world business collapse. Obviously the Chinese government had to do something to offset the tens of millions of layoffs happening all at once. Its predicament was in a way like America's at the start of the Great Depression: having had an abnormally large share of the world's manufacturing jobs and export earnings when times were good, it had more of them to lose when demand crashed. But China's situation was worse, because it is so much poorer than America was, and because exports represented a bigger share of its employment base.

    So China had to do something. The danger, as with the US recovery measures now, came from the long-term implications of the necessary short-term damage-staunching measures. And here the main fears were: (a) that the government would try to maintain its huge trade surplus (through subsidies, Smoot-Hawleyesque trade barriers, "buy Chinese" rules, etc) even as foreigners were forced to cut back on their buying, thereby triggering understandable resentment and retaliation; (b) that its stimulus efforts would aggravate trade-imbalance problems in the future, since so much was devoted to new productive capacity which could further glut world markets; and (c) that the stimulus would lead to a big destabilizing bubble, since a lot of it was propelled by China's version of sub-prime loans. (Ie, shaky, under-collateralized, dubiously repayable loans to sweetheart or shady companies).

    These are problems to keep watching, and toward that end, two worthwhile resources: The first is this essay by R. Taggart Murphy, longtime investment banker in Japan and now a finance professor there. (The link opens a Word .DOC file for download.) Murphy -- for the record, a friend from my Japan days -- compares China's nascent attempt to prop up its trade surplus to what Japan did in the 1970s. He says:

    "If the parallels continue with the 1970s, what might we expect?  First, hostility directed away from the United States and towards China. ... Once your economy is so large that whatever you do affects global economic architecture, the "free rider" option [of permanent trade surplus] begins to close.  If you manage your economy in such a way as to maximize exports and trade surpluses at a time when global growth is sluggish or non-existent, you are willy-nilly forcing other countries to run trade deficits.  What happens if they refuse to go along?"

    He suggests some cautionary answers to that last question. Also, we have yet another illuminating item from Guanghua School of Management's Michael Pettis, about the pitfalls built into the stimulus package. Here. Worth reading as a complement to this week's "Strategic and Economic Dialogue."

  • Industrial-age glamor

    When American automakers' brand names were glamorous (click for much bigger):

    Ford Tri-Motor, ca 1925:


    When American airlines (and American Airlines) were glamorous:

    AA's "Flagship Detroit" DC-3, ca 1937:

    The Tri-Motor actually flew today, at the annual overwhelming EAA "Airventure" fly-in and jamboree in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. It flew before huge thunderstorms blasted through central Wisconsin and cancelled (a rarity) the afternoon airshow.

    Tomorrow, some illustrations of modern-age and futuristic industrial glamor, of which happily there is a lot. All of this the result of an invitation from a friend with a Cirrus SR-22 (fancier version of the plane I used to own) to come out and see the show for a day. Also tomorrow, back to reality.

    OK, here's one modern glamorous illustration: Virgin Galactic's WhiteKnight Two, which will launch craft into space, flew in before the storm. Contrary to appearances, that's all one plane.

  • Climate pushback #2 (of 2)

    After the jump, excerpts from a few more readers with thoughts to add, in response to this and this, about the notorious famed "hockey stick" chart and the general state of the climate-change debate.

     I'll let these speak for themselves -- and also let them wrap up the discussion in this space for the time being.

    But a note about a point that could use re-assertion What attracted me to Richard Muller's book "Physics for Future Presidents" and still does, despite varied complaints about parts of its argument, is that it tries to do something that too few experts and specialists bother with. It attempts to explain the way scientists approach complex issues of public policy. How they weigh evidence. What they're skeptical of and convinced by. How they think about data that never perfectly fits -- and how they try to discern general trends even when particular details are messy. I was using this in contrast to a George Will column breezily asserting that a decade of flat temperatures (a claim that itself is disputed, to put it mildly) said something significant about longer-term climactic trends.

    How many other experts even try to do this? Explaining their manner of thinking -- which is more valuable than their judgment on any particular point? Rather than simply asserting that they are right on the basis of their expertise. Historians Richard Neustadt and Ernest May -- both unfortunately now dead, both men I admired greatly when taking their classes -- notably did so in their book Thinking in Time, which tried to explain how historical analogies could inform --  mislead. I have not yet read Jerome Groopman's How Doctors Think, but the title is certainly promising in this sense. I have read The Art and Science of Politics, by Harold Varmus, and it's a fine example of this approach. Atul Gawande's justly celebrated New Yorker report (on why medical costs were so much higher in one Texas city than another) was great because he applied his knowledge as a physician to explain how other doctors did their work. The Galbraiths -- John Kenneth, and now his son James, especially with Predator State -- earned the suspicion (and envy) of many fellow economists by trying to explain what was right and wrong about economic reasoning to lay readers. To avoid the risk of offending by omission, I'll stop here (rather than talking about lawyers, engineers, biologists, teachers, etc.

    The entire purpose of Richard Muller's book was to convey how people trained in the hard sciences make their way through the contradictory signals from the real political world. That is worth noting, no matter what you think about his view on the "hockey stick."

    Reader comments after the jump.


    From a Canadian scientist

    Since you posted regarding the now-infamous Mann et al. "Hockey Stick", I thought I'd forward you the summary of the report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years" written by the National Academies. [Here]

    This report was compiled at the request of Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) in order to clarify the issues surrounding climate change and the Hockey Stick flap.  To summarize that report, let me simply quote from a AAAS Newsletter:

    "At Chairman Boehlert's request, the National Academy of Sciences recently reviewed this issue. In a report released on June 22, entitled Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, the Academy concluded that, while Mann's statistical procedures weren't optimal, the procedure did not unduly distort his conclusions, which the Academy reinforced. "The basic conclusion of Mann et al. was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence that includes both additional large-scale surface temperature reconstructions and pronounced changes in a variety of local proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in many cases appear to be unprecedented during at least the last 2,000 years." Due to the degree of uncertainty in the temperature estimates from many centuries ago, the Academy did not support Mann's specific claims that the 1990s was the hottest decade and 1998 the hottest year in the past millennium."


    Obviously, the Hockey Stick episode did nothing to help the climate science community's case.   That said, the Mann study wasn't very far off the mark.


    A scientist in Zurich writes:

    I just wanted to point out a simplification of a simplification in your post about Antarctic ice. While it is true that higher temperatures lead to higher humidity and higher snowfall, you have to be careful with equating snow with ice, and assuming that storage increases.... higher fluxes into the system mean that there also higher fluxes out of the system and if you replace snow (or firn) with ice then the density difference leads to non-trivial losses in absolute mass. Loss is absolute mass within the ice sheet is a gain to the oeans, hence sea level rise without a loss in the *area* of the Antarctic ice sheet. Furthermore, something that isn't discussed very much is that slightly warmer temperatures can lead to very dramatic differences in the speed that the ice is moving off of the continent (due to melting at the base of the ice sheets in contact with bedrock)....


    In this PDF file of a paper called "Science Advice as Procedural Rationality," Michael Feuer, of the National Academy of Sciences, talks about the general problem of incorporating expert advice into public/political decisions.


    From reader Brian Filipiak

    You may have read Michael Crichton's book: "State of Fear". I have enjoyed Crichton for years, and I had to force myself to pick up this book and read it. I didn't want to read it because it was supposedly "against" global warming.

    It wasn't. It was "against" public-opinion science. He brought a level of questioning to the debate that had not been applied in a large, popularized way, before. Doing so, he took a *lot* of heat for it.

    He did a nice interview with Charlie Rose, and touched on it during that discussion. Interview here: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/1 

    About 19:50 into the discussion. He describes himself: "I am not a catastrophist."

    For me, reading this book helped me further learn to question things, and if Muller simply is trying to accomplish the same thing with his book, then I'll be sure to read it.


    From reader Leslie Forman

    I am a UC Berkeley alumna, now living in Beijing... I'm writing to chime in to the discussion about Richard Muller's Physics for Future Presidents course.  I took it three years ago, in my final semester, to fill a graduation requirement.  My take-aways from the course were (A) science is relevant to public policy  (B) admitting that, unfortunately, doesn't make political decision-making easy  (C) energy policy is interesting!  I recall that his lesson on nuclear power attracted especially passionate questions from the crowd. 

    In many ways, I think this class was a microcosm of my Berkeley education -- so many perspectives to consider, so many sets of conflicting facts, such a strong imperative to make sense of them in a personally compelling way.  I think I've often explained to my Chinese students that the central question of my college education was, "what do you think?"  This question is far less common in Chinese schools.


    A topic that combines frogs, Chinese education, Michael Crichton, and other longstanding concerns -- plus matters of real importance! Thanks to all.

    More »

  • Civil(ian)izing 'Homeland' Security

    In the current issue of the magazine, I argue that creating the ungainly amalgam known as the Department of Homeland Security was a mistake in the first place. (A mistake in concept, in that it was part of the panicky "do something!" reaction after 9/11. And a disappointment in execution, in that many years later there's little evidence of money being allocated more sensibly, overlaps being eliminated, or "stovepipes" of information really being combined.) And if it's too late to do any good by pulling the pieces apart again, at least we could try to buffer its worst, permanent-security-state implications, starting with its wholly un-American name. The piece is only a little longer than this paragraph, but it has a few more details and leads.

    A reader has written in with a tangible suggestion:

    BootsBloused.jpgYes, the name "Homeland Security" is simply horrible, but the clothes may be the real problem.  This may sound frivolous, but I don't think it is.  The issue is boots.  Combat boots.  Boots with pants tucked in and "bloused."  Black boots with thick soles.  Swat teams wear them, and now Border Patrol folks routinely do.  Coast Guard folks wear them, when they used not to.  I believe that wearing military-type boots instead of shoes tends to make the wearer feel more military and therefore more aggressive.  Customs agents used not to take undocumented people off ferries that don't cross international borders, but they took people off internal Washington State ferries last year.  Coast Guard personnel used to be regarded as people who helped boaters, but now they wear boots and talk like fighters.

    One great way to civilize Homeland Security would be to confiscate the boots and reissue shoes.

    To see what the reader is talking about, here are pictures from a startling NYT article by Jennifer Steinhauer from this past spring, which I missed while in China. It is about how Explorer Scouts are being trained for future "Homeland Security" duties, starting with realistic uniforms (complete with boots) and gear. I was once an Explorer Scout, and we spent a lot more time pitching tents and sucking rattlesnake venom out of puncture wounds than doing this. (In fairness, we did get to spend several days on a Navy aircraft carrier in San Diego wearing sailor gear.) Photos by Todd Krainin in this slide show.

    Practice border-control work, by scouts whose trousers are bloused into their boots:

    Scouting in the age of the permanent-security state:

  • Climate pushback #1A, via Brad DeLong

    J. Bradford DeLong, of the once-proud edifice known as UC Berkeley, has provided as much info as any reasonable consumer might want on the global-warming "hockey stick" fracas. His post is not 100% flattering to moi-meme, but he gets extra points for working in frog references and for an account of an actual discussion with his UCB colleague Richard Muller. A fact-check on the recent claim from Al Gore's camp, too. It's all here.

    Promised second climate-pushback dispatch later on.

  • Climate pushback #1, from Al Gore's office and others

    I will try to do this in two omnibus posts, rather than opening up a running weeks-long discourse. After all, that treatment is reserved for frogs,  the China Daily, "starchitecture," and similar topics, of which there is more in the pipeline.

    But in response to two recent items, here and here, on how to think about climate change, I have received a ton of email, all in one mode: ie, telling me I am wrong.

    The original reason I raised the topic was that I'd seen the latest entry in George Will's ongoing series on why global warming is a myth. In response, I mentioned a book by a UC Berkeley physicist about how to assess the evidence on climate change, and why the problem was indeed worth worrying about, if not for the reasons most often discussed.

    My correspondents barely bothered to deal with Will. They were instead upset about the physicist, Richard Muller, and by extension me for being too complacent about climate-change evidence -- and too critical of those (including Al Gore) who had warned about it most prominently.

    Below and after the jump, representative samples of this view. Later tonight, I'll put up a few more messages, and the appropriate meta-thoughts on my part. Unless I hear from Muller, or something else occurs, that will be it for now -- simply because I am well aware that detailed argument over studies, policies, and implications already occupies many sites full time. (For instance, this and this, with different perspectives.)

    First up, Joseph Romm, of the Climate Progress site and the book Hell and High Water, whom I have known for years. Because he wrote me privately, I won't go into his views of my judgment or Muller's. But here are the references he thinks people should instead read:

    -Romm has written two critiques of Muller's book, here and here.

    -According to Romm, "The 'hockey stick,' was essentially vindicated by the National Academy of Sciences, and it is almost certainly correct." Cite here.
    - "Gore's essential argument is correct and other than a very few technical quibbling with word choice, pretty every one on his major carefully crafted statements is accurate.  His Nobel Prize will, sadly, be vindicated by history." [Note from JF: 'An Inconvenient Truth' also included a particularly egregious display of boiled-frog madness, which maybe we will assign to the realm of "technical quibbling with word choice." Ie, if he had said, "if you remove a frog's brain and put him in a top of tepid water, then gradually raise the temperature..." he'd be square with the scientists.]
    - About Antarctica: "The fact that the models have underestimated the timing and speed of ice loss in Antarctica is not an argument for questioning climate science or claiming the models have been debunked. Cites here and here.Quite the reverse, it is part of a standard critique I offer that the situation is considerably worse than the IPCC states, because their models missed most of the actual feedbacks. Source here.

    Next, from reader P.J.

    "...you rarely seem uncritically to pass along information from a source, especially one that may not be in the best position to objectively frame the issue. So it was with some surprise to see your column, ostensibly dealing George Will's latest misdirection on climate change, uncritically repeat Dr. Muller's incredibly one-sided (one might say cherry-picked) presentation of the so-called "hockey stick" issue, Hurricane Katrina, etc.

    The paleoclimatic reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past millennium showing some variability but an overall lower, relatively flat trend is a robust finding backed by numerous studies that have nothing to do with the statistical criticisms leveled at the 1998 Mann et al. paper. Whatever the methodological problems of that paper, its overall conclusion is not something that was in jeopardy, as the supporting evidence simply does not rest upon a single analysis by a single paper.

    I would also be interested to see Dr. Muller's evidence of claims of direct attribution of Hurricane Katrina to anthropogenic warming by any credible scientist. That wouldn't be a strawman he's tilting at it, would it? Katrina was widely cited of an example of how nations could be vulnerable to changes in climate, but that's hardly what Dr. Muller rails against. His assertion that "After Katrina, many... scientists warned that this was the beginning of a period of terrible damage from more hurricanes" which he subsequently "debunks" by citing the lack of a hurricane making landfall in the US in 2006 is as unsupported as it is itself cherry picking. I'm similarly flummoxed by his claim of "distortion" in discussing the state of Antarctica relative to anthropogenic warming, modeling results, and how the two are both in contradiction and yet reported as not. I don't have a copy of Dr. Muller's book on hand, but from what I can read through Google Books, it looks as though Dr. Muller is engaging in many of the tactics he attributes to those allegedly misleading the public about climate change. This is not to say that misleading never occurs, but rather that if one is going to bother making such claims, one should probably make sure they are based on solid footing....
    From one of Muller's fellow faculty members at UC Berkeley:
     Although I generally agree with Prof. Muller, and I have enjoyed the parts of his book that I have read, I would take him with a grain of salt.

    He is by no means the most authoritative research on climate change available, even on the Berkeley campus. Like Al Gore, he has now become a popularizer, and that task has inherent risks, as Muller himself is aware.

    I provide below some links to more background on the issue of Michael Mann's hockey stick. Muller's point (at least in the reference you cite) is one that, like many statistics instructors, I stressed back when I taught at Berkeley as a grad student--correlation does not imply causation. [The links are here and here.]

    However, I think it is a pretty safe assumption that the rise in green house gases since the beginning of the industrial revolution is forcing climate change, and that change that may prove to have devastating consequences. [Note from JF: Nothing in Muller's book seems at odds with this last sentence.]

    Finally, a representative of Al Gore's office in Tennessee wrote to object that I had not contacted them before quoting a passage from Muller's book critical of Inconvenient Truth -- and to clarify the origin of the much-debated "hockey stick" chart used in that book and movie. The version of that chart that has been most heavily questioned, including by Muller, is from a scientist whose name I'll leave out right now, since I'm not going to the trouble of contacting him at the moment. According to Al Gore's representative:
    The graph that former Vice President Gore refers to in An Inconvenient Truth (which you can verify on pages 63, 64 and 65) was produced by Dr. Lonnie Thompson, one of the country's top glaciologists, not the image that you published in your article...I'd urge you to speak with Dr. Thompson--he was awarded the National Medal of Science by President George W. Bush in 2007--our nation's highest honor for science.

    More »

  • Well, I have a new favorite newspaper

    Move over, China Daily. I don't know how long The Onion can keep up its running version of how it will look after acquisition by the Yu Wan Mei fish salvage company (鱼完美, yu wan mei, "perfect fish"). Background on the sale here.

    But as long as it lasts, it is a tour de force. I suspect that some veteran of the China Daily or allied Chinese "information" organs in English must have defected to the Onion and guided this exercise. It's as good an imitation of the original as are the standard Onion "area man" versions of American news.

    Original (these are real China Daily headlines):


    Improved version:



    My general policy is: if something is already On The Internet, no need for me to mention it too, unless it is in some cranny where many people might overlook  it. But the artistry here forces an exception to the policy. After the jump, an early indication of the Onion's prowess in the "learning from China" field.

    UPDATE: It is worth going to the Opinion page, as illustrated below, and clicking on the "Internet allows free exchange" story.


    The famed "100 Widow Smog Dance," from the Onion's celebration of China's emergence as the #1 polluter in the world. For the "correct" view on China's efforts to deal with pollution, see the real facts here. Still, the video is very funny.

    More »


The Death of Film

You'll never hear the whirring sound of a projector again.


How to Hunt With Poison Darts

A Borneo hunter explains one of his tribe's oldest customs: the art of the blowpipe


A Delightful, Pixar-Inspired Cartoon

An action figure and his reluctant sidekick trek across a kitchen in search of treasure.


I Am an Undocumented Immigrant

"I look like a typical young American."


Why Did I Study Physics?

Using hand-drawn cartoons to explain an academic passion



From This Author