OTB Radio — Tonight at 5:30 Eastern

OTB RadioThe next episode of OTB Radio, our BlogTalkRadio program, will record and air live from 5:30-6:30 Eastern.

Dave Schuler and I will talk about the Senate’s health care compromise, the Tiger Woods mess, and goodness knows what else.

We’ll also be taking calls at (646) 716-7030. Owing to a high trolls to legit callers ratio, however, we’ll be using the BTR chat feature to screen for legit calls.

You can play the show, subscribe to its feed, or share it with your friends via the widget below:

(Note: The playback automatically updates to the most recent show available. Older shows can be accessed at the show archives.)

FILED UNDER: General
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Drew says:

    As always, I enjoyed the show. But I have to confess that the last topic, the AGW debate, fell like a thud from my perspective, and not worthy of the almost always high quality observations on your respective blogs.

    Your comments sounded great – and like the intellectual high road – to observe that “people who want to believe still won’t, and those that do will continue.”

    Sounds just great…but in reality its really, really light. Diplomat-speak.

    It simply does not come to grips with what is transpiring right now. Extremely prominent scientists in the two decade long debate are being exposed as advocates, not scientists. And we have a huge data integrity issue.

    You can levitate and hold hands with the angels and, looking down, observe that advocates will be advocates……but you thereby eliminate yourselves from serious discourse.

    I’ve actually held back on your sites in my commentary on this issue. But as someone trained in the sciences, I know how you deal with data. Go ask Alex, he’s a biochemist. If he would responds in any other way than I’m about to he’ll have no shred of credibility with me ever. He knows.

    You might apply various mathematical techniques to data. Smoothing, time adjusting etc etc. You might eliminate or interpolate certain data points based upon judged problems with that data. Fine.

    But you never, ever eliminate the source data, and the ability for others to make a judgment on your “adjustment” techniques. Else, “doctoring” the data becomes the central issue.

    You combine this with the obviously problematic peer review stuff and friendly media inquiries and this is an absolute mess.

    The usual diversionary techniques are being employed – “old emails” etc.

    Irrelevant. No matter how old the email……no matter the claims of data available elsewhere, you don’t screw with the fundamental data you have.

    Last sermon point: something as important as this, whether measured as “end of the earth,” or “needlessly costs trillions of dollars” shouldn’t be minimized as “advocates will be advocates.” There is always truth, or at least a meaningful line of inquiry.

    I know, “start your own damned blog, Drew.”

    Well…….but I really did like the show……

  2. HP says:

    James,
    I tend to download the weekly podcast directly from my iPhone. Recently (last 2 podcasts) something has changed, at least w/ direct downloads and it builds a corrupt/unusable file. I can go back to a computer sync if need be but if you could check w/ BTR and see what’s up thy would be much appreciated

  3. James Joyner says:

    Drew: We only had 6 minutes left by the time we got there.

    HP: Thanks. I passed word along to BTR CEO Alan Levy.

  4. Sure Drew, think of a good last name and start a blog. Or on AGW, we can just be patient and figure that this kerfuffle will yield good review of the science, over the next year or two.

    If I could bet $5 now, I’d say that AGW is real, and bet another $5 that there will be plenty who still think the scientists are lying, even if AGW wins non-biased interdisciplinary review.

    As a matter of note though, I am not Megan McArdle, even if (on this) she sounds like me.

  5. Drew says:

    James –

    I know, I just couldn’t help myself. Its for another day.

    odo –

    The best the AGW crowd can hope for now is a “re-do” of the whole analysis. The theory, tenuous on its best day, is now blown out of the water. The breach of scientific integrity is of the highest order, and by some of the most prominent AGW advocates.

    I keep hearing that some source data is available elsewhere, but I’m not so sure. As I understand it much was gathered by the British Navy and meteorological service and is simply gone.

    It will therefore take many years to gather enough data to make a case. In the meantime, it will require blind faith. That’s won’t be a problem for the AGW’rs. That’s pretty much been their position all along.

  6. Who? I laid out my reasons for being honest an anonymous in my first post, and my sidebar is very up-front about it. I would think people could respect that goal.

    On AGW, at this point the interesting thing for me is what the kids will think 30 or 50 years from now as they experience CC, and look back at these discussions. I suspect they’ll forgive us, or they should, because they’ll carry the same shortsighted genes we all do.

  7. BTW, could you give me your reaction to this?

  8. Drew says:

    “BTW, could you give me your reaction to this?”

    odo, odo, odo…….”this insults my intelligence, and it makes me very angry.”

    And I think the kids will look back and say, wow, just like The Next Ice Age didn’t happen, and Flooding of NY Didn’t Happen…….thank god somebody had some common sense and didn’t concede to crap, rigged science all aimed at political chicanery.

  9. Do you suppose that being petty engenders me to your cause? Quite the opposite, actually.

  10. Drew says:

    odo –

    LOL

    Same old faux odo. Good bye.

  11. I guess I guessed wrong on appropriate levels of honesty, trust and pseudo-anonymity. Bye.