The consensus on global warming, and why it doesn't exist

The consensus of global warming usually argues that all (or most) scientists accept anthropogenic global warming theory. Not only does science not operate by consensus (science isn't a vote), even if there is a consensus this wouldn't really change my views. Why? There used to be consensus that the world was going to cool (Skepticalscience.com counters saying there was scientific dissent... there is scientific dissent now!), consensus that plate tectonics was fake, oil could only be found near the surface (my grandfather actually was the first to dissent from that theory), that the sun revolved around the earth, that evolution was false (I believe in evolution), the world was flat, etc. But, does a consensus actually exist on this issue?.

Over 31,000 scientists have signed the petition project against global warming, nine thousand with Ph.D.'s [1].

Now, alarmists usually counter: only 39 climatologists have signed. First, this is true, but as your name is publicly published (and dissent from the IPCC leads to loss of funding) it is likely many climatologists have abstained. Second, there are many types of climate science often ignored: meteorology, geology, physics, etc. All of these sub-groups have enough understanding of the natural world to be potent signers.

Most meteorologists accept the idea of natural climate change. The majority of TV meteorologists oppose AGW theory, John Coleman, for example, is an avid skeptic (Coleman created the weather channel). An alarmist would likely ignore meteorologists, they only deal with weather not climate. However, Roy Spencer turns this around [2]:

I contend that climate variability cannot be understood without understanding the complexities of weather. After all, climate is average weather, and if you don't understand what controls variations in weather then you won't be able to understand all the potential sources of climate change. Our 2008 paper demonstrated how daily fluctuations in cloud cover can cause substantial temperature trends over ten years.

 So, meteorologists can be considered valid scientists in this issue.

How about geologists? Climate effects geology, they have to understand climate. Climate, such as warmth, rain, wind, ice ages (glaciers), etc... they all know it. If they do not, they can't understand how certain rocks form, erode, or why certain formations look the way they do. Geologists may even be more qualified then the average climatologist. Why? They have a longer perspective. Alexander Cockburn reports Peter Sciaky, a retired geologist, view [3]:

A geologist has a much longer perspective. There are several salient points about our earth that the greenhouse theorists overlook (or are not aware). The first of these is that the planet has never been this cool. There is abundant fossil evidence to support this–from plants of the monocot order (such as palm trees) in the rocks of Cretaceous Age in Greenland and warm water fossil in sedimentary rocks of the far north. This is hardly the first warming period in the earth’s history. The present global warming is hardly unique. It is arriving pretty much "on schedule."

 Due to the fact geologists understand past warming, and can compare it to present, they would be able to identify whether or not this was an unusual warming. If it is not, as Sciaky argues, there is no reason to trust in AGW theory.

Knowing weather fluctuations [2], and past warming cycles [3], is key to understanding modern global warming. Therefore, many legitimate scientists with great knowledge of climate dissent from global warming.

Spencer makes an accusation that really doesn't surprise me: many climatologists, like him (the ones that have 'consensus') may be hiding their views. He argues he is not the first person to figure out the PDO, using models, fits the warming perfectly (unlike CO2 which requires hours to make it work. In other words, his theory actually fits the data better). Spencer claims others likely have found this, but have not shown their data to others [2]. Makes sense: go against the consensus, and funding might dissipate.

Let's wander away from the petition project: any other evidence?

Yes. Paul Macrae noes 45% of geologists think nature and humans cause warming, only 26% argue its fully man made. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has this position [4]:

 The earth’s climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time.

The reason geologists are skeptical? As stated, its because they understand past climate. Graphs like this create geologists views:




This warming isn't unusual, why argue its man-made?

When looking at meteorologists, their views are also skeptical. Only 30% of meteorologists are worried about global warming. 89% believe in global warming, of that 89%, only 59% believe global warming is man made. However, only 38% of that group believes the warming will harm us in the next 100 years [5]. If overall 30% are worried, and 38% of the 89% are worried, then lets assume there is an 8% difference. So, this means 51% of meteorologists believe in AGW, a 49% dissent is no consensus. The most famous meteorologists all oppose AGW [6].

There is no reason to believe in a 'consensus', the debate is not over, and will likely never be.



1. http://www.petitionproject.org/
2. Spencer, Roy W., Ph.D. The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. New York: Encounter, 2012. Print.
3. http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/06/09/dissidents-against-dogma/ 
4. http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=62
5. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/03/14/shock-poll-meteorologists-are-global-warming-skeptics/
6. http://www.examiner.com/article/meteorologists-continue-to-challenge-global-warming-theory

Soledad vs Lott

In this interview, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6Wkkabcbs, Lott is questioned by a CNN reporter. Many liberal blogs claim she is defeating Lott's points. This is untrue, Lott makes valid points and she does not (the blog post saying Lott was defeated was by evolutionistrue.com -- I agree, evolution is true, by the way). The blogger called Lott stupid, and the comments also had ad hominem towards Lott. Instead of attacking Lott's points, they merely called him a moron, having a room temperature IQ, etc. I would bet money that Lott is much more intelligent then that blogger and those comenters are. He likely scores higher IQ scores and practicality scores. Regardless, Lott is brilliant, Ph.D.'s are not morons, even scholars I disagree with on the issue (Example: David Hemingway) are not "stupid", merely wrong. I will go down the points she makes, and expand on Lott's (it's hard to expand on TV under limited time. Watch the video, Lott actually makes real points).

1. How does getting rid of gun laws after these shootings make sense?

In these attacks, the victims are helpless. This point, I presume, is arguing they would be lass helpless if they were armed. It would make sense, as a Kleck and Gertz study finds DGU's are fairly common and gun defense is an effective way to prevent injury. Lott then shows all of these shootings happen on gun free zones, not NRA meetings. A study by David Kopel shows school shootings were almost unknown, until the Gun Free Zone Act of 1990 was passed. Showing that less guns in these areas is a magnet for criminals, as Lott said.

2. There is another thing in common: criminals have weapons

Only a few areas are gun free zones, the vast majority of them allow concealed carry holders or open carry holders onto the premise. Shootings always occur in these gun free zones, indicating criminals fear a victim that can shoot back. When victims can shoot back, the amount of these tragedies decrease. In aurora, there were 7 movie theaters. Only one banned guns. The shooter didn't go to the closest one to his house nor the largest theater, he went to the only one that banned guns. Allowing victims to have guns deters criminals.

3. How do you know he went to that theater that banned guns on purpose? Have you talked to him?

Lott essentially says he does not know for 100%, but it is a logical conclusion. A shooter would usually opt for a larger theater, more victims, or one closer to his home, he would be familiar with the area and could escape. However, he didn't go to either, he went to one that banned guns. This is a logical conclusion she overlooks because she refuses to listen to the other side. Lott shows the majority of the shootings happen on these gun free zones. He then cites columbine, the shooters lobbied against the conceal handgun law, especially the part that allows guns on schools. And here is where Lott hits home: the shooting occurred on the day they were going to pass the law, indicating he was trying to avoid armed victims.

4. Shouldn't we ban high velocity semi-automatic "assault" weapons?

2/3 worst school shootings occurred in Germany (prior to CT). Germany has extremely strict gun laws. Gun laws don't prevent crime. All studies (Lott 2001, Lott 2010, and the Clinton researchers) have noted one thing: the bans on "assault" weapons always fail, and have not lowered US crime rates.

5. OMG OMG OMG OMG A RATIONAL PERSON WOULD SAY WE DON'T NEED ASSAULT WEAPONS

These guns are just like any other firearm. They work the same and have the same parts: they fire one shot per trigger. The ONLY difference is the look.

6. People in this town disagree

My response: bandwagon fallacy.

Lott: semi-auto guns are very common, semi-auto hunting rifles are the exact same as these "assault" weapons, and are great for self defense.

*******

REAL FACTS:

"Military-style semi-automatic firearms (so-called assault weapons) do not differ materially from non-military style semi-automatic firearms (one bullet is fired for each pull of the trigger) and are no more powerful than other semi-automatic weapons. Further, a bullet fired from a semi-automatic weapon is no more powerful than one of the same caliber fired from a corresponding non-semi-automatic handgun, rifle, or shotgun. In fact most assault weapons are less powerful than hunting rifles. For example, the AR-15 (a semi-automatic version of the U.S. military's rifle, M-16), is a .223 caliber rifle. Rifles of this caliber, when used for hunting, are generally used on small game rather than deer. A smaller caliber bullet is more likely to wound the animal (and allow it to escape and suffer a slow death) than the more powerful .24 to .30 caliber bullets normally used in deer hunting rifles."
 http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html 

Yeah, they are not "high powered".

"The classification of "assault weapons" is not based on differences that are real in fact. The banned firearms do not fire faster than many guns that are not banned. The banned firearms do not have a larger ammunition capacity than many guns that are not banned. In fact, the number of rounds a semiautomatic can fire without reloading has nothing to do with the gun. Rather, that capacity is determined solely by the magazine, a separate, detachable, and interchangeable part. All the other physical characteristics of "assault weapons" which might form a rational basis for prohibiting them are simply not valid (such as claims about ammunition lethality), are trivial (such as bayonet lugs), or make the gun more accurate (such as a muzzle brakes). Official statistics prove that so-called "assault weapons" are rarely involved in criminal activity, and hence the use of "assault weapons" in crime is insufficiently demonstrated to pass the rational basis test." (written during the AS ban).
http://www.guncite.com/journals/rational.html

Gary Kleck in Targeting guns: firearms and their control  noted that AW are actually used less than other firearms in most mass shootings.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30&mode=related&search=
^ watch this, it proved AW are the exact same as hunting rifles.

More gun control? No

After these shootings, people rush to gun control as the answer. Yes, these shootings are terrible, but little do they know that banning these guns would reduce public safety, and erase the benefit of guns. I will make a summary of the debate on gun control. 1. Comparing countries I read an article from a  source that will remain nameless (actually, I just forgot), and it’s whole case for gun control were statistical comparisons of the UK and the USA. Their arguments are highly hypocritical, however. They say pro-gunners compare us to Switzerland and Israel; both have high gun ownership and low crime rates. However, they argue the different judicial systems make the valid incomparable. But this is a cherry picked argument: The foreign countries have different judicial systems too! As one interesting article states, “Foreign countries are two to six times more effective in solving crimes and punishing criminals than the U.S. In London, about 20% of reported robberies end in conviction; in New York City, less than 5% result in conviction, and in those cases imprisonment is frequently not imposed. Nonetheless, England annually has twice as many homicides with firearms as it did before adopting its tough laws. Despite tight licensing procedures, the handgun-related robbery rate in Britain rose about 200% during the past dozen years, five times as fast as in the U.S.”[1] I generally hate comparing countries, however sometimes these comparisons work in my favor. David Kopel has done work in Asian countries with low crime rates and gun control, and he continually concludes gun control is not the cause of their low crime. These basic comparisons tell little, as they don’t tell us why, say, the UK’s murder rate is low. It could be totally unrelated to guns. I urge readers to look at this graph. The UK has had strict gun controls. Since their passage, their assault rate has risen much faster then the American assault rate. http://www.gunsandcrime.org/  2. Gun control has decreased crime in foreign countries False. There is not one gun ban that has decreased crime. Here are a list of facts [2]: --Australia: Armed robberies rose 51%, unarmed robberies rose 37%, Assaults rose by 24%, kidnappings rose 43%, murder fell 3% BUT manslaughter rose 16%. --Soviet Union: Yes, the massive police state also had its gun control problems. Murder rate was 20-40% higher in the Soviet Union than in the US. --UK: Gun crimes have risen 40% since their gun bans. 3. Gun free zones work Gun free zones: schools, post offices… movie theatres in the case of Aurora. Utah has abolished gun  free zones: no school mass shootings, no teachers shooting children… everything  the VPC said would happen hasn’t. In David Kopels op-ed, he quoets Thomas Jefferson, and I am glad this quote still applies: “"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”[3] Now, wikipedia (which has liberal tendencies) said this: “Prior to 1989, there were only a handful of incidents in which two or more non-perpetrators were killed by firearms at a school…”[4] And it cites a few examples. But before 1989, it was rare. Now, you’re wondering two things: one, why haven’t I gotten to the point yet, and two what does this date mean. Any guesses? Nope, pissed that I’m not to the point probably. Well, here is the point. In 1990, the gun free school zone act was passed. When you look at the list, shootings are rare in schools until gun free zones were adopted… Maybe a coincidence, but I doubt it when I throw in these facts: John Lott notes, “If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was prohibited to carry guns into the theater.”[5] It seems to me this is not a coincidence. Every mass shooting at a gun free zone, except one, but this means gun free zones help. Honestly, it makes sense. If you want to kill people, you don’t go to a gun show. A nice remark from the Capitalism Institute said on my facebook news feed, “Remember that shooting at a gun show? I don’t either.” A study by David Kopel gives us the data we all know, or should know by now: gun free zones have increased the amount of school shootings [6]. 4. Homicide is three times higher in homes with guns then without them JustFacts.com notes three problems with this [7]: One, this statistic blurs cause and effect. As they quote the NRC study, “fail to address the primary inferential problems that arise because ownership is not a random decision. ... Homicide victims may possess firearms precisely because they are likely to be victimized.” In other words, homicide may cause gun ownership; gun ownership does not cause homicide. Second, the data is relied upon by interviews. If a more accurate polling method is used, and causes minor changes in he gun ownership rate, the results of the study disappear. Third, they had to do a lot of statistical manipulation (analysis) instead of letting their data speak. They ignore the fact drugs or abuse in the home seemed like a more likely factor for homicide than gun ownership. GunCite gives a harsh critique. They note, Gary Kleck saying “The observed gun-homicide association is so weak that it could easily be due entirely to a higher rate of concealing gun ownership among controls than among cases.” Indeed, if only 2.7% of the gun owners said they hadn’t the results would disappear. The results may be due to the certain sample they used, meaning the results are so sensitive this renders the study statistically insignificant. And if you want more on this topic, follow my footnote [8]. 5. Guns aren’t used in defense; and even if they are they aren’t effective A myth is that guns aren’t used in defense. Further, another myth is that the number I will soon use: 2.5 million defensive  gun usages (DGU’s) each year are only based on one study… So lets list my countless examples [9]: Gary Mauser 1990: 1,487,342 DGU’s a year Gallup Polling 1991: 777,153 DGU’s each year Gallup polling 1993: 1,621,377 DGU’s each year LA times polling 1994: 3,609,682 DGU’s each year Tarrance 1994: 764,036 DGU’s That was overall US polling. When looking at every state and then multiplying the result in a way for the US statistic (NOTE: this is a proxy, and less accurate then above): California used as a proxy: 3,052,717 DGU’s Illinois: 1,414,544 DGU’s a year Ohio as a proxy: 771,043 DGU’s a year             Gar Klecks study found 2.5 DGU’s every year A smaller DOJ report found 1.5 million DGU’s a year  As Kleck Notes in his study, “By this time there seems little legitimate scholarly reason to doubt that defensive gun use is very common in the U.S., and that it probably is substantially more common than criminal gun use. This should not come as a surprise, given that there are far more gun-owning crime victims than there are gun-owning criminals and that victimization is spread out over many different victims, while offending is more concentrated among a relatively small number of offenders.”[10] Is a gun effective? Common? Yes, effective? Yes, again. It is argued people who fight with a gun are more likely to be injured, but here is the problem with that statistic: “27% percent of victims were injured prior to taking any self-protection measures, but only 5% of gun-defenders were injured prior to taking their actions.”[11] In other words, once the gun is taken out (but before it is used) only 5% incur further injury, often brandishing the gun stops the attack (sometimes as high as 95% according to Lott’s 2003 survey, his 1997 one is questionable). In other words to the quote above, the injuries occur before the gun is used, but after the gun is used the situation improves. John Lott has said in an interview: “Simply telling them to behave passively turns out to be pretty bad advice . . . By far the safest course of action for people to take, when they are confronting a criminal, is to have a gun. This is particularly true for the people in our society who are the most vulnerable.”[12] 6. Guns don’t deter criminals This argument always annoys me, guns deter crime, it’s hard to deny this. In the US, only 13% of burglaries occur while occupants are in the home, in the UK and Netherlands the number is 45%. In America, when asked why this is so, robbers have said because robbing while someone is home is the way to get shot. Gary Kleck has noted the number of robberies while people are in the home in the UK is because they do not fear the repercussions of gun ownership. Kleck also notes if the US would ban guns, there would be 400,000 additional burglaries in the USA. “Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted.”[13] A 1999 study using deterrence studies and Klecks DGU survey, he can determine a criminals response to possible death. He found the death penalty deterred 7 lives each time someone is killed, and that civilians kill many people each year in defense. So, using these numbers, the study found 400,000-800,000 crimes would be deterred each year by gun ownership merely existing. The study concludes, “the murder rate would have been some 10 to 37 percent higher than it actually was had civilians not had guns for self- defense. … The fourth section further developed the risks to criminals from armed civilians. From that, it was estimated that at least 500,000 fewer crimes occurred due to armed civilians. If Kleck's lower estimates of justified homicides are accepted, the numbers are much larger at more than 2,000,000 [fewer crimes]. This is a deterrent effect; the crimes never occur.” Note for the second part the numbers differ depending on whether Klecks data or other survey data is preferred. The study continues, “It was reasonable to infer that over 740,000 fewer violent crimes occur each year, [Page 244] including 7,300 fewer murders, because of handgun ownership and use by civilians. Again, this is a deterrent effect. Long guns probably add to this effect. … In addition, another 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes are stopped by armed civilians.”[14] In the 1991 journal of criminal law, volume 18, another study noted that increased gun ownership would reduce crime, and that guns used in DGU’s are extremely common [15]. 18 studies find conceal carry laws reduce crime, 10 find no effect, and only one finds an increase in crime (counting only academically refereed studies). CONCLUSION: Simple: gun control has been a total failure, and banning guns (or making gun free zones) takes away our ability to defend ourselves and actually harms public safety. Guns are very effective to use in defense and are used more commonly then we think: 2.5 million times a year plus. Gun ownership prevents 400,000-800,000 violent crimes, and using Klecks data the number is near 2,000,000. Guns also have deterred 450,000 robberies each year. In sum: gun control is a hoax, it is all smoke and mirrors and will harm you and your family, and gun ownership has a net positive. 1. http://people.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm 2. http://www.aei.org/article/society-and-culture/gun-control-misfires-in-europe/  3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117686668935873725.html 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States 5. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/  6. David Kopel, “ Pretend “Gun-Free” School Zones: A Deadly Legal Fiction”. Connecticut Law Review, December 2009. 7. http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.fourexamples.asp#times 8. http://guncite.com/gun-control-kellermann-3times.html 9. http://www.guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html 10. Study reprinted here, read it if you wish: http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html 11. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgeff.html 12. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Lott-guns-Connecticut-shooting/2012/12/15/id/467903 13. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html 14. http://saf.org/LawReviews/SouthwickJr1.htm 15. http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kates.defense.html

Skeptical science is wrong on medieval warm period

The famous alarmist blog, which has been controversial and attacked by  many skeptics before I, has argued that the Medieval warm period was only a regional occurrence, and that it didn't affect the southern hemisphere. Before I begin by rebuttal, I will first give a little opinion and proof of the Medieval warm period.

Climate science has tried desperately to erase the Medieval warm period from the data. Either by arguing that, A) it was a regional occurrence or that B) it didn't exist at all. The famous Hockey stick attempted to prove that this is the warmest period in thousands of years, and makes the Medieval warm period very minor (you see a small bump, but it is fairly miniscule). The IPCC 1990 report shows a completely different picture. It was widely accepted amongst scientists, and still is throughout the skeptic circles of scientists, and was the only history of climate (in that time period) until the hockey stick. The 1990 version showed the medieval warm period and the little ice age, both of which didn't show up on the hockey stick [1].

Now, if Mann is correct (Mann invented the Hockey Stick) then Skeptical Science would be correct—the medieval warming period did not exist (or it was a regional event not affecting the entire globe). But here are some dissenting views:

1. The Harvard Study

In 2003, the Harvard Smithsonian study argued: "the 20th century is neither the warmest century nor the century with the most extreme weather of the past 1000 years. The review also confirmed that the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American" continents."[2]

2. Studies confirm the Medieval warm period

co2science.org cites many studies. Over 90 studies find the Medieval warm period was warmer then today, almost thirty say the Medieval warm period was about the same, and only 10 find the Medieval warm period was cooler then today [3]. Using temperatures from the Northern Hemisphere (even today, thats where most of the warming has occured) a 2005 study has found:


Moberg et al., 2005 [4].


The rebuttal to Skeptical Science:

Now, Skeptical science (SS) argues the Medieval warm period only affected the northern hemisphere. Almost all scientists agree a warm period happened in the northern hemisphere. However, many studies disprove that point.

First, a 2004 studying the Venezuelan coast finds the temperatures 1000 years ago were much warmer then today.


[5]

Second, a 2009 study done in Chile agrees with the 2004 study above. Using data from 900 A.D. to 2000 A.D., they got this graph:


[6]

The NIPCC has noted, "Working with 22 of the best climate proxies they could find that stretched far enough back in time, Neukom et al. (2011) reconstructed a mean austral summer (December-February) temperature history for the period AD 900-1995 for the terrestrial area of the planet located between 20°S and 55°S and between 30°W and 80°W -- a region they call Southern South America (SSA) -- noting that their results "represent the first seasonal sub-continental-scale climate field reconstructions of the Southern Hemisphere going so far back in time." ... the warmest decade of this Medieval Warm Period was calculated by them to be AD 1079-1088, which as best as can be determined from their graph is about 0.17°C warmer than the peak warmth of the Current Warm Period."[7]

A older study then the one above actually finds the current warming is slightly warmer then the Medieval warm period [8], however, that one (as shown above) is a minority, it is rare, but one thing is interesting: unlike the hockey stick, it still shows a Medieval warm period occurred. Here is a graph taken from [9]:



Red = Medieval warm period was warmer, blue = colder. The far left shows the number of studies, and the bottom counts then amount. As we can see, the majority (almost 30 studies) find the Medieval warm period was warmer then today by about .5 degrees, and about 25 studies put the number at .25 degrees warmer. 15 find it was warmer by 1.25  - 2.25. and 5 studies find it was 3.25 degrees warmer. And the most extreme (5) has 1 - 2 (I don't see a precise number, but the graph shows it at a 1 - 2). Under 15 studies find it cooler by .35, and about five find out warming hotter by 5 .75 degrees (or, to have my wording consistent, 5 show the warming 1000 years ago to be cooler by .75 degrees).

As we can see, the vast amount of evidence proves:

1) the warming currently is not the hottest within the last 1000 years; the Medieval warm period holds that title.
2) the Medieval warm period existed
3) the Medieval warm period was not just regional - it was a world wide event

As we can see, Skeptical sciences point that it was a regional event and that it was not warmer 1000 years ago is false.

1. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
2. Harvard - Smithsonian press release: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
3. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/qualitative.php
4. Study Summary: http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_mobergnh.php
5. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_cariacobasin.php
6. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_lagunaaculeo.php
7. http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/dec/14dec2011a4.html
8. The minority report showing the current warming was warmer then 1000 years ago: http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jan/11jan2011a7.html
9. http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php

A logical case against same-sex marriage

Whenever I get into a conversation about the issue, it is usually rather short. I will say something, they respond, I respond, they call me a bigot thinking they have the high ground and walk off. Their line of reasoning is usually there is no good argument against gay marriage, or some variation of that. They miss two things:

1) First, marriage is inherently between a man and a woman, with those protecting the conjugal view our definition has been set; revisionists have yet to give a definition, therefore they have the burden of proof

2) Second, there are many good arguments against gay marriage.

I will be focusing on point two, because gay advocates will not give themselves the burden of proof because it would make it harder for them to function. Generally, supporters of traditional marriage (like myself) are forced with the burden, as it makes it harder for us to make a case. So, I will attempt to provide arguments against gay marriage.

First, let me lay down some definitions down:

First, marriage is a comprehensive union of spouses.

Now, I continue:

Marriage is not merely a coming together of the bodies, which happens all the time. Rather, bodies of a man and wife come together to do something they could not have done alone, making it comprehensive. This means marriages purpose is, then, procreation. So, marriage is a comprehensive union with a special link to children. This is why marriages get special preferences that friendships do not obtain. This shows marriage is a public good, and thats why the government regulates marriage. SSM robs this meaning; homosexuals cannot comprehensively come together. This would mean marriage is no longer linked to children and would give a false perception on how human relationships are supposed to function [1].

This is often countered with "but marriage is a fundamental right!"

And, interestingly, I agree: marriage is a fundamental right; gay marriage is not. Before we can conclude prohibiting same sex couples to marry is illegal/unconstitutional, we must determine what marriage is and why the state has institutionalized it anyway. Even if there is a right to marriage, if marriage is in inherently heterosexual, there simply is no right to homosexual marriage because they are totally different things. They are not unjustly being discriminated against because no right to gay marriage exists anyway [1].

So, then they may respond "Alright, so why do heterosexuals have this right?"

Consider a homosexuals definition of marriage: Marriage is an emotional union. As stated above, other relationships like friendships do not get these benefits because they are not a comprehensive union, nor do they have a link to children. The question still remains, why heterosexual marriage? In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the supreme court ruled marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the human race. As Maggie Gallagher puts it, "Only societies that reproduce survive."[2]

Interestingly, marriage is not only about procreation, it often also includes proper child rearing. Studies claiming homosexuals are good parents are deeply flawed (Marks 2012). Regenerous (2012) [sorry, I don't know how to spell his name - I hope I got it correct] recently concluded children raised by homosexuals are quite different from their heterosexual companions. Stacy and Biblarz (2001) also finds homosexual children are at a disadvantage.

I don't have time to write more, however two short and brilliantly written articles can be found here:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2638/
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/03/2637/

1. http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf
2. http://www.marriagedebate.com/pdf/What%20is%20Marriage%20For.pdf

Are Conservatives really less intelligent?

This rhetoric is often in the media and is widely publicized online. New studies have claimed to have found a link, but in my research the link is weak. And even if these studies were true, the results are being used incorrectly. The studies only argue conservatives are predisposed to idiocy, not inherently linked to it. However the headlines are usually "conservatives are less intelligent". This presumes an inherent link, which has yet to be true. To the contrary, some  of the smartest people I know are Conservative. There are a few things I will point out:

1) First, IQ is merely an abstract intelligence. In most practical and preformance  intelligence tests, Conservatives tend to score better. IQ tests fail to measure many other intelligences--creativity and social skills--which in many cases is closer linked to success and productivity. Unlike IQ tests, the social tests can measure other intelligences as well as inner senses that actually influence daily choices more then IQ. What is interesting is that Conservatives are often more wealthy, have better relationships, children less likely to do drugs or crime, and are generally happier. IQ testing that "proves" liberal intelligence is not very valid anyway (and that is assuming the studies claiming those results are valid).[1]

2) Shawn T. Smith: a psychologist, has severely criticized the main study for the Liberals are smarter link. Kanazawa has been actually kicked out of psychology today for his inaccuracies and wacky theories (like Asians are not creative and all black women are attractive). He claims that people that identify as "very liberal" are 11.6 IQ points more intelligent then those who would identify as "very conservative" (where I would identify myself). As Smith rightly argues, at the beginning, even if liberals were more intelligent, a 12 point IQ gap woudl be astonishing. He said it could be true, but such a large result should be met with skepticism and methodology should be questioned. In peer review, this should happen, but Smith points out although most studies like this have poor methodology they get welcomed because of academic bias. Smith argues the study was made to get a desired outcome. Kanazawa does not measure IQ, rather verbal intelligence -- interestingly I score fairly well on those -- regardless, Smith makes a well articulated point: merely measuring verbal skills ignores many other intelligences (practical, social, etc.) Smith notes many Conservatives score lower on these tests, and are therefore more likely to drop out of school. This does not refute my premise, though. These men generally enter different fields: mechanics, painters, and many other jobs that often require a lot of intelligence. In other words, Kanazawa focuses on the wrong skills making the illusion that Conservatives are less intelligent, and when you take into account the many things Conservatives do they often score better then liberals. Smith gives us a good chart:





The left: Smith's prefered test
Right: Kanazawas's

Smith's side measures many more data points. Kanazawa merely ignores this for a simple reason: the left side would prove Conservatives are more intelligent. As Smith notes, "Moreover, children who struggle with [verbal intelligence]  but who have perfectly solid PIQ (to be simple: other intelligences) scores are more likely than their counterparts to drop out of school (Romi & Marom, 2007). That does not make them unintelligent, but simply intellectually mismatched for a word-based academic environment. These children may even be more intelligent, on balance, than their classmates."[2] Emphasis mine, clarifications mine.

I would again like to emphasis: these children may actually be smarter. Same for the adults polled, these tests merely exclude other more important levels of intelligence. So those adults may be smarter then their peers, but it does not seem that way because processing speed (very important) memory (still important), a lot of verbal skills still ignored, and perceptional reasoning. Many of these verbally challenged Conservatives that drop out of school go into very hard jobs, as explained, like mechanics. They would likely score higher on the memory and processing speeds. Kanazawas study was bogus.

3) One might have noticed I said above most academics are liberal. Academics are intelligent, and are liberal, so liberals are smarter right? There are onerous exams and schooling needed to become an academic. As stated, some Conservatives to poorly in school (I am not an average one, I suppose). This likely lowers Conservative academics to a small minority. Even so, many of the smartest academics are Conservative, namely John Lott, Robert P. George, etc. The slowest (the longest is usually takes) to get a Ph.D. could be eight years, or at least in the economics profession. Even if the "majority" of the academics are liberal, that would not refute the premise that Conservatives are just as smart (or smarter) on balance then liberals.

4) Hudson and Busseri also did a study (instead its newer: 2012). They used better tests then Kanazawa and linked Conservatism to prejudice. May I first, note, on a personal level, this saddens me: my best friend is an African American, my mother is Puerto Rican, and the majority of my friends are Mexican. On another note, their study didn't really test racism or preferences. It merely asserted it, or it did to my knowledge (I need to find a PDF for it), and used logic (Right-Wingers hate change, therefore are racist). This study forgets many things. First, JFK was a Conservative: he was for tax cuts and deregulation, and was a social Conservative (like most people of that time). Lincoln was in the Republican party which identified as the Conservative anti-slavery party. And by today's standards, both could run in a Republican primary and equal Rick Santorum (Santorum 2016, by the way). The Republican party platform under JFK is very similar to the one today, and they were the largest force for racial equality. Being liberal does not disqualify someone from racism. The USSR was very liberal—liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face—and Hitler was racist (in one of my posts I explain how he is a racist. And a Huppi.com article was grossly false, they called him "pro-gun", when he banned them...) Other studies finding Conservatives are less intelligent and less resourceful (like Hudson and Busseri) and are 100% anti-change have been flawed. Smith write a 2007 article in which he concludes, "It appears as though the correlations between ideology and personality cannot be supported. In fact, it is entirely unclear what this study actually measured."[3]

5) Many people have argued Conservatives are less informed. But other surveys find that Conservatives are more informed and, unlike Hudson et. al., more open minded (open mined isn't prejudice). A Pew Research study has different results, "GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party."[4] The largest question Republicans had was 30%, while democrats largest lead was only 8%. And remember education? That Pew poll actually found many Republicans had better education then their Democrat colleges. The poll also showed intellectual honesty. Democrats would change their view to make themselves look good, while Conservatives only changed with proper reasoning.[4]

6) Another blogger notes many problems with liberalism. He shows liberalism failure to look in the long term and focus on the bust, when they should be focusing on the boom. They think Keynesian is a good idea, when it is merely a paradox. DanT made these pictures on debate.org explaining liberal economics:







They are posted here:  http://www.debate.org/DanT/photos/album/1678/
His profile here: http://www.debate.org/DanT/

Liberals fail to see how their short term fixes do not fix anything and, in the long run, end the same: recession. The blogger also notes liberal logic is merely emotional and (often) lacks reasoning. Although some liberals can make a logical point, the majority of them (even the intelligent ones) often do not make logical points. I will not disclose names, but I was speaking with someone on campaign finance reform. I used a logical argument showing how that is against the free market, unconstitutional, and how money does not influence votes in congress (Freedomnomics makes a good point there, don't need to waste letters on it), and the person merely responded: "the truth hurts, you will see it when you are older. The system is owned by big oil companies and the Cato Institute. And it will slap you in the face when you age." What a weak point, he dodged my points and had to dance around it. Liberals have failed to prove to me superior intelligence.[5]

*****************

I have made my point. Liberals are not smarter, and are only as smart (or less smart) then their Conservative brethren.


P.S. I wrote this fairly fast, although I think this is a robust piece. I don't have much time anymore, though I will soon. I hope you forgive me if there are glaring grammatical errors or spelling mistakes.



1. Folks, Jeffrey. "Are Libs Smarter?" American Thinker, 14 Feb. 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
2. Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "Are Liberals More Intelligent than Conservatives? Another Broken Study Says It Is So." Iron Shrink RSS., 7 Apr. 2010. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
3.  Smith, Shawn T., Psy.D. "How to Spot a Broken Study: The Baby Conservative Project." Iron Shrink RSS., 14 Feb. 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
4. Munro, Neil. "The Daily Caller." The Daily Caller. N.p., 2012. Web. 08 Dec. 2012.
5. The blogger I kept talking about blogs here:  http://commentarama.blogspot.com/2012/03/conservatives-are-smarter-than-liberals.html

The interracial marriage analogy on gay marriage, and why it fails

The analogy of the interracial and gay marriage is a universal argument. Its ubiquitous usage in gay literature is astonishing. Homosexuals know to win the debate they must conjure up the notion that they have been oppressed and that they are the new civil rights movements. If they can obtain that position, all that oppose them are bigots and it seems as though the homosexuals would have the moral high ground. In most public policy debates, homosexuals (and their supporters) tend to use this analogy that it is used in most court cases. The courts have ruled multiple times it is unconstitutional to not allow interracial marriage, therefore homosexuals attempt to have the same status given unto themselves. What is interesting, however, is why these laws were put into place.

These laws had no place in British common law, in common law all that was requited was the male and female complimentary which would promote procreation and child rearing. However these anti-miscegenation laws should be opposed by people against homosexual marriage for one good reason: they go against what we argue today. Yes, what we argue is totally different. We argue marriage, like in common law, is to promote a proper view of human nature by pushing male and female complimentary. These inter racial laws injected certain aspects of marriage that are not viewed as natural. They separated this complimentary nature because of race. The purpose of these laws were to promote racial purity. But as Francis Beckwith notes, "It is clear then that the miscegenation/same-sex analogy does not work. For if the purpose of anti-miscegenation laws was racial purity, such a purpose only makes sense if people of different races have the ability by nature to marry each other. And given the fact that such marriages were a common law liberty, the anti-miscegenation laws presuppose this truth. But opponents of same-sex marriage ground their viewpoint in precisely the opposite belief: people of the same gender do not have the ability by nature to marry each other since gender complementarity is a necessary condition for marriage. Supporters of anti-miscegenation laws believed in their cause precisely because they understood that when male and female are joined in matrimony they may beget racially-mixed progeny, and these children, along with their parents, will participate in civil society and influence its cultural trajectory."[1]

 This, in sum, destroys the analogy. The only reason these laws existed was because it was possible (and natural) for these kinds to marry. People that support traditional marriage today oppose it because we see it as intrinsically impossible for homosexuals to meet the same conditions as a heterosexual union. This simple but compelling logic cripples the analogy. It's simply brilliant. I will again reiterate: they had those laws because they could meet the conditions of marriage; now I oppose same sex marriage because they cannot meet those conditions in principle. As we can see, the two situations are totally different.

The famous "What is Marriage" paper also presents a similar argument. Instead they argue the point of the interracial laws is to separate people of two kinds; the current debate is not saying gays should be kept apart at all costs, rather they do not fit the essential criteria for marriage [2].

 Both of these lines of logic refute the analogy, and it really annoys me that it is still often used.



1. Francis Beckwith, Public Discourse, 2010, "Interracial Marriage and Same-Sex Marriage" http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/05/1324/
2. The HTML format of the paper can be found here, but the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy version (where it was originally printed) can be also found online as a pdf if you wish to view it that way.