Process

An apparently regular reader (equally apparently “unencumbered by the thought process”) took me to task on Facebook recently.

“The painfully obvious fact [is] that your blog
is just a rehash of other right wing blogs,”
–Annabelle Proctor.

Heh. That statement is oddly pleasing because it tells me two things:
• that visitor reads right wing blogs, something I rarely do; and
• other writers have obviously found the same data and quotes I did.

North Puffin Gallery IconsStill, it means it’s time for another look under the hood at how I do this job and what this job is. Then I get to comment. It’s what I do.

I’ve been a small town newspaper columnist and op-ed writer for more than 30 years. Back in 1997, an online journal asked me for 10-1/2 Hot Tips for Small-town Op-ed Writers. I’m pleased that that advice is still excellent, but it did leave out a couple of tips.
• A story without facts is guesswork.
• A story without a source is a campfire tale.

Yes, I break Rule #3 (“Avoid hot topics in the national or international news.”) more often than I should.

Rule #6. “Every fact requires two independent sources; the editor may not have time to authenticate your original research. Make sure your facts are right.”

Journalism is simply finding a fact, determining its importance, and then sharing that fact. Editorial writing is nearly the same. Find the fact, interpret its importance, and share both.

PROCESS
I don’t write in a vacuum; I do write about what happens to me and around me. That means I generally look to three initial sources for the information I use to underpin each piece:

1. Direct quotes from actual newsmakers. Remembering that I am a small town writer, this is both easier and harder for me. It’s very easy for me to call up a local race car driver or the former governor for an interview because either one may have been here for drinks last week. It’s a lot harder for me to call up President Obama for the same. Fortunately, what national newsmakers say is usually recorded and posted in its entirety online. Google is my friend.
2. Actual print newspapers (I refer to the NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post for most national news because they are usually accurate; my other sources are typically local media, including the ones I write for).
3. Television news for the headlines. I generally watch ABC or NBC News in the evening and CBS’ Face the Nation on Sundays. I haven’t seen a Fox News report in over a year.

Given that initial fact, my next job is to find independent confirmation. Here’s how that happens.

Ms. Proctor particularly objected to a piece I wrote in 2009. It was one of many times I have caught Mr. Obama in a lie. [As an editorial aside, I suspect she objects because I don’t pull punches when I catch her hero lying. She, of course, believes everything he says.]

Our discussion was whether some people are better off or worse after the change to Obamacare. Ms. Proctor was both right and wrong in saying “ACA will regulate health insurers until Americans evolve to the point that we demand single payer.”

I corrected her with the fact that we had tried that in Vermont as I outlined here in 2009. Even today, only a small number of the Vermonters clustered in Montpelier demand single payer.

Rather than disputing the facts, Ms. Proctor picked one line of the piece

[In selling his plan, President Obama said, “We have the AARP on board” to endorse the bill. Too bad AARP refuted that statement.]

and opined that my sources were suspect.

Alrighty, then.

I first found the AARP info I quoted in a report titled, “President Obama’s ‘Senior’ Moment?” by Kristina Wong which appeared on ABC News on August 11, 2009. That was the day before my own piece appeared.

“Kristina Wong blogs with a right wing slant,” she wrote. “Finding right wing blogs similar to yours was not difficult.”

Of course it wasn’t. When the President
of the United States lies, it goes viral.

What sources did Jake Tapper and Rachel Martin use to assure the accuracy of Ms. Wong’s report? The two most obvious ones were ABC’s own recorded video of Mr. Obama stating he had “the AARP onboard” in the health insurance reform “town hall” in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Interestingly, that wasn’t the first or last time he said that as this video and as his own published remarks show.

AARP Chief Operating Officer Tom Nelson issued this statement, “While the President was correct that AARP will not endorse a health care reform bill that would reduce Medicare benefits, indications that we have endorsed any of the major health care reform bills currently under consideration in Congress are inaccurate.”

Rule #6. “Every fact requires two independent sources.” Done. Dusted.

COMMENTARY
“Inaccurate”?

Unfortunately, that page is no longer on the AARP site.

Further, then-White House spokesman Robert Gibbs backed away from Mr. Obama’s lies in New Hampshire. Asked if the president misspoke, Mr. Gibbs answered simply, “Yes.”

“Misspoke”? Nice spin.

What have we learned?

1. My piece was accurate as written and its thrust is accurate today. For the record (after heavy political lobbying), AARP did announce its endorsement of the Unaffordable Care Act on November 5, 2009, three months after my piece appeared.
2. Ms. Proctor normally accepts ABC News as a trusted source. Except when they don’t confirm her bias.

“Obama might have offered an opportunity for real reform had it not been for the right wing obstructionists and their enablers,” she wrote, “including a media more interested in sensationalism and gotcha journalism than in truth and accuracy.”

Now I get it. The NYTimes, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post, as well as ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS News are all “more interested in sensationalism and gotcha journalism than in truth and accuracy.”

Critical thinking. Random House defines it as “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”

It’s too bad naysayers like Ms. Proctor are unable to bring any level of critical thinking to their own responses.

 

We Only Have 500 Days Left, Part III

Want to know why I distrust our liberal friends?

They drive how science goes wrong.

I started this three-part series with the simple question, “If you distrust what the Administration told you about the military, why do you trust what they say about global warming?”

Yes, I chose two hot button issues across the political spectrum. It’s always more interesting than yattering in a corner about National Safe Digging Month versus potholes

Sheeple Image Found at alt-market.comThe responses follow a predictable pattern:

“Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and the latest IPCC AR say it is so.”
in Europe, where environmental awareness is far higher, everyone takes human caused global warming seriously.
“There is 97% agreement on human caused global warming.”
“Man-Made Climate Change Deniers are the authentic environmental wackos.”
“BS, Dick.”

Trust but Verify
That “simple idea underpins science” but Ronald Reagan gave it a bad name among our Liberal friends who say “the science is settled.”

“Trust but do not verify” follows every “complete agreement,” the Liberal signal that people have not thought through their pet issue, are mistaken about their pet issue, don’t want to hear contradictions about their pet issue, and go ballistic if I ask them to rethink it.

See the summary of responses above.

Let’s look at the 97% agreement on human caused global warming and the IPCC.

John Cook published a paper in Skeptical Science that claims he and others reviewed nearly 12,000 abstracts of studies published in the peer-reviewed climate literature. They found that “97 percent of the papers” that expressed a position on anthropogenic global warming “endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.”

Our liberal friends latched onto that one, you betcha.

Unfortunately, Mr. Cook, um, cooked the books.

It turns out he was not alone.

The Economist reports that “modern scientists are doing too much trusting and not enough verifying — to the detriment of the whole of science, and of humanity” — and they are doing it in fields from biotechnology and rust to, yes, “global warming.”

  • “Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of shoddy experiments or poor analysis.”
  • “Researchers at … Amgen found they could reproduce just six of 53 ‘landmark’ studies in cancer research.”
  • “‘Negative results’ now account for only 14% of published papers, down from 30% in 1990.”

Papers from PNAS and IPCC fill most of the categories the Economist lists. Unfortunately, I do not expect my Liberal friends to accept the Economist [La la la la la la la la la la la] as a source, though. After all the Economist said of Liberal darling Paul Krugman, “the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship.”

And finally, for those who pray at the institutionalized ignorance altar to Al Gore, there may be a scientific consensus on global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans have created global warming, although I suspect 100 percent of them believe humans have created the crisis itself. Of course, this finding was in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies, so it must be suspect, yes?


There is good news: The Economist also reports, “The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are working out how best to encourage replication.” [Emphasis added]

That small trend is a good start, but I don’t see it taking hold anywhere in the human-caused global warming industry and I don’t see it taking hold in the media or populace that supports and pays for said human-caused global warming industry.

 

A Message of Faith

Yesterday was Easter Sunday. Tomorrow is Earth Day. In between, we can find a message of faith.

“God has the last word,” Timothy Cardinal Dolan, Archbishop of New York, reminded television viewers yesterday.

One of those last words has long been, Don’t poop where you perch.

I saw Hurricane Hazel annihilate a larch tree in my front yard. I saw the 1998 ice storm decimate the forests around North Puffin. I watched Hurricane Wilma drown my South Puffin neighbors and Irene flood and sink and forever change the southern half of Vermont.

That was a more than a little bit of rain.

I’ve watched pilots shoot flares of silver iodide and dry ice, and liquid propane, and even table salt into a cloud in a vain hope of making it give up just a little bit of rain.

Rainmaking attempts go way back. A typical Tübatulabal shaman’s rain making bundle contains the all important quartz crystals plus charm stones, biface fragments of obsidian, a fossil fish vertebra, pebbles, some stibnite, milky quartz, and steatite, a small tobacco bag, a piece of rawhide, some plant material tied with a bit of denim, some soil and a denim sack. Oddly, the great southwestern American desert is still a desert in spite of those best efforts to make rain.

I’d say nature has the other last word over man.

Lily -- the Flower of Easter(from the Moon) Earth -- the Flower of ScienceToday, rain isn’t (quite) the issue. Temperature is. Over the millennia, the climate has and does change as solar activity varies, the magnetic poles shift, the moon wobbles, and Earth’s axis tilts a few degrees one way or the other. Right now, the planet is cooling (slightly) from what the alarmists said was the all time high but it had been rising precipitously. Despite the alarmists, it hasn’t gotten as warm as during Roman and Medieval times, but it is warmer than 100 years ago.

There are two schools of thought about what drives global warming. On the one side are a small but growing number of scientists who have found wider swings in the fossil record before homo sapiens walked upright. They’re looking at drivers like the sun now. On the other side are a large number of scientists who believe man and only man has driven every variation in planetary temperatures. They’ve stopped looking for the drivers.

The U.N.-operated sanctioning body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, says it is too late. They arrived at this conclusion not by making startling new discoveries but by tweaking the data they already have.

But wait! We can fix it if we just give up meat and cars and our iPhones!

Those who pray at the altar of Al Gore have faith that man has the last word over nature.

Humans
Unaware of
Basic
Real
Icky
Science

The solar deniers who pray at the altar of Al Gore tell us that “the science is fixed” but all we have to do is return to the Stone Age and the planet may get back to normal. After all, those biface fragments of obsidian (“stone knives” to the rest of us) brought a lot of rain to the desert, they did.

I have great faith in two certainties: good science and man’s hubris.

Tomorrow is Earth Day. I have great hope that good science will triumph over great hubris in the long run. Day-to-day? I’m not so sure.

 

I Need a Dog

I saw Dan walking Bridget’s tan dog-shaped-dog yesterday. Dan is my neighbor to the south, Bridget to the north. I didn’t quite get why Dan was walking Bridget’s dog but I got a puppy fix nonetheless.

I grew up in the middle of farming country where we always had dogs and cats who could be outside whenever they wanted. I’ve never quite figured out this walk-around-with-a-plastic-bag routine people without room for dogs to run engage in.

As a wee child, I ate Fig Newtons and pulled the tail of Jason, a great, golden-fleeced tomcat, on my grandmother’s bed. Jason tolerated that until I started to walk. Then he beat me up. I still like cats.

We can’t have another cat, though. Every family has one perfect one. Ruff (pictures here) was ours.

We rented Ruff to a friend when we went on vacation one year. He immediately trained his temporary owner by finding a hiding place. Temporary Mom went ballistic trying to find him.

“We moved every piece of furniture 300 times,” she said. “And we ran up and down the roads calling him until midnight.

“I couldn’t sleep. Every time I heard a noise, I’d have to get up and look for him. By 4 a.m., I had decided to tell you I took him back to your daughter’s and she lost him!”

Darn cat came out, “Meow?” from hiding about breakfast time.

His temporary mom not only allowed him to sleep in her bed after that, I suspect she doubled his rations, too (that means two scoops of kitty kibble and all the mouses he could eat). Ruff is the only cat I know who has lost a dead mouse. It confuses him terribly when that happens.

We always had dogs as I was growing up. Monty was a mutt who knew to lick the butter off the toast and bring it back for more. Misty (Christmas Mistletoe) was a beautiful collie who fell in lurve with Marshall Jones’ magnificent farm collie up the road. The result was a litter that included Ferocious who went to friends and Rover who was mine. Rover had some cognitive problems after the incident with the eggnog, but that’s another story. He was a sweet, lovable, perfect dog for a boy with a bicycle.

My folks changed to labs after I went away to college.

I split the difference when we moved to Vermont and found a puppy from a tri-color collie bitch in her first heat who showed a champion yellow Lab field dog a good time in the dark of night. We named that puppy Dogg (the second “G” showed his class).

Dogg raised our kids, swam in an innertube, and was always, always at my side. Except when he slept with Ruff. He was bumptious and Lab-smart, but he looked like a big, black, farm collie.

I almost gave up on having dogs when he finally wore out.

Wendy's Better SideRuff made me change my mind. He was lonely.

The local used dog store had a fine weekend special: take a dog home for a test drive. Daughter Kris called us to say they had a Golden Retriever with my name on it so we brought her home for Ruff’s approval.

She whined. She didn’t bark. Ever. I had to teach this dog to bark.

Her name tag said she was “Dandy” but she wasn’t. We renamed her Gwendolyn Dandelion Whine. Wendy Whiner for short.

We once rented Wendy to a family in Burlington. They had recently lost their own dog and wanted to “try out” having another one underfoot. She was the kind of dog who is underfoot all the time. She leaned, she coaxed, she whined, she hoped. She ate with them, played with them, frolicked in the rain with them, ate their popcorn and table scraps, and slept in their beds. Guess where she expected to sleep ever after?

Daisy at the BeachI need a dog but I travel. SWMBO travels. We’re just not in one place enough to be fair to a dog.

So Dan was walking Bridget’s tan dog-shaped-dog yesterday. Another friend, Katie, is down from the U.S. for a while and has a gig dog-sitting for a family the next street over. As far as I can tell, they have five dogs, all large.

I don’t like walking and poop-scooping for dogs. I like playing catch and lounging. I’m thinking every neighborhood should have borrowable dogs — real ones, not these yappy little rats-on-leashes you see here — that we could simply check out for a quick romp, then return. Berners and Collies and Goldies and Labs and Newfies and Shepherds. Dogs with fur. Dogs with personality. Dogs who understand roughhousing.

Meanwhile, if you see a bearded man shambling down the street and groping every dog on the way, be kind.

 

Rehash

Year end usually means a wrap-up but I really dislike retreading the same roads and rehashing old news. Still, I can maybe get one person to think outside the box.

The trouble with our liberal friends
is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just
that they know so much that isn’t so.
–Ronald Reagan

University of Vermont professor Henry Perkins’ eugenics courses and his “Vermont Eugenics Survey” — well supported by his own empirical evidence — led directly to the Vermont sterilization law of 1931. Vermont’s 253 sterilizations on poor, rural folks as well as Abenaki Indians, French-Canadians and others put that state only half way up the scale of eugenics providers nationwide. Millions of true believers had blind faith in eugenics.

An investigation by the Wall Street Journal earlier this month reported that “lobotomy’s most dogged salesman,” the late Dr. Walter Freeman, performed some 3,500 frontal lobotomies during the 1940s and 1950s including Rosemary Kennedy’s at the age of 23. He was so confident that he once demonstrated his procedure by hammering an icepick into each eye socket of a patient and “toggling” the picks around certain that he was severing the brain tissue “correctly.” Millions of true believers had blind faith in the science of lobotomies.

Astrology has shown through extensive experimentation that the positions of celestial bodies influences, divines, or predicts personality, human activities, and other terrestrial matters. Millions of true believers still have blind faith in the science of Astrology.

Three stories from Facebook this week illustrate my point about blind faith.

“OMG,” my friend Ashley Proctor wrote. “We all must come to the realization that eating anything out of the Pacific Ocean (let alone swimming in it) is a thing in the past.”

She was responding to the headline, All Bluefin Tuna Caught In California Are Radioactive.

“It’s never going away,” she wrote. “Not in our lifetime. Not ever. WE SCREWED UP THE PACIFIC OCEAN, people. We screwed up the OCEAN.”

~~~

I basked (briefly to be sure) when one of my teaching moments appeared to bear fruit: Dr. Jon Friar, my earnest, apparently data driven liberal friend wrote in a Global Warming thread, “This blind race toward ignorance is especially galling when it’s run by people like Dick, who really should know better.” Unfortunately, that and the hope “that reason and facts will convince and even convert, when in fact they don’t do either” have been my own arguments about Dr. Friar and his friends for some years now.

“A more likely truth is that they’re simply feeding your words back to you as a (pretty decent) troll,” Liz Arden said.

~~~

“Climate scientists got their funding from the NSF and NASA,” Dr. Friar said. “You can’t get better data than that.”

~~~

“Congratulations, Dick!” my friend Lee Bruhl wrote in response to Delay Is Not Working. “You have joined a few million other Americans in signing up for more extensive medical insurance than you had before and you did it through Healthcare.gov!”

Our liberal friends obviously take only what confirms their prejudices out of any report.

Delay Is Not Working as well as the bulk of data-driven reports (including mine) about health care reform show that it is neither reformed nor viable. It does pointedly mention that I was never able to make Healthcare.gov work and that I “signed up” via three long phone calls.

Here’s the bulletin: A few million Americans have indeed signed up for new policies under the mandate of Obamacare. Most are the people like me whose policies the ACA forced insurers to cancel. And it appears that fewer Americans will be insured as of January 1 than are insured today. Still, millions of true believers have blind faith in Obamacare.

The liberal argument for Anthropogenic Global Warming goes something like this: “Man causes it so we have to uncause it. I know this because noted scientists like Al Gore told me so.”

That same liberal argument trots out a bunch of data that shows global temps have risen and some computer predictions say that our continued existence will drive its continued rise. “The science is fixed,” they say in contradiction to the actual scientific method. In fact, when other scientists offer data like solar activity that disputes their flat-earth belief, our liberal friends put their thumbs in their ears.

Here’s the bulletin: the Earth heats and the Earth cools. Since we have both limited resources and limited political will, it would be a whole lot smarter to devote those scarce resources to adapting to the changes than to marketing a costly political measure built on junk science. Still, millions of true believers have blind faith in Global Warming and the idea that we can fix it just by eliminating man’s influence.

The liberal argument for research funding goes something like this: “If the government says so, it must be impartial.” Interestingly, many of the scientists studying or performing phrenology, eugenics, lobotomies, and tobacco did so with government funding.

Here’s the bulletin (this is an analogy): Bernie Sanders likes us to believe the PAC campaign funds he raises from unions and American Crystal Sugar are somehow less corrupting than PAC campaign funds his opponents get from ExxonMobil. Still, millions of true believers have blind faith in scientists on the government payroll. As long as those moneys are for a “good” cause.

The radioactive liberal argument starts from a report that “every bluefin tuna tested in the waters off California has shown to be contaminated with radiation that originated in Fukushima. Every single one.”

Never mind that most reports show the Fukushima radiation in Pacific tuna is equal to about one twentieth of a banana (the Forbes article is most readable). Doesn’t matter. Millions of true believers have blind faith that “We screwed up the OCEAN.”

Here’s the bulletin: OMG! WE SCREWED UP BANANAs people! We screwed up BANANAS. I’ll never eat fruit again!


One last try.

The scientific method is the technique true scientists use to investigate phenomena, acquire new knowledge, and (this is key) correct previous theories. Scientists systematically observe, measure, experiment, and test, their hypotheses. Most importantly, scientists support a theory as long as they can confirm its predictions but they challenge a theory when even one experiment or bit of data proves its predictions false.

The political scientists of the liberal left have shown that they find a theory like radioactive tuna, find some data like periodically rising temperatures that supports the theory, and declare the theory fact as they do with the “success” of the ACA in reducing the cost of health care. Then they drink the Kool-Aid.

I’ll never eat fruit again!

Happy New Year.