Looking For True Skeptical Analysis of Climate Change

In his blog post, Skeptical Inquirer Abandons Reason, Embraces Global Warming, Doug Hoffman summarized my position regarding CSICOP, which I had supported for many years.

I have been an associate member of CSICOP/CSI for many years and have always felt that its activities were important for the well-being of our society. Recently, however, I have noticed a disturbing trend in the contents of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine that has caused me to reevaluate my support for CSI. There seems to be a concerted effort to label people who do not accept the current climate change dogma—put forth by the IPCC and others as “settled science”—as irrational ideologues.

It seems that when the publishing organization of SI changed its name from the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP) to the Committee for Scientific Investigation more was lost than a number of words—it seems a good deal of integrity was sacrificed as well. I do not intend to renew my membership with this organization and I urge others to critically review their affiliation with CSI.

I have been appalled by the misrepresentation of scientists who do not conform to the so-called "consensus" opinion in articles in Skeptical Inquirer. They demean the meaning of scientific inquiry and can only be referred to as pseudo-skepticism. They undermine the principles upon which many of us once believed for CSICOP.  Since that time I have looked for some organization to conduct an objective examination of both sides of the Climate Change debate.

Debunking Junk Science

In her article, Junk Science in the April 2014 issue of Popular Mechanics, Sarah Fecht offers six warning signs for junk science.  Although one might find Popular Mechanics to be an unusual publication for such work, science editor Ms Fecht has published widely in The New York Times, Scientific American, Forbes, Popular Science, National Geographic, and other places.She has a good grasp of what qualifies as junk science.  She lists:

• Was the paper published in a [credible] peer-reviewed journal?  She admits peer-review may be flawed, but says "It stands between us and really poor science."
• What is the Journal's Impact Factor? In other words, how often are its articles referenced in other works?
• Do the researchers mostly cite their own work?  This is a red flag that this work is outside scientific consensus.  That does not disqualify it, but suggests one tread cautiously in citing this author.
• How Many Tests Where Used? Most tests improve reliability.  We add "Has the author made the raw data public?" Transparency improves credibility.
• Does It Rely on Correlation? Just because two events have a similar history does not imply one is caused by another or that they are even related.  The infamous attempt by Al Gore to correlate proxy global temperature anomalies with carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is a remarkably disingenuous demonstration.
• Have the Results Been Reproduced? No science result is credible until its has been reproduced by independent researchers.  In 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann  claimed to have produced cold fusion. Their work was never reproduced and by the end of 1989 was totally discredited.

How Credible is Peer Review?

. . Peer-reviewed articles are no necessarily as credible as they are promoted to be.  Web-publishing and "open-access" facilitates the establishment of journals that indiscriminately publish papers.  When many of these sources charge the author to publish, they create an additional "conflict of interest." The more papers they accept; they more money they make.
. . A cottage industry has consequently grown up to provide so-called "peer-reviewed" certification.  Some journals are members of networks that republish articles so as to inflate statistics for authors, organizations, and politicians for private gain in in the process damage the credibility of real science.
. . In an article "Who's Afraid of Peer Review?" written by Science correspondent John Bohannon that describes his investigation of peer review among fee-charging open access journals. Between January and August 2013, he submitted fake scientific papers with obvious scientific flaws to 304 journals owned by many fee-charging open access publishers. Sixty percent of them accepted it.
. . Jeffrey Beall, a librarian for 23 years at Auraria Library, University of Colorado Denver, in Denver, Colorado., challenges predatory open access publishing on his website www.scholarlyoa.com. He provides a surprising and exceedingly long list of culprits.  Before referencing an article, check out the credibility of the source on Beall's compendium. 

Joe Nickell Says Bell Witch Contrived.

. . Joe Nickell, senior research fellow at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, is the latest to examine the Bell Witch Legend and to conclude it most likely was invented by Marvin Ingram.  In  the January./February issue of Skeptical Inquirer he summarized his analysis in an article titled, "The 'Bell Witch' Poltergist."  His primary contribution was a grammatical comparison of the letter, "Our Family Trouble," purported to be from Richard Bell to the book authored by Ingram.  He found a high degree of compatibility suggesting that Ingram wrote both.
. . About a decade ago, we concluded after a thorough examination of all available documentation, that Ingram invented the Bell Witch.  That was based on the total absence of third party corroboration, even though circumstances would have assured its existence.  Our conclusion was also predicated on the bizarre content of Ingram's report, his absurd report of claimed witnesses, and his personal background for tabloid type publications. It was simply another case where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  Absolutely nothing exists.
. . Nevertheless, the legend persists. It is just another example where people will choose to believe what they want, regardless, and no matter how irrational.  

Target Exploit Give XP Legs

. . According to NCR 95% of the ATM terminals around the world still run Microsoft XP, which is soon to be abandoned by Microsoft (1).  It is quite possible that a good majority of the point of sale (POS) terminals have a similar platform.  It is reported that the recently publicized Target exploit was carried out on terminals with embedded Microsoft XP(2).  Target was hardly alone(3). 
. . Everyone needs to watch credit cards statement very closely and promptly.  Don’t assume that because you were not one of the 110 million in the Target heist that you’re safe. 
. . That may be one reason why Microsoft has changed its mind about abandoning XP and on January 15, 2014 decided to extend security support until July 14, 2015(4). It might also be due to pressure from the Chinese on Microsoft to extend support of XP (5).  They have little motivation to move off of XP. 
. . One might conclude that even with all the fear mongering about XP’s demise, this operating system is simply not going away anytime soon.

1)      http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/20/5326772/windows-xp-powers-95-percent-of-atms-worldwide

2)      http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/01/a-first-look-at-the-target-intrusion-malware/

3)      http://www.pcworld.com/article/2089480/six-more-us-retailers-hit-by-targetlike-hacks-security-firm-says.html#tk.nl_secur

4)      http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2014/01/15/microsoft-antimalware-support-for-windows-xp.aspx

5)      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/12/04/windows_xp_warning_china/

The Christmas Tradition

. . The celebration of Christmas is a great example how traditions are corrupted and history rewritten to serve popular needs.  Christians are often dismayed by the commercialism of the holiday and plead to put Christ back into Christmas.  Most likely this group has little knowledge of the history of Christmas and that Christ was never the origin of the Christmas tradition. Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen summarizes the origins of Christmas tradition in his History of Christmas.
. . The popular myth is Christmas was when Jesus of Nazareth was born.  Actually, no one knows when he was born, but is is generally accepted it was not on December 25'th.  This date derives from the gruesome Saturnalia custom of the Roman Empire, a week long period of lawlessness celebrated between December 17-25.

Roman courts were closed, and the law during this period did not allow any one to be punished for damaging property or injuring people. Each Roman community would select an innocent victim whom they forced to indulge in food and partake in debauchery during the week.  On December 25'th, Roman authorities brutally murdered the victim with the belief they were destroying the forces of darkness.

. . In the fourth century CE, Christianity imported the Saturnalia festival hoping to take the pagan masses in with it.  They converted large numbers of pagans to Christianity by promising them that they could continue to celebrate the Saturnalia as Christians. However, there was nothing intrinsically Christian about Saturnalia. So, these Christian leaders named Saturnalia’s concluding day, December 25, to be Jesus’ birthday.

Skepticism in Healthcare

     I have often repeated the World Health Organization statistic that Americans pay TWICE that which the industrialized world pays for an average healthcare system.  Unfortunately, the American solution to this problem has been to cut payments to doctors rather than to force a change in our medical systems.  That only makes the matters worse.  Doctors then resort to quantity and not on quality of care and the problem gets worse.

·         - What’s the 6’th leading cause of death in America?  PREVENTABLE medical errors. http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/justice/hs.xsl/8677.htm
 

·         - According to the National Quality Forum our medical system is focused on QUANTITY and not quality.  http://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2008/12/Investing_in_Healthcare_Value.aspx Overused tests and treatments include antibiotics, X-rays, cardiac CT scans, heart by-pass surgeries, back surgeries, knee and hip replacements, prostatectomies, angioplasties, and hysterectomies.

     The way we pay for medical services seriously exacerbates the problem.  Americans worry little about the services they expect.  Few pay for these treatments.  American patients are convinced that MORE is always better and care little about expenses.  They are not competent to judge their own or family treatment.  Few get intellectually involved and totally surrender decisions to the medical system that is overrun with greed.

      Unfortunately, a segment of America strive to hold onto the “status quo” which has been projected by the CBO to increase heath care spending within a decade from around 18% to 24% bankrupting the country.  They choose to treat the symptoms (more cuts to entitlements) rather than cure the cause (fee for services paid by third parties).  Obamacare may be a clumsy start, BUT at least it is a start.  Change is not an option and the rest of the industrialized world proves that a better way does exist.

Stop Swallowing Republican Lies about Obamacare

. . I keep following these Republican scare claims to be sure I am not missing anything.  I have 150 employees for whom I must provide healthcare.  I expect minor effect on my business.  I am not unusual.  The CBO expects less than 5% of Americans do be directly impacted.
 . . The facts are quite simple: The cost of American Healthcare is out of control and those raping Americans are fighting to keep it that way by feeding lies through lobbyists and buying incompetent Congress men and women, which appear to be mostly Republicans.
. . Hospitals in our area have been laying off staff because they are expecting considerably more scrutiny under Obamacare.  Medical offices are being forced to get efficient. The results of all of that seems quite self-evident – continually improving costs for medical care.
. . It’s not theory; hundreds of year of evidence shows -- it’s what happens in a free and competitive market.

Obamacare Shutdown

      They’re at it again – the Tea Party.  The focus of their ire this time is Affordable Care and Patient Protection Act otherwise known as Obamacare.  I continue to search the Internet for publications by reputable unbiased analysts to understand the real facts about Obamacare and the bottom-line reasons why so many claim to be against it.  Against it to such an extent, that they will do whatever to stop its implementation, even if it causes Americans great harm by shutting down the government.

Bachmann Out to Lunch AGAIN

Michelle Bachmann is typical of the Tea Party crowd in the US House.  They manufacture "straw men" and argue furiously about them.  They manufacture their own facts which they vigorously support.  Whereas the Tea Party is on the right track, to reduce government spending, they do it so incompetently that it is hard to take them seriously.  Bachmann's recent visit to Egypt is so representative of this group-think..

Samara Shehata, a University of Oklahoma political scientist who studies Egypt's Brotherhood, tells The New York Times that the bizarro press conference mostly demonstrates "a confluence of interests among the coup leaders in Egypt and Islamophobes in the Congress." But Bachmann's "utterly absurd" statements take the cake, Shehata says: They're like "a Saturday Night Live skit — unbelievable, ludicrous, almost comic if it wasn't so painful."

http://theweek.com/article/index/249307/watch-michele-bachmann-flubs-almost-everything-about-egypt 

This wouldn't be so scary if this woman, who claims to be a leader of the Tea Party in Congress didn't run for President and had serious Republican support, at least for a while.  No wonder Romney had so much trouble (and Boehner now).  They were (are) constantly being upstaged by the Bachmann class "theorists" with a confirmation-bias-seeking constituency who swallow her every word as factual.

The Obama Doctrine

      One of the key considerations for Obama's supporters is belief that he would move America out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not embroil the country in another meaningless and costly war.  He stiff- armed Libya and kept America's distance from other Islamic skirmishes.  It doesn't take much intelligence to realize that these were loosing battles for American interests.  The combatants will say or doing anything to attract the world's only super-power to their camp, including lies, misrepresentations, and disingenuous promises. History continues to prove that unequivocally.   Then came Syria.
     Obama was bombarded from all sides of the battle to involve America in some manner.  He half-heartily threatened to use that force, looked weak, but in the process achieved two major coups without firing a shot:  he moved the weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) further from falling into the hands of terrorists and he got Russia, Syria's major ally, to get off the sidelines and participate in a solution.  Who the hell cares if getting there looked sloppy.  The gambit of personal ego was successful.  It was a strategy move that neither Johnson nor Bush were competent in playing and instead chose to sacrifice America lives and treasure.

According to George Friedman in  Strategy, Ideology and the Close of the Syrian Crisis

The alignment of moral principles with national strategy is not easy under the best of circumstances. Ideologies tend to be more seductive in generalized terms, but not so coherent in specific cases. This is true throughout the political spectrum. But it is particularly intense in the Obama administration, where the ideas of humanitarian intervention, absolutism in human rights, and opposition to weapons of mass destruction collide with a strategy of limiting U.S. involvement -- particularly military involvement -- in the world. The ideologies wind up demanding judgments and actions that the strategy rejects.

Putin and the Anole Lizard

      If a male anole lizard encounters something that he perceives to be a menace or danger, he will not hesitate to prominently fluff out his throat fan, (aka a dewlap). As he does this, he may also attempt to assert his status in a couple of other ways, including head nodding and moving sideways nearer to the source of danger.What else can explain Vladimir Putin's bizarre op-ed piece in the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
 
     Let's get this straight.  Russia is a minor world player.

George Friedman in Stratfor Global Intelligence states,

Putin is bluffing . . . Russia is merely a regional power, but mainly because its periphery is in shambles. He has tried to project a strength that that he doesn't have, and he has done it well. For him, Syria poses a problem because the United States is about to call his bluff, and he is not holding strong cards.

http://app.response.stratfor.com/e/es?s=1483&e=749033&elq=d013c47695ed431bb870ed6565d1f7c8

Confirmation Bias by Kerry and McCain?

It has been report by Fox News that Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. cited an op-ed piece by Elizabeth O’Bagy, a discredited Georgetown University alumna, in The Wall Street Journal in their rush for a military strike in Syria. Specifically, Kerry read a quote from the op-ed in which she wrote that Islamic extremist factions are not "spearheading the fight against the Syrian government," but rather that the struggle is being led by "moderate opposition forces."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/13/syrian-expert-elizabeth-obagy-vouches-for-jihadist-group-in-court-affidavit/#ixzz2elnsncG8

Their sloppy research in quoting op-ed rather than facts is reflective of the Bush Administration's rush into the Iraq War. In this latter case Bush's team gave too much credence to a so-called Sadam informant "Curveball" who latter proved to be a liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

Crocodile Tears?

According to the Iraq Survey Group Final Report  Iraq used almost 19,500 chemical bombs, over 54,000 chemical artillery shells and 27,000 short-range chemical rockets between 1983 and 1988. It deployed 1,800 tons of mustard gas, 140 tons of Tabun, and over 600 tons of Sarin.  Specifically,

Use in the Iran-Iraq War, 1983-1988

• August 1983: Haij Umran — Mustard, fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
• October–November 1983: Panjwin — Mustard, 3,000 Iranian/Kurdish casualties
• February–March 1984: Majnoon Island — Mustard, 2,500 Iranian casualties
• March 1984: al-Basrah — Tabun, 50-100 Iranian casualties
• March 1985: Hawizah Marsh — Mustard & Tabun, 3,000 Iranian casualties
• February 1986: al-Faw — Mustard & Tabun, 8,000 to 10,000 Iranian casualties
• December 1986: Um ar-Rasas — Mustard, 1,000s Iranian casualties
• April 1987: al-Basrah — Mustard & Tabun, 5,000 Iranian casualties
• October 1987: Sumar/Mehran — Mustard & nerve agent, 3,000 Iranian casualties
• March 1988: Halabjah & Kurdish area — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Kurdish/Iranian casualties
• April 1988: al-Faw — Mustard & nerve agent, 1,000s Iranian casualties
• May 1988: Fish Lake — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
• June 1988: Majnoon Island — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties
• July 1988: South-central border — Mustard & nerve agent, 100s or 1,000s Iranian casualties

Where was the American outrage at that time?

One Mistake Can't be Corrected by a Bigger One

If events in Syria play out as it seems they will - a "narrow and limited strike" that rallies people around Assad and shifts focus away from his murderous campaign against his own people - Obama will have succeeded in making the situation even worse for the Syrians on whose behalf he is supposedly striking. Truly, Syria could wind up being one of the worst foreign policy disasters in US history, destroying whatever shred of diplomatic credibility the Obama administration had left.
It's almost enough to make one nostalgic for the days of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld..

by Mark LeVine, professor of Middle Eastern history at UC Irvine and distinguished visiting professor at the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Lund University in Sweden

Click here to read his entire post on, Will Syria's chemical weapons take down Assad - or Obama?  

Yes, we're witnessing a huge amateurish boondoggle by Obama administrations, but a second boondoggle only makes matters worse.  Obama's credibility in the World is gone PERIOD.  He can only make matters worse for Americans. 

Don't Underestimate Our Ability to Screwup Syria

. . .Think American administrations know what they are doing?  Has anyone forgotten Iraq?  Oh yah, our military did their job, just fine.  The problems didn't arise until we had to implement a foreign policy in Iraq and the Bush Administration looked like total amateurs.  They demonstrated a level of naivete that astonished the world.  Is there any reason to expect the Obama Administration will be any different?  Absolutely not.
. . . Since 1948 western governments repeatedly misunderstood the Middle East and nothing has changed. These countries are tribal societies devoted to a religion into which few non-Islamists have any insight.  With this high level of incompetence, western countries have no business interfering in Middle Eastern affairs.  Every time our arrogant politicians THINK they are going to help these poor backwoods nations move into the 21-st century, they prove how very little they know.  Hell, our politicians can't even fix America's problems.
. . . Stratfor Global Intelligence has had several educational articles on Middle Eastern strategies.  You'll want to click the title to read their recent. Make no mistake, these countries have very sophisticated leaders, who LIVE Middle Eastern politics.

Iran: Managing U.S. Military Action in Syria
Conventional wisdom says that a weakened Syria would undermine Iran's regional influence, but a U.S. military intervention in the country could actually benefit Tehran. The government there has devised a sophisticated strategy for responding to a U.S. attack.  

Do Not Forget GENERAL Eisenhower's Warning

Washington Hypocrisy

"History would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator's wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings," John Kerry said reflecting his strong belief that action was a moral imperative.

Where was that MORAL IMPERATIVE when

Tell Congress NO on Syria

This whole Syrian issue is a major chess game for which America must look far beyond its next move.  Our leadership must be planning moves three and four down the road.  Just as in the game of chess you will certainly loose if your vision is limited only on your next move.

It is obvious to everyone who has done even the simplest analysis that any punitive strike on Syria will have no effect -- period.  First, it has zero support from the world’s nations, except for maybe France and Turkey, and it will be read for exactly what it is – a feckless attempt of America to save face.  Then what?

Climate Bamboozle

. . When the President can't get his facts straight, what is the average Joe supposed to do? Unfortunately, Obama reflects the general opinion of Americans (click here) which haven't change too much since 2008.
. . With that as a backdrop the U.S. Senate is preparing to vote this week on a resolution that would block the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide as a pollutant. It very unlikely that they will recognize the REAL climate facts.

• Globally, weather-related losses have not increased since 1990 as a proportion of GDP (they have actually decreased by about 25 percent).
• Insured catastrophe losses have not increased as a proportion of GDP since 1960.
• Hurricanes have not increased in the U.S. in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since at least 1900.
• There are no significant trends (up or down) in global tropical cyclone landfalls since 1970 (when data allow for a comprehensive perspective) or in the overall number of cyclones.
• Floods have not increased in the U.S. in frequency or intensity since at least 1950.
• Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity, or normalized damage since 1950, and there is some evidence to suggest that they have actually declined.
• Droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, and have been covering a smaller portion of the U.S. over the past century.
• Of 73 climate models used and their predictions versus the actual temperature measurements from two satellite datasets and four weather balloon datasets. “The level of disagreement between models and observations is quite striking.”
• The level of warming in the most recent 15-year period is not significantly different from zero, despite this being the period of greatest greenhouse gas concentration

. . The last two factual bullets are the clinchers.  The so-called global temperature anomaly has not significantly increased during the last 15 years whereas everyone one of the 73 climate models projected significant increases. The catastrophic global warming crowd have no credible explanation.  However, the simple answer is – the models are wrong and governments need to be careful about basing policy on them.

. . If you want the almost unbiased facts, see NASA website http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators#globalTemp