shopify analytics tool

Professor says studies don't use science

According to Armstrong, very little of the forecasting in climate change debate adheres to these criteria. “For example, for disclosure, we were working on polar bear [population] forecasts, and we were asked to review the government’s polar bear forecast. We asked, ‘could you send us the data’ and they said ‘No’… So we had to do it without knowing what the data were.”

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”

Digging deeper into their motivations, Armstrong pointed to the wealth of incentives for publishing papers with politically convenient rather than scientific conclusions.

“They’re rewarded for doing non-scientific research. One of my favourite examples is testing statistical significance – that’s invalid. It’s been over 100 years we’ve been fighting the fight against that. Even its inventor thought it wasn’t going to amount to anything. You can be rewarded then, for following an invalid [method].”

“They cheat. If you don’t get statistically significant results, then you throw out variables, add variables, [and] eventually you get what you want.”

“My big thing is advocacy. People are asked to come up with certain answers, and in our whole field that’s been a general movement ever since I’ve been here, and it just gets worse every year. And the reason is funded research.”

     — Allum Bokhari, J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

NeoNotes - Fertility religion

Yes, my path is a fertility religion. What of it? I could just as easily disparage you for the false division between soul and body. Mind, body, and spirit are unified in LIFE and it's a particularly fine thing. One connects to the others. You can't touch one without touching all three. That is the human experience.

Neither of my companions share my beliefs. But I enjoy them and each of them enjoys me. Sex is a big part of that. But so is thinking about what the other says and feels. So is sharing experiences. So is remembering.

I can't think of a better place to do that than pressed up against each other in the afterglow.

Can you?

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.


Real & impossible rights

Since the Women's March in January I've been talking to and emailing people. I've been trying to find out exactly what "women's rights" are and which ones have been threatened by Donald Trump.

In the United States, women have more rights than any where else in the World. Period. This cannot be disputed. The
Fourteenth and Nineteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution pretty much took care of that. It's not perfect by any means, and yes, some males can be total a*holes about it. But (and this is a darn important but), American women enjoy rights that are impossible for other women in much of the World.

To start with, American women are secure in their persons and that is protected by law. They are not usually forced into radical surgical modification such as
female genital mutilation. They can not be forcibly married. They can't legally be forced into sex. They can't be required to provide body parts, organs, or blood on demand.

American women can AND usually do own property. They can exchange their labor for cash. They can have bank accounts (even if there were problems with that until well into the 1970s). Their property is protected by law just as any man's property is.

Third and most importantly, American women have the right to vote. As citizens, they have every right to try changing government within the system if they don't like it. And if they and enough of their fellow citizens agree, they have the right to abolish the government and start again.

There are other rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to bear arms, and so on. Somehow these other rights are never under discussion, even though they do not exist for women elsewhere on the planet.

These are the very same rights that every American citizen possesses.

Then there are four sets of rights that some women want that are not guaranteed by the Constitution and law.

The first set concerns equal pay. This can be confusing. Some jobs are inherently more dangerous and pay more. Some jobs require much more than the normal time and a near obsession with the job itself, these often pay more. Jobs are like anything else, there are tradeoffs.

The 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. When all these relevant factors are taken into consideration, the wage gap narrows to about five cents. And no one knows if the five cents is a result of discrimination or some other subtle, hard-to-measure difference between male and female workers.
     — Christina Hoff Sommers, No, Women Don’t Make Less Money Than Men

The second set concerns the sexualization of women. Some describe it as the hyper-sexualization of women.


Well, I have news for you. Humans are sexual creatures. Men are going to pay attention to women. Yes, even homosexual men. It's hardwired into the biology. The fact that the overwhelming majority of men do not have sex all the time with every female in sight at every opportunity is a credit to morals and Western Civilization. You're going to get speculative looks and appreciative looks. Sometimes you may get comments.

And you know what? Not all ladies are offended by that. Please don't act as if women are a monolithic block who all speak and act as one.

Sometimes women dress to get attention. Men are going to respond.

But since America is not a rape culture, women are still secure in their person. Or they should be anyway.

There's a difference between admiration and forced sex.

The third set concerns privileges for women because of past wrongs done against the gender by men. These aren't rights because everyone (men and women) share rights. These are special privileges that apply only to women because they are women.

That's not going to work.

In my case, I'm not going to take responsibility for something I didn't do. If the guy three streets over did it, I'm not responsible. If it happened in my grandfather's time, I'm not responsible. If my brother did it, I'm probably not responsible, but we'll talk it over and see.

Guilting someone into giving you privilege means the privilege will only last as long as the guilt.

That brings us to the fourth set. Somehow this set gets more attention than the rest, it concerns reproductive rights. As nearly as I can tell, this is reduced-cost and/or free contraception and abortion.

Going back to the first right I discussed in this post, American women are secure in their persons.

This means that sex is a voluntary activity. I'm going to say that again.

Sex is a voluntary activity.

I'm not responsible for a woman's sexual behavior any more than I am responsible for the color of her shoes. It's her choice and her responsibility. It's not her neighbor's responsibility. It's not society's responsibility.

Unless it's with me, who you have sex with, how you have sex, and how many times you have sex is frankly none of my business. Likewise, unless it is sex with me, I'm not responsible for the consequences.

So that is four sets of impossible "rights" that some women call "women's rights." These rights can't be granted. And the only set that President Trump threatens is the last set, the "reproductive rights."

I can't support these "women's rights."

I can support American rights as I discussed in the first part of this post.

Those are actually rights and worth defending.


Legal theft

Civil asset forfeiture is a national problem, and a big one. In 2014, for the first time in recorded history, police in the United States seized more money and property through civil asset forfeiture than all burglars and thieves combined. Making matters worse, civil asset forfeiture has been known to disproportionately impact African Americans and Latinos, creating significant barriers to opportunity in their communities. According to a study in Oklahoma, nearly two thirds of seizures come from racial minorities, representing a significant disparity.
     — Payton Alexander, Maine is poised to make it a lot harder for police to steal your stuff

Emphasis added. H/T reddit


Black & Blue & hate crimes

Regular readers know I'm no fan of hate crime laws.

If someone is killed because of their religion, are they any more dead?

If a store is vandalized because the owner was born outside the U.S., is the damage worse?

Once you start making special cases for the law, the original law is reduced. The "hate crime" label gets attached to everything to get the Maximum Penalty.

Well, now comes the next set of consequences. It's something I didn't expect, but it's obvious in retrospect.

Louisiana and Kentucky have both passed laws that add police and emergency responders to the hate crime laws. It's part of the Blue Lives Matter movement.

Blue Lives Matter is a response to Black Lives Matter. Considering some of the things that were alleged by Black Lives Matter, it's not surprising.

But think about the implications here. Police carry guns and are authorized to use force on behalf of the government. Thanks to police unions, there isn't much transparency and problem officers often aren't held accountable. Very possibly, thanks to these laws, it may become a crime to criticize these officers.

Why should this bother you?

Don't you know, citizen, that this is to protect you?

Have a nice day. Under penalty of law.


Repeal Obamacare with just one sentence

Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.
     — U.S. Congressman Mo Brooks, Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare

NeoNotes - The New Deal and the free market

I've news for you.

There was no need for the New Deal.

All evidence shows that the New Deal prolonged what should have been a short term correction. Not to mention that government actions created the crash to begin with. Things like manipulating the price of gold, restricting the amount of currency, and messing with import/export taxes.

No, it didn't.

The unemployment rate stayed roughly the same for years. Capital dried up. Businesses failed. Farmers came darn close to revolting, the ones who were able to keep their farms anyway.

By most measures, the economy was either worse or the same in 1938 that it was in 1931. Look at the previous depressions and recessions and see how long they lasted.

And don't forget, a major part of this was because government restricted the flow of currency before the bank runs.

The economy can't be controlled and it can't be managed. Each person makes a hundred economic decisions each and every day, most without realizing what they are doing. Do they use a pen or a pencil? Handkerchief or tissue paper? Pack your lunch or grab something downtown? Multiply that by 300 million, that is the self-regulating system that government thinks it can control. There are just too many variables and conditionals, it would take lifetimes to measure.

Fortunately, we don't have to. Humanity is a colony organism. We built these interconnecting, self-repairing, self-regulating systems that require very little from us.

Price when it relies on the free market is the most intricate continually updating feedback mechanism ever created by man. The thing that messes it up is when we change the feedback. Introduce sin taxes, that changes the feedback. Introduce tax abatement, that changes the feedback. Subsidize corn and sugar, it changes the feedback. The price of a thing or service reflects millions of data points that the individual doesn't know about but still provides information about the world.

The unemployment rate stayed in double digits, and in April 1939 one in five still couldn't find work.

And that brings us to the bit that even Keynes could never bring himself to admit: the private sector is the source of wealth and employment. Keynes believed that it was massive government spending that could bring back a depressed economy. He failed to allow that government doesn't create wealth, it can only divert wealth.

Which leads to an inescapable conclusion. Government relief decreases the flow of capital and increases unemployment. It may look good, it may pay for a meal today, but all it really does is shift the costs elsewhere and delay recovery.

There's also the bit that if government takes money to give to others, that's theft. There's a classic essay called “Not Yours to Give” by James J. Bethune that talks about that. It's also about Davy Crockett.

Even WWII after factoring out the costs in human lives didn't end the Depression. It hiked the national debt from $49 billion in 1941 to just under $260 billion in 1945. Real recovery didn't come until after the war. FDR's death prevented his Second Bill of Rights, neither Congress nor the American people were willing to let Truman revive the New Deal after the war.

I was only talking about taxes in terms of how they affect prices. Accurate prices are the main feedback in the free market. Well, that and reputation. Which is a completely new subject, even as it ties into parity.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

NeoNotes - The screws

"…yet that ominous backdrop of a changing world that is inexorably shifting to the right…"

The traditional right wing and left wing definitions really don't work all that well. But the Nazi party considered themselves left wing, and they were left wing by the standards of the time. A better distinction is if someone supports the state over the individual. Unfortunately many don't recognize that a state that supports them today can turn against them in a second. Sort of like happened recently.

Trump deserves criticism, there's no doubt about that. But it's impossible to understand why Trump won without considering the actions of Obama over the previous eight years. It was backlash. You may not believe me, but look at all the Congressional seats, the state legislative seats, and the governorships the Democrats lost in the last eight years.

Heinlein said that a government supported artist is an incompetent whore and he wasn't far wrong. I don't want politicos and technocrats deciding what is art and what is not. Neither should you.

The muses live in the artist and the art, they are reflected in the eyes and ears of the audience. I don't want a government rating on how artistic something is, I want to feel it touch my spirit.

There are ways to deal with Christian attacks. Point out that any faith system that needs government force to back it up tells just how weak someone's faith really is. Work from there,

There's also our secret weapon. The U.S. Constitution mentions the Christian god exactly once, in the date. Unlike every other government document in Western civilization at the time, the Constitution does not beseech the Divine or claim that government power derives from the authority of the Divine. It set up the United States as a plural society and we have remained that way ever since. Despite repeated efforts by certain evangelicals.

Don't look to government to solve your problems or protect you from your fears. That's always going to depend on getting the right people elected, and who has time to make everything in life political? Even if you could pull it off. Look to your neighbors and friends, the people of good character who are the real power in our country.

I'm not reducing it to one dimension. I'm pointing out that the left and particularly the Democrats are not the saints they claim to be. There were at least just as many who felt attacked by Obama as feel attacked now by Trump. There are differences in how each handles it though.

Oh, and going by the cash spent, the Democrats outspent the Republicans for the Presidency this last time around.

What people forget is that when the Nazis came to power they were the new kids promising deep changes to solve social problems. And that is precisely what they delivered. That is about as left wing as it gets.

I've said it elsewhere and I will say it here again. The problem is government. The more you let government into your life, the bigger a victim you set yourself up to be.

Which, as I keep pointing out, is exactly what happened. Obama and the Democrats expanded government in every way that they could, and now Democrats and progressives are all surprised when government can be used against them just as easily.

One of the things that Obama set out to do was prevent "right wing" money from being spent at all. That's why the IRS didn't recognize conservative groups for tax exempt status.

I'm not right wing. One thing libertarians soon learn is that both the so-called right wing and the so-called left wing both want massive expansion of government, just for different reasons.

This is the bone of contention between us. You are convinced that with the correct people doing the correct things, a bigger government is a Good Thing™. I think that if you make a government bigger today, it's sure to be used against you tomorrow.

Just as happened in 2008. Just as happened in 2016.

Your problem is that you think government power is being misused. I'm telling you that government power is misuse.

ETA: I cited all the losses that the Democrats had over the last the last eight years. Ask yourself why the money was spent the way it was over four separate election cycles. Do you honestly think it was all Republican spite money? Why do the Democrats get to spend money and the Republicans don't?

I still think there should be a None of the Above.

According to internal IRS documents, conservative and tea parity groups were targeted. These documents were published (among other places) in Stassel's excellent The Intimidation Game. The story about the Judicial Watch FOI lawsuit and all the IRS crashed hard drives is particularly interesting. Some of it was even reported in the press at the time, although with a very patronizing tone.

The comment about spite money avoids the issue. Here, I'll emphasize to make it easier. Why should the Democrats get to spend money while the Republicans shouldn't?

I'm not a Social Darwinist either, I rejected that philosophy when I was still in junior high school.

Here's the thing. In the first few paragraphs of this article that we're commenting on, fear of government in the wrong hands is obviously the central issue. In all your comments on this site about the power of government, you've always supported government in the correct hands even as you say it's hard to find and elect honorable people to serve. You're arguing over who gets to drive the getaway car.

I can talk about the proper places of the muses and defending against Christian attacks for a year and a day. All you're focusing on is who gets to call the shots and why. You are willing to surrender power over your life to some politico who looks good and says the right things on cue. Why? Does it make your life better? Does it give you the secret food additive so when you pass gas it smells sweet?

Or does it give you power over others?

Check closer. It wasn't just Wisconsin.

Neither the IRS or the DOJ is supposed to delay FOI requests, especially not for years at a time. That's beyond the means of most organizations and individuals to follow up. It's also a direct violation of the law.

That's the point. It was never exclusively left. Or right either.

My irritation at progressives since the election is that all the blame has been put on Trump for what he might do while excusing everything wrong that has been done by Democrats.

I really, really don't like defending Trump. But overlooking the "sins of the past" while attacking Republicans for everything wrong with the world won't get Trump out of office any faster. If anything, it will dilute effective criticism because people will just start tuning out all criticism of Trump. People will tire of complaints that never panned out and will just stop listening.

That's the shell game that you've been conditioned to accept.

It's always the other party's fault. And you can fix it if you just get enough of the right people elected at the right time to do the right thing. And if you can't do that, it's because the other party is oppressing you. It's their sneaky tactics and blatant manipulations that are driving out goodness and democracy.

The solution to government problems is always…More Government! Of the correct kind, of course. Our government, not their government. And since the other guys are sneaky, we have to be sneaky to protect our legacy and the truly good things that government can do, if just given a chance. Or ten. Just in case government doesn't get it right the first few times.

Do you see how that works? Do you see how the problems never get solved, just made worse?

Don't you see how much of your freedom this costs? Don't you see how you end up bowing at the altar of Government Doing the Right Thing?

How much freedom will you be allowed tomorrow?

Not a nerve. It's just annoying when modern liberals excuse behavior in "their own" that they would not stand for if it were done against them. Which reflects the same point I've been making since Trump was sworn in. It's also the same point that almost every American progressive refuses to accept. They don't object to government power, they just object to government power used against them or the things they believe in. You'd be perfectly willing to apply the screws if the situation were reversed. Almost nobody bothers to ask if the screws should exist in the first place.

The label of social Darwinist is inaccurate because the philosophy itself is deeply flawed. If you had bothered to ask or even to check, I'd tell you that I'm the guy who said that humanity is a colony organism. I'll let you work through some of the implications.

If the Obama administration conspired to keep conservative and tea party groups from getting tax exempt status and the Obama DOJ investigated those same groups, then something is a little screwy. Especially when no one was taking a close look at the Clintons. Odd how the Clinton Foundation has folded up shop. It's almost as if it had no purpose other than to get HRC elected. In violation of I don't know how many laws.

Humans have been taking care of each other for a very very long time. How many old stories have gods wondering the Earth disguised looking for hospitality and charity? Our society is built on the idea of honor and fair play. Parity is a keystone. The Christians called it the Golden Rule, but it existed in dozens of successful cultures. It may be the most important idea of Western civilization and the best thing that sets us apart.

Look closer at the Clinton Foundation. Their donors are down, they hid the third quarter 2016 drop until after the election, they've been releasing staff, and their operations have scaled way back.

The thing is, we're getting better. Americans especially. We're practically hardwired to help. Show us something that we can do something about and we will do it. Not because we're obligated to, not because of some government edict, but because we genuinely want to. Child fallen in a well? We're there, not only with (mostly unofficial) rescuers but with people feeding the family and the rescuers. New Orleans flooded? We're there with fan boats carrying supplies and the most efficient trucking network on the planet bringing in more. Notably the fan boats got turned away because they weren't "official." You should watch for that, it's a repeating pattern.

The Clintons have been doing shady and not quite shady enough things since Bill was governor of Arkansas. The press doesn't call them on it. Case in point, before the election HRC and her staffers met with Russian officials more than Trump and his staffers. There was also a questionable uranium deal while HRC was Secretary of State (and while the CF was receiving scads of funds from Russian sources), but who is counting, right? And this is the problem. Prominent Democrats get a pass while every Republican action, legal or not, gets made into the scandal of the week. I'm not excusing Republicans for their screw-ups. I just want Democrats held to the same standards.

ETA: It's early and my caffeine hasn't quite hit yet. I forgot to mention in the first part that America is the biggest source of private charity in history by a few orders of magnitude.

And now if you'll excuse me I think I will go wake my companion. There's time for a little fun before the sun rises.

You misunderstand.

Unrestrained government is the "unvarnished evil." The Constitution was designed for limited government.

There are very few areas that the free market actually sucks, and most of those are caused by (wait for it) government mandates and restrictions.

The free market is built on two very simple principles. The first is the voluntary exchange of goods and services between consenting adults. The second is hardly ever acknowledged but just as important. Someone will see something and think "I can do better than that!" Most will fail, some spectacularly. But the ones who succeed change everything. There's no way to tell who will succeed in the free market now or in the next decade. It can't be controlled or predicted. Nor should it be.

Choice and the free market make the most effective advancements in human history. Good law protects free choice and the free market while insuring responsibility.

Even here, our choices make it possible. We choose not to be part of the prevalent monotheisms. We choose to look at the Divine and the World in ways not accepted by most of our fellow citizens. That choice and accepting responsibility for that choice shape who we are and how we touch the other lives on this planet.

It's not about the mechanisms of government. It's about how much we keep it restrained. Transparency is useless without limiting government because politicos won't limit themselves.

There is an old proverb, fire and water are good servants but evil masters. Some say that Washington said government is like fire, a troublesome servant but a bad master. He probably didn't say it, but the idea is sound.

NeoNotes are the selected comments that I made on other boards, in email, or in response to articles where I could not respond directly.

NeoNotes - Which god?

I will give you the same argument that led me to question the "faith of my fathers" and started my own search.


Roaming Millenial on Trump's Ties to Russia

What We Know So Far


Emma Watson on feminism - “I really don't know what my tits have to do with it.”

“Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom. It’s about liberation. It’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s confusing.”


NeoNotes - Make Your Choice

Are people better if they are more free or more controlled?


NeoNotes - Free markets mean liberty

With government interference, one side exploits the others.



We pagans have become the worst that we saw in the People of the Book.


Damn it

The problem is government.

NeoNotes - Pardon…

It would not honor my faith, and it dishonors the Divine as I perceive it. It would require me to break oaths & promises that are at least as important to me as yours are to you.


NeoNotes - Harder and harder

Which means under the 10th Amendment, Obamacare is illegal.