Once Upon A Time

This is not new. I wrote it a few years ago, but it seems an appropriate time to dust it off.

Once upon a time, there was a people who were imbued with a magical idea. They dreamed of no longer being in bondage to another, of becoming their own masters. They dreamed of freedom.
These people did not have all the answers - they were not perfect - but they had an idea, and ideas can be powerful tools. Ideas can give rise to actions, and actions shape the world. The actions of these people did more than just shape a world. They created a new one.
Their dream was so bright that they fought and killed and died for its cause. They threw aside all normal precautions and laughed in the face of fate, not just to secure their own freedom, but to secure the freedom of all who would come after. They believed and, in believing, they reached out and formed a new reality.
They knew that only in freedom is there real security, real peace and real success, not just for a fortunate few, but for more people than had ever been imagined. Their dream was planted in corpses and watered in blood, but its fruit was the sweetest that had ever been tasted. For a change, people could dream, and they could even think of reaching their dreams.
Once upon a time, there was a people who dreamed of freedom. But time carried on and, as happens all too often, the dreamers awoke to a world that was not of their dream. They cried in vain as they discovered that their heirs had forfeited all that had been gained through blood and sweat and tears. They wailed in frustration as they saw that the chains they had fought so hard to remove had been locked back in place, not by force of arms but through voluntary complicity. The new people who should have been free had made themselves slaves out of laziness and cowardice, ignorance and greed.
In the world that is now, people are more afraid of those above them, rather than less. In the world that is now, there are rulers with more arms and more power than the dreamers ever knew in their own time. In the world that is now, these rulers grow fat with the plundered wealth of their people while still hungering for more. In the world that is now, those who are sworn to protect are seen as the enemy, and far too often this perception is true. In the world that is now, no one is safe and even the innocent must fear the justice of the land.
Once upon a time, there were people who believed, and they thought their belief was strong enough. For them, perhaps, it was. It did not carry down through time, though, and the world changed. The new people still mouth the words, but they no longer understand the meanings. They run for shelter at every perceived threat and never fathom their own responsibilities. They feel faint whispers of the echo of a dream, but they don’t really comprehend what it is they have lost. Only a pitiful few feel the primal hunger for freedom. Only a lonely, small band remember the dream.
If only this were just a fairy tale, but that is not the case. Once upon a time, we were free, but now has killed the dream. Is there no one left who believes?

This Day In History

"Give me liberty or give me death." Patrick Henry March - 23, 1775

"Every American is required to buy health insurance, like it or not." (paraphrased) Barack Obama - March 23, 2010

Yes, folks, I am still out here, just not quite settled in enough to go back to full time blogging. [Yes, things are going well. Thank you for asking.] However, I happened to notice the historical juxtaposition and had to say something. Those of you who remember what "liberty" means know exactly what I am saying. As for the rest of you ... Sorry, I make it a point to keep the language here family friendly and find that I cannot complete that sentence while maintaining that rule. Read between the lines and you should be able to figure it out.
Rest assured that I am still following the news as closely as ever and will be back to commenting in depth just as soon as I can.

Brief Hiatus

Sunday I will be leaving to move cross-country for business reasons. During the move and the time it takes to get resettled, I will not have regular, dependable access to the internet or to my computer, so there will be no updates here at A Is A for (hopefully) a brief time. I'll be back to blogging and commenting on the absurd as soon as I can.
In the meantime, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Enjoy the season, love your families, and stay safe.

Some Problems With The Climate Change Debate

I've spent the last few days participating in some online forums discussing Anthropogenic Climate Change and I've come up with a short list of what seems to me to be some of the biggest problems in the debate. Keep in mind that some of these issues can also be applied to any controversial, hot-button debate.

1. Appeals to Authority prove nothing and science does not run on consensus. If every scientist but one says that the sun moves around the Earth, the one who says the opposite is still right.
2. If Recorded Data plus Your Theory does not equal Observed Temperatures then Your Theory is wrong. Math does not make mistakes, but people who think they know more than they do make them often. No amount of "compelling evidence" can change this fact. In truth, if the math is wrong, this proves that you do not understand the "compelling evidence" as well as you claim.
3. If your own records and measurements show that the global mean temperature has been on a long-term warming trend for thousands of years then pointing out that the earth is still warming is not exactly Breaking News. Claiming that it will warm at an increased rate is not the same thing as demonstrating that it is warming at an increased rate.
4. Settled science stands up to scrutiny against all currently available data. It might be proven false (and become, once again, unsettled) with new data at some future time, but it cannot be shaky with current data and be considered "settled". Attempting to split hairs on the scientific definition of "proven" does not alter the scientific definition of "settled". The Laws of Thermodynamics are settled science. The Big Bang theory is not. Please take note of the differences.
5. If the centerpiece of your argument is "Anyone who disagrees with me is morally inferior" then there is probably something seriously wrong with your argument. The reality of "everyone with Opinion A is morally righteous and and everyone with Opinion B is morally inferior" is so vanishingly rare that this argument is almost never justified. By the same token, if your argument relies on "everyone who says X really means Y" then you are also most likely wrong. While some people do function this way, most people say things remarkably close to what they actually believe. When someone presents an argument for why they believe a certain way, pretending they have not done so - whether or not you agree with their opinion - does not magically justify your position.
6. You cannot justifiably demand that people only listen to respectable scientists and claim that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically not respectable. This is a form of circular logic and the only thing it proves is that you are not interested in honest debate.
7. Expecting people to accept your theory as evidence for your theory is also circular logic. If your evidence for catastrophe is modeled projections of what will happen, but these models are based on your theory, you don't actually have evidence. You have your theory, stated twice. We cannot debate your theory by first agreeing to assume your theory is correct.
8. Demanding that the people who are not arguing for radical and/or expensive change must prove you wrong really is not how this game is played. If you are the one demanding radical and/or expensive change then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that this change is justified. I do not have to prove that a multi-thousand-year trend will not dramatically change in the immediate future. You have to prove that it will.
9. Demanding that everyone change everything to suit your theory before you have proven your theory to be valid doesn't make much sense. Declaring the argument to be over when people are still asking for evidence doesn't prove anything. When your theory relies heavily on predictions that have repeatedly not come true and forecasts that cannot be tested, you might want to rethink declaring the debate to be over.
10. Claims that an increase in global mean temperature will have environmentally catastrophic results when the historical record demonstrates the exact opposite also doesn't make much sense. While there are certainly temperature thresholds that would be catastrophic, not even worst case scenarios in AGW predictions come anywhere close to those numbers. Most of the scientists involved freely admit that their worst case scenarios are highly unlikely, so arguing for even worse cases scenarios is irrational and dishonest. By that token, it is extremely dishonest to excoriate the other side for using inflammatory scare tactics when you are using inflammatory scare tactics yourself.

There you go, my Top Ten list for problems with the Climate Change debate.

When Numbers Don't Add Up

For the last few months I have, off and on, been presenting you with phrases to watch out for, to know when someone is spouting nonsense and should possibly have his or her entire opinion considered suspect. Today, I bring you another such phrase: "Americans overwhelmingly support this plan."
First of all, the phrase is ludicrous because there has rarely been any plan that Americans "overwhelmingly" supported. Here's a hint for those who are linguistically challenged: 2%-3% majority is not overwhelming support. For today's discussion, however, we're not even talking about that small a majority. In fact, we're not talking about a majority at all.
I'm referring, of course, to the health care debate. It should come as no surprise that I follow news on this debate fairly closely and also that I spend a considerable amount of time on the comments sections of these news stories to see what the "regular" people are saying. "Americans overwhelmingly support this plan," is a comment I see rather often and, I have to admit, I'm wondering about the medication levels of the people who say such things. These comments tend to come either from people who are giddy about the prospects of their favorite bill passing with no problems (apparently oblivious to the wrangling and difficulties that are reported daily) or from people who are angry with politicians not instantly falling in line on their favorite bill (apparently oblivious to the sheer numbers of people who have voiced concerns with the bills in question). The real problem here is that these people are pulling these overwhelming numbers out of their dreams.
According to the most recent polls (most from mid-to-late November with the Rasmussen poll being from this past weekend), there is no overwhelming support for the health care plans currently under discussion. There isn't somewhat-in-favor support. There isn't even the smallest majority support. When asked their opinions on the current plans under discussion, every major poll finds more people opposed to than in favor of.

Rasmussen 41% in favor 51% opposed
Gallup/USA Today 44% in favor 49% opposed
Washington Post/ABC 48% in favor 49% opposed
Associated Press 41% in favor 43% opposed

You'll notice that I'm showing polls from both the left and right side of the political spectrum and none of them show the slightest majority in favor, let alone overwhelming support. In the interests of being fair, that AP poll does show that 86% of Americans favor doing something to reform our health care system. Perhaps that is how these people are coming up with the "overwhelmingly support" claim. Americans overwhelmingly support reforming our health care system in general. However, that same poll only shows 41% approval for the specific methods of reform currently under discussion. Yes, people want reform. No, they do not want this reform.
That has been my point all along. Contrary to the lies being perpetrated by the far Left, being opposed to the current plans under discussion does not equal being in favor of the status quo. It does not equal being in favor of sky-rocketing prices. It does not equal being in favor of just letting people die. It equals being opposed to the current plans under discussion, nothing more and nothing less. News flash: More people are opposed to the current plans under discussion than are in favor. That should be cause for concern and should clearly indicate that we need to re-examine the current plans under discussion.
These people are operating under the idea that it is better to do anything at all than to do nothing, and that has always been a bad ideal. It is politically expedient, mushy, feel-good thinking that has caused more harm in history than it has ever done good. Following this thinking opens up the way to making things much worse because it makes intentions, rather than results, the guiding factor. We need to stop this headlong rush to "do anything" and make sure that what we're doing can actually have good results. Lying about overwhelming support isn't going to help anyone when reality comes to collect the bill.

Confusing Reports - Very Important!

I'm reading about the new CBO report on the Senate health bill and I have to admit that I'm confused. Democrats (and most left-leaning news sources) are praising the report as a boon to their cause, but it sure doesn't look that way to me.
According to the New York Times, "Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums." Subsidies would drop the premiums by 56% to 59%, for those who receive subsidies but, for those who don't receive subsidies and have to buy insurance on the individual market (the self-employed and those who cannot buy insurance through an employer), there would be an average increase in premium costs of 10% to 13%. Those who buy insurance through their employer should expect relatively no difference in premium costs, according to the CBO. Wait a minute! Aren't those who can't get insurance through their employer exactly who this reform is supposed to be helping? And these are the people who can expect a 10% to 13% increase in premium costs. What a way to be helpful!
It gets worse, though. The budget office says, "the proposal would tend to increase premiums for people who are young and relatively healthy", in other words, the very people who wouldn't even ordinarily be buying insurance if they weren't being forced to do so. So not only are we forcing people by law to buy something they don't want, we're also forcing them to pay more for it than it should cost. While we're at it, we are penalizing the young and healthy, the very people who, by all natural standards, should be able to expect lower health insurance costs, the people who should be rewarded for not being high risk.
Indiana Senator Evan Bayh claims, "This study indicates that, for most Americans, the bill will have a modestly positive impact on their premium costs." Most Americans? Are you honestly going to try to tell us, with a straight face, that "most Americans" will be receiving federal subsidies? There is not a subsidy program in this country, of any type, that even a quarter of Americans qualify to receive. There is less than zero chance that this subsidy program will apply to "most Americans" and that the cost of that subsidy will be kept down to $450 Billion over 6-8 years (the CBO places the cost of the subsidies - not counting any other costs - at $450 Billion over the next 10 years but the subsidies don't even go into effect until 2014 or 2016, depending on which version of the law you read, so they really don't get to count the first 2-4 years).
This latest report makes it even more clear that we are being lied to. This bill will not result in universal coverage (despite being the claimed goal, it has been admitted from the beginning that this would not happen), it will raise health care costs for many Americans, and - if the accuracy of past CBO estimates on major federal programs is any indication - it will raise the deficit. Congressional and Senate Democrats are lying, plain and simple.
I don't deny that some form of health care reform is necessary, but this boondoggle isn't it. Please spread the word and do not be misled by the positive spin being applied by the Democrats and the media. This report states, in its own words, that young and healthy people will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that those who do not receive federal subsidies will pay more for health insurance. This report states, in its own words, that this reform will not help the people this reform is meant to help. I don't care which side of the debate you're on. Read the report, not the spin, and realize that you're being sold a bill of goods. You're being lied to and it's about time you got angry!

Those Pesky Numbers Again

I came across a comment that simply must be addressed.

"During 2001 the IPCC made a number of predictions as to what would happen as a result of the climate change. It now turns out that the actual effects measured today are _worse_ than what was predicted. For example, the rise of the ocean level is 80% greater."

This is shoddy science at its worst and the fact that this meme is actually catching on is disturbing, to say the least.
First of all, I have to laugh at the use of "For example". The writer is apparently unaware of the fact that the claimed 80% increase is the only one of the 2001 predictions that is being held up as coming to pass. It is, in fact, the only one being talked about because none of the other predictions are even coming close.
So has there been an 80% increase in sea level measured in recent years? In words of one syllable of less, no, there has not. The only way this 80% number is achieved is by using two different sources for the beginning and ending figures. The 2001 predictions were based on tidal gauge measurements. The current claim of an 80% increase is based on satellite measurements. Anyone else notice how those two sentences do not contain the same words?
The difference here is important. We have been collecting data from sea level tidal gauges for over 200 years in some places (for example, data exists for Amsterdam as far back as 1700). We only began using satellites to measure sea levels in the mid-to-late 1990s. If you're counting, that's just over a decade, which is where a major problem comes in. According to studies using the larger tidal gauge data set, sea levels can vary widely from decade to decade and it requires multi-decade observation of data in order to identify discernible trends and understand the margin of error. We haven't been collecting satellite data for decades - we've only barely started the second decade of satellite observation of sea levels - so we cannot make accurate trend predictions from nor do we have anything resembling an accurate margin of error with satellite sea level measurements.
What makes this situation worse is that data from the two sources do not agree with each other. We are told that satellite data indicates an 80% increase, but that uses tidal gauge data as a starting point, and using tidal gauge data as an end point indicates no increase at all. I repeat: If you use tidal gauge data for the starting point and tidal gauge data for the ending point, there is no measurable increase in the rate of sea level rise. Tidal gauge data shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year for the last century and tidal gauge data still shows a sea level increase of approximately 1.8 mm per year. There seems to be something funny in this 80% math.
There are those who will claim that satellite data is more accurate than tidal gauge data. That may or may not be true, but it doesn't alter the point here in the slightest. Satellite data could be the most accurate data ever collected in the history of data collection and it would still be wrong if it used disagreeing, non-satellite data as its starting point. Tidal gauge data indicates sea levels and sea level increases far below those indicated by satellite data. If you're on a diet, do you use two different scales calibrated in different manners and to different degrees to determine your starting weight and how much weight you lose over time? Of course not! You don't have to be a climatologist or a physicist to know that would not give you accurate results, yet that is exactly what is being done with this 80% increase claim. There can only be one logical result when you start with a source that is measuring low and end with a source that is measuring high: a grossly inflated and highly inaccurate "increase".