It’s All About Him (Obama)

[Unickuta]

From today's op-ed section: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25kristol.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin


Last October, a reporter asked Barack Obama why he had stopped wearing the American flag lapel pin that he, like many other public officials, had been sporting since soon after Sept. 11. Obama could have responded that his new-found fashion minimalism was no big deal. What matters, obviously, is what you believe and do, not what you wear.

But Obama chose to present his flag-pin removal as a principled gesture. “You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.”

Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism.
What’s striking is that Obama couldn’t resist a grandiose explanation. Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest.

Fast forward to last Monday in Wisconsin. Michelle Obama, in the course of a stump speech, remarked, “For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”

Michelle Obama’s adult life goes back to the mid-1980s. Can it really be the case that nothing the U.S. achieved since then has made her proud? Apparently. For, as she said later in the same appearance: “Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn’t gotten much better.”

Now in almost every empirical respect, American lives have in fact gotten better over the last quarter-century. And most Americans — and most Democrats — don’t think those years were one vast wasteland. So Barack Obama hastened to clarify his wife’s remarks. “What she meant was, this is the first time that she’s been proud of the politics of America,” he said, “because she’s pretty cynical about the political process, and with good reason, and she’s not alone.” Later in the week, Michelle Obama further explained, “What I was clearly talking about was that I’m proud of how Americans are engaging in the political process.”

But that clearly isn’t what she was talking about. For as she had argued in the Wisconsin speech, America’s illness goes far beyond a flawed political process: “Barack knows that at some level there’s a hole in our souls.” This was a variation of language she had used earlier on the campaign trail: “Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that, that before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.”

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

Obama likes to say, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” Obama’s rhetorical skill makes his candidacy appear almost collective rather than individual. That’s a democratic courtesy on his part, and one flattering to his followers. But the effectual truth of what Obama is saying is that he is the one we’ve been waiting for.

Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

I know Kristol is really conservative, but I really have to agree with what he's saying. After all, he didn't diminish Kennedy, who was one of our best Democratic presidents.

I'm still for Hilary, but if not her, then it's McCain for me.

[Msut77]

The article is a complete load of bull and McCain offers nothing but more of the same crap W and co. have been dumping on the American people for years now.

Is that really what you want?

[mykevermin]

You know what *I* think is haughty? McCain's air of "the people don't know shit about war, and I do - so I'll tell them how long wars should be fought." He said something to that effect (in less combative terms for certain) recently, and his "we could be in Iraq another 100 years" tripe is beginning to come back to haunt him finally.

I think it's pretty indicative of Obama's popularity and momentum that the dumbfuck conservatives (not all of them, but singling out the Kristol types) have to resort to the most pithy sort of "HE DOESN'T HAVE A FLAG PIN!" crap to manufacture a scandal about him.

If Bill Kristol is ever right about anything, let me know, and I'll bake him a fuckin' cake. Give me David Brooks any day of the week instead.

[JolietJake]

I've never worn an American flag lapel, never flew an American flag on my car (even my grandmother did that shit) and i consider myself more patriotic than those who did/do. I don't need some symbol to let people know I'm a patriot, i let people know that with my views and opinions, if they think those views are un-patriotic, then fuck them. Flags were meant to be hung from a tall structure, not worn on your lapel.

Besides that, most of these "symbols of patriotism" aren't even made in America. How patriotic is that?

[Unickuta]

You know what *I* think is haughty? McCain's air of "the people don't know shit about war, and I do - so I'll tell them how long wars should be fought." He said something to that effect (in less combative terms for certain) recently, and his "we could be in Iraq another 100 years" tripe is beginning to come back to haunt him finally.

I think it's pretty indicative of Obama's popularity and momentum that the dumbfuck conservatives (not all of them, but singling out the Kristol types) have to resort to the most pithy sort of "HE DOESN'T HAVE A FLAG PIN!" crap to manufacture a scandal about him.

If Bill Kristol is ever right about anything, let me know, and I'll bake him a fuckin' cake. Give me David Brooks any day of the week instead.

You're right, but I just feel there isn't that whole "do for your country" thing that was there with Kennedy here.

That whole pin thing isn't what scared me, though- it was what Barack's wife said. That was pretty profound.

[Unickuta]

I've never worn an American flag lapel, never flew an American flag on my car (even my grandmother did that shit) and i consider myself more patriotic than those who did/do. I don't need some symbol to let people know I'm a patriot, i let people know that with my views and opinions, if they think those views are un-patriotic, then fuck them. Flags were meant to be hung from a tall structure, not worn on your lapel.

Besides that, most of these "symbols of patriotism" aren't even made in America. How patriotic is that?

That's not what he said.

"Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest."

He's saying that he insulted the people who do wear the pins and all.

[Msut77]

That's not what he said.

Speaking of things not said how about this?

"Leave aside the claim that “speaking out on issues” constitutes true patriotism. "

This rather severely changes the meaning of Obama's words and is just one example of how you and Kristol are fighting strawmen.

[carpwrist]

...John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself.

great, he doesn't have an ego, but proud of what? the illegal war? the over 4 million displaced Iraqis? the slowing economy?
or how about giving the good ol' USA a pat on the back for releasing 5.8 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. link (http://www.thehcf.org/emaila5.html).
also, i don't really care much for Michael Moore's films, but he did point out the inherently flawed system we have for health care. Insurance companies do not make a profit by curing the sick, in order to stay out of the red ink, their black friday occurs whenever they prevent a sick person from getting better.
this country has many problems, none of which will change in the next four years, but we need to make the steps to change now.

my 2 bits.

[hiccupleftovers]

bullshit article. I don't wear a lapel pin either, but I consider myself patriotic. I do community service; I help out people.

McCain is a joke that won't leave.

[fullmetalfan720]

Okay, so basically what the article is saying, is if you want to exercise your first amendment rights, then you are unpatriotic. If you don't do what Bush does/tells you to do, you're unpatrotic. If you are a Democrat, you are unpatrotic. Who the fuck is anyone to tell anyone else they are unpatrotic. In order to actually be "patriotic" you basically need to worship the neo-cons/Bush. When really by standing up for something you believe in is the most patriotic thing you can do. That is how we became a country.

[HotShotX]

Wanna know how I show I'm an American?

I exercise my Constitutional rights, particularly the part about speaking my heart and mind when I want.

Aside from that, Crimson and I exercised our Second Amendment rights as part of an awesome Valentine's Day gift.

More Americans should follow suit if they really want to show their patriotism....you know, if they fucking knew what exercise was anymore.

~HotShotX

[N1c0_ds]

So... basically your media freak over a little pin? You are ANTIPATRIOTIC when you forget to wear a PIN?!

Dude, you're doing it wrong, really wrong!

Barrack currently has my psychical support, but he still has some stereotypical american moments here and there.

[camoor]

Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin.

Unnecessary and imprudent?

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
- Sinclair Lewis

I think not.

[Hex]

If this is a thread about patriotism, let me chime in- I volunteer my weekends in the hospital's emergency room as a tech. Don't get paid a dime, been given bloody noses by drunkards, pissed on, bled on, etc. A little less than half of my 75-hour work week is spent at medical school learning to care for people. The best part of the ER is that everyone gets care, and it doesn't matter who the fuck you are, or how much money you make. A CEO will be treated as equally as a homeless man, and I think that's true patriotism.

However, I think nationalistic patriotism is kind of stupid (a far cry from what I used to believe :rofl:), I think caring for all humans is more important than just caring for people who're born in the same geographic region as yourself. For that reason, I think displaying flags is redundant and without much merit.

On topic, in other words, it's good to see the old conservative cop-out of ZOMG HE HATES THE FLAGHE HATES AMERICA rearing its head again. I haven't lost faith in Republicans yet!

[Unickuta]

I really thought that this op-ed was interesting though...it wasn't my favorite, though- it was the one by Geraldine Ferraro.

But I don't think it's a totally bogus article- what Obama's wife said was pretty un-patriotic. And it was a stump speech, not some spontaneous outburst like some of Bubba's statements (he's been against the war from the beginning...)

Okay, so basically what the article is saying, is if you want to exercise your first amendment rights, then you are unpatriotic. If you don't do what Bush does/tells you to do, you're unpatrotic. If you are a Democrat, you are unpatrotic. Who the fuck is anyone to tell anyone else they are unpatrotic. In order to actually be "patriotic" you basically need to worship the neo-cons/Bush. When really by standing up for something you believe in is the most patriotic thing you can do. That is how we became a country.

And what Barack said about the pin and everything, that really hits home on some people, Democrat or Republican, who wear the pins and all with pride. It's kind of insulting them, because he's saying that he's more patriotic for not doing that. I know a lot of people whio would be insulted by that quote from him. The main problem isn't that he's expressing what he feels- it's that he's insulting the oft-patriotic people who do wear the pins by saying that they're wrong.

[Unickuta]

great, he doesn't have an ego, but proud of what? the illegal war? the over 4 million displaced Iraqis? the slowing economy?
or how about giving the good ol' USA a pat on the back for releasing 5.8 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere. link (http://www.thehcf.org/emaila5.html).
also, i don't really care much for Michael Moore's films, but he did point out the inherently flawed system we have for health care. Insurance companies do not make a profit by curing the sick, in order to stay out of the red ink, their black friday occurs whenever they prevent a sick person from getting better.
this country has many problems, none of which will change in the next four years, but we need to make the steps to change now.

my 2 bits.

John McCain's pretty liberal on the environment- he was the only Republican who was against drilling in Alaska and all.

McCain's nothing like Bush. He's much more of a centrist and doesn't lie or pander (and when he does, he regrets it)

[mykevermin]

Eh...I think you're really stretching it to think he's saying anyone who wears a pin is hiding behind it.

[Unickuta]

Eh...I think you're really stretching it to think he's saying anyone who wears a pin is hiding behind it.

I never said that...

[mykevermin]

I never said that...

You said "The main problem isn't that he's expressing what he feels- it's that he's insulting the oft-patriotic people who do wear the pins by saying that they're wrong."

Okay, so 'hiding behind/insulting" - there's the error on my part - but my larger point was that I think it's incorrect to assume that Obama is singling out every single person who wears a lapel pin and saying that they're hiding behind it to avoid genuine political debate - undoubtedly there *are* people hiding behind it (otherwise Obama's lack of a goddamned PIN wouldn't be an issue in the first place, no?) - but you're putting words in his mouth if you think that he's saying everyone who wears a pin is like that.

That's the last I'll say on the subject because it's such a goddamned silly beyond silly issue to have a discussion on.

[looploop]

John McCain's pretty liberal on the environment- he was the only Republican who was against drilling in Alaska and all.

McCain's nothing like Bush. He's much more of a centrist and doesn't lie or pander (and when he does, he regrets it)

On CNN the other day McCain called global warming an "unscientific hoax". He's either pandering to the extreme-right there or his environmental stance could use some serious work.

[pittpizza]

On CNN the other day McCain called global warming an "unscientific hoax". He's either pandering to the extreme-right there or his environmental stance could use some serious work.

No way! Did he really!? I can't beleive he said that or it would have gotten blown up in the media. It enjoys general acceptance by the scientific community and rallying against it would be political suicide. Not as suicidal as saying you saw UFO's but pretty bad.

[BigT]

General acceptance by the scientific community does not necessarily guarantee the its veracity.

Scientists publish or perish... their funding depends on productivity as measured by their journal publications... it's much easier to get a paper through peer review that conforms with the currently established framework... Although peer review provides many quality checks, it does carry a danger of creating bias in the literature.

I'm not saying that global warming is a hoax, but simply that it is a theory based on limited computer models and satellite data from the past few decades... it is not an absolute truth to be accepted a priori like that hypocrite Al Gore would have us believe.

[pittpizza]

Actually BigT, and I'm sorry to be combative, but you're flat out wrong.

General acceptance by the scientific community is as close to a gurantee of truth as there is.

You see there are these people called scientists. They use this thing called the scientific method which, (it's crazy I know) does NOT assume the thing it is trying to prove. It is a great way to find out information, data, facts, T-squares and all that jazz that myke was pointing to in our deterrence argument (not opinions).

Climate change is now a fact, not proven just by US scientists (Only SOME of which fit into your publish/perish framework, not ALL as your generalization suggests) but by international scientists the world over.

The scientists who have proven climate change are not whores of solar or wind power companies like the scientists who argue it is only a theory are whores of big oil, or the scientists who argued that nicotine wasn't bad for you were whores of big tobacco.

Perhaps the thing you're most incorrect about is that it is only based on "limited computer models and satellite data." I can't tell if you're just being lazy, generalizing, or if you really believe that these are the only things looked at in the study of climate change?

So no, it is not a theory espoused by some powerful coorporation's "experts", it is a generally accepted fact, an absolute and inconvenient truth that is observable to the naked eye to anyone who has their eyes open (e.g. a few species of birds in Western PA stopped migrating south in the winter b/c it is warm enough for them to survive year round). Hundreds of stories like this are happening all across the globe, one of the more popular ones addresses the first recorded case of a polar bear actually drowning b/c of ice melts.

Also, I'm not sure what you think a priori means, but I think you have it confused with a posteriori (empirical data) which is the exclusive form of information in Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize winning movie.

[mykevermin]

Architects use t-squares. I use t-tests. ;)

There's an element of truth to the possibility of publication bias in the research literature; however, that is something that can be statistically demonstrated (using an approach in creating a funnel plot and then looking for asymmetrical results of research findings) - rather than speculated upon.

So, I would hope that you have evidence, and not just conjecture, to back up your assertion that there is publication bias amongst climate change papers.

[Unickuta]

On CNN the other day McCain called global warming an "unscientific hoax". He's either pandering to the extreme-right there or his environmental stance could use some serious work.

My bad- I didn't think he had changed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain#Environmental_i ssues

[Unickuta]

On CNN the other day McCain called global warming an "unscientific hoax". He's either pandering to the extreme-right there or his environmental stance could use some serious work.

http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2008/02/cnn-global-warming-largely-unscientific.html

Nope, this is what happened. You misinterpreted it.

[looploop]

http://thegreenmiles.blogspot.com/2008/02/cnn-global-warming-largely-unscientific.html

Nope, this is what happened. You misinterpreted it.

Nope, it wasn't an interview. it was coverage of a McCain rally somewhere. It's admittedly a dubious claim by itself though. Forget about it until I can corroborate it.

[pittpizza]

Architects use t-squares. I use t-tests. ;)



Oh...:oops:...T-tests, right.

[camoor]

McCain's nothing like Bush. He's much more of a centrist and doesn't lie or pander (and when he does, he regrets it)

You forgot the winking smiley

[JolietJake]

That's not what he said.

"Obama’s unnecessary and imprudent statement impugns the sincerity or intelligence of those vulgar sorts who still choose to wear a flag pin. But moral vanity prevailed. He wanted to explain that he was too good — too patriotic! — to wear a flag pin on his chest."

He's saying that he insulted the people who do wear the pins and all.Patriotism isn't a fashion accessory. So yes, i think if he's truly patriotic he won't wear a pin.

[Unickuta]

Patriotism isn't a fashion accessory. So yes, i think if he's truly patriotic he won't wear a pin.

Do I have to explain this one more time? :roll:

[JolietJake]

Do I have to explain this one more time? :roll:I'm saying he didn't insult the people, no you don't have to explain it.

[BigT]

Architects use t-squares. I use t-tests. ;)

There's an element of truth to the possibility of publication bias in the research literature; however, that is something that can be statistically demonstrated (using an approach in creating a funnel plot and then looking for asymmetrical results of research findings) - rather than speculated upon.

So, I would hope that you have evidence, and not just conjecture, to back up your assertion that there is publication bias amongst climate change papers.

When did I ever assert that there is "publication bias amongst climate change papers"? I am not an atmospheric chemist; I am not familiar with the literature on climate change.

If you read my post, I simply stated that a potential for publication bias exists in our current system of peer review. This is a general statement based on some of my personal experience and common sense. Sure, if you're characterizing some disease gene that few people really care about, it's unlikely that an anonymous reviewer will have any motive to suppress your information. However, in controversial and politically charged topics, the situation may not be the same. People recruited to review your paper are "experts in the field" chosen by the editor of a journal. They are anonymous and since they are experts, have most certainly published about your topic previously. At a basic level, it is human nature to look more favorably on findings that agree with one's own. On a more nefarious level, people may want to perpetuate their own pet ideas to maintain their own funding... mix this with the fact that many fields have 1 or 2 authoritative journals that really matter and it becomes clear that there is the potential for a dangerous monopoly that may control what ideas are generally accepted.

[mykevermin]

And, as I've said, there is a statistical technique to demonstrate publication bias. I merely asked if you have evidence of it, which, it appears, you don't - and merely selected an issue that you disagree with to create a broad general criticism of the peer review process.

As someone involved in academia, the process has its upsides and downsides - including what you state, but also the publication bias that favors positive findings versus nonfindings/support for null hypotheses. But, if you want to make those claims, be prepared to demonstrate them - not simply argue that it is the case because you don't agree with the hypothesis.

There is a possibility that a publication bias exists that supports criminological research that is critical of the punitive policies of the corrections system over the last 30 years - but the research is so consistent and damn near one-sided in its findings that, in spite of the David Farabee types, the research has spoken and the conclusion that the current structure, laws, and philosophy guiding the corrections system are undoubtedly contributing factors in the "revolving door" problem we have. According to your line of thought, though, it's merely a suggestion that contrary research is being suppressed.

[pittpizza]

Moreover, the status quo has a way of maintaining itself (the world is flat) yet eventually truth wins through. There are very powerful forces trying to keep the world chugging down oil, yet climate change has still been accepted. I'm not talking about whether a professor's paper gets accepted, I'm talking about international scientific opinion, which is much harder to manipulate and even more difficult to get on the same side of an issue.

Plus you can see it, you can actually look at pictures, at animals, at flora and fauna and SEE with your naked eyes the oceans rising, the ice caps melting, the storms and droughts getting stronger and more frequent etc. It's hard to pressure or sway the world to hold anuntenable belief, especially when they can see the truth with thier own eyes.

BigT, generally I have no problem with your qualms about scientific opinion being succeptable to bias and undue influence, however with something this scale (global), and with such solidarity of opinion, I don't think your concerns equally apply to climate change.

[BigT]

Publication bias is difficult to conclusively prove unless you have statistics about studies published vs. not published for a given topic. Nevertheless, I can tell you that in drug trials negative results are not published nearly as often as positive ones (e.g., see antidepressants). As you mentioned, in situations where a certain intervention and its outcomes are being studied (e.g., give anti-HTN drug and measure BP lowering), one may look at the treatment effect in relation to the study size... but, asymmetry on a funnel plot is not specific for publication bias. Any other types of bias, too few studies, poor design in certain studies, or simple heterogeneity among different sized studies may give similar results.

Plus in the case of climate research, it is my understanding that they are publishing either CO2 levels, measures of temperature, or computer model results. There's no real treatment effect or sample size (unless you count the averaging of measurements done by an instrument to cancel out noise...). So, a funnel plot wouldn't really apply in this case.

[mykevermin]

Publication bias is difficult to conclusively prove unless you have statistics about studies published vs. not published for a given topic.

http://ideas.repec.org/a/tsj/stataj/v4y2004i2p127-141.html

No. It's a pretty basic procedure based on the entry-level statistical theorem the law of large numbers.

[BigT]

No. It's an indirect/general method that is not specific for publication bias. Even the abstract that you linked states: "It is, however, important to realize that publication bias is only one of a number of possible causes of funnel-plot asymmetry-funnel plots should be seen as a generic means of examining small study effects (the tendency for the smaller studies in a meta-analysis to show larger treatment effects) rather than a tool to diagnose specific types of bias."

It may perhaps help to rule out any form of bias if the plot is very symmetrical, but it would not be very useful to rule in (or "prove") the existence of publication bias.

[elprincipe]

General acceptance by the scientific community is as close to a gurantee of truth as there is.

Of course it is...on our flat Earth that is the center of the universe, where heavier things fall at a faster rate than lighter things and global cooling is a reality.

[Cheese]

Man, Bill's really going off the deep end since everything he's worked towards his adult life has been shown to be a series of utter failures.

But they can be repaired. Indeed, she had said a couple of weeks before, in Los Angeles: “Barack Obama ... is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

So we don’t have to work to improve our souls. Our broken souls can be fixed — by our voting for Barack Obama. We don’t have to fight or sacrifice to help our country. Our uninvolved and uninformed lives can be changed — by our choosing Barack Obama. America can become a nation to be proud of — by letting ourselves be led by Barack Obama.

John Kennedy, to whom Obama is sometimes compared, challenged the American people to acts of citizenship and patriotism. Barack Obama allows us to feel better about ourselves.

This passage bewilders me. She says that Barack will challenge you to 1) put down your political divisions, 2) come out of your ideological isolation, 3) come out of your partisan comfort zones, 4) push yourselves to be better citizens, 5) engage yourself in the process, and if you choose her husband he will push to keep you involved in the process, working together for a better future for everyone instead of just a better future for the right or the left.

Kristol then goes on to completely miss the point by saying that he's not asking for anyone to work to improve themselves. But she just listed the ways he's asking you to work, right there in the paragraph above it, in clear simple english.

Her statement about her feeling proud is one sentence from a 45 minute long speech, it completely leaves out any form of context whatsoever. What did she say in the paragraph before that? Or the one after? Do you know? Bill Kristol knows, but he ain't telling, because putting the line in context would rob him of his article for the week. She was talking about how proud she was of the dramatic increase in people participating in the political process.

It should also be noted that you're not voting for Michelle Obama, much like you wouldn't be voting for Cindy McCain.

Also, his statement about life being better for everyone over the last 25 years is BS too. The adjusted average income hasn't gone up in nearly a generation. Over the last two decades the divide between rich and poor has grown to astronomical levels, the rich have continued to get richer and the poor, sadly, have continued to get poorer. American families are continually asked to pay more for things while earning less. The median income in 1985 was about $41k, in 2005 it was just over $46k. So over 20 years there was an increase of about $5k. Now, factor in the increased cost of living, medical insurance, rent, mortgage, food, gas, etc. and that more then makes up the difference.

[mykevermin]

No. It's an indirect/general method that is not specific for publication bias. Even the abstract that you linked states: "It is, however, important to realize that publication bias is only one of a number of possible causes of funnel-plot asymmetry-funnel plots should be seen as a generic means of examining small study effects (the tendency for the smaller studies in a meta-analysis to show larger treatment effects) rather than a tool to diagnose specific types of bias."

It may perhaps help to rule out any form of bias if the plot is very symmetrical, but it would not be very useful to rule in (or "prove") the existence of publication bias.

You've just got your mind made up that the scientific literature on this particular issue is evidence of publication bias and not to be trusted - based on the single premise that this is not an issue you've been taught to accept as scientifically plausible.

What *weaker* a catalyst could you come up with to use to go so far as to throw the entirety of academic and scientific research into the same territory - as if peer-reviewed academic publications deserve to be in the same league as the sort of armchair postulating on issues that's done here in the vs forum, and not expert work done by experts in the field, vetting out by other experts for the accuracy and scientific standards it is expected to meet?

I suppose I could just say I'm glad that the Republican National Committee and/or the Catholic church don't take a stance on supporting leech-based bloodletting, or a good ol' burning at the stake, as a true tested method for curing society of its medical ills - for your clients' sakes. If they did, we'd all have to sit here and read posts from you about how there is no consensus in the field about how helpful modern "anesthetics" are and how the scientific community is divided over the effects of "tylenol."

[BigT]

For some reason, you continue to misrepresent my words and make farfetched (and incorrect) assumptions about my beliefs.

* I have never stated that climate research should not be trusted. I simply have provided cautions that there may be bias present when a complex, poorly understood, and politically charged issue is involved... plus, most of academia is composed of liberals :D.

* My last post was mainly pointing out to you that a funnel plot would not help to rule in a case of publication bias in this form of climate research.

* My personal views are as follows:

The greenhouse effect is a real and important part of the atmosphere that smooths out our temps. However, the extent of this effect is unclear; Arrhenius and Angstrom argued about it a long time ago (as an aside, Arrhenius provides an example of how scientific consensus may be wrong: his doctoral work on electricity/chemistry for which he eventually won the nobel prize was initially widely ridiculed)... back on topic: I personally am not aware if the warming effect has been proven to be linearly proportional to CO2 concentration (I'd need to look this up).

Data for the last 30-40 years show that CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere (from about 320 ppm to 380 ppm). This may or may not be fully accounted for by human sources. There have been attempts to show that levels were as low as 180 in the past, but the data are more indirect and subject to confounders: measurement of composition of ice bubbles from that era.

For the last 100 years or so, temperature has been measured on the surface of the earth. These have shown an increase in temperature, but often require many correction factors. For years, satellite date of atmospheric temperatures showed negligible changes in temperature. Recently, scientists have had to massage the data with numerous correction factors to show an increase in temps.

Basically, I see many possible confounders that may affect temperature readings or predictive models: variability in solar radiation, effect of an increasingly urban environment on heat absorption, sampling biases or inadequacies while attempting to determine an average temperature, importance of convective heat flow in the atmosphere, effect of water vapor in the atmosphere, appropriateness of corrective factors used to modify raw temperature readings, and so on... remember we're talking about temp changes of ~0.7 degrees C/100 yrs (with the uncertainty in measurement from 100 yrs ago coupled with correction factors used, I'd bet the true 95% CIs are rather broad...)

The point is that this is a complex issue to which no one really knows the answer. But some models are predicting 6-10 degree C raises in temp by the end of this century (based on limited data and incomplete computer models). I think that's a bit extreme, without sufficient proof.

Now, I do agree with environmental efforts. Even if there were no global warming, pollution is not a good thing and has many deleterious health effects... but I don't like hearing that from a hypocrite like Al Gore who flies around in his private jet, live in energy inefficient antiquated mansions and uses at least 10x as much energy as all of us combined. He should go to China and India and tell them to stop polluting because that's where the big problem is evolving.

[pittpizza]

pollution is not a good thing and has many deleterious health effects.

Not uh, this is not generally accepted and up for debate. There is room for bias since it's a political issue.

[mykevermin]

For some reason, you continue to misrepresent my words and make farfetched (and incorrect) assumptions about my beliefs.

You're the one who is claiming that there is no credibility to scientific consensus based upon the makeup of academia and the peer review process, so you can't have it both ways. If "Climatology Today" (or somesuch journal) suffers from these problems, so does "JAMA," "Pediatrics," "Criminology," "American Sociological Review," and every other journal out there. None of them, based on your logic, are to be trusted in the slightest.

And while a funnel plot is not a perfect measure, but it can be a suitable proxy. You're trying to simply will away any attempt by me to point out that, should publication bias exist, it can be documented. Instead, you're trying to continue to push the argument that, in the absence of evidence, scientific consensus should be put into question - which is an argument that can be held constant irrespective of the issue in question.

[BigT]

I give up on trying to explain myself and using logic since its getting me nowhere.

So, I'm going to be one of the first to start the new GLOBAL COOLING hysteria. I suggest you all start stocking up on coats and burning Gore's useless books and videos to stay warm :). But, I guess you guys will figure out a way to say that global warming is responsible for a new ice age :roll:.


http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=332289


I guess, some say the world will end in fire :hot:, some say in ice :cold: ...

[mykevermin]

Where is your logic? You undermine the premise underlying the entirety of peer-reviewed research publications, and then want to claim it only applies to one particular issue (as if the problems you claim within academia or the peer-review process disappear when moving to other issues).

[Msut77]

I give up on trying to explain myself and using logic since its getting me nowhere.

So, I'm going to be one of the first to start the new GLOBAL COOLING hysteria. I suggest you all start stocking up on coats and burning Gore's useless books and videos to stay warm :). But, I guess you guys will figure out a way to say that global warming is responsible for a new ice age :roll:.


http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=332289


I guess, some say the world will end in fire :hot:, some say in ice :cold: ...

That article is a giant turd.

Kenneth Tapping and the National Climatic Data Center two of the "sources" are completely misrepresented.