"When scientists try to model how hot Earth could get this century, they typically look at a range of possibilities..."

"... for how much planet-warming pollution humans might pump into the atmosphere. These scenarios get updated every seven years or so. In this latest update, the researchers abandoned a dire — and often criticized — high-emissions scenario known as RCP8.5 that has been prominently cited in thousands of climate studies over the past decade. The authors said the scenario was now 'implausible' given recent energy trends.... For years, critics of the high-emissions scenario had argued that it was always unrealistic, in part because it envisioned that countries would burn coal at absurdly high rates. They argued that any studies or news reports relying on that scenario exaggerated the risks of climate change. Why, those critics now asked, did the course correction take so long?..."

I'm reading "Why Scientists Retired the Dire Climate Scenario Used for Over a Decade/While global warming is still a threat, the decision to back away from a worst-case outlook raises questions about whether some risks have been overstated" (NYT).

"Tucker Carlson... has called the nicotine pouch brand ZYN a 'lifesaving' product that can increase productivity and 'male vitality.'"

"Mr. Carlson went so far as to say that the pouches are 'like the hand of God reaching down and massaging your central nervous system.'...  'What the Make America Healthy Again movement is saying is, "I am going to question what I’m told," said [biohacking influencer Dave Asprey,] who has encouraged his followers to do their own research on and experiment with nicotine, which he calls one of 'Mother Nature’s cognitive enhancers.'... Another common refrain among MAHA supporters is that the medical establishment has made Americans sicker by suppressing information about natural cures and instead pushing prescription medications. That was the focus of an episode last year of the popular 'Culture Apothecary' podcast, titled 'Nicotine is NOT the Villain: What Big Pharma Hides from Parents.' Alex Clark, the podcast’s host and a leading figure in the MAHA movement, interviewed a chiropractor and alternative medicine practitioner who suggested that the drug industry had buried information on nicotine’s benefits and claimed that nicotine could treat Covid, cancer and more...."

From "Influencers Are Spinning Nicotine as a ‘Natural’ Health Hack/The influencers, many of them aligned with the Make America Healthy Again Movement, say the medical establishment has unfairly demonized the compound" (NYT).

like the hand of God reaching down and massaging your central nervous system — reminds me of that Trump-is-like-Jesus illustration:

"The chimpanzees immediately sorted the crystals out of the piles. Then they carried them in their mouths, turned them in the light and held them up to their eyes..."

"... like old-timey prospectors. When the researchers eventually set up cameras inside the chimp dorms, they saw that Yvan was still gripping one as he prepared to relax in his hay nest... They seemed to also be experiencing 'something beyond curiosity,' Dr. García-Ruiz said. Watching them added heft to one of his more speculative theories: He believes that crystals, as 'the only Euclidean object in nature,' may have helped humans invent geometry and unlock abstract thought."

From "Chimpanzees Are Really Into Crystals/In an attempt to understand our own fascination with the shiny minerals, researchers gave some to chimps" (NYT).

So... is this good science? Seems to me the human interest in crystals has long been considered pseudoscience, but you could scientifically study what draws humans into pseudoscience. But is this study, using chimpanzees, scientific? It seems to me that it's mainly combining the pseudoscientific interest in crystals with the hoped-for fun of hanging around with chimpanzees.

I tried to get Grok to make me an image of a chimpanzee holding a crystal and gazing at it "like old-timey prospectors." But after many tries and no progress — the chimp was almost expressionless and the eyes weren't even looking at the crystal — I lost hope.

Grok: "Want one more refinement round? Just say the word."

Me: "No, just tell me why some humans are goofy about crystals." 

"How can official orthodoxies persist for so long even when few people believe them?"

Megan McArdle asks, in "The transgender orthodoxy is cracking/Malpractice suit and shifting clinical guidelines show cracks in transgender orthodoxy" (WaPo)(referencing the book "Private Truths, Public Lies" by political scientist Timur Kuran).

Public orthodoxies that diverge from private opinion may be surprisingly stable, but they can also prove remarkably unstable, because they depend on private thoughts to stay private, giving doubters the illusion that they are lone deviants rather than members of a silent majority....

Why is this surprising? It's the familiar story of "The Emperor's New Clothes," which everyone has always easily understood.  

Starting around 2015, an orthodoxy on transgender issues crystallized, seemingly out of nowhere....

Once you've said "2015," you've got your answer staring you in the face! Why don't you see it? That was the year gay people won their great victory, a right to marry, in Obergefell v. Hodges. McArdle has "an orthodoxy... crystalliz[ing]" — as if a mysterious disembodied force emerged out of nothing — ex nihilo!

But real human beings were involved and their incentive to acquire a new cause is obvious. The activists had won, but they still needed to work, they still needed contributions, they still needed to push conventional people to move forward into challenging new territory. They couldn't just allow people to become decently accepting and empathetic to the gay people who, after all, are human beings who sometimes love each other and want a home and a family. Remember that moment?

That made too much sense. Ordinary people relaxed. Got comfortable.

By the time I went to the Ivy League swimming championships in 2022 to cover the controversy over a trans swimmer, people I talked to evinced a wariness that seemed more appropriate to a Cold War spy novel than to citizens of a free republic....

What happened?

"We should be facilitators and enablers."

“They had a patient coming in saying, ‘I want to look like Frank-N-Furter from Rocky Horror Picture Show.’ ”@LeorSapir spent over 100 hours going through footage of gender conferences.

In the videos obtained exclusively by The Free Press, gender doctors acknowledge they… pic.twitter.com/Jm00RUKFhh

— The Free Press (@TheFP) December 3, 2025

Here's the article: "'We’re All Just Winging It': What the Gender Doctors Say in Private In footage obtained exclusively by The Free Press, gender doctors acknowledge they perform life-altering procedures on vulnerable youth with no supportive evidence—and they are proud of it."

I'm paranoid about why this book isn't available at Amazon (as far as I can tell).

It's "Tales of Paranoia," R. Crumb's first comic book in 23 years. 

I'm linking to Fantagraphics, where I bought it. I've read it and will reread it. Crumb tells the story of his own paranoia and maintains — at age 80+ — excellent dedication to detailed drawings, even with the difficult task of drawing his own face many many times with all sorts of different emotions, mostly in the range of fear and anxiety.

A glimpse, which will perhaps inspire you to paranoia about why you can't get this book from Amazon:

"Nobody got angry. You were angry at people that didn't want to get vaccinated and you didn't get angry at the person who used science..."

"... to create a horrible disease that was completely avoidable. And that killed who knows how many people. That didn't make you mad."

Said Joe Rogan, on his recent podcast with Adam Carolla.

Carolla: "Where's the anger over finding out that it was made in China at a lab... and then where's the anger over being forced or being vaxxed or all this misinformation being used?... I realized they don't want to say anything 'cause they're ashamed

"[President John Quincy] Adams had very little to do save work. He had decided to follow Monroe’s example of accepting no social invitations..."

"... lest he give offense to whomever he refused. Nor did he attend political events or even harmless functions. Declining an invitation by the Maryland Department of Agriculture to attend a cattle show, Adams reflected that he ought not 'set a precedent for being claimed as an article of exhibit for all the cattle-shows throughout the nation.' Occasionally he attended lectures, such as one on 'the organ of amativeness' —the penis—which he found 'more indelicate than philosophical.' But Adams’ life was confined almost entirely to the White House; his daily round was much more dull and routine than it had been when he was secretary of state."

I'm reading "John Quincy Adams: Militant Spirit" by James Traub (page 320)(commission earned).

I see (with the help of Grok) that John Quincy Adams wrote this in his diary for June 8, 1825:

"The medical consensus is usually reasonable and important. But have there been times when it has been politicized or influenced by ideology?"

Said Justice Alito in yesterday's oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. He was confronting the lawyer defending Colorado's law prohibiting licensed therapy treatments aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The lawyer responds:

MS. STEVENSON: We have no facts about that in this case, but I wouldn’t disagree that it’s possible.

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t it a fact that it’s happened in the past?... “Three generations of idiots are enough”?

Those few quoted words invoke an infamous case, Buck v. Bell, where a state had seen fit to sterilize  a "feeble minded woman" without her consent. The Supreme Court did not object to the state's approach to medical science.

MS. STEVENSON: That’s certainly a concern. If there were evidence in the record that a standard of care wasn’t based on patient safety, that would be highly relevant.

Justice Alito didn't ask about whether the motive was correct — whether medical scientists were sincerely pursuing patient safety. He was concerned with whether the goal was pursued in a truly scientific manner and was not skewed by politics and ideology. 

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t that a reason to apply First Amendment scrutiny when what’s being regulated is pure speech, rather than just accepting the medical standard of care and medical consensus as the end of the matter, allowing rational basis review where anything goes?

The lawyer must resist this idea that the therapy is "pure speech." The idea she uses is that these are "words used to deliver medical treatment" (which are different from words expressing the opinion that conversion therapy is good (or bad)):

"I ask Pinker whether we are witnessing an anti-rationality backlash. He suggests..."

"... what we’re seeing is 'greater inequality in irrationality.' Sport has never been more rational: nowadays in America every team has a statistician. Also, 'there’s more evidence-based medicine' than before. But 'at the same time as that, irrationality has gotten absolutely entrenched at the highest levels of power in the United States.' He thinks the roots of the problem may be partly traced to 'the politicisation of science.' During Covid there were 'hundreds of public health experts saying that it’s OK to go out in Black Lives Matter protests' because 'the benefits of social justice outweigh the costs of spreading Covid.' They would not have said the same had it been 'say, a Maga rally.' He cites a number of similar examples, including an academic journal that promised to 'consult members of indigenous minority groups before deciding whether to accept scientific papers' and a science magazine that endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Such things 'erode the credibility of science.' He says: 'If science as an institution brands itself as on the political left, it should be prepared to alienate and maybe kiss off the American right.'"

From "Steven Pinker: I’m pinned between cancel culture and Trump/The Harvard psychologist talks to James Marriott about the campus ‘woke’ left and the Republican campaign to defund universities" (London Times).

"After years of inarticulate unease in social situations, they felt freed by the framework of neurodivergence, and embraced by the community that came along with it."

"Since then I’ve heard accounts from people who received midlife diagnoses of binge eating disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety. Nearly all of them said the diagnosis provided relief. Sometimes it led to an effective treatment. But sometimes, simply identifying the problem — putting a name to it — seemed to help...."

From "Autism, A.D.H.D., Anxiety: Can a Diagnosis Make You Better? As our diagnostic categories expand to include ever milder versions of disease, researchers propose that the act of naming a malady can itself bring relief" (NYT).

"A few years ago, critics began to say that this trend had overshot and was beginning to do real harm. Some say that enlargement of the tent has come at a cost to the most severely ill people, who have lost the attention of the medical establishment. Others say it’s not helping people with milder illnesses, either, especially if they are young. Diagnosis, they say, can set in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy.... Researchers, digging into the downstream effects of diagnoses, are beginning to see this effect play out over the long term. Diagnoses do lock you in...."

Not mentioned in the article: transgenderism.

Why was this allowed to happen?

19-year-old Violet Affleck gives a mask-muffled harangue at the U.N.

From the New York Post editorial about it: "At the UN’s Healthy Indoor Air session Tuesday, Violet Affleck — just 19 and with no qualification beyond being the daughter of actors Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner — railed about the dangers of airborne viruses and the importance of mask mandates amid the 'ongoing pandemic.' 'Adults,' she huffed (through a KN95 mask), are 'ignoring, downplaying and concealing both the prevalence of airborne transmission and the threat of Long COVID.'"

Yes, adults are reckless and dimwitted about a lot of things, but the obvious one here is that teenagers, especially ones who seem hysterical, should not be put in the public spotlight. You might think your little girl is the new Greta Thunberg, but keep it to yourself. Don't push her out onto the stage to emote in the "How dare you!" mode.

And if the left wants some kind of "believe the science" high ground, don't keep sending children and teenagers out to lecture us. 

"Despots want science that has practical results. They’re afraid that basic knowledge will expose their false claims.

Said Paul R. Josephson, an emeritus professor of history at Colby College and author of a book on totalitarian science, quoted in "Historians See Autocratic Playbook in Trump’s Attacks on Science/Authoritarians have long feared and suppressed science as a rival for social influence. Experts see President Trump as borrowing some of their tactics" (NYT)(free-access link).

Analysts say authoritarians and their students fear science in part because its feats — unlocking the universe, ending plagues, saving millions of lives — can form bonds of public trust that rival or exceed their own.

“Science is a source of social power,” said Daniel Treisman, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles. “It always poses a potential threat.”

ADDED: Note that we've got historians purporting to see something in present-day politics. Their topic is science and politics, but are they being scientific? What is the science of historians seeing patterns that yield useful fuel to political arguments? Perhaps it's true that "Despots want science that has practical results." But don't they also want history that has practical results?

Scroll down one post to see a photo of a crane on whose head you can see the head of a goose. One can "see" a lot of things. There are patterns everywhere. But the pattern I've seen the most in all my studies, scientific and imaginative, is that people see what they want to see.

"For years, whistle-blowers have warned that fake results are sneaking into the scientific literature at an increasing pace."

"A new statistical analysis backs up the concern. A team of researchers found evidence of shady organizations churning out fake or low-quality studies on an industrial scale. And their output is rising fast, threatening the integrity of many fields. 'If these trends are not stopped, science is going to be destroyed,' said Luís A. Nunes Amaral, a data scientist at Northwestern University and an author of the study, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday.... In an executive order in May on 'gold-standard science,' President Trump drew attention to the problem of scientific fraud. 'The falsification of data by leading researchers has led to high-profile retractions of federally funded research,' the order stated. But the administration has not offered any new initiatives to address the problem. Thousands of scientists have protested the order, arguing that it would lead to the political muzzling of genuine scientific findings...."

From "Fraudulent Scientific Papers Are Rapidly Increasing, Study Finds/A statistical analysis found that the number of fake journal articles being churned out by 'paper mills' is doubling every year and a half" (NYT)(free link).

"I am a philosopher, not a physician... Philosophers prize clear language and love unravelling muddled arguments, and the writings of pediatric gender specialists..."

"... serve up plenty of obscurity and confusion.... The review describes how the medicalized 'gender affirming care' approach to treating pediatric gender distress, endorsed by the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, rests on very weak evidence.... [N]o reliable research indicates that these treatments are beneficial to minors’ mental health...."

Writes MIT philosophy professor Alex Byrne, in "I co-wrote the anonymous HHS report on pediatric gender medicine/The hostile reaction to our work shows why we needed to do it in the first place" (WaPo)(free-access link). Byrne is quick to assure readers that she's no Trump fan, never votes Republican, and opposes the "discrimination and prejudice" against trans people.

The NYT is carrying on the old tradition of promoting alcohol as good for your brain.

 I was surprised to see this in the NYT: "17 Ways to Cut Your Risk of Stroke, Dementia and Depression All at Once/A new study identified overlapping factors that affect your odds of developing these brain diseases late in life":

The factors that protect against brain disease

The study, which looked at data from 59 meta-analyses, identified six factors that lower your risk of brain diseases:

Low to moderate alcohol intake (Consuming one to three drinks a day had a smaller benefit than consuming less than one drink a day.)...

So the best thing for your brain is consuming a low amount of alcohol. Second best is a moderate amount of alcohol (1 to 3 drinks a day). And third best might be no alcohol or a high amount of alcohol. We're not told.

I thought the idea that alcohol is good for your brain had been debunked, but here we have a study that "looked at data from 59 meta-analyses." Isn't that the kind of study that in the past has purported to show that alcohol is good for you and that had been debunked?

The article begins: "New research has identified 17 overlapping factors that affect your risk of stroke, dementia and late-life depression, suggesting that a number of lifestyle changes could simultaneously lower the risk of all three." I'm extremely skeptical about a study like that. 17 overlapping factors? 

"If our government is going to fund science, it should be good science."

Who could disagree? But what are the chances of getting good science on transgender medical treatments for children? 

I'm reading "Trump’s Attack on Trans Youth Research Is a Tragic Error" by Jesse Singal (in the NYT).

Singal writes:

I’ve long been a critic of American youth gender medicine. Researchers in this field have often produced slipshod work and drawn premature conclusions about the benefits of blockers, hormones and surgery. There are serious unanswered questions about the safety and efficacy of these treatments, which have been banned or restricted in about half of American states and a number of European countries in the wake of several damning government-sponsored reports.

But cutting back on research about these treatments would be a tragic error. What this field needs — and what gender-questioning youth deserve — is reform, oversight and higher methodological standards. To cripple this field in its infancy would be to leave countless families in intolerable limbo.

Wasn't it the bad science that crippled the field in its infancy? If that hadn't been so ghoulish and awful you wouldn't have Trump's attack. You probably wouldn't even have Trump as President. 

I regularly hear from parents whose kids express severe distress about their biological sex.

That's a badly miswritten sentence, and I don't want to be lectured about "good science" by someone who lacks the critical awareness of why it's so wrong.

"It’s not hard to imagine how the attempt to squelch legitimate debate may have started."

"Some of the loudest proponents of the lab leak theory weren’t just earnestly making inquiries, they were acting in terrible faith, using the debate over pandemic origins to attack legitimate, beneficial science, to inflame public opinion, to get attention. For scientists and public health officials, circling the wagons and vilifying anyone who dared to dissent might have seemed like a reasonable defense strategy. That’s also why it might be tempting for those officials, or the organizations they represent, to avoid looking too closely at mistakes they made, at the ways that, while trying to do such a hard job, they may have withheld relevant information and even misled the public.... We may not know exactly how the Covid pandemic started, but if research activities were involved, that would mean two out of the last four or five pandemics were caused by our own scientific mishaps...."

Writes Zeynep Tufekci, in "We Were Badly Misled About the Event That Changed Our Lives" (NYT).

"Under her leadership articles have included 'How Feminism can Guide Climate Change by Action,' 'Denial of Evolution is a Form of White Supremacy,' and a critique of Star Wars..."

"... titled: 'Why the term JEDI is problematic for describing programmes that promote justice, equity, diversity and inclusion.' The author of this last piece called the Jedi 'a religious order of intergalactic police-monks, prone to (white) saviorism and toxically masculine approaches to conflict resolution (violent duels with phallic lightsabers, gaslighting by means of "Jedi mind tricks," etc)'...."

From "How magazine went from publishing Einstein to calling Jedi racist/Scientific American has been accused of abandoning objective rigour for a ‘woke’ agenda" (London Times).

The "her" in "Under her leadership" is Laura Helmuth, who was appointed editor-in-chief of "Scientific American" in 2020. She supposedly had a "deep respect for the brand," but then "broke the magazine’s tradition of impartiality by endorsing Joe Biden for president in 2020."

But: "Helmuth was forced to resign last November after making a series of derogatory comments about supporters of Donald Trump. In since-deleted posts on Bluesky after Trump’s election, she called his voters 'fascists' and the 'meanest, dumbest, most bigoted' group."

The fact that I'm wondering if the things said to be "a real program" are perhaps not actually real — that says enough.

I found this because it's easy to find things tweeted by Elon Musk in the last 24 hours:

pic.twitter.com/VyFYXCDG9p

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 5, 2025

I am reminded of the old "Golden Fleece Award":

The Golden Fleece Award (1975–1988) was a tongue-in-cheek award given to public officials in the United States for squandering public money....

One man controlled this award: Senator William Proxmire. His idea of what sounded stupid ruled. You had to be careful about how your research project looked, at first glance, to a politician who wanted to make a general point about out-of-control federal spending.