This Sums It Up Nicely

Here's a piece from author Seth Grahame-Smith that sums up the 2008 election nicely:

"The MSM is trying to convince us that we're in for a twelve-round brawl. That McCain's going to give Obama a run for his $500M. That's all well and good, and I'm sure it'll make for some riveting television -- if you're the type of person who still watches Harlem Globetrotters games on the edge of your seat, convinced the Washington Generals will pull this one out.

But the truth is, it's not going to be close. Not even a little bit.

Imagine yourself in a high school history class a century from now. Imagine the teacher beginning the section on the elections of 2008 by setting the scene: "America's economy was in flames, we were fighting two wars with no end in sight, and global warming was accelerating at an alarming rate. The most despised president in 150 years was nearing the end of his two corruption-ridden terms, and had heartily endorsed his successor, John McCain -- who, despite a few ideological differences, planned on keeping the status quo intact. Running against him was a lightning-in-a-bottle candidate named Barack Obama. A candidate who had nearly six times the money to spend, drew crowds of 70,000, and who received support from a surprising number of disenfranchised Republicans -- even some of the Evangelicals who swept Bush to power. Obama was the story. He captured the imagination of young Americans and the world. Now, by a show of hands -- who thinks McCain won that election?" (A particularly easy question, since they're sitting in Barack Obama High).

Whatever you think about McCain -- whether you love him or hate him -- you can't deny that he's a victim of horrible timing. Everywhere you look, there are tidal forces -- geopolitical, economic, and social forces -- trending in Obama's favor. McCain is running on a war record in a country aching for peace. He's running on an admitted lack of economic knowledge in a country aching for economic reform. Healthcare, foreign policy, energy -- in each case his sales pitch is twenty years behind the curve, much like the declining party for which he has the unfortunate honor of being standard bearer. Worst of all, his base doesn't even like him. Sure, they might pull that lever, but they'll be holding their noses with the other hand. If Obama's base is "fired up and ready to go," McCain's base is more like "reheated and I'll get around to it."

Head In Ass Disease Part 7 - The Mann Curve

In Part 5 of this series we introduced the Mann graph. If you've seen Al Gore's movie then you've probably seen this graph. Sadly, the study that produced this graph contained an inconsequential error. The error in no way affected the graph, and there has never been a refutation of the graph published in a peer-reviewed, scientific journal; nevertheless, ostriches have seized on it to say that everything about this graph and by extension global warming is flawed. The fact is, the criticisms of Mann's original work have not proved scientifically valid and in dozens of separate, independent studies, that used different methodologies, similar results have been produced. Here are just a few of them:

So, here's to the deniers:

Lately, the propaganda of the ostrich movement has become more sophisticated.

We'll cover these in part 7.

Head In Ass Disease Part 5

In part 4 of this series we looked at the MWP and the Little Ice Age and showed how they are not proof that global warming isn’t happening. And, then we introduced the paper that argues we can’t calculate an accurate global temperature in any one place and thus we can’t say for sure if global warming is happening or not. Is this paper the sound argument that the deniers have been waiting for?

One mathematician used the very calculations contained in the paper to disprove large portions of it, showed that the researchers used the wrong temperature scale to calculate thermodynamics, showed that the researchers made up certain parts of the paper and concluded that they “draw broad and confident conclusions without justification or reference to other studies, refereed or not, and base further arguments on their assertions.”

Another scientist pointed out the he had “never heard of anyone plugging a global average in to start a climate model. Instead, climate models both use and model temperature distributions, which are then compared to global means.” Which led him to draw this conclusion: “the combination of rhetorical posturing, statistical strawmen, and questionable examples were, simply put, nauseating.”

The paper is so flawed that it led one set of researchers to ask, “Is this paper a joke?” They went on to say, “The whole paper is irrelevant in the context of a climate change because it missed a very central point. CO2 affects all surface temperatures on Earth…”

I'm sure Moron-Bear-Pig would be quick to counter with the error made in the study leading to the infamous Hockey Stick graph (also known as the Mann Curve). He might say something like this: "The Mann Curve was proven three years ago to be an obviously flawed graph and model produced by an amateur." In fact he did, that's why I call him Moron-Bear-Pig.

In case you're wondering here's the graph in question:

We’ll cover this controversy and more in Part 6.

Obama No Dukakis

Obama’s finally gotten the post-primary bounce that pundits have been looking for. A recent national poll by Newsweek shows Senator Obama opening a 15-point lead over Senator McCain.

McCain’s numbers have dropped from a high of 46% to only 36% - falling below 40% for the first time this cycle – while Obama increased his numbers from 46% to 51%. Additionally, he has widened his lead among blacks, youth, women and independents. While McCain’s approval rating has dropped to 49%, Obama’s has increased to 62%. Obama is also trusted by more voters to handle the economy, the energy crisis and the Iraq War. Only 5% of voters are undecided.

Republicans have been quick to dismiss the results, tacking the lead up to a post-primary bounce and pointing out that Governor Dukakis enjoyed an 18-point lead over Vice President Bush in 1988, only to lose the election in an Electoral College landslide. A closer examination of the facts reveals that this is a hasty generalization, because there are too many significant differences between 1988 and now for this to be a valid comparison.

Dukakis didn’t get a large bounce from winning the primary, he opened up his lead after the Democratic convention in July; in contrast this years Democratic Convention is still to be held at which time a post-convention bounce is expected for Obama. Dukakis also only enjoyed a 28% positive approval rating coming out of the convention and through July a whopping 50% of voters were still undecided. Dukakis’ lead fizzled within two weeks, because instead of campaigning after the convention he returned to Massachusetts to govern for several weeks. In fact, he would campaign only part-time for much of the primary and general election – splitting his week between governing during the early part of the week and campaigning towards the end of the week. With the exception of a few key votes, Obama has been a fulltime campaigner. It wasn’t until the end of September that Dukakis began campaigning full time.

This allowed Bush to effectively define him with unrelenting attacks throughout the summer and the early fall. Despite a years worth of campaigning time, going into the debates Dukakis was still unknown by 54% of the electorate. Bush’s attacks went unanswered until the end of October – just days before the election – when Dukakis gave a 90-minute TV interview and his campaign began countering Bush’s negative ads with a set of their own. Throughout the campaign Dukakis made several PR blunders and, like Kerry in 2004, had them used against him by the Republicans. “Dukakis Driving a Tank” is slang in PR circles for a faux pas. Unlike Dukakis (or Gore or Kerry for that matter), Obama has been quick to address attacks from the right and his team has been exceptional with staging PR events.

Lloyd Bentsen, Dukakis’ running mate, wasn’t any more helpful during the campaign. He chose to simultaneously campaign for re-election to his Senate seat in Texas. The Texas Republican Party’s message was “vote no for Bentsen twice,” and it effectively eliminated the advantage that Democrats hoped to obtain in Texas by choosing Bentsen as VP. From the list of major contenders announced so far for Obama’s VP slot, none are running for re-election.

Moreover, Dukakis’ lead in the national polls wasn’t reflected in the state polling at the time. He was doing poorly in the South and the North, and the Electoral College breakdown from the state polls showed Dukakis at only 227 with Bush closely behind at 214. Dukakis’ strength was in the West and the Midwest. However, state polls this year have Obama up by nearly 150 Electoral Votes, at 347 for Obama to 191 for McCain. With a few exceptions Obama is running strong in every section of the country.

Another important difference is that this year only 12% of Americans say that they are satisfied with the direction of the country and the President has the lowest approval rating in history; but, in 1988 there was a general satisfaction with the status quo and President Reagan enjoyed a positive approval rating. Bush also enjoyed a significant fund raising advantage over his rival, in contrast Obama has more cash on hand than McCain and won’t be limited by the amount of money that he can spend because he opted out of public financing. In politics cash is the fifth estate and those that have it usually win.

Finally, in 1988 America wasn’t bogged down in a war opposed by 65% of the population and the average price of gas was only $1.08 per gallon. Justified or not, many Americans are drawing their own connections between the Iraq War and high oil prices, which doesn’t bode well for McCain since he’s branded himself the stay-the-course candidate. We also can’t discount the fact that in 1988 there was no major third party challenger from the right, whereas this year Bob Barr is running as the Libertarian nominee and should present problems for McCain throughout the South – especially in Georgia (Barr’s home state).

Unless a major scandal surrounding Obama pops-up, McCain will be lucky to see 44% again.

Vote for Us: Dmegs Directory

Head In Ass Disease Part 4

In Part 3 of this series we looked at the only legit scientist with no ties to oil that denies the existence of climate change. But, as we saw he has never published anything in a peer-reviewed journal on global warming and he's not a climate scientist by trade.

Left with no legitimate scientist to back their claims, the ostriches cling to long disproved ideas. Many ostriches contend that, if there was global warming, we're safe because it stopped in 1998. One prominent New Right myspace blogger stated his case this way (his typos), "The planet is in the midle of one of the worst winter's on record."

From now on I'll refer to this blogger as Moron-Bear-Pig, for two reasons: 1) NASA announced that 2007 was the warmest year on record and 2) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said that the winter of December 2006 to February 2007 was the warmest winter on record. For more debunking of this myth check out ill-considered . Clearly warming did not stop in 1998.

Hey Moron-Bear-Pig:

This myth is part of a larger argument that the earth goes through natural warming and cooling cycles. Ostriches point to the Medieval Warming Period (MWP), which was followed in 1450 AD by the Little Ice Age, and claim that this indicates a natural cycle. This is an example of committing the logical fallacy of hypothesis contrary to fact. Here's why:

MWP was not a global event. Temperature extremes were localized throughout Europe. In fact, research conducted by NOAA shows that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is the warmest the Earth has been in at least 1,200 years. The key in that statement is "the warmest the Earth has been" not just Europe. Ostriches are taking high temperatures in Europe during the MWP and comparing them to global temperatures today. Obviously not a valid comparison.

It's also not valid to say that the Little Ice Age was part of a natural cycle. The last ice age, which lasted from 1450 AD to 1850 AD, was caused by high volcanic activity. As one study concluded: "The most active period volcanically came between CE 1250 and 1500 and between CE 1550 and 1700, suggesting that it had an important role in the causation of the Little Ice Age." The ash spewed into the atmosphere by the multiple volcanic eruptions - blocking out the sun – can hardly be categorized as part of a natural climate cycle. There is no reason to believe that the earth continuously goes through warming and cooling phases – as if there was a some temperature balancing act going on. As another researcher put it, “the argument that today's warming is simply a continuation of some natural trend is unsupported by any science.”
Maybe they’ve been having too much of this on their freedom fries:

While on the topic of ice ages, I would like to point out another lie spread by ostriches. That is that during the 70s the scientific consensus was that we were going into another ice age. They claim this because an article written at the time in "Newsweek" raised the issue. "Newsweek" of course is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. This website has collected the peer-reviewed journals on the topic during the 70s.

As the website indicates the scientific consensus was not that another ice age was imminent. Instead, the scientific consensus at the time was that "future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available." Climate researcher John Wallace recalls this about the global cooling talk:

"I remember the brief flurry of excitement about global cooling during the late 1970s. I think that most of it was prompted by the media hype about the 1976-77 and 1977-78 winters, which produced some remarkably cold weather over the United States. "

"Newsweek" recently published a mea culpa.

Ostriches have seized on a new paper published by an economist and a mathematician in the "Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics." The paper questions whether we really know how to calculate a mean temperature for the globe, which leads ostriches to assert that if we can’t agree on a mean temperature, we can’t know if the earth is getting warmer.

We’ll find out why this is just another foolish argument in the next Blog.

Because there are many ostriches out there that may try to post propaganda I'm issuing this fair warning. Any propaganda posted from such tabloid garbage as junkscience.com, Washington Times, New York Post or Faux News will result in the comment being deleted and the poster being banned from posting again. Ditto for any statements by an Exxon funded scientist or organization.

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4