The recent Hobby Lobby decision has stirred up all sorts of commentary, much of it inflamed or inflammatory. In the midst of this the physiologic rationale for Hobby Lobby's objection is forgotten/elided. This dovetails neatly with a recent discussion on line about global warming. This is another issue that has created sharp political divides while ignoring science. A few comments.
The Forms of contraception Hobby Lobby objected to are Ella and Plan B (both 'morning after pills') and Mirena and Paragard (both IUDs). Unequivocally, absolutely, positively, IUDs are NOT abortifacients. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Among the strongest is that sensitive pregnancy tests are positive before a woman misses her menses. If IUDs were abortifiacients as charged then we would see positive early pregnancy testing followed by menses. That does nto happen. Another clear piece of evidence is the mechanism of IUDs. It is commonly thought they interfere with implantation. They do not; they interfere with fertilization by altering the tubal luminal fluid pH. Fertilization will only occur at a narrow range of pH. this is the mechanism whereby old inflammatory disease inhibits fertilization even with patent tubes. IUDs do not prevent implantation; they prevent fertilization.
Ella and Plan B are also almost certainly not abortifacients. Their major mechanism is to prevent ovulation. A large dose of estrogen (only certain pills can be used for the 'morning after pill') will typically inhibit ovulation. Giving a large dose of estrogen and progestin to a woman after ovulation does essentially nothing to the endometrium. Implantation can still occur, although there is theoretical concern for failure of implantation.
All of the objections to contraceptive methods just end up sounding like objections to sex. If we assume sex is only for procreation by married couples then contraception is unnecessary, and in the eyes of Catholics a sin. Except sex is clearly not only for procreation. It is pleasurable. Only a very few mammals lack an estrus cycle ('heat')- dolphins, porpoises and people. And these animals have sex all the fricking time. It is a social bonding act, a pleasure between animals, who knows what else.
The constitutional issues and religious freedom are different issues that may address at a later time, but the 'science' of the Hobby Lobby decision is simply bad. How about global warming? Here results are rather murkier.
There is an unequivocal sharp increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. There has also been a temperature increase in the last 25 years of about 0.4 degrees centigrade. This is data. There are, regrettably, multiple issues with both facts and data. First is causation versus association. A rise in CO2 is associated with a rise in temperature, but this does not establish causation. Second, world temperature variation is well within archeological norms. If viewed only over the last 50 years global temperatures look alarming. If viewed over 120 years they look cyclical. A third is the discontinuity of data. CO2 has risen quite linearly based on Mauna Loa readings. Temperature, however, has not. The famous 'hockey stick' curve has been quietly abandoned since it clearly does not fit available data. A further obscuring issue is the methods and locations of collecting temperature data have changed markedly over the last 120 years. There is no continuity of data not simply over time but by locale. We measure differently and at more and different locations than in even the recent past.
A further muddying of the issue is ocean temperature and upper atmospheric changes. When land temperature leveled off the assertion was the ocean was sucking up the heat. This assertion is also made for the upper atmosphere. As the US, among others, has experienced more intense winters the claim has shifted from global warming to anthropogenic climate change. All of these changes make it difficult to claim causation. The admitted fudging of data and exclusion of non-fit data has lessened the credibility of the groups claiming global warming.
In addition, the oft-repeated 97% consensus of scientists is exceptionally misleading. Papers were reviewed and categorized as being at one of seven levels of support for global warming. The '97%' consensus was found by comparing only the most extreme categories, 1 and 7. Of these 97% do indeed support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. These were a total of 52 papers out of....11,944 total papers reviewed. That is definitely not scientific consensus. When divided by degree of support only 35% of all peer-reviewed climate papers support anthropogenic global warming.
A final problem is the social and political fallout from the data. Claims have been made about flooding, drought, loss of food sources. In this way an unproven association is turned into a socially alarming doomsday scenario. periodically this reminds me of the anxiety experienced about nuclear weapons, and the repeated (and useless) civil defense drills, like rolling under our desks at school. Besides anything else, the US is cast as a villain. China is the #1 CO2 producer by volume. The US is #2. On a per capita basis the US is.....#13! If we are going to reduce global CO2 production we had best look at where it is growing and high- China, Brunei, UAE. The US has reduced production by nearly 20% per capita over the last 20 years without any Kyoto protocol or other restrictive social process like carbon taxes.
Hobby Lobby's religious positions are based on false science and religious belief. With regard to global warming the best I think that can be said is that people are pumping a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere via burning of all types )power plants, cars, etc). We as a species and a planet need to find better alternatives to transportation and energy generation. Finding those ought to be a multi-national funding priority, not making inflammatory apocalyptic claims.
Ted
The Forms of contraception Hobby Lobby objected to are Ella and Plan B (both 'morning after pills') and Mirena and Paragard (both IUDs). Unequivocally, absolutely, positively, IUDs are NOT abortifacients. We know this from multiple lines of evidence. Among the strongest is that sensitive pregnancy tests are positive before a woman misses her menses. If IUDs were abortifiacients as charged then we would see positive early pregnancy testing followed by menses. That does nto happen. Another clear piece of evidence is the mechanism of IUDs. It is commonly thought they interfere with implantation. They do not; they interfere with fertilization by altering the tubal luminal fluid pH. Fertilization will only occur at a narrow range of pH. this is the mechanism whereby old inflammatory disease inhibits fertilization even with patent tubes. IUDs do not prevent implantation; they prevent fertilization.
Ella and Plan B are also almost certainly not abortifacients. Their major mechanism is to prevent ovulation. A large dose of estrogen (only certain pills can be used for the 'morning after pill') will typically inhibit ovulation. Giving a large dose of estrogen and progestin to a woman after ovulation does essentially nothing to the endometrium. Implantation can still occur, although there is theoretical concern for failure of implantation.
All of the objections to contraceptive methods just end up sounding like objections to sex. If we assume sex is only for procreation by married couples then contraception is unnecessary, and in the eyes of Catholics a sin. Except sex is clearly not only for procreation. It is pleasurable. Only a very few mammals lack an estrus cycle ('heat')- dolphins, porpoises and people. And these animals have sex all the fricking time. It is a social bonding act, a pleasure between animals, who knows what else.
The constitutional issues and religious freedom are different issues that may address at a later time, but the 'science' of the Hobby Lobby decision is simply bad. How about global warming? Here results are rather murkier.
There is an unequivocal sharp increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the last 50 years. There has also been a temperature increase in the last 25 years of about 0.4 degrees centigrade. This is data. There are, regrettably, multiple issues with both facts and data. First is causation versus association. A rise in CO2 is associated with a rise in temperature, but this does not establish causation. Second, world temperature variation is well within archeological norms. If viewed only over the last 50 years global temperatures look alarming. If viewed over 120 years they look cyclical. A third is the discontinuity of data. CO2 has risen quite linearly based on Mauna Loa readings. Temperature, however, has not. The famous 'hockey stick' curve has been quietly abandoned since it clearly does not fit available data. A further obscuring issue is the methods and locations of collecting temperature data have changed markedly over the last 120 years. There is no continuity of data not simply over time but by locale. We measure differently and at more and different locations than in even the recent past.
A further muddying of the issue is ocean temperature and upper atmospheric changes. When land temperature leveled off the assertion was the ocean was sucking up the heat. This assertion is also made for the upper atmosphere. As the US, among others, has experienced more intense winters the claim has shifted from global warming to anthropogenic climate change. All of these changes make it difficult to claim causation. The admitted fudging of data and exclusion of non-fit data has lessened the credibility of the groups claiming global warming.
In addition, the oft-repeated 97% consensus of scientists is exceptionally misleading. Papers were reviewed and categorized as being at one of seven levels of support for global warming. The '97%' consensus was found by comparing only the most extreme categories, 1 and 7. Of these 97% do indeed support the theory of anthropogenic climate change. These were a total of 52 papers out of....11,944 total papers reviewed. That is definitely not scientific consensus. When divided by degree of support only 35% of all peer-reviewed climate papers support anthropogenic global warming.
A final problem is the social and political fallout from the data. Claims have been made about flooding, drought, loss of food sources. In this way an unproven association is turned into a socially alarming doomsday scenario. periodically this reminds me of the anxiety experienced about nuclear weapons, and the repeated (and useless) civil defense drills, like rolling under our desks at school. Besides anything else, the US is cast as a villain. China is the #1 CO2 producer by volume. The US is #2. On a per capita basis the US is.....#13! If we are going to reduce global CO2 production we had best look at where it is growing and high- China, Brunei, UAE. The US has reduced production by nearly 20% per capita over the last 20 years without any Kyoto protocol or other restrictive social process like carbon taxes.
Hobby Lobby's religious positions are based on false science and religious belief. With regard to global warming the best I think that can be said is that people are pumping a great deal of CO2 into the atmosphere via burning of all types )power plants, cars, etc). We as a species and a planet need to find better alternatives to transportation and energy generation. Finding those ought to be a multi-national funding priority, not making inflammatory apocalyptic claims.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment