A response to skeptical science: warming since 1998

Skeptical science, for those of you who dont know, is a global warming blog which attempts to refute skeptic "myths." But the irony is they present many myths themselves when attacking skeptics opinions. One example is their post on the warming since 1998, in which they claim:

 The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.[1]

 But is this claim really true? This claim is widely circulated, and in many skeptic blogs they usually get this response.

In truth, though, there has been global cooling since 1998, and even if you take 1998 out of the equation (the one that skeptical science needs to rebut the theory) we see there is still a decrease in global temperatures.

As the telegraph notes:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero)[2]

 In other words, there is essentially a flat line in temperature.

Skeptical sciences main concern, though, is that 1998 had a large warm spell so that any warming would look like cooling as the next year would inevitably have a cooler climate. So lets look at this claim. The 1998 explains the cooling/flat line. No it doesn't. Look at this NOAA graph:

 
http://climvis.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr-display3.pl

By starting in 2000, it makes the 1998 warm spell objection invalid. And guess what we still see? cooling.

If we use data from 1998, though, it is obviously going to be more of a decline. but this rebuts the point of cherry picking the 1998 data as it shows cooling regardless of the El nino (how to you make then ene (squiggly)).

Now there are multiple satellite data sets we can look into. The reason satellite data is so essential is because surface scanner data is susceptible to the urban heat island effect. So before we can claim cooling, what does the satellite data say? Cooling.





Source 3

Even if we look past the 1998, we see an overall flat-line trend, statistically its essentially zero.

Now that the UAH data is out of the way, what about RSS? RSS and UAH combined makes this chart:




Source 3

When observing the facts, almost every data set shows either cooling or zero change in temperature in 1998. And the skeptical science rebuttal of El Nino hurting the results is false, as proven by NOAA data.[3]

Is the data bias?

 Yes, these organizations support the AGW hypothesis and believe the earth is warming. Yet they get my conclusions. Fair enough?


[1] http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html
[3] http://www.paulmacrae.com/?p=129

Has Obamas presidency been successful?

Here are the main topics in this article:

1. Jobs
2. Energy
3. Foreign policy

Lets look at them in order.

1. Obama's Jobs record

For me to prove this point I must prove that Obama jobs record has been sub-optimal throughout his first term. I must prove there are less people in jobs now then there where at the beginning of his term.

When Obama first took office unemployment was 7.8% [1].
The unemployment rate is not 8.2% [2].



Although there is current drops in unemployment it can be misleading by the way we count actual unemployment. It does not count the people who have given up based on a poor market, so we can assume much of the decline is based on people leaving the workforce not being able to get a job. And even with this we see unemployment recovery has stalled and, as we see at the end of the graph, beginning to rise again.

Based on the BLS way of counting unemployment is misleading, we need to look at the U-6 unemployment rate. This accurately counts the people who have given up looking for jobs based on the down market. The U-6 is the only way to really get a sense of how the economy is doing.

When Obama entered office the U-6 unemployment was 14.2%
Now in 2012 it is 14.9% [3].
here is a U-6 graph:






We similar trend lines to the graph above, though the improvement is much lower and the rate is much higher.

How about the stimulus?

1. Obama promised it would keep unemployment under 8%, it isn't even at that point as we speak
2. Obama promised it would lead into an immediate increase in jobs
3. He said it would lift 2 million americans out of poverty

Results? Here:





We see the general trend lines did not change after the stimulus. This means the stimulus likely had little effect [4]. Further all of his promises have failed [5].


2. Energy Policy

Lets look at his failures:

• Solyndra. Was awarded over 500 million in tax payer money and 25 million in tax incentives. Went bankrupt.[6]
• Ener1, green energy company. 118 million dollars in tax payer money. Went bankrupt.[7]
• Beacon power, green energy storage company. Got 43 million dollars in DOE money from the Obama administration. Went bankrupt.[8]
• Proised 5 million energy jobs, now says created or saved 65,000 jobs. Broken promise much?

Keystone Pipeline:

 He turned the offer down. How many jobs would it create? "TransCanada Corp. has released a detailed job breakdown for the Keystone XL pipeline and said it will create 13,000 construction employment opportunities and 7,000 in manufacturing for Americans."[9]

There has been a 100% increase in gas prices.[10] He is also responsible for the increase as he has failed to increase the needed supply, in other words has cancelled many new refineries and is only building the ones already planned in the Bush administration (they have a few year lag time).

3. Foreign Policy

Obama has failed to ease the struggle between Israel and Palestine, worsened the problem with Iran for not being assertive, and weakened US - Israeli relations.[11][12]

The new START treaty hurts us, not Russia. It reduces our stockpile by 20% and has little overall impact on the Russian one.[13] It hurts us, it does not help.

Conclusion:

There is a lot more I could add in foreign policy, but I am going to be brief here as the economy is and was the major concern. In short: Obama has failed in Foreign, Economic, and Energy policy.


Sources:
1. http://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/2011/12/02/take-look-unemployment-report-mixed-bag/
2. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
3. http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
4. http://www.redstate.com/congressman_jim_jordan/2012/02/17/the-stimulus-chart-obama-doesn%E2%80%99t-want-you-to-see/
5. http://www.debate.org/debates/Resolved-Obamas-performance-in-the-White-House-has-not-been-successful/1/
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solyndra_loan_controversy
7.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ener1
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Power
9.  http://business.financialpost.com/2012/01/10/transcanada-details-keystone-xls-job-creating-potential/?__lsa=64c7d8ee
10. http://www.policymic.com/articles/5379/high-gas-prices-are-president-obama-s-fault
11. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576341212934894494.html
12. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-foreign-initiatives-have-faltered/2012/01/05/gIQAeCqAkP_story.html
13. http://csis.org/publication/new-start-agreement

Cost of the death penalty

Opponents of the death penalty often cite statistics arguing the DP costs 2 million per case, and Life in prison costs 1 million over 50 years. Though JFA (Justice for all) has looked into the research and has estimated that Life in prison costs 1.2 - 3.6 million dollars MORE then the death penalty. Here is the break down in costs:

LWOP (at its cheapest):
Cell cost - 34,200/year
50 year cost - 2% annual increase (food, maintenance, housing, etc.)
Trial[s] - 75,000$
=
3.01 million dollars

DP (at its cheapest):
Cell cost - 60,000/year
6 year cost (average before death): 2% increase
Trials[s] - 1.5 million
=
1.88 million dollars

Now if we change the annual costs (say 4%) LWOP costs 4.04 million, and the DP costs 1.91 million. As we can see, the death penalty costs more [1].

But why does the DP cost less? LWOP prisoners usually face 30-40 years in prison, though 50 years is not uncommon. The annual cost for these prisoners is 40-50 thousand dollars a year. Now everyone agrees the trial costs of the death penalty are much more costly but there shouldn't be much of a question that the long term costs of the LWOP sentence is more then equivalent DP cases. I would also note in the death penalty your in the jail for a much shorter length of time, 6-8 years, whereas in LWOP your there sometimes for the remainder of your life. In that time there will likely be more medical costs for a criminal on LWOP. Even when using the abolitionist claim of DP trials costing 20 times more, we still see LWOP is more expensive over time [2]. Now as stated some people are on death row for 8 years. So do need to look into that difference? Yes, I do. That might be a game changer. And it is! the DP is still 1 million dollars cheaper then equivalent LWOP cases.

Also if its trial costs that worry you, dont be worried. Some say the DP may even save money. States that abolish the death penalty save no money on trial costs. The DP actually makes up for its trial costs by acting as a plea bargain tool. This avoids the cost of a trial entirely [3]! Looking at it this way the cost of the DP is now even less costly then we thought it was.




[1] http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/dp.html#D.Cost
[2]  http://www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html#cost
[3] http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/1110

Homosexual orientation and child molestation

Let the truth be told: homosexuals are more likely to molest children. And that's a fact. But its not to say all homosexuals molest, that is false. It is not even to say most homosexuals are molesters, that would be false too. The majority of homosexual people are very normal and pleasant people. When I say African Americans commit more murders then whites its a fact, but most African Americans are great people. So what I am saying is admitting the facts that homosexuals molest more often then heterosexuals then you are not being bigoted.

Now most child sex offenders are heterosexual. So how do these facts not contradict? Gay people in this country account for 3% of the population, so if one heterosexual man molests a girl it would not affect the percentage of heterosexuals molesting by an extreme. A homosexual however would. So less net homosexuals do it but statistically can do it at a higher rate.[1]

Now the facts are indeed on my side, as most studies show homosexuals (men who molest boys chiefly) molest at higher rates then heterosexuals.  So to find the high rate is easy, lets look at some key facts.

Pedophiles are usually males[1]

The majority of research is clear that pedophilia is very rare in women but does exist in male sects. Again this does not mean most males are pedophiles, but their selective rate of pedophilia is higher. This is also what I am arguing on homosexual molestations

Many victims are male[1]

About one third of abused children [sexually] are males.

Many of these molesters [of boys] admit to being homosexual[2]

86% of men who molest boys admit to being homosexuals. This also includes bisexuals.

------------

Since 30% of child sex abuse incidences are done by homosexual perpetrators, to a gay activist they say "look not a majority, no higher rate, I win". No you don't win, you cant understand rates.  As 30% of offenders are homosexual, less then 3% of the population is gay, this means homosexuals rate of molestation is 10 times higher. Also, a segment of the gay population (even if they do not commit the acts) do not condone pedophilia, and outright support it. [3]




[1] http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=is02e3
[2] W.D. Erickson "Behavior Patterns of Child molesters" Archives of Sexual Behavior (1988)
[3] Peter Sprigg "10 myths about Homosexuality" Family Research Counsel (2010)

2012 election: state polling

http://ElectoralMap.net/2012/myPrediction.php?d=qo0tqnr0nr0nrwnxq

 Its essentially a tie, based on conventional knowledge, state polling, guesses,  past elections, I made a decision... except for Florida. Current number Romney 243, Obama 266. If Romney wins Florida, he wins. If Obama wins Florida, he wins. Its all on you florida!!!!

Myths and Fact about homosexuality

Myth 1: Animals do it too!!

Fact: Yes, they do. Monkeys have also been observed to eat their young, spiders eat their mates, other animals kill their young (or other youngs) to enhance the lives of other animals or enhance the chance their other young survive. The original mammals would eat their children if it meant saving their lives. Is it natural for people to eat their young too?

Myth 2: They where born that way

Fact: I made a parody of that song once......

Anyway. The majority of studies arguing a genetic born that way factor are highly flawed, many had small sample sizes, non random samples, and sometimes mis-classification of their subjects. These fatal flaws destroy the heart of the scientific evidence of the theory. As studys point out:

1. Critical review shows evidence favoring a biologic [genetic] theory to be lacking. ... In fact, the current trend may be to underrate the explanatory power of extant psychological models.  ¹

2.  [After saying gene theory is laughable] In contrast, out results support the hypothesis that less gendered socialization in early childhood and preadolescence shapes subsequent same sex  romantic preferences. ²

3. The chief causal factor [of homosexuality] is the affect of anxiety, which inhibits standard stimulation and compels the 'ego action system in the individual' to bring forth an altered scheme of stimulation as a 'reparative adjustment'. Both the inhibitory and the reparative processes begin far back in early childhood, leading up to the picture which we encounter in the adult.  ³

 Myth 3: Well... 10% of people are gay, some study said that!

Fact: That study has found to be highly flawed and has been discredited by other analysis, and its numbers have not been reproduced. And he also said anyone who engaged in homosexual acts in teenage years, but are self identified as straights in their adult lives, he classified them as "gay". Based on his own results, only 4% of the population was gay for their whole lifetime.  ⁴  

^{Newer surveys disprove this estimate. All of these surveys use 3 points to estimate homosexuality accurately: 1. self Identification, 2. behavior, 3. and attractions. Based on data, the number of people who have been exclusively homosexual on all three of those specifications is extremely low: 0.6% of men and 0.2% of women. 5}           

That's enough of that, right? Only myth people care about is myth 2. Lets expand more studies!! (all quotes) 

1. Although the popular perception of homosexuality has been that, at least in men, homosexuality is caused by biological factors, the most current and best scientific evidence appears to show that at most homosexuality is only influenced by biology in a predisposing way. The research efforts which have attempted to determine a biological cause for homosexual attraction have failed.   

Source: Stony Olsen, Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?," Regent University Law Review (2002)

2. While some authors have speculated about the existence of 'genes for homosexuality,' genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior or cognitive schema. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis which in turn specifies the production of a particular protein.

There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a specific behavior and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving.

The term 'homosexual gene' is, therefore, without meaning, unless one proposes that a particular gene, perhaps through a hormonal mechanism, organizes the brain specifically to support a homosexual orientation.

Source: William Byne "Science and Belief: Psychobiological Research on Sexual Orientation"Journal of Homosexuality (1995)

3. It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

Source: Simon LeVay "Sexual Brain" Discover (1994)

4. Michael Bailey and Richard Pillard who focused on identical twins, non-identical twins, non-adopted siblings and adopted siblings... found a 52% concordance rate for the identical twins which means that for every homosexual twin, the chances were about 50% that his twin would also be homosexual... If there is something in the genetic code that makes an individual homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual since they have the exact same genetic endowment?... Some comparative data on twin studies [are] the concordance rate for identical twins on measures of extroversion is 50%, religiosity is 50%, divorce is 52%, racial prejudice and bigotry is 58%. From the Bailey and Pillard study one has to conclude that environmental influences play a strong role in the development of homosexuality.

Source: Dean Byrd, "Born That Way? Facts and Fiction About Homosexuality," Meridian Magazine (2004)

5. Bailey and Pillard found that the incidence of homosexuality in the adopted brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates for the rate of homosexuality in the population (1 to 5%). In fact, it was equal to the rate for non-twin biological brothers. This study clearly challenges a simple genetic hypothesis and strongly suggests that environment contributes significantly to sexual orientation...

Indeed, perhaps the major finding of these heritability studies is that despite having all of their genes in common and having prenatal and postnatal environments as close to identical as possible, approximately half of the identical twins were nonetheless discordant for orientation. This finding underscores just how little is known about the origins of sexual orientation. 

Source: William Byne, "The Biological Evidence Challenged" Scientific American (1994) 

Special thanks to:

Although many of these studies I have read through PDF files on google, many of them I got from Pro Con.org (I had other quotes but used PRO CON.orgs quotes as they where better) [http://borngay.procon.org/]

Not all of my quotes where PROCON.orgs though. A few where from the FRC's "10 myths about homosexuality". 

But as we can see, no one is "born gay".

  ¹  Dean H. Hamer "A Linkage Between DNA Markers on the X chromosome and Male sexual orientation" Science (1993)
  ^{2   Peter S. Bearman and Hannah Bruckner "Opposite-sex twins and Adolescent Same Sex Attraction" American Journal of Sociology (2003)
  3} Sandor Rado "A Critical Examination of the Concept of Bisexuality,"  Psychosomatic Medicine (1940)

  4  His model was created in 1948: Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell P. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin "Sexual behavior in the human male" Philadelphia: Saunders (1948) 

  ⁵ Laumann, Edward O. "The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States." Chicago: University of Chicago, 1994.

Top news shows

FOXNEWS OREILLY 3,108,000 FOXNEWS HANNITY 2,973,000 FOXNEWS GRETA 2,802,000 FOXNEWS BAIER 2,441,000 FOXNEWS SHEP 2,147,000 FOXNEWS FIVE 1,590,000 CMDY DAILY SHOW 1,516,000 MSNBC MADDOW 1,256,000 CMDY COLBERT 1,226,000 MSNBC SCHULTZ 1,119,000 MSNBC HARDBALL 790,000 MSNBC SHARPTON 771,000 CNN COOPER 630,000 CNN MORGAN 591,000 Source: http://www.debate.org/forums/politics/topic/21743/