Regenerus

A “Bombshell” study was recently published in the Journal Social Science Research which set off a firestorm.  The author of the research, Mark Regenerus, had concluded that children who were raised by gay parents were socially disadvantaged compared to their peers.  The forces of political correctness, mainly gay advocates along with their allies in academia couldn’t have that.  So charges of scientific misconduct were filed against the professor.

Regenerus was exonerated of any misconduct with the university only finding minor errors, which are errors which do not affect the conclusion once factored in.  Most studies will have a few of those (Rose, 2012).  You can bet that given its conclusions the paper and the research behind it were investigated thoroughly.  The University of Texas at Austin was under a lot of pressure from its peers to find misconduct and ruin this man’s academic career.  Since then the Gay community and its friends in academia have been bashing the study and its author nonstop with the article BOMBSHELL: Corruption Uncovered In Regnerus Anti-Gay Study Scandal (Marshall, 2012) being a prime example.

In the hit piece by Marshall, a gay advocate, the organizations willing to pile on include “1) the American Psychological Association; 2) the California Psychological Association; 3) the American Psychiatric Association; 4) the National Association of Social Workers; and 5) its California Chapter; 6) the American Medical Association; 7) the American Academy of Pediatrics; and 8) the American Psychoanalytic Association.”  This is a who’s who of organizations, led by the American Psychological Association, which buckled under the pressure exerted on them by gay activists starting in the 1970s and embraced homosexual behavior as normal and become advocacy organizations for the gay lifestyle.

If the good professor hadn’t been exonerated I would call this the pot calling the kettle black given the lunacy which constitutes gay studies and the ongoing papers presented which condemn conservatives and others who believe in traditional morals as moral degenerates and which are openly presented in gatherings of academia.  With all due respect those folks are in no position to criticize Mr. Regenerus.

Yet they think nothing of it.  In a world where science must now conform to a political agenda in the fields of the social sciences, all research done must conform or not see the light of day.  We saw graphically displayed for us in the field of climate science an ongoing conspiracy to suppress research which didn’t conform to the political agenda and keep it out of the journals.  We also saw something of the same thing when a paper on intelligent design was published by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer in the Smithsonian affiliated journal, the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (Cashill, 2007).  That scandal back in 2006 revealed an ongoing conspiracy in the scientific community not to allow the publishing of any article suggestive of an alternative theory to evolution in any journal, no matter how well argued.

This writer finds such behavior disturbing.  As a society we have allowed the sciences to be high jacked to serve as propaganda.  Clearly those who do so are using it to manipulate people to allow things they would not otherwise permit.  When something wears the imprimatur of “science” then the average person assumes it must be true.  That gullibility is being exploited to disarm our fellow Americans, get them to accept immoral behavior as good and get them to allow government control over activities they would not normally allow.

We do live in a society where the people are free to accept whatever behavior they choose and permit more government control in their lives if they so choose.  This writer accepts that as a given.  However my problem is when science is used fraudulently to manipulate them into decisions based on misleading information.  And that is what this writer sees going on and why he writes about it.

Sources

Cshill, Jack, Intelligent Design Suppression Scandal Rocks Smithsonian, retrieved 09/19/2012 at  http://cashill.com/intellig_design/supression.htm

Marshall, Jennifer, The Foundry, retrieved 09/19/2012 at   http://blog.heritage.org/2012/08/31/case-closed-at-ut-austin-regnerus-exonerated/

Rose, Scott, BOMBSHELL: Corruption Uncovered In Regnerus Anti-Gay Study Scandal,  Retrieved 09/19/2012 at http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/bombshell-corruption-uncovered-in-regnerus-anti-gay-study-scandal/legal-issues/2012/08/29/47670 

On Biffra's Cherry-Picking.

I seem to keep coming back to climate studies, why?

They are second to none right now in the misuse of science and agenda driven “science meant to be used to change our lifestyles in way most still can’t comprehend.  And in spite of the growing evidence contradicting  the  climate change “science”  scientific, media and political forces are still acting like there’s nothing to see here and that critics are off their gourd.   Since this involves what is supposed to be a “hard” science instead of my usually field, the “social” sciences   it make it especially egregious when this sort of thing goes on.

Today Anthony Watts  has  an interesting analysis of the issues involving tree-ring studies in general, and the studies if Keith Biffra,  which get cited over and over again as authoritative, in particular.  I’ll link it at the end of this post.

Here is the problem.   Conservationism has been taken over by folks who want to use conservation as a means to concentrate the population in urban centers that they may be more easily controlled by a powerful government.  Some of these folks actually believe we are a cancer on the earth.  In the warming of the eighties they saw a possible way to achieve their agenda, the globe warmed up a little.  So, the plan was advanced to convince people that we are the cause of the warming and that it is unprecedented in history.  Then people would be inclined to give up technology freedoms and rights in the name of restoring the climate before disaster strikes.

Unfortunately the historical record doesn’t cooperate with the thesis they were advancing.  We know from records kept world-wide in certain civilizations that there have been warm periods and cold periods throughout human history.  We even have names for them such as the Medieval Warming Period (MWP ) and the Maunder Minimum (MM).  But global warming theory doesn’t allow for that.

So they started looking at so called proxies, natural evidence which could possibly be used to infer temperatures such as sediment cores, etc.    But those didn’t cooperate very well either, until two men enter the arena Dr. Michael Mann and Keith Biffra.   Both men purported to use tree-ring ring dendrology to measure earth’s past temperatures.  Dr. Mann came first and produced the sensational “hockey-stick” graph which purportedly proved that temperature was stable through the millennia until modern man started spewing carbon dioxide gas into the atmosphere.   Biffra next appeared to duplicate Mann’s result using  trees from another area of the earth.  Mr. Watts gives an excellent summary on the problem with tree-ring dendrology for measuring temperatures:

For many years, scientists have used tree-ring data to try to measure temperatures from the distant past, but the idea is problematic in and of itself. Why? Because tree-ring data reflect many variables besides temperature. Russian tree growth, like that of trees around the world, also reflects changes in humidity, precipitation, soil nutrients, competition for resources from other trees and plants, animal behavior, erosion, cloudiness, and on and on.

Watts is examining Biffra’s study in his article which is why he   mentions Russia in particular.  Mann ‘s study was debunked pretty quickly after he published it.  First he used a species of tree which is notorious for its unreliability for documenting seasonal variations because of its growth range among other reasons.  There were other problems with his methodologies and Mann wasn’t forthcoming in reporting all the statistical tests used or           sharing his data.  And one could go on. 

Biffra, on the other hand, used trees in the Yamal region of Russia for his study, a seemingly more stable choice with a better chance of yielding reliable results.   So his study was hailed for “confirming” Mann’s and is cited to this day as authoritative proof that the historical record is wrong and that we are driving our planet over the edge.

What Watts then concentrates on is the sampling of the trees, that is how many trees are included and why.  That is the point of his article.  The general rule in statistics is the larger and inclusive the sampling, the better the picture and the more accurate with reality.   Now it’s impossible to sample and analyze the rings of every tree of the species chosen in the Yamal region for a study.  But that’s alright as every statistician knows.   Methodologies have been developed and the appropriate statistical analysis developed over the years which yield amazingly accurate results.  That was why Ford could crash just a few Pintos and predict almost to the person how many would die in rear-ending crashes of that defective car.   Biffra claims to have done that.

What Watts explains is that, no, he didn’t.  At least not in the case of the trees used in the study he released.  Oh, Biffra did sample many more trees, but the results weren’t acceptable to him, so he cherry-picked the trees he finally used for his final product to inflate the temperature record in favor of the climate science party line.  That is one very big scientific no-no!   And Watts goes on to lay the case out quite convincingly along with some of the other known misleading steps Biffra worked into the final product.

So we get a rather sordid picture of just how far true-believers in   catastrophic global warming are willing to go to achieve their ends.

My dear friends and readers, these sorts of tactics aren’t limited to the climate science community. They are far more widespread than most people realize.  Dishonesty is now endemic in academia.  Science is being turned into a political tool right before our eyes to advance agendas and smear those who aren’t onboard.   Outside science academia is being harnessed to re-write history in a way which   conforms to a certain worldview, a dangerous one.  That is the point of this blog, to highlight what is going on and warn those who come across it to the dangers posed for us.   

Question, always question what is presented to you as “truth.”   Check the facts before deciding what you do.  But most of all do your own research and be informed.   

The Sum of Yamal Is Greater than Its Parts.                                                            

Flat Ocean Tmeperatures For 55 Years!

Here’s an interesting piece of new out of Anthony Watt’s site:

Trenberth's Missing Heat Still missing.

It seems the ocean temperatures aren’t rising as expected, or even touted, just a mere 0.09C rise in the last 55 years!  And this isn’t denier whooie, its authoritative research published in Geophysical Research Letters!  Now that is interesting!

If You Don't Believe In Climate Change You Must Be Sick

Here we go:

If you Don't Believe In Climate Change You Must Be Sick.

This is what happens when the facts aren't really on the environmentalists’ side.  Attack the messengers.  Skeptics MUST be mentally diseased and need treatment.  Sorry Ms Norgaard, your PhD is wasted.  Skepticism isn't a disease, it is founded in fact.

For many years the premise that it is solely man’s contribution to the CO2 in the atmosphere was up for question on several points.  It is now demonstrated scientifically that man’s contribution is so minimal it might as well be considered miniscule.  Although man does contribute to the rise, it’s mainly on natural sources, including massive amounts of CO2 released as the earth warms from sources locked up in the tundra.

The feedback loops assumed to increase warming exponentially as more CO2 enters the atmosphere are now shown by satellite observation not to be in play.  The current “rising” of the seas is now known to be from sinking land masses not melting ice which is strangely enough binding up more water again.

The current slight dip in global temperatures experienced during the last decade wasn’t predicted by the global warming models and defies the theory as to what should be happening.  We’ve seen major rivers freeze over which haven’t in decades, watched massive casualties from cold winters like we used to have and many other anecdotal things which defy global warming theory.

Yet WE are the ones who are crazy?

With things not going your way and scandal on every side in the Global warming community all you are left with is good old attack the messenger arguments.  Don’t look too close at the evidence, we’re the experts and you can trust us.  They are mentally defective and need to be treated for not believing us.  Those are the tactics of people who’ve lost the debate because the evidence just doesn’t fit and have no recourse left but to ridicule those who do have the facts behind them.  And the really sad part of all this is that WE are paying your salary and for whatever bogus studies you and your colleagues may dream up to “prove” your point.  How despicable!

Look, the earth has been warming since the late nineteenth century.  Before that there was a little ice age Dr. Mann and his cronies tried to rewrite out of existence.  The earth warms and cools.  It is an irregular cycle which is not well understood by scientists, though my money is on the folks who say solar activity is the main driver.  I don’t think the warm has completely stopped and we are headed into another ice age of some sort as some do.  My worldview calls for some more warming before all is said and done.

However, warming on a global scale isn’t in our hands.  We aren’t the driver and the extreme proposals for dealing with it won’t change a thing.  All they’ll do is divert resources from what we should be doing, finding ways to adapt to it.  As you divert us from that important task and if you succeed in your agenda it won’t be us skeptics who’ll be despised throughout history.  It’ll be you.

So stop attacking us and look for real solutions to real problems while you still can.

Note:

This essay was accidentally posted in the wrong blog last month.  So I've moved it  here where it belongs even though it's a little out of date.  Enjoy! 

Earth hour: A Dissent

I would like to post the following  essay written by Ross McKitrick:

Earth Hour:  A Dissent.

In 2009 I was asked by a journalist for my thoughts on the importance of Earth Hour.
Here is my response.


I abhor Earth Hour. Abundant, cheap electricity has been the greatest source of human liberation in the 20th century. Every material social advance in the 20th century depended on the proliferation of inexpensive and reliable electricity.

Giving women the freedom to work outside the home depended on the availability of electrical appliances that free up time from domestic chores. Getting children out of menial labour and into schools depended on the same thing, as well as the ability to provide safe indoor lighting for reading.


Development and provision of modern health care without electricity is absolutely impossible. The expansion of our food supply, and the promotion of hygiene and nutrition, depended on being able to irrigate fields, cook and refrigerate foods, and have a steady indoor supply of hot water.

Many of the world’s poor suffer brutal environmental conditions in their own homes because of the necessity of cooking over indoor fires that burn twigs and dung. This causes local deforestation and the proliferation of smoke- and parasite-related lung diseases.

Anyone who wants to see local conditions improve in the third world should realize the importance of access to cheap electricity from fossil-fuel based power generating stations. After all, that’s how the west developed.

The whole mentality around Earth Hour demonizes electricity. I cannot do that, instead I celebrate it and all that it has provided for humanity.

Earth Hour celebrates ignorance, poverty and backwardness. By repudiating the greatest engine of liberation it becomes an hour devoted to anti-humanism. It encourages the sanctimonious gesture of turning off trivial appliances for a trivial amount of time, in deference to some ill-defined abstraction called “the Earth,” all the while hypocritically retaining the real benefits of continuous, reliable electricity.

People who see virtue in doing without electricity should shut off their fridge, stove, microwave, computer, water heater, lights, TV and all other appliances for a month, not an hour. And pop down to the cardiac unit at the hospital and shut the power off there too.

I don’t want to go back to nature. Travel to a zone hit by earthquakes, floods and hurricanes to see what it’s like to go back to nature. For humans, living in “nature” meant a short life span marked by violence, disease and ignorance. People who work for the end of poverty and relief from disease are fighting against nature. I hope they leave their lights on.

Here in Ontario, through the use of pollution control technology and advanced engineering, our air quality has dramatically improved since the 1960s, despite the expansion of industry and the power supply.
If, after all this, we are going to take the view that the remaining air emissions outweigh all the benefits of electricity, and that we ought to be shamed into sitting in darkness for an hour, like naughty children who have been caught doing something bad, then we are setting up unspoiled nature as an absolute, transcendent ideal that obliterates all other ethical and humane obligations.

No thanks.

I like visiting nature but I don’t want to live there, and I refuse to accept the idea that civilization with all its tradeoffs is something to be ashamed of.

Ross McKitrick
Professor of Economics
University of Guelph

Cracking Down.

Today I saw this in the News:

Police Raid Climate Blogger's Hone. 

Now the raid itself isn't exactly news to me since I did see an earlier report simply reporting the fact.  But the analysis  by Mr. Birdnow did get my attention.  Why start going after skeptic bloggers over this?  Why now?

Mr Birdnow Quotes Ron De Haan on that:

This time the e-mails contain the names of political leaders, government departments, institutions and... a potentially explosive content.

Yes, I would say that is plenty of reason to care now.  It was never about science on any level, it was about politics.  Now  that folks with some real power are threatened, it's time to reach out and do something.  It's a story as old as time.  Go read the blog I linked, there is something in there which shoul.d scare everybody in the form of an e-mail sent to various Climate skeptic blogger by the DOJ.

Strawmen, Strawmen Everywhere.

Well, we're getting to the close of the Durban Conference:

It's been pretty predictable.  For weeks now we've seen the claws come out as one media report after another has blasted us "Climate Change" deniers as everything from stupid Bubba to greedy Simon Legree in the pay of the oil industry.  In the interest of setting the record straight right now, I don't see a dime from them.

Climate Change, that's the new buzzword since warming took a hike for the last decade or so.  It's also a strawman since informed "climate change deniers" are nothing of the kind.  Long before that name was coined we busily pointed out that the climate changes all the time instead of going through the kind of warming the IPCC was promoting ala Mann and his hockey stick graph.  In fact, we've pointed out that the planet has been warming for three-hundred years. 

Three hundred years ago we began to emerge from the Little Ice Age, something the IPCC cites Mann’s graph as proof never having occurred.  Yet three-hundred year plus ago the Hudson used to regularly freeze over solidly enough people walked back and forth over it.  Accounts of the time tell us that the water between Long Island and the mainland froze over just as solidly as well.  The Mississippi froze over solidly enough as late as 1834 that families used to cross it in their covered wagons in the wintertime.  When Washington took his army across the Delaware River the crossing was difficult for them, because the river was practically choked with ice flows and the situation was dangerous.  In fact it was so much so that the British hadn’t even bothered to post look outs along the rivier.

During that time the Thames regularly froze over solidly enough people could travel up and down it on the ice.  Londoners used to have ice festivals right on the river itself until part way into the nineteenth century.  Other major rivers through out Europe did the same.  That’s how cold the world was before warming occurred.  But you wouldn’t know it to listen to the folks at Durban and the IPCC, much less their minions in the media.
Then, starting about three-hundred years ago, things started warming up.  By the end of the nineteenth century all the aforementioned rivers had stopped freezing over regularly, and didn’t do so solidly enough for people to safely cross on foot.  Those are historical facts.
So the climate does change and has been for three centuries now.  And most of that warming occurred well before mankind supposedly started upping the CO2 concentration of the earth’s atmosphere in a major way.  While I disagree with the premise that mankind is the major contributor to the increase in CO2 concentrations for reasons I’ve already blogged about, the global warming activists are still left with the fact that before mankind could’ve been a factor the planet was already warming.
So, we are not climate change deniers, they are because they deny the climate changed before the modern age in spite of the massive evidence it did.  They point to two graphs based on cherry-picked tree ring data and deny any change occurred in the climate until man started loading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide.  We “deniers” are the realists since we admit the climate changes in cycles which aren’t fully understood, but documented in the historical age as well as by proxy.
Still in the face of the evidence otherwise the denial still goes on and the warmists still propose the same old worn-out solutions like a broken record, kill our economies with crippling CO2 reduction policies.

Here is a post on weather conditions during the Maunder Minimum, which couldn't have been a significant factor in the weather of the contemporary Little Ice Age if we take the position of warming scientists as to the significance of the sun's effe3cts on warming:

Weather During the Maunder Minimum.