A Skeptical Human | Anton Dybal

Debunking Creationism: "The Fossil Record Supports The Biblical Flood!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 22 Jun 2020 18:34:51 +0000

Photo: rudall30/Shutterstock.com

Young-earth creationists claim that the fossil record supports the Noah's Ark Biblical Flood story. Andrew Snelling argues in a lecture that "action fossils"—which capture an actual event taking place in the fossil record—are proof of Biblical catastrophism and not geological gradualism:

"But how do you get a fossil fish in the first place? Look at the beautiful state of preservation of that fish. Well, there's a fish about to have his breakfast; doesn't get time to swallow it before he's buried and fossilized. You get the point? You can't preserve a fossil like that, where he's just about to take a chomp, and he's frozen in an instant.

In fact, here's another example from a museum in Germany. That's a marine reptile, 6ft long, giving birth to a baby. One minute, mother is about to give birth to a baby, split second later, she's buried in tons and tons of mud.

Fossilization has to be catastrophic, virtually instant and rapid. Here's a fossilized jellyfish! Jellyfish are soft; they melt in the sun or get ripped apart by the wind and the waves. Or these crinoids; look at the heads of those crinoids or sea lilies; they're delicate, they have been preserved. Or the wings of this wasp. How do you fossilize a wasp like that if it's not rapidly and catastrophically buried?

Or flowers? These are soft organisms that would not be preserved. I mean, you get a flower today and leave it out, what's gonna happen to it? It's gonna wither, die, and fall apart. No, to preserve these organisms, you need rapid, catastrophic deposition on a mass scale.”

Snelling's argument here has a lot of problems, and one of the biggest ones I see is the unjustified mental leap he's making. He claims that because this or that particular fossil was quickly preserved in a localized catastrophe, we can therefore infer that this catastrophe actually took place on a global scale. There is no justification for making this enormous leap.

It'd be like a detective at a crime scene saying: "Well, it appears that the woman was murdered... which therefore means that all women were murdered!"

"Uhh, ok detective, if that's the case, how do you explain your female colleagues here at the crime scene with you?"

"They're obviously transvestites. Any other questions?"

Proving that an event took place in one particular location obviously isn't proof that it took place all across the world.

He's also wrong at a more basic level when he assumes, to begin with, that "catastrophes" were the preservation mechanism of fossils like this. The narrative he presents is that this fish was in the process of swallowing another fish, and then right then and there it was immediately buried in massive amounts of sediment.

Fossils like this could've also been preserved in a more gradual manner, where the fish we see here could've died as a result of trying to swallow his meal! The smaller fish could've had protective spikes that caused internal bleeding, or simply caused it to get stuck inside of his throat which ultimately caused him to starve to death. The fish could've died in one of these ways and then sunk to the bottom to be preserved on a slower time-scale.

Something similar could've happened to this icthyosaur, where instead of being instantly preserved while in the process of giving birth, it instead died as a result of giving birth from complications that caused internal hemorrhaging. Snelling has simply failed to consider alternative mechanisms of fossil formation, and what he's doing is grabbing at scraps of evidence and immediately trying to morph them into comformity with his preconceived views on the subject.

And if you think it through, it doesn't even make sense how this would occur according to the Flood model! Even granting their account where a large portion of the Earth's rock layers were deposited during The Great Flood, it's not like sediments would've been instantaneously deposited to the point where all organisms were frozen doing exactly what they were doing at that instant like the bodies preserved in the Pompeii eruption; so I don't even see how this evidence he's pointing is proof of The Great Flood hypothesis!

Just look at the process he's envisioning here:

"he's just about to take a chomp, and he's frozen in an instant."

"One minute, mother is about to give birth to a baby, split second later, she's buried in tons and tons of mud."

He seems to be imagining that one second, the Earth is flooding with water, and then the next second, thick layers of mud several meters thick instantly drop down from the sky or water column above and just plop down on the ocean surface literally in a split second.

Or maybe, alternatively, there was some sort of perfectly synchronized underwater landslide across the entire planet—almost as if there were these massive, equally-spaced underwater mounds of sediment that intentionally synchronized themselves to landslide outwards at the same time—like, "Ok, ready guys? 1, 2, 3—underwater landslide across the whole world!"

Whatever mechanism you come up with—where there's literally an instantaneous deposition of thick layers of sediment across the whole world—it just doesn't make sense as a preservation mechanism—even if you're a believer in the Flood account! Perhaps there's evidence that supports your position, but I'm sorry, this just ain't it.

"GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS!"

T-SHIRTS STARTING AT $19.99!

"JESUS IS MY CO-PILOT"

T-SHIRTS STARTING AT $19.99!

"GOD IS ALWAYS WATCHING YOU"

T-SHIRTS STARTING AT $19.99!

—

Creationists will also make the "incompatible fossils" argument. We're told that because you'll find organisms preserved together in the fossil record even when they obviously didn't live together, that's proof of a Global Flood that mixed them all together. Here's how Snelling puts it in that same lecture:

"And in this fossil deposit, we find the remains of a toothed whale, that lives in the deep ocean, and a marsupial possum, that lives on the land. When do you see whales and possums living together, by the way? . . . When we see fossils, do we know that's where they died? No. Do we know that's where they lived? No. One thing we know is that's where they buried because we observe them buried, in the rocks, in that location. So how do you get a whale and possum that didn't live together to be buried together? The ocean covered the land."

Yet again he's making a big, unjustified leap here, where he's saying: "Well, because we found this one example of two incompatible organisms mixed up and preserved together, that therefore proves that all life on Earth was mixed together in a huge global flood!" I mean all you have to do is say it out loud and it's hard not to laugh at yourself!

Finding these two organisms preserved together is only proof that literally these two organisms were preserved together—and you can explain such a finding by very plausibly assuming that the possum's remains were carried out to sea and preserved. Perhaps the possum fell into a river and drowned? Or after it had already died on land, maybe the possum's remains were swept up in a flood and carried away downstream?

If there wasn't a group of people that already came to the table believing—as a matter of faith—in the Biblical flood, literally nobody would look at such an unremarkable finding like this and conclude that the entire planet must've been underwater. The creationist finds a single, tiny crumb on the ground, and they tell us that it must have come from an enormous King's feast.

—

Snelling also argues that because we find fossilized sea creatures up on land—and sometimes even high up on mountaintops—this indicates that the waters of the Flood must've carried them up to those heights:

"What do the rock layers show? They show that the ocean waters flooded over the continents. How do I know that? Because there are marine fossils in rock layers covering the continents. That's right, marine fossils! Wouldn't you expect that they're marine, that the creatures lived in the ocean and were buried in the ocean? Well why are they buried up on the continents! They had to get transported, lifted up by the Flood waters and dumped up on the continents!”

Marine fossils being found on land is very easily explained by #1) plate tectonics and #2) changing sea levels over time. The North American continent, for example, used to have a large seaway that cut right across it—so it's not a big shock to find marine fossils in an area where there used to be marine life!

Michael J. Everhart writes about the subject in his classic book Oceans of Kansas:

"The Western Interior Sea . .

Debunking Creationism: "The Biblical Flood Is Supported By Geological Evidence!"

Anton Dybal — Thu, 21 May 2020 17:09:06 +0000

Young-earth creationists believe that the global flood and the Noah's Ark story, as described in the Bible, actually took place. The timeline of this account is summarized by Phil Senter as follows:
"The account . . . describes a flooding event in which water rose for 40 days and receded for the rest of a single year, during which . . . the planet was completely submerged for 150 days."
In this video, we're going to examine and debunk the geological evidence that creationists provide to support this belief.
—
One common argument you'll hear is that the existence of the same (or very similar) rock layers in multiple different locations around the world is proof of a global flood. Here's how Andrew Snelling puts it in a lecture for Answers In Genesis:
“And wouldn't you and I expect to find widespread, rapidly deposited rock layers, because the Flood was global and went all around the earth? Yes! We find rock layers that can be traced all the way across continents and even between continents!”
In an article of his, he cites the Grand Canyon's Tapeats Sandstone layer as one that's found in multiple locations around the world. Specifically, he notes that it's found in Arizona, Wisconsin, Libya & Israel. His conclusion is that:
"The only mechanism that could spread such thick layers of sand over many continents is the Genesis Flood."
That's obviously not true right there. Finding similar rock layers during the same time period in multiple locations around the world is only proof that at this time period, similar events and changes were taking place on the planet. But any number of different mechanisms could account for this.
Maybe oscillating sea-levels at the time led to sedimentary deposition in many different spots around the world? Or maybe the organization of the continents and ocean currents at the time led to widespread formation of deserts and sand-dunes on the planet? Jumping to the extraordinary, supernatural explanation when much simpler ones exist just doesn't make any logical sense.

I should also point out that 550 million years ago when the Tapeats Sandstone was deposited, the continents were organized much differently from how they are today. 550 million years ago North America was this blue blob right here. I don't know where exactly Arizona vs Wisconsin would be on this blob, but the basic takeaway is that what today look like reasonably far-away locations, back then, could've been much closer together—so it's not even necessarily a global event that created these sandstone layers!
Same goes for his other two cited locations: Libya and Israel. 550 million years ago, what today is Africa and the Arabian Peninsula were smashed right up against one another—and while I don't know what portion of these blobs would best correspond to modern-day North Africa or Israel, again, perhaps even localized events could explain what we see here.

And just because certain observations are compatible with an explanation doesn't automatically mean that that explanation is the correct one. Technically such rock layers could have been deposited by a divine, global flood—so you could look at this and say: "Aha! That means the evidence is compatible with my religious beliefs!" That is not the same thing as saying that the observations are evidence for your religions beliefs—especially when there are other, simpler explanations that don't require any Godly miracles.
And the final, glaring drawback to this argument is the fact that Snelling's timeline is off by about 550 million years. According to him, the Great Flood took place in 2348 BC. Well these sandstone deposits were laid down in 550 million BC—so you're a little off there on the numbers, buddy. How could the Flood described in the Bible be the source of this much older sandstone? Did Noah also construct a giant time machine?
The Tapeats Sandstone corresponds to the early Cambrian Period, which is waaaayyyyy down here on the geological column. According to the Biblical timeline, the Great Flood took place 4400 years ago, which corresponds to only the very tiniest top sliver of the Quaternary period. So if you were looking for geological evidence of the Flood, you'd have to restrict yourself to this paper thin section up here. Directing us towards the early Cambrian makes about as much sense as searching for life on Mars by pointing your telescope at the Moon.

—
Snelling makes the same argument about the chalk beds of England:
"The chalk beds of England (the white cliffs of Dover) can be traced across Europe into the Middle East and are also found in the Midwest of the United States and in Western Australia."
This I think is even more ridiculous than pointing to the Tapeats Sandstone because in this case, the white cliffs were largely formed from the calcium carbonate shells of coccolithophores, a single-celled algae that would've lived near the ocean surface at the time. In some locations these deposits are up to 500 meters thick. How could it possibly be the case that, at the time of the Biblical flood, so much algae existed that their death in the flood would lead to the formation of a 500-meter thick layer on the ocean floor in several different locations all across the world?
And this is 500 meters thick after being compacted downwards, with no space between the dead organisms; while alive, there would obviously have to be much more space between them, because if they were that compacted at the ocean surface where they photosynthesize, there simply wouldn't be any sunlight that could penetrate the thick layer to supply them. Here's the problem: In the ocean, past a depth of 200 meters, there's not enough sunlight to support photosynthesizing organisms! So it's not like they could be more comfortably spaced out all the way to the ocean bottom or something.
That means in order to even have the potential to photosynthesize, all of these coccolithophores would have to be packed into the first 200 meters of the ocean surface—but for that to work, they'd have to be so densely packed together that no sunlight could penetrate the surface—meaning they couldn't be packed this densely because they couldn't survive this way!
And even if, through some miracle of biology, they somehow could photosynthesize when so densely packed together, they would literally just form a 200-meter–thick block at the ocean surface. If that was the case, how would the rest of ocean life survive—and how could Noah even set sea in his ark with such a pesky, chalky barrier in his way? Did he first have to chip away at it with a pick-axe or something?

Without realizing it, what creationists are presenting here is a literal physical impossibility. There is no conceivable way that that many coccolithophores could've possibly existed in the ocean waters at the time of the Great Flood. The only explanation that matches up with the observations—and with basic common sense—is the gradualistic one, that these layers were slowly deposited over time as multiple generations of coccolithophores lived, died, and sunk to the bottom over hundreds and thousands of years. The very evidence creationists cite as proof of their position is actually a knock-down argument against their position.
The last thing I would ask about this is: Why would we see such a narrow spectrum of specific organisms being deposited in these chalk layers? On the flood model, wouldn't we expect a big, jumbled mix-up of all kinds of organisms in these layers? The fact that these chalk layers are comprised of one particular type of organism better supports the gradualistic, evolutionary model where during this time period, that particular type of algae was abundant in the oceans.
—
Something else you'll see creationists do is try to discredit the early pioneers of geology by framing them as unqualified amateurs who didn't know what they were talking about—and they contrast them against the supremely qualified experts who supported the Noah's Ark, catastrophism viewpoint.
Henry Morris of the Institute For Creation Research, for example, writes the following:
"In the early days of geology, especially during the 17th and 18th centuries, the dominant explanation for the sedimentary rocks and their fossilized contents was that they had been laid down in the great Flood of the days of Noah. This was the view of Steno, the 'father of stratigraphy', whose principles of stratigraphic interpretation are still followed today, and of John Woodward, Sir Isaac Newton’s hand-picked successor at Cambridge, whose studies on sedimentary processes laid the foundation for modern sedimentology and geomorphology. These men and the other flood geologists of their day were careful scientists, thoroughly acquainted with the sedimentary rocks and the geophysical processes which formed them. In common with most other scientists of their day, they believed in God and the divine authority of the Bible."
Notice the endless adulation that he heaps upon the early scientists who agree with him: "Isaac Newton's hand-picked successor," "laid the foundation for modern sedimentology," "careful scientists thoroughly acquainted with the sedimentary rocks." If he was blowing these guys any harder, there'd be a Westboro Baptist protest about it!
Contrast his veneration of these noble Genesis-believing scientists with his characterization of the gradualistic scientists of the time:
"It is significant that this uniformitarian revolution was led, not by professional scientific geologists, but by amateurs, men such as Buckland (a theologian), Cuvier (an anatomist), Buffon (a lawyer), Hutton (an agriculturalist), Smith (a surveyor), Chambers (a journalist), Lyell (a lawyer), and others of similar variegated backgrounds."
Yeah, ya know, scientists like James Hutton and Charles Lyell—who laid the foundations of modern geology—really just a couple of bums when it comes right down to it! James Hutton, a measly agriculturalist? Yeah, how about you stick to farming, buddy! Why don't you step aside and leave the science to we serious people who believe that a 600-year-old man literally collected two of every animal in a giant boat.
Look, back around that time period, scientific fields simply weren't as developed and separated as they are today. It was much more common back then for people making contributions to a field to also work in other areas, as well. Thomas Jefferson, for example, in addition to his political contributions, also worked as a "lawyer, architect, naturalist, paleontologist, inventor, agronomist and linguist." He even drove for Uber on the weekends! Despite wearing these many different hats, Jefferson played a central role in discovering the giant ground sloth of North America. Pointing out his lack of specialized expertise in that field doesn't nullify his contributions to it.
This dabbling in many different fields wasn't unusual back then. Part of that's because these were much newer fields with many more discoveries to be made, and I also think part of it's just because there wasn't a lot to do back then! They didn't have Netflix or Twitter or Reddit to entertain them so they'd get bored and be like: "Fuck, I guess I'll go explore this mountain or something!"
At the end of the day, a person's credentials have no bearing on whether the claim they're making is true or not. Whether it's a farmer or an anatomist or an agriculturalist who's making claims about geology, the core question isn't: "What are their credentials?"; it's: "Are these claims supported by evidence?" In the case of gradualistic geology, the answer is yes.
It's also kind of weird to critique people who were basically some of the founders of a certain field as not being experts in that field—but I'll leave it to creationists to sort that out.
Morris finishes strong by jumping completely off the deep-end:
". . . this capitulation of the scientists to evolution was an enormous boon to the social revolutionaries, who could now proclaim widely that their theories of social change were grounded in natural science. For example, Karl Marx and the Communists quickly aligned themselves with evolutionary geology and biology."
Yes, it starts out with believing that Earth is very old, and before you know it, you're a filthy Communist.
—
Another piece of geological evidence they'll point to are weird formations where rock layers are bent and deformed in strange ways. Here's what Andrew Snelling writes for Answers In Genesis:
"Evidence #6—Many strata laid down in rapid succession.
Rocks do not normally bend; they break because they are hard and brittle. But in many places we find whole sequences of strata that were bent without fracturing, indicating that all the rock layers were rapidly deposited and folded while still wet and pliable before final hardening. For example, the Tapeats Sandstone in Grand Canyon is folded at a right angle (90°) without evidence of breaking. Yet this folding could only have occurred after the rest of the layers had been deposited, supposedly over '480 million years,' while the Tapeats Sandstone remained wet and pliable."
Look, deformed rock layers like this—while definitely interesting—are well-understood by geologists. Metamorphic rock, for example, like this one where the layers are all wavy and contorted, are simply produced by heat and pressure generated in the Earth's crust.

The authors then present what I can only call a very bold hypothesis:
"The existence of elemental aluminum and iron oxide leads to the obvious hypothesis that the material may contain thermite."
A much more reasonable starting point than jumping to such an incredible, conspiratorial explanation would be to ask: Did anything inside of these buildings match both the appearance and chemical composition of these chips?
The primer paint that was used to coat the structural steel of these buildings is the same color as the red side of these chips. Look at pictures of the towers during construction and the bright-red steel is impossible to miss. So If you found a bunch of red chips in the debris of such a building, wouldn't this be the go-to hypothesis rather than "high-tech incendiaries"? Why go with the explanation that requires way more complicated assumptions than you actually need to explain the observations?

Truthers, let's just say, have some very creative ideas for how this thermite could've been used in a manner that matches up with the observations. In the Harrit et al paper, they surmise that perhaps some sort of secretly-developed nanothermite material was painted onto the steel. They cite a report on a 2001 conference which said:
"'At this point in time, all of the military services and some . . . academic laboratories have active R&D programs aimed at exploiting the unique properties of nano-materials that have potential to be used in energetic formulations for advanced explosives....'"
The authors then claim that:
". . . the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even 'painted' onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint."
Please stop to consider how utterly absurd this explanation is. We know that the steel of the World Trade Centers was covered in a red paint. When confronted with what looks exactly like chips of this very red paint—in what seems like the most open-and-shut case imaginable—truthers say: "No, this actually isn't red paint—well, actually, it sort of is red paint, it's just not the red paint you're talking about; this paint is a different red paint that also happens to be an explosive nano-composite that was developed in secret laboratories."
Could anything be a better example of needlessly complicating what is very easily explained?
It's like someone says: "Anton, why did you drive by me earlier and tell me to go fuck myself?"
And I'm like: "What?! That wasn't me! It was just someone who drives my exact car.... with the same set of bumper stickers... and the exact same license plate.... and the person happened to look exactly like me and is wearing the same thing that I'm wearing today.... But I can assure you it wasn't me! Must've been some kind of clone or something that was developed in a secret lab."

...We know that there must have been red paint present in the debris given that the millions of tons of steel in the buildings was covered in such paint. It would only be remarkable to not find any red chips in the debris given that there was so much red paint applied to the steel in these buildings. So here's my question: What happened to all of this red paint? Did it magically vanish during the collapse of the buildings? Even if we conceded that, yes, the Towers were brought down in a demolition, wouldn't you still expect to find a bunch of chips of this red primer paint in the debris?
Do truthers present us with any reliable way of distinguishing between the red paint that obviously should be there, and the red thermitic material that they claim is also in the debris? No, they don't—and they don't even attempt to make a distinction between the two! They simply assume that any red chips in the debris are the thermitic material—and this to me is a clear demonstration that they've simply gotten their explanation wrong.
You might say: "Oh, well maybe the spray-on thermite burned up all the primer paint—and that's why we don't find any of it!"
Ok, well if there's so much unreacted thermite in the debris, presumably there'd be a bunch of unburned-off primer paint—and it's not like they could, or even would need to, access and coat every steel beam in the building to bring it down, so why the lack of primer paint? Why did it all just completely disappear? Did the conspiracy involve a magician, as well or something?
Is anyone actually gonna answer the specific points I'm making here or are they just gonna dodge them all and say "What about building 7" like my last videos? As if building 7 is my fucking kryptonite, or something... Look, I can't comprehensively debunk every single truther argument in one video, so why don't we just focus on what's in front of us for now? And when I do make a video about building 7, people are probably gonna say "What about the thermite chips in the dust?", so you know what? You guys can fuckin' blow me...

They point out to us that around the time of 9/11, the state of nano-material research & development was such that the kind of technology they're talking about may, indeed, have existed. Here they're making the common mistake of confusing the mere possibility of something with the probability or certainty of that thing. Just because a piece or category of technology might happen to exist doesn't mean that that technology was necessarily used in the manner you're talking about! For example, pointing out the fact that advanced, laser weapons may, indeed, exist—in and of itself—isn't proof that that's what killed the burn victim.
So I don't care if you can show that your explanation is conceivably possible; what an incredibly low bar to set! The more important question is: Which explanation is most reasonable?—and the thermite hypothesis simply doesn't pass that test.
An explosive, spray-on nano-thermite... I'm wondering what else do they work on in that secret, evil lab?
"Johnson, excellent work with that spray-on nanothermite. What do you have for us today?"
"I've designed a tiny, microscopic airplane that sprays micro-chemtrails inside of your home."
"God damnit, Johnson, you've outdone yourself this time. Fantastic work."
—
Truthers would disagree with my analysis—and they claim they've proven the chips are not paint in a number of different ways. Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, for example, writes the following:
"Some defenders of the official 9/11 story have claimed that the red-gray chips . . . are simply remnants of the rust-proofing primer paint that was applied to the steel structure of the WTC skyscrapers during their construction.
However . . . several key ingredients of the primer paint are not present in the composition of the red-gray chips. According to NIST, the type of primer paint used on the WTC steel columns contains substantial levels of zinc, chromium, and magnesium. However, the X-ray Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (XEDS) analysis of the red-gray chips performed by Harrit and others showed no significant amounts of zinc, chromium, or magnesium."
When you actually look at the chemical analysis they're referencing here, you find that they're simply misstating its results. All you have to do is look at the spectrum and you find that red side of the chips does contain the elements they say it doesn't.

Figure 14 from the Harrit et al paper, for example, clearly shows that the chips do contain zinc and chromium. Not only that, but when you dig a little deeper, you learn that this spectrum also shows the presence of magnesium—but for whatever reason, they simply don't label this on the graph. Here's how we know that magnesium is there: In other spectra from their paper—such as Figure 24, for example—you find a magnesium spike at 1.3 KeV. Compare this against Figure 14 and you see a spike in the exact same location—but they simply didn't label it on this graph.

Magnesium does appear to be present in the red section of the chips—as the very chemical analysis conducted by truthers shows us—and zinc and chromium are also present, as well. Simply ignoring this or failing to label these elements doesn't make them disappear. And this obvious misstatement is coming from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth; I'm just gonna assume that their founder Richard Gage wrote this article because it makes my next joke funnier:
This guy apparently can't read his own chosen source material. I mean you'd

Why The Mainstream Media Is So Biased [EXPLAINED]

Anton Dybal — Sun, 22 Mar 2020 02:27:54 +0000

Thumbnail photo: Brazhyk/Shutterstock.com

Most people would agree that the mainstream media is biased—and here in this video, we'll explore the systemic mechanisms that actually create this bias.
One is the influence of advertisers. In the media, revenue tends to come from two main sources: subscriptions and advertisements. In the case of cable news, Pew Research finds that there's about a 50/50 split, with about half of their revenue coming from advertising. As of 2018, Statista reports the following ad revenues for major TV networks: NBC, $7 billion; CBS, $6 billion; and Fox, $5 billion.

Spending such large amounts—and comprising such a large percent of media revenues—gives these advertisers a significant degree of influence over what these media institutions publish or air.
Here's what I don't mean by this: I'm not saying that tactical flashlight commercials will bias reporters in favor of brightly-lit rooms; I'm also not arguing that Viagara ads will slant your reporting in favor of rock-hard erections—although I will say, the media's fixation on Anthony Weiner and Monica Lewinsky does lead you to wonder... Come to think of it, I turned on Fox News the other day and their Lower Third was just a bunch of eggplant emojis!

No, what I am saying is that since your advertisers essentially sign your paychecks, it wouldn't make sense for your network to lead sustained campaigns that undermine your advertisers' business models. Simply put, spending as much as they do gives them influence over the final media product, as explained by Ben Bagdikian in his book The New Media Monopoly (full disclosure about the book links in this article: as an Amazon associate, I earn from qualifying purchases):
"[Advertisers] are increasingly interested in the context of their ads in the medium—the surrounding articles in newspapers and magazines and the type of broadcast program in which their commercials are inserted. An ad for a sable fur coat next to an article on world starvation is not the most effective association for making a sale.
. . . [Large advertisers] do not merely buy a certain number of commercials, deliver the tapes to the networks and local stations, and let the commercials fall where they may. Some television and radio ads are bought on that basis but not, usually, those of major advertisers. Big advertisers in particular . . . want to know the nature of the program into which their commercials will be inserted.
. . . no network produces a program without considering whether sponsors will like it. Prospective shows usually are discussed with major advertisers, who look at plans or tentative scenes and reject, approve, or suggest changes."
p. 230–231; 237–238. The New Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian. 2004.
And this input from advertisers is more than just the occasional gentle recommendation; they sometimes provide very clear, almost comically-specific guidelines about what type of content is and is not acceptable to them—and assuming that media outlets want their advertising money, this forces them to morph their content into conformity with what their corporate advertisers want. Bagdikian continues:
"The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) held hearings in 1965 to determine how much influence advertisers had on noncommercial content of television and radio. Albert N. Halverstadt, general advertising manager of Procter & Gamble, testified that the company established directives for programs in which Procter & Gamble would advertise . . . He then gave the FCC the formal requirements for television programs, as established by the medium's largest advertiser in their memorandums of instruction to their advertising agency:
'. . . in dealing with war, our writers should minimize the "horror" aspects. The writers should be guided by the fact that any scene that contributes negatively to public morale is not acceptable. Men in uniform should not be cast as heavy villains or portrayed as engaging in any criminal activity.
. . . There will be no material on any of our programs which could in any way further the concept of business as cold, ruthless, and lacking all sentiment or spiritual motivation. If a businessman is cast in the role of a villain, it must be made clear that he is not typical but is as much despised by his fellow businessmen as he is by other members of society.'"
p. 238–239. The New Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian. 2004.
I actually know someone in the film industry and he tells me that due to the pressure of corporate advertisers, they've decided to re-make many famous films and have the main character be much more business- and government-friendly.
So Ace Ventura will now be a casino floor manager.
Donnie Darko is a traveling fluorescent-lightbulb salesman.
The Terminator is a hiring manager at Quiznos.
Harold & Kumar are partners of a Korean investing firm.
James Bond is, of course, a stock-broker.
Spiderman does pest-management consulting.
John Wick sells candles on Shopify.
Napoleon Dynamite designs cluster-bombs for Haliburton.
And Max Payne is a CIA torture specialist...
If it turns out that an article or piece of programming is not to their liking and the paper or station decides to air it anyway, advertisers can simply pull their funding from the offending outlets and send a clear message that content of this sort will lose these media companies money. So this advertising money is both a bargaining chip and a bludgeon that's used to craft content in the media that corporate advertisers are happy with.
Noam Chomsky & Edward Herman, in their classic book Manufacturing Consent, provide one example of many where advertisers flex their muscle in response to content they don't like:
". . . many firms will always refuse to patronize ideological enemies and those whom they perceive as damaging their interests . . . Public-television station WNET lost its corporate funding from Gulf + Western in 1985 after the station showed the documentary 'Hungry for Profit,' which contains material critical of multinational corporate activities in the Third World.
Even before the program was shown, in anticipation of negative corporate reaction, station officials 'did all we could to get the program sanitized' (according to one station source.) The chief executive of Gulf + Western complained to the station that the program was 'virulently anti-business if not anti-American,' and that the station's carrying the program was not the behavior 'of a friend' of the corporation. The London Economist says that 'Most people believe that WNET would not make the same mistake again.'"
p. 16–17. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman. 1988, 2002.
Chomsky & Herman provide another example where, in this case, a proposed documentary series at NBC critical of corporations never ended up airing because they couldn't find any sponsors for it!
". . . Large corporate advertisers on television will rarely sponsor programs that engage in serious criticisms of corporate activities, such as the problem of environmental degradation, the workings of the military-industrial complex, or corporate support of and benefits from Third World tyrannies.
Erik Barnouw recounts the history of a proposed documentary series on environmental problems by NBC at a time of great interest in these issues. Barnouw notes that although at that time a great many large companies were spending money on commercials and other publicity regarding environmental problems, the documentary series failed for want of sponsors. The problem was one of excessive objectivity in the series, which included suggestions of corporate or systemic failure, whereas the corporate message 'was one of reassurance.'
Television networks learn over time that such programs will not sell and would have to be carried at a financial sacrifice, and that, in addition, they may offend powerful advertisers. With the rise in the price of advertising spots, the foregone revenue increases . . ."
p. 16–17. Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky & Edward S. Herman. 1988, 2002.
Advertisers will sometimes go so far as to threaten to pull their ads from media companies that didn't even publish the offending content, but are merely linked to the publisher by a parent company. Bagdikian gives two examples of this:
"[In 1938 Esquire] had started Ken, a magazine of liberal idealism that seemed to start with great promise. Advertisers disliked the liberal ideas in its articles and not only refused to advertise in the new publication but threatened to pull out their ads from Esquire as well. So the owners of Esquire killed Ken, even though it met its circulation plans.
. . . In 1976 the New York Times published a series of articles on medical malpractice. The news series angered the medical industry, including pharmaceutical firms. They could not retaliate effectively against the New York Times, which does not carry much medical advertising. But medicine-related advertisers were crucial to magazines published by the New York Times Company, including a periodical called Modern Medicine. Pharmaceutical firms threatened to withdraw 260 pages of their ads from Modern Medicine, a loss of half a million dollars, and the Times Company sold its medical magazines to Harcourt Brace Jovanovich."
p. 244–245. The New Media Monopoly by Ben H. Bagdikian. 2004.
"Oh, a company that's merely associated with you published something we don't like? You're all goin' down in flames!"
This practice is the business-world equivalent of when a movie villain says: "Look, if you double-cross me, your family members are dead!"
(By the way, these two books I just cited—Manufacturing Consent and The New Media Monopoly—are absolute must-reads on the subject of media propaganda.)
—
As we saw in my previous video exploring media propaganda during Democratic debates, the corporate media has a very clear and quantifiable bias against Medicare-For-All, to take just one example of their bias. Why would it turn out this way, you might ask? It's not like CNN or ABC are in the health insurance business, so what do they have to lose from covering Medicare-For-All positively or even just neutrally? What they have to lose is millions of dollars from the health insurance industry.
Anthem, the insurance provider, spent over $300 million on advertising and marketing in 2015. If CNN started slamming private insurance companies each night, do you think these companies would continue to patronize that network with their ad revenue? Why would they!? They'd be shooting themselves in the foot! They'd basically be funding a campaign to make their companies look bad and undermine public support for the current system, under which they're flourishing.
And the thing about a government program like Medicare-For-All is that there's no comparable industry on the other side with a huge advertising budget to balance this out and threaten to pull their funding if they get covered negatively. While there are some organizations that do advertise in support of single-payer, their pockets aren't nearly as deep as those of the insurance industry. This means that one side of the debate has a much larger influence over the final media product that we read and listen to—and the bias that we end up seeing on this is subject is exactly what you'd expect if one side of the argument was a much more profligate advertiser.
All you have to do is follow the money and it becomes very clear why certain biases exist in the mainstream media. The health-insurance industry is just one example of this, but really the same principle applies to any of their major advertisers. Take defense contractors as another example. Here we have an industry that isn't even selling a product that the people watching and reading at home can purchase—yet they still spend millions advertising in the media.

I can only speak for myself here, but whenever I see a commercial for Lockheed Martin or Boeing showing off some of their latest fighter jets, for example, I'm never tempted to head down to the nearest aircraft hangar and spend $90 million to buy one of them. Nobody sees a commercial like this and thinks, "You know what? I was so struck by this commercial that I'm gonna call my congressman and let him know that the next military contract should go to Raytheon."
I'm sure these companies do derive some marginal public benefit from airing these commercials, but since they're not even selling anything to the audience, this seems to be a clear case of simply spending this money to curry favor with the media. Spending millions to advertise on your network buys them leverage over the content you produce because it's a revenue source that they can threaten to pull away from you. This makes your network less likely to critique this industry and less likely to oppose the wars that they profit from. As the saying goes, don't bite the hand that feeds you.
And once again, there's no comparable major advertiser on the other side of this debate to balance things out. The "peace" movement simply doesn't have the financial resources that these billion-dollar companies do.
—
So one mechanism that creates media bias is the influence of corporate advertisers. And here's the thing about these media companies: They themselves are driven by profits. It's not just that they're in bed with the corporations; they are the corporations! in a similar vein, the reporters working for these outlets aren't just biased in favor of the wealthy; they are the wealthy. Anderson Cooper, for example, has a yearly salary of $12 million from CNN. This guy's so rich that he pays his gardener to do his muckraking!
As Jonathan Daniels once said, "More people are bribed by their own money than anybody else's." If large, profitable corporations provide your news, it would only be reasonable to expect this news to be biased in favor of large, profitable corporations. Why would they provide consistent coverage that hurts the growth of their business? It'd be like taping a "KICK ME" sign onto your own back.

As Robert McChesney writes in Rich Media, Poor Democracy,
". . . the problem with the corporate media system is not that the people who own and manage the dominant media firms are bad and immoral people. . . . The owners and managers do what they do because it is the most rational conduct to pursue in the market context they face."
p. 29–30. Rich Media, Poor Democracy by Robert W. McChesney. 1999, 2015.
Media companies are also influenced by the pressure that comes from shareholders and investors. Chomsky & Herman explain:
". . . Banks and other institutional investors are also large owners of media stock. In the early 1980s, such institutions held 44 percent of the stock of publicly owned newspapers and 35 percent of the stock of publicly owned broadcasting companies . . . These holdings, individually and collectively, do not convey control, but these large investors can make themselves h

How The Media Propagandizes You With Biased Debate Questions

Anton Dybal — Sun, 23 Feb 2020 02:44:23 +0000

If you pay close attention while watching presidential debates, you'll notice something interesting: It's not just that the corporate media is generally biased against certain candidates, but they also use specific, identifiable techniques to propagandize their viewers and push public opinion in certain directions. In this video, we'll examine the various ways that they do this in the first 9 Democratic debates of the 2020 election. In the process, we'll discover which candidates they do and don't support, and which sides of the issues they're biased in favor of.
—
One technique repeatedly seen is starting out very early in the debate by smearing a candidate or proposal that these media institutions are opposed to. As a general rule, viewership is gonna be high at the start of a debate and will slowly decline the further you get into it. Especially when watching something two hours long, many people are gonna get bored and turn it off to go do something else—probably in the middle of an empty, non-answer from Mayor Pete. I mean fuck, when that guy talks, even the moderators are tempted to go watch something else!
"Mayor Buttigieg, you have 60 seconds—during which I won't be listening to a single that you say."
...He's like: "...Uhh, Mr. Blitzer? If you could put your phone away now, I'm finished answering your question."
By smearing a certain candidate or policy proposal when the largest number of people are watching, you ensure that your propaganda has maximum effectiveness. On top of that, presenting a message at the start of a debate will amplify it even further through something called the primacy effect. As we read on TheDecisionLab.com,
"The primacy effect is the tendency to remember the first piece of information we encounter better than information presented later on."
As Bennett Murdock showed in a 1962 study, words encountered earlier on a list are more likely to be remembered than those in the middle. This effect has since been found in many other contexts more applicable to our daily lives than list memorization. So if your goal was to have certain information stick inside the mind of a viewer, a good technique would be to present that information early on.

Of the 9 Democratic debates I analyzed, 4 of them—after introductions—had their very first questions portray the progressive candidates in a negative light.
"Senator Elizabeth Warren . . . You have many plans -- free college, free child care, government health care, cancellation of student debt, new taxes, new regulations, the breakup of major corporations. But this comes at a time when 71 percent of Americans say the economy is doing well, including 60 percent of Democrats. What do you say to those who worry this kind of significant change could be risky to the economy?"
DEBATE #1A
"We're going to start today with Senator Sanders. . . . You've called for big, new government benefits, like universal health care and free college. In a recent interview, you said you suspected that Americans would be, quote, 'delighted' to pay more taxes for things like that. My question to you is, will taxes go up for the middle class in a Sanders administration? And if so, how do you sell that to voters?"
DEBATE #1B
". . . Senator Sanders, let’s start with you. You support Medicare for all, which would eventually take private health insurance away from more than 150 million Americans, in exchange for government-sponsored health care for everyone. Congressman Delaney just referred to it as bad policy and previously, he has called the idea political suicide, that will just get President Trump re-elected. What do you say to Congressman Delaney?"
DEBATE #2A
Yeah, Bernie, that's exactly what Trump wants; can't you see you're playing right into his "Democrats want you to have healthcare" narrative?
"Vice President Biden, the differences between you and the senators on either side of you tonight strike at the heart of this primary debate. Both senators Warren and Sanders want to replace Obamacare with Medicare for All. You want to build on Obamacare, not scrap it. They propose spending far more than you to combat climate change and tackle student loan debt. And they would raise more in taxes than you to pay for their programs. Are senators Warren and Sanders pushing too far beyond where Democrats want to go and where the country needs to go?"
DEBATE #3
In two additional debates, there were no opening statements, with the opening discussions being about impeachment—a complete waste of time, I would argue, because all candidates were basically in agreement on that and it just gave them an easy opportunity to condemn Trump and grandstand. Call me crazy but I think presidential debates should be about illuminating differences—not taking turns vehemently agreeing with each other!
"Excuse me?!? Am I gonna have an opportunity to agree with my 7 other colleagues here!?"
"Of course, sir, we were just about to turn to you actually. Please say the exact same things that everyone else just did."
After moving past impeachment and getting to what I consider the "meat" of these two debates, the moderators quickly turned once again to smearing progressives:
"Senator Warren . . . you've proposed some sweeping plans, free public college, free universal childcare, eliminating most Americans' college debt. And you've said how you're going to pay for those plans. But you have not specified how you're going to pay for the most expensive plan, Medicare for all. Will you raise taxes on the middle class to pay for it, yes or no?"
DEBATE #4
"Senator Warren, you are running on Medicare for all. Democrats have been winning elections even in red states with a very different message on health care: protecting Obamacare. Democrats are divided on this issue. What do you say to voters who are worried that your position on Medicare for all could cost you critical votes in the general election?"
DEBATE #5
The takeaway message being conveyed to viewers in these questions is that progressive policies are bad. Hear enough questions like this and you'll begin to associate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren with higher taxes, political suicide, political extremism, unaffordability, and poor political strategy that'll cause them to lose to Donald Trump—irrespective of what the facts are on these questions.
I should also note that in one of these 9 debates, neither Bernie nor Warren were on stage because they split the candidates into two groups. So of the debates that they were involved in, 4 of the 8, or 50%, of opening questions portrayed them negatively—at exactly the moment when such disparagement would have maximum effectiveness due to viewership levels and the primacy effect. And in two additional debates, the conversation was quickly framed in the same antagonistic way against progressives.
Considering that these debates had anywhere from 6 to 12 candidates on stage—with most of them being more centrist-leaning—this consistent pattern of putting the progressive ideas on the defensive during these key beginning moments, I think, isn't just coincidence, but instead indicates a corporate media bias against these viewpoints.
—
Something else you'll notice is that oftentimes, the moderators don't overtly make the claim that a certain proposal is a bad idea that'll have negative effects—they just strongly imply that from the wording of their question:
"What do you say to those who worry this kind of significant change could be risky to the economy?"
They're not making the assertion outright; they're just interrogatively dangling it right in front of your face. They're not making the claim; they're just planting it in your head, in question-form, for you to remember and repeat the next time you talk about the subject.
Another technique they use is absolving themselves of responsibility for presenting an idea by saying things like: "Voters say...", "Many are concerned...", "Your opponent has said..."
This was also done in that previous question: "What do you say to those who worry this kind of significant change could be risky to the economy?"
And then after a barrage of such questions, you call them out for being smear merchants, and they're like: "Whoah! Slow down! I'm not the one saying it could be risky to the economy; I'm simply saying, what's your response to those who do say that!"
Here's another example from one of those opening questions:
"What do you say to voters who are worried that your position on Medicare for all could cost you critical votes in the general election?"
What they're doing here is using other, unnamed, anonymous people as the vessel for their propaganda. It's the simplest technique in the world: All you have to do is take a smear against a position, tack the words "some voters say" on the front of it, pose it in the form of a question, and voila!, you're now prepared to be a corporate-media debate moderator.

"Wolf Blitzer, some voters say that you're a filthy pedophile. Your response? Whoah! Relax, buddy! I'm not saying you're a filthy pedophile; I'm simply asking for your response to the voters who do say that!"
Phrasing questions in this way gives them just enough distance from the smear that they can wash their hands of it and wriggle out of any accusations that they're responsible for the content of the question: "Hey, don't look at me, mister! I'm just a humble journalist dispassionately reporting the concerns of my fellow Americans!"
Keep something crucial in mind, however: They are the ones that are choosing what to underscore. Nobody put a gun to their head and forced them to tell us that John Delaney called Medicare-For-All "political suicide"; they chose to provide that information in their question. So even if other people are the ones saying that thing, they're the ones that made the decision to present it to us as a relevant piece of information worth sharing. Don't let this tactic fool you: the amorphous group known as "some voters" is not the source of these smears against progressives; the moderators asking the questions are.
—
Another technique they'll use is what I call a "continue-the-smear" question. This is where they present a candidate with a question that makes their political opponents look bad, and they basically hand it over to them to further expound upon. They lay the groundwork for a smear and they're like: "Take it from here, bud."

That opening question to Joe Biden we saw earlier was a good example of that:
"Both senators Warren and Sanders want to replace Obamacare with Medicare for All. You want to build on Obamacare, not scrap it. They propose spending far more than you to combat climate change and tackle student loan debt. And they would raise more in taxes than you to pay for their programs. Are senators Warren and Sanders pushing too far beyond where Democrats want to go and where the country needs to go?"
DEBATE #3
Notice that every opening question Bernie and Warren received was a challenge against their viewpoints. They were put on the defensive. They were forced to explain why a critique of their plans is not valid.
By contrast, the opening question Joe Biden received was not a challenge against his platform. They didn't underline any flaws in his proposals and put him in a defensive stance. Instead, they basically asked: "Aren't Bernie and Warren terrible? Please explain."
When it comes to Bernie and Warren, the debate moderators block the hallway and force them to muscle their way past. When it comes to Joe Biden, they're like: "Right this way, sir."
—
Now let's be clear, here: I'm not saying questions of this format are off-limits or unacceptable; it's the inequitable treatment of different candidates based on political ideology that's the problem here.
I don't think it's good enough to just cherrypick a few examples, however, so I gathered every single instance of a "continue-the-smear" question in all 9 debates and classified them by who the question was given to and who the recipient of the smear was. Yes, that took a lot of work, and no, I don't get out much.
There is a political bias we all need to be aware of, however, where when your preferred candidate is critiqued, you tend to think of it as a smear and you tend to think that the media's against them—but then when a candidate you're opposed to is critiqued, you're like: "Yeah, that's a totally fair criticism." That is not what I'm doing here. I realize "smear" is a loaded term that might make it seem that way, but "continue-the-smear" is simply the label I came up with for this question type.
When gathering up such questions, my criteria wasn't whether or not I thought the critique was valid, or whether I liked the candidate being critiqued; the criteria was purely based on the question format, where I considered it a "continue-the-smear" question if a candidate is framed negatively in the question and they hand it off to another candidate to further elaborate on that critique. It's not a perfectly objective analysis, but it's as close to objective as I could provide.
So let's begin by looking at which candidates received a continue-the-smear question against their opponents to answer. In total, across 9 debates, 27 such questions were asked. 6 were given to Joe Biden, 5 to Pete Buttigieg 3 to Amy Klobuchar, 3 to Michael Bennet, 2 to Kamala Harris, 2 to Tim Ryan, 2 to Kirsten Gillibrand, 1 to Cory Booker, 1 to Julian Castro, 1 to John Hickenlooper, and 1 to Elizabeth Warren. Conspicuously missing from this list is Bernie Sanders; in 9 debates, he wasn't given a single question that teed up a critique against his opponents to easily expound upon.
What could possibly explain this aside from bias? Are his opponents just so blemish-free that they simply couldn't think of any critiques of them?
"Come on, people, we've been here for 14 hours and not one of you can think of anything negative to say about Klobuchar?"
"I'm sorry, Mrs. Maddow, it's just that she's the perfect candidate... for my health insurance–heavy stock portfolio, that is!"
You can also break it down by asking: What percent of the total questions asked a candidate were "continue-the-smear" questions? Bennet 21%, Gillibrand 18%, Ryan 15%, Hickenlooper 8%, Pete 6%, Biden 6%, Klobuchar 5%, Kamala 4%, Castro 3%, Booker 2%, Warren 1% and Bernie 0%. So whether you're looking at raw totals or the percentages of such questions, it's clear that the centrist candidates received favorable treatment by the media.
Another way to look at this is to ask, who was the target of these continue-the-smear questions? 27 such questions were asked total, and of these, 18 were directed against Bernie Sanders—or 67% of them! In 14 of them he was directly targeted, and in 4, it was strongly implied that he was the target. Elizabeth Warren, the other main progressive candidate, was the target of 13 of these questions, 9 times directly, 4 times implied. In other words, 48% of continue-the-smear questions asked in these debates were directed at her.
(There was some overlap here because some questions had more than one target, when they would ask something like: "Do Bernie & Warren owe voters an explanation of how they'd pay for Medicare-For-All?")
Only 1 continue-the-smear question was directed at Amy Klobuchar, as was only 1 at Biden, 1 at Kamala, 1 at de Blasio, 1 at Beto, and 1 at Mayor Pete.
What I would like to know is: What do these centrist candidates have to say about the obvious, preferential treatment they receive in these debates? I tried reaching out to the Pete Buttigieg campaign and heard absolutely nothing back from them. To be fair, though, I'm told that cell reception is terrible inside of wine caves.
18 continue-the-smear questions were directed against Bernie Sanders—yet he wasn't given a single question of this format directed against his opponents during any of the 9 debates! 13 such questions were directed against Warren, yet she was asked only one continue-the-smear question in all 9 debates—and it was directed against Bernie Sanders! Such a discrepancy is inexcusable and, again, indicates a clear bias against progressives. You might be happy to hear that there were a lot of firings after these debates—of confetti guns in the CNN boardroom.

Anton Dybal — Tue, 21 Jan 2020 02:39:20 +0000

You'll sometimes hear it argued that we can't trust the science behind global warming because climate scientists lie for grant money:

"Science is supported by grants. Climate Scientists don't get more $ through grants to pay salaries if they admit its all a lie."
"AW did the low IQ liberal hippie get butt hurt hearing the truth? There's NO 'proof' for Climate Change other than the lies made up by greedy scientists looking for more grant money."

Here I'll explain the many flaws in this argument so that my fellow butt-hurt, low IQ liberal hippies can better refute it when they encounter it.
—
The first thing to note is that becoming a climate scientist isn't exactly a get-rich-quick scheme. According to ZipRecruiter.com, the average national salary of a climate scientist is $64,000 a year. Compare that against petroleum engineers, who average $128,000 a year—twice as much as climate scientists, presumably to compensate for the selling of your soul. Seriously, when do you ever see the reverse of this, where a person's like: "Ya know, I would love to pursue my passion working for the Shell Oil Company, but Conservation International made me an offer that I just can't refuse!"
No, if the only thing a person cared about was making money, they'd be much more likely to get a job in the oil industry than pursue a career in climate science. Now perhaps you'd argue petroleum engineers vs climatologists isn't a fair comparison because engineers generally make more money due to the highly technical and specialized work they do? Well let's compare petroleum engineers against engineers who work in the renewable energy field.
Solar engineers make an average of $107,000 a year. Biomass engineers, $97,000 a year. Hydroelectric engineers, $93,000; geothermal engineers, $79,000; and wind turbine engineers, $75,000 a year. So no matter how you slice it, working in the climate science or renewable energy field is simply much less lucrative than working for oil companies.

And not only is the average salary of climate scientists low, but if you look at their distribution of incomes, this argument becomes downright laughable. 33% of climate scientists make between $18,500 and $30,000 a year. $18,000 a year? Talk about riding the federal government gravy train! They're like: "No, you don't get it: We're literally so poor that we have to travel on a train that also transports gravy."
Of all the different income levels, a climate scientist is—by far—most likely to be in this lowest tier. The second highest tier is $53,000 to $64,000—and only 12% of them fall into this category. Why would a person seeking an easy, dishonest payday pursue a career where the most common salary is less than $30,000? It makes absolutely no sense. It'd be like a pair of burglars scoping out a bunch of homes and then robbing the one with the smallest television set.
Let me try to explain just how little climate scientists make. You know how lottery winners get those giant, custom-made checks? Climate scientists get custom-made miniature checks. When they see homeless people, they ask them to spare some change. Instead of a safe, they put their money in an unsafe. Their retirement fund is a 4.1k.
...Also keep in mind we're talking about grant money here. If my goal was to make a quick buck, I wouldn't spend my time tediously filling out a bunch of grant proposals! They point out on The Balance Small Business that:

"Grants are not a quick funding solution. It can take over a year to receive one. Funders take quite a long time to make decisions about substantial grants."

So rather than climate science being a get-rich-quick scheme, it's more like a scheme to slowly not get rich.
—
Also think about what it is that some of these climate scientists actually do in the field. Who, in their right mind, would lie to get grant money that allows them to travel to the South Pole and study ice cores in -50 degree weather? If they were liars wouldn't they all be like: "Yeah, we really need to go study some shit in Cancun—preferably in one of their finest 5-star resorts. That's where I do my best work."

We also need to make a distinction between the amount of grant of money received, and the amount that scientists actually pocket. I see tons of misleading innuendo that highlights eye-popping dollar amounts while making no effort to explain or understand where that money goes. For example, in a National Review article titled "Global Warming: Follow The Money," Henry Payne writes the following:

"[Michael] Mann is typical of pro-warming scientists who have taken millions from government agencies. . . . [he's] received some $6 million, mostly in government grants — according to a study by The American Spectator."

What they don't tell you is that almost all of this grant money gets spent doing the actual research; it's not like Michael Mann just took that $6 million and transferred it to a Swiss bank account or something!
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe breaks down the many different areas that this grant money goes to:

". . . the biggest grant I was ever awarded was the stunning amount of $1.1M USD. Stunning, that is, until we break it down. I wrote the grant with 4 co-principal investigators from different universities. So we divided up the money about equally, giving each of us around $220,000. Still a nice amount. The grant was for 4 years, which meant I had $55,500 to spend each year. Still nice, right?
Then the university takes 1/3 of that for 'facilities & administration' costs. F&A doesn't cover the luxuries — my office has no window, I bought all my own furniture and computer — but it does give us internet, electricity, and an infernal amount of paperwork. That leaves $37,000 for me to spend each year.
With that money, I pay a graduate student the princely salary of about $25,000; I pay the university their tuition, which is around $10,000; and that leaves $2,000 left over each year. Year one, I buy the student a computer; year two, I pay for them to attend a scientific conference; and years 3 and 4, I pay for us to publish one scientific paper because yes, those cost about $2,000 as well. . . . That's how a scientist spends $1.1M! "

The takeaway here is that grant money gets allocated for specific research purposes; very little of it actually gets pocketed by climate scientists. The reality of scientific research just doesn't match up with the dark picture deniers paint for us. I would love to hear them explain how, exactly, they think grant proposals work:
"Dear Environmental Protection Agency,
I, climate scientist Michael Mann, would like $6 million to lie about climate change. With this money, I plan to purchase a new Lamborghini, install a hot-tub on my roof, and also hit a few titty bars while I'm at it."
And what would be the mechanism that gets these grant-dispensing organizations to part with their money under the guise of combating a non-existent problem? They're giving their money away in grants, after all, so how do they benefit financially? "Gotta spend money to make money?" Is that the mindset? "Sure, we spend money on research, but through the alarmism that results from it, we get a return on investment in the form of more donations, tax dollars, and so forth"?
If there really is such a massive campaign of deceit, where universities and government agencies and NGOs and thousands of climate scientists are knowingly complicit in fraud, wouldn't at least some small percent of them not be OK with this and blow the whistle? By blow the whistle, I don't just mean disagree with the consensus view on climate; I mean say: "Yeah, I worked for this organization, and people there knowingly lied and fabricated data for the explicit purpose of making more money."
How could such an enormous conspiracy take place all across the world involving tens of thousands of people, with everything working like a well-oiled machine in total secrecy? It could be the case that this gigantic, worldwide, interdisciplinary, cross-organizational campaign of scientific fraud and public misinformation is going on. It could also be the case that you're just wrong about the science and don't like that fact. Which explanation is more reasonable and involves fewer absurd assumptions?
—
Let's look closer at this argument to expose even more of its flaws. I came across an article on WattsUpWithThat.com by Paul Rossiter titled: "Understanding the Climate Movement . . . Follow the Money." He begins by writing the following:

"I now turn to the main engine driving the climate movement from day to day: the money. I became quite despondent while putting this together as I started to understand the huge, eye-watering amount of money that is dependent upon the unproven notion that atmospheric CO2 arising from the use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming/climate change/pestilence and doom.
Some headline numbers: the capitalisation of the renewable energy industry is over $1 trillion; the funding of the NGOs being used as alarmist publicity and lobbying agencies exceeds $2 billion; and the amount of government research funding committed to the issue exceeds $1 billion. Good luck expecting that the resolution of some matter of scientific importance will cause these agencies to admit that their business is based upon a lie and that they will go away quietly, or at least scale back to a size more commensurate with the real market needs."

Just as a matter of basic logic, this argument fails: the fact that a large amount of money is spent addressing a problem isn't proof that the problem doesn't exist or is exaggerated. Global warming, as the name suggests, is a global problem; are we expected to solve it by spending $5 or something?
I mean yes, if you wanna be super technical, you can say that money drives the climate movement in the same way that money drives basically anything else—because we live on an economic planet! We're not gonna solve it with shells or glass beads; we're gonna have to throw some fucking money at it!
You could also say that money drives the effort to feed starving people or treat preventable disease. The mere fact that money is involved proves nothing and just doesn't make for a very interesting analysis.
Now you might say: "Hang on, it's not just that money is involved; it's that the money provides an incentive to reach a certain conclusion!" This is really the crux of their argument. As Rossiter puts it:

"There are a number of research agencies funded by governments . . . Many of these have programs investigating the effect of climate change on the environment but all (as far as I can ascertain) accept the mantra of an anthropogenic cause of the change, usually based upon IPCC reports, and this pre-determines their projections into the future. . . . I am highlighting their inherent conflict of interest: they depend upon government funding and so there is an imperative to provide a scientific opinion that is commensurate with government policy."

Yeah, nothing makes me sicker than someone selling out to Big Environment.
Rossiter is correct when he says that most of these organizations accept anthropogenic climate change, but we need to ask ourselves why they accept that? Maybe the reason there's such an overwhelming consensus is because they're actually onto something here? Simply put, manmade global warming is what all the evidence points to! Multiple independent lines of evidence show that the planet is warming: land temperatures, ocean temperatures, sea-level rise, as well as the melting of glaciers and Arctic ice.

On top of that, we know that humans are the cause of this because fossil fuel emissions have a unique molecular signature that we can measure in the atmosphere—namely, their C13 ratio—and this is proof that nothing other than fossil fuels are the source of rising CO2 levels! Plus when you examine the other potential explanations like Milankovitch cycles, volcanoes, or increased solar output, you find that these simply don't match up with the observed warming (as I showed in detail when debunking the claim that "Humans Are NOT Causing Global Warming." Check that video out, and also check out my full global warming playlist while you're at it.)

The e

Dem Debate: Debunking Anti-Bernie Arguments ("Sexist", Medicare-For-All) & More!

Anton Dybal — Thu, 16 Jan 2020 04:33:24 +0000

Bernie Sanders is a sexist—or so we were led to believe during the most recent Democratic debate. We'll examine that claim in this video, and in addition, we'll debunk some anti–Medicare-For-All talking points, look at some of the horribly-framed debate questions, laugh at Pete Buttigieg's consistently evasive answers, and talk about the problematic Authorization For Use Of Military Force. Let's jump right into it.
—
The day before this debate, a stunning "revelation" was made to the world: During a private conversation in 2018, Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren that a woman could not win the presidency. I'm told he then slapped her ass and said "Get daddy a beer, would ya?"
I think the timing of this should really raise some eyebrows: This conversation took place in 2018, yet we only hear it about two weeks before the Iowa caucus? Seems like a pretty calculated attempt to drop his poll numbers to me.
Here's how Bernie responded to these accusations:

Moderator: "Let's now turn to an issue that's come up in the last 48 hours. CNN reported yesterday, and Senator Warren confirmed in a statement, that in 2018, you told her that you did not believe that a woman could win the election. Why did you say that?"
Bernie Sanders: "Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it. And I don't wanna waste a whole lotta time on this because this is what Donald Trump, and maybe some in the media, want. Anybody who knows me knows that it's incomprehensible that I would think that a woman could not be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today, there's some video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States.
In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. There was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president, and you know what, I said, stay back! Senator Warren decided not to run, and I did. I did run afterwards. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States?
And let me be very clear? If any of the women on this stage, or any of the men on this stage, win the nomination—I hope that's not the case, I hope it's not me—but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country."

I thought that was a really strong answer, but you can never win 100% when you're responding to a smear like this; the fact that you're even forced to respond to it makes you look bad: "No, no, let me explain why I'm not a filthy sexist!"
The parody news account MSDNC posted a Tweet that said:

"#BREAKING: Elizabeth Warren changes campaign slogan to 'Big Structural Smears' in bid to re-launch her failing campaign."

Well, if the trending on Twitter of #RefundWarren was any indication, it looks like it backfired.
David Pakman made a good point about this:

"If it's Bernie's opinion that, BECAUSE OF SEXISM, a woman couldn't win in 2020, that's not sexist. ([He] could simply be wrong)"

Even assuming that Bernie did say this, pointing out that there is a lot of sexism in this country that makes it harder for women to get elected isn't an endorsement of that sexism; it's a criticism of it!
I also think the media must be having some kind of collective mass amnesia. They're clearly forgetting the fact that Bernie traveled all over the country trying to get Hillary Clinton elected as President! That doesn't sound to me like the behavior of a sexist pig who doesn't think a woman can win. If that was his belief, wouldn't he have just stayed home instead of doing all those rallies for her? Why are all of these overpaid media pundits smearing Bernie right now not forced to explain this obvious discrepancy for us?

Is there anything in Bernie's voting history or political platform that hints at him being a sexist? You know, it's strange, I was on his campaign website reading the section "Fight For Women's Rights," and I didn't see a single thing on there about the need for women to stay in the kitchen! Clearly that's some kind of mistake.
Please, you can hardly get this guy to shut up about equal pay and abortion rights and contraception; he was at a feminist rally and even they were like "Ok! We get it, Bernie!"

Even his policies that don't directly target women's rights still help women out immensely in this country. How about his support for paid family leave? Or what about something more basic like raising the minimum wage or implementing single-payer healthcare? Should we vote based upon some he-said, she-said bullshit—or should we vote based upon what they'll actually do for the country?
Plain and simple, I think it's a smear campaign and I think these allegations are ridiculous. Let me explain to you how non-sexist Bernie Sanders is: He's such a non-sexist that he watches nothing but women's basketball. He's so non-sexist that when he goes to the strip club, he gives them a lapdance. He's such a non-sexist that he started wearing a bra just so he could take it off and burn it.
—
Every Democratic debate thus far has featured terrible questions from the moderators. Probably the worst example I saw in this debate was when Wolf Blitzer framed pulling our troops out of the Middle East as agreeing with—or perhaps even capitulating to—the Ayatollah Khomeini's demands:

"Senator Sanders, in the wake of the Iran crisis, Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini has again called for all US troops to be pulled out of the Middle East—something you've called for as well . . . "

"Senator Sanders, reports say that you like puppies. Are you aware that Hitler also liked puppies?"
Come on, this is just silly right here. Just because a bad person agrees with a statement doesn't automatically make that statement wrong. This is a pretty gross and transparent attempt at guilt by association. And it's not an accident that he asked this question; questions like this are exactly why Wolf Blitzer is on CNN—and the defense contractors that advertise on his network are probably jumping with joy right now.

Sometimes the relationship between media and military is even more direct than advertising money. Chomsky & Herman explain in Manufacturing Consent:

"The large media companies have also diversified beyond the media field, and non-media companies have established a strong presence in the mass media. The most important cases of the latter are GE, owning RCA, which owns the NBC network, and Westinghouse, which owns major television-broadcasting stations, a cable network, and a radio-station network. GE and Westinghouse are both huge, diversified multinational companies heavily involved in the controversial areas of weapons production and nuclear power."
Source: p. 12, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, by Edward S. Herman & Noam Chomsky. 1988, 2002.

I'm reminded of that famous exchange when Rand Paul said that we should stop selling weapons to Saudia Arabia, and Wolf Blitzer responded by saying: "But Senator, wouldn't that kill jobs in the defense industry?"

Rand Paul: "We have to ask the bigger question, is this making it better or worse? Are the more refugees or less refugees? Is there more chaos or less chaos with Saudi Arabia bombing into Yemen? So yes, it's a debate we ought to have, and no president should unilaterally have this authority without the approval of Congress."
Wolf Blitzer: "So for you, this is a moral, because you know there's a lot of jobs at stake, certainly if a lot of these defense contractors stop selling warplanes, other sophisticated equipment, to Saudi Arabia, there's gonna be a significant loss of jobs and revenue here in the United States. That's secondary from your standpoint?"

"Sure, people not dying is important and all, but what about the poor defense contractors? Who's gonna stand up for them?!"
I don't know, their fuckin' 600 lobbyists, maybe?
By the way, I've always hated the term "defense contractors," because implied in that term is the idea that their weapons are only used defensively. Going overseas to invade country after country, and topple regime after regime, is not national defense; it's national aggression.
—
Wolf, however, does redeem himself later in the debate by asking a pretty solid follow-up question—probably a first in his career:

Wolf: "Vice President Biden, you've criticized President Trump's decision to kill the Iranian general Soleimani without first going to Congress. Are there any circumstances, other than a direct attack on the United States, where you would take military action without Congressional approval?"
Biden: ". . . Only way to take a nation to war is with informed consent of the American people. Informed consent of the American people."
Wolf: ". . . Mr. Vice President, just to be clear, the Obama-Biden administration did not ask Congress for permission multiple times when it took military action. So would the Biden doctrine be different?"
Biden: "There was the Authorization of Use of Military Force that was passed by the United States Congress, House and Senate, and signed by the president. That was the authority. Does not give authority to go into Iran; it gave authority to deal with these other issues."

Look, the AUMF is probably the single worst foreign-policy tool in recent history. It's basically a blank check that allows the president to use the military unilaterally against anybody, anywhere, so long as we slap the label "terrorist" on them.
As Representative Barbara Lee writes for The Nation:

". . . the 2001 AUMF has become a catchall to justify dozens of military operations. From drone strikes in Yemen and Libya to indefinite detentions in Guantánamo Bay and warrantless wiretapping here at home, presidents from both parties have abused this authorization to drag us deeper into wars around the world. . . . According to a 2018 report from the Congressional Research Service, the 2001 AUMF has been used at least 41 times for military action in 18 different countries—and those are only the unclassified instances!"

—
Pete Buttigieg had a brief moment in the sun where he explained what's wrong with the AUMF. There were other times, however, where he just gave complete non-answers to the questions:

Wolf Blitzer: "We're gonna continue talking about who's best prepared to be Commander in Chief, Mayor Buttigieg."
Pete Buttigieg: "Well, I bring a different perspective, There are enlisted people who I served with, barely old enough to remember those votes on the authorization after 9/11, on the war in Iraq, and there are people now, old enough to enlist who were not alive for some of those debates. The next president is going to be confronted with national security challenges different in scope, and in kind, from anything we've seen before: not just conventional military challenges, not just stateless terrorism, but cybersecurity challenges, climate-security challenges, foreign interference in our elections. It's going to take a view to the future, as well as the readiness, to learn from the lessons of the past, and for me, those lessons of the past are personal."

So basically, his actual direct answer to the question of why he's best prepared to be Commander In Chief is him hinting at the fact that he used to be in the military. 59 seconds of fluff and 1 second of substance. Pete's like: "I am so personally affected by this question that I can't even bring myself to answer it!"
I don't know who all of his campaign strategists are that keep telling him it's a great idea to give a bunch of non-answers like this—they're like "Yeah, yeah! Just keep stalling, Pete!"—but I don't think it'll win you votes among anyone who's actually paying attention.
Here's another evasive, non-answer of his from the debate:

Wolf Blitzer: "Senator Warren, leave combat troops—at least some combat troops—in the Middle East, or bring them out? . . . Mayor Buttigieg, you served in Afghanistan. Who's right?"
Pete Buttigieg: "We can continue to remain engaged without having an endless committment of ground troops. But what's going on right now is the president's actually sending more! The very president who said he was gonna end endless war, who pretended to have been against the war in Iraq all along—but we know that's not true—now has more troops going to the Middle East.
And whenever I see that happen, I think about the day we shipped out, and the time that was set aside for saying goodbye to family members. I remember walking with a friend of mine, another lieutenant I trained with, as we walked away, and his 1 and a half year old boy was toddling after him, not understanding why his father wasn't turning back to scoop him up. It took all the strength he had not to turn around and look at his boy one more time. That is happening, by the thousands, right now, as we see so many more troops sent into harms way. And my perspective is to ensure that that will never happen when there is an alternative as commander in Chief."

"We can continue to remain engaged without having an endless committment of ground troops"—could he be any more of a tapdancer? Continue to remain engaged how? What, exactly, would and would that not constitute?
Pete has this really slimy habit of giving these super brief answers to the actual questions where he tries to have it both ways and satisfy all voters, then he quickly moves onto something else before we notice that he didn't really answer the question.
—
Probably my favorite moment of this debate was when the moderators asked: "How are we expected to pay for all of these military expenditures?" I'm joking—they never ask that fucking question. When it comes to Medicare-For-All, however, suddenly the cost becomes their preeminent concern.
Moderator: "Senator Sanders, you've consistently refused to say exactly how much your Medicare-For-All plan is going to cost. Don't voters deserve to see the pricetag before you send them a bill that could cost tens of trillions of dollars?"
And exactly as expected, Klobcuhar, Biden and Buttigieg made the same shit talking points they always make about Medicare-For-All: what about the cost?; isn't the public option so much better?; and so forth. Look, I've already made several videos debunking these anti–M4A talking points in really fine detail—and I'd strongly recommend you check out my Politics playlist to watch these—but I'm just gonna briefly cover the key points here.
If you average the findings of 5 studies on the subject, you find that Medicare-For-All saves $3.3 trillion over 10 years. Look closely at the assumptions made in these studies—regarding drug prices, administrative costs, and reimbursement rates—and you find that they actually underestimate the savings we'd see.
Rather than the cost of Medicare-For-All being in addition to what we currently spend like many imply, it would actually be a more affordable substitute. Healthcare would be funded via tax dollars instead of the premiums, copays and deductibles that are paid to profit-seeking insurance companies whose entire business model is to deny you coverage as much as they can at the highest possible cost.
Medicare-For-All would reverse these backwards incentives by providing as much healthcare as possible at the lowest achievable cost. Not only would per capita healthcare spending drop, but the burden on poor and middle class Americans would be lessened even further through progressive taxation.
A public option, on the other hand, would do almost nothing to change the private insurance status quo. All it would do is provide insurance companies with a dumping ground for sicker, unhealthier people who they pass onto the public plan using a number of different tricks that they've already been shown to use. And despite all the talk about the public option preserving "choice," single-payer healthcare would actually expand our choice where it matters—in terms of doctors, specialists, and facilities—because every one of these, by defini

Is Chiropractic Care Pseudoscience?

Anton Dybal — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 23:05:32 +0000

You probably know people who go to the chiropractor and swear by it. A 2010 study by Matthew Davis et al reports that about 8% of US adults visit a chiropractor each year. Presumably for this many people to be going there, they'd have to derive some benefit from it, right? Well that's the question we'll explore in this video.

What, exactly, do chiropractors do? The Cleveland Clinic explains:

"A licensed chiropractor uses special instruments or their hands to manipulate joints in the body. This process is also called spinal or joint manipulation. It can help reduce pain and correct the body’s alignment and overall physical function."

It sounds straightforward enough, and many different medical websites describe chiropractic care in a very similar, matter-of-fact, neutral manner. When you actually take a close look at its theoretical underpinnings, however, you find that it simply doesn't deserve the respect that it's given. To really understand this point, let's begin by looking at the origins of chiropractic care.
As Stephen Barrett writes on ChiroBase.org,

"Chiropractic theory is rooted in the notions of Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and 'magnetic healer' who postulated that the basic cause of disease was interference with the body's nerve supply. Approximately a hundred years ago, he concluded that 'A subluxated [or misaligned] vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.' He proclaimed that subluxations interfered with the body's expression of 'Innate Intelligence'—the 'Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life' that controlled the healing process. He proposed to remedy the gamut of disease by manipulating or 'adjusting' the problem areas."

This has pseudoscience written all over it. Notice first the viewing of chiropractic care as a virtual cure-all. Anytime somebody presents you with a supplement or dietary intervention or medical treatment that they claim will help with anything you're dealing with, understand that that's the first sign of a snake-oil salesman. Joseph Keating et al point out that such a mindset among chiropractors is alive and well today:

"The breadth of contemporary, uncritical speculations bearing on subluxation is captured in the [1994] boast of a chiropractic leader [Sid E. Williams]: 'Rigor mortis is the only thing we can't help.'"

He's like: "...Actually, maybe we can help with that," and then he breaks into a morgue and starts adjusting the corpses...
Also notice the supernatural language used by Palmer: "innate intelligence, soul, spirit, spark of life"—this is not the kind of language you typically hear from serious, medical professionals!
Chiropractic treatment also has a miraculous origin story, reminiscent of Joseph Smith founding Mormonism. Palmer claimed that he initially received his chiropractic ideas "from the other world," and Simon Singh informs us that "Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years."
I think Palmer was simply confused about what happened here. My guess is that after the visit he sent a letter to the patient explaining what his goal was, and the deaf guy wrote back like: "That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard."
Palmer's like: "I've cured him!"
You also don't have to be an expert to understand the absurdity of claiming that virtually all disease is caused by misalignments within the spine. Many diseases are caused by bacteria or viruses. Some are caused by fungal infections. Others are parisitic in nature. Some are the result of genes being underexpressed, overexpressed, or not at all expressed. Others are caused by poor dietary habits or nutritional deficits. Only by having the most embarrassing ignorance of human illness could a person seriously claim that the root cause of disease is spinal misalignment.

Edzard Ernst explains that:

"Early chiropractic pamphlets hardly mention back pain or neck pain, but assert that, 'chiropractic could address ailments such as insanity, sexual dysfunction, measles and influenza.'"

Really, my influenza is caused by vetrebral misalignments? Do I need my spine adjusted, or do you need your head examined?
J.D. Haines points out, for Skeptic magazine, that the core, underlying belief of chiropractors has been experimentally rejected:

"Chiropractic philosophy maintains that disease or abnormal function is caused by interference with nerve transmission due to pressure, strain, or tension upon the spinal nerves due to deviation or subluxation within the vertebral column.
In the first experimental study of the basis of chiropractic's subluxation theory, Dr. Edmund S. Crelin, then an anatomy professor at Yale University, demonstrated that chiropractic theory was erroneous . . . 'Using dissected spines with ligaments attached and the spinal nerves exposed, he used a drill press to bend and twist the spine. Using an ohm meter to record any contact between wired spinal nerves and the foraminal openings, he found that vertebrae could not be displaced enough to stretch or impinge a spinal nerve unless the force was great enough to break the spine. Crelin concluded, "This experimental study demonstrates conclusively that the subluxation of a vertebrae as defined by chiropractic — the exertion of pressure on a spinal nerve which by interfering with the planned expression of Innate Intelligence produces pathology — does not occur."'"

Perhaps we could forgive Palmer given that he formulated these ideas over a hundred years ago, but the sad reality is that many chiropractors today continue to believe this obvious nonsense. Modern chiropractors can be divided into two main camps: "straights" and "mixers".
Ersnt explains as follows in a paper of his:

"The 'straights' religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer's notions of the 'innate intelligence' and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease. They do not mix any nonchiropractic techniques into their therapeutic repertoire, dismiss physical examination (beyond searching for subluxations) and think medical diagnosis is irrelevant for chiropractic.
The 'mixers' are somewhat more open to science and conventional medicine, use treatments other than spinal manipulation, and tend to see chiropractors as back pain specialists. Father and son Palmer warned that the 'mixers' were 'polluting and diluting the sacred teachings' of chiropractic. Many chiropractors agreed that the mixers were 'bringing discredit to the chiropractic.' The 'straights' are now in the minority but nevertheless exert an important influence."

What percent of chiropractors still hold to these original teachings? The stats I could find on this question are very alarming. Keating et al report the following:

". . . a 1994 sample of Canadian chiropractors was intriguing . . . 68% agreed with the notion that 'most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment.'"

Although the statistic is about 25 years old, let's not beat around the bush here: If you visit a chiropractor, there's a good chance you're talking to a flat-out ignoramus. Also noteworthy is the high rate of vaccine denialism among chiropractors. As Ernst continues:

"A U.S. survey was aimed at identifying chiropractors' attitudes toward immunization. A random sample (1%) of all U.S. chiropractors was provided with a choice of policy statements. One-third of the sample agreed with the statements that there is no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease, that it causes more disease than it prevents, and that contracting an infectious disease is safer than immunization."

Look on the bright side, though: If you take your chiropractor's advice and you end up with measles, at least he claims that he can cure you of it.
—
Now let's be clear: I'm not saying we should go around calling people morons for going to the chiropractor. We should call them “retards” instead; it's a much more insulting term.
No, plenty of people do go to the chiropractor and they claim to feel much better afterwards. You can even watch videos on YouTube of people receiving chiropractic adjustments and telling us that it really improved their symptoms. Look, if you feel that it's helpful, I'm not gonna try to physically restrain you from going there.
But, I would encourage you to consider a few things. One is the possibility that the relief you feel is coming from the placebo effect. It's well established that if you give people sugar pills or sham treatments of one kind or another, many of them will report an improvement in their condition in large part because they expect the treatment to have an effect. If you're going into your chiropractic visit expecting to receive legitimate medical care and expecting to feel better afterwards, for some percent of us, this belief alone could be what's making you feel better.
And it's not necessarily just the belief that's doing this; the act of sitting down with a chiropractor and talking about your health problems with a person who genuinely cares about your well-being could also help make you feel better. On top of that, chiropractors take a notoriously hands-on approach, and it's well known that such physical contact triggers the release of various hormones that could also make you feel better.

And they're not just touching you but they're cracking your spine in all kinds of different ways; the unusual sensations you'd feel as a result of this are gonna add an additional element of excitement and pain-reducing adrenaline to the procedure.
Also consider that if you go there for some sort of pain you're experiencing and report feeling better the next day, maybe the pain would've went away on its own regardless of the treatment you received? Did the chiropractor help to alleviate the pain, or is this a regression to the mean that you're mistakenly giving him credit for? The presence of these many confounding variables is why personal anecdotes alone aren't good enough and why clinical trials are needed to determine what's actually causing the reported improvement.
—
What about the YouTube videos of chiropractic care? The first thing you'll notice is that there are a LOT of these, and millions of people watch these videos.

"Spinal subluxation gets DESTROYED by chiropractor," 2.6 million views.
"Back pain REKT compliation #19," 20 trillion views!
Then I post a super-detailed video thoroughly explaining why this is bullshit and like 800 people watch it. You know what? Fuck this shit! I'm just gonna start posting chiropractor videos instead!
"...Alright, Mr. Daniels, let's go ahead and adjust that neck here. Oops! I fuckin' killed him..."
Regarding the many videos of people being adjusted, filming the procedure only adds further confounding layers on top of everything else I mentioned. Here's just one example of many where we get real-time feedback on how the patient feels afterwards:

Chiropractor: "How do you feel?"
Patient: "Yeah, I don't feel the tension right here."
Chiropractor: "You don't feel the tension? So a little bit different than before, when you first came in?"
Patient: "Yeah!"
Chiropractor: "Good! Good!"

Video testimonies like this are just not at all convincing to me. On top of the other factors mentioned, the act of being filmed itself is going to spike a lot of people's adrenaline because many of us are nervous on camera—especially when the YouTube channel you're gonna be on has over a million subscribers like this one.
Plus there's a strong social pressure here to sort of go along with what's expected. A normal, polite person wouldn't want to hurt this very nice chiropractor's feelings by saying: "No, I don't feel any difference whatsoever. This didn't help me one bit and this was a complete waste of my time!" Then there's the added pressure to give the audience what they want by assenting to these leading questions, the expected and hoped-for answers to which are very obvious.
Even if you did have the rare person who flatly said, on camera: "this did nothing for me," it's their YouTube channel, so they could simply decide not to upload such a video! If an online seller on Amazon, for example, could personally decide which reviews to approve, my guess is they would only make public the four- or five-star reviews so as to make their product look better!
And let's say the patient genuinely did feel better immediately after the procedure. It's quite possible that the effects would be very short-lived, and once he drives home and the excitement wears off, he might feel exactly how he did beforehand.
—
So since personal anecdotes aren't reliable, let's then turn now to the scientific studies on the question. There's actually been a lot of research done on chiropractic care, so we're gonna do our best to reach an overall conclusion on the question by looking at systematic reviews of systematic reviews.
In a 2005 publication, Ersnt & Canter write the following:

"Literature searches were carried out in four electronic databases for all systematic reviews of the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in any indication, published between 2000 and May 2005. . . . Sixteen papers were included relating to the following conditions: back pain (n=3), neck pain (n=2), lower back pain and neck pain (n=1), headache (n=3), non-spinal pain (n=1), primary and secondary dysmenorrhoea [or in other words menstrual cramps -- you don't even wanna know what tertiary dysmenorrhoea is!] (n=1), infantile colic (n=1), asthma (n=1), allergy (n=1), cervicogenic dizziness (n=1), and any medical problem (n=1).
The conclusions of these reviews were largely negative, except for back pain where spinal manipulation was considered superior to sham manipulation but not better than conventional treatments. . . . Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment."

In 2011, they published an updated version which included additional reviews done since their first paper:

"Electronic literature searches were conducted to identify all systematic reviews of SM for any indication published between May 2005 and January 2011. . . . Forty-five SRs met the . . . inclusion criteria. . . .
The conclusions drawn from most SRs were frequently cautious or negative. For instance, for low back pain three SRs arrived at positive conclusions, one arrived at equivocal conclusions and three arrived at negative conclusions. For asthma three SRs arrived at negative conclusions and one arrived at equivocal conclusions. For headaches two reached positive conclusions whereas three reached negative conclusions. . . . Thus there was an undeniable degree of contradiction between these SRs.
Twenty nine SRs have been published since our previous assessment. Nine of those SRs suggested that SM is effective and twenty failed to do so. Therefore, most of these SRs failed to produce convincing evidence to suggest that SM is of therapeutic value."

In their first paper, they also point out that the positive conclusions reached in many of these reviews could very well be the result of researcher bias:

"It is perhaps relevant to note that all three of the overtly positive

Is CBD Oil Just Snake Oil? | Pt 1: Anxiety

Anton Dybal — Wed, 25 Dec 2019 22:07:14 +0000

Thumbnail photo: STAPAW/PxHere

CBD is one of those supplements that is taking the world by storm. The list of alleged benefits that it provides and conditions that it treats is long and seemingly growing by the day. We're told that it helps to treat anxiety, depression, migraines, cancer; I would not be surprised to hear people claim that CBD makes your penis grow bigger!
"What if my penis is too big and I want to shrink it?"
"Perfect! CBD will do that, as well."
No, obviously people don't claim that CBD is that miraculous, but it is treated by many as if it's some sort of cure-all for whatever you're dealing with—and that right there should always be a big red flag for us. I decided to dive into the research to learn what medical benefits CBD actually has—and in this particular video, we're gonna take a look at whether or not CBD effectively treats anxiety.
In case you've never heard of it before, CBD is short for cannabidiol, which is one of many cannabinoid molecules produced by the cannabis plant. Unlike THC, CBD does not get you high—and we learn on LiveScience that "our brains have specific receptors designed to accept cannabinoids, known as CB1 and CB2." This definitely means that the potential is there for CBD to have an effect—but it's certainly no guarantee.

—
Before I began researching this subject, I already had an opinion formulated about CBD. My belief was that most of the claims made about its benefits were supported by very little scientific evidence, and people were wildly exaggerating how effective it was. I thought that yes, perhaps there'd be some slight medical benefits for certain conditions, but for the most part, it was pseudoscience, it was snake oil—and look at all these gullible people falling for it! But then I realized I hadn't actually closely read the scientific research on the subject, so what the fuck do I know?
This, I think, serves as a cautionary tale for every single one of us: It is stunningly common for people to have knee-jerk reactions and take very strong positions on issues even when their knowledge about that topic is very limited: "You should switch to the keto diet", "gun control is ineffective", "dairy is bad for you"—ok, do you actually have a deep, comprehensive understanding of these questions, or did you just read a few articles one time and are you just repeating what you've sort of heard people say in your day-to-day life?

As a general rule, most people, on most subjects, don't really know what they're talking about. I don't point this out just so we can laugh at how clueless people are and feel better about ourselves; trust me, I do plenty of that on my own time! This process of forming beliefs before we have all the facts is something that almost every single one of us does, to a certain extent. And the best way to inoculate ourselves against this feigned certainty is to honestly ask ourselves: "How much do I really know about this subject?", and then use our ignorance as motivation to seriously research the question and actually arrive at a well-informed conclusion.
—
In the spirit of that principle, let's take a close look at the evidence cited to support the claim that CBD cures or reduces anxiety. The first line of evidence is probably the most commonly encountered and also the least rigorous: personal anecdotes of CBD's effectiveness. People will tell you about how they or a friend of theirs suffered from anxiety, tried CBD and found it to be personally effective for them. I can supply you with plenty of people who say CBD didn't do jack shit for them, so how do we determine who's correct?

These kind of first- or second-hand testimonies can definitely inspire scientific research into a question, but they don't, by themselves, constitute solid supporting evidence. Sure, your buddy Steven might've taken CBD and felt a decrease in anxiety, but couldn't this have just been caused by the placebo effect? Maybe in addition to taking CBD, he also tried several other things at the same time to reduce anxiety like meditation and exposure therapy? Without a well-designed scientific study, how are we to disentangle these different potential causes?
Also consider this: Many people who have anxiety will attest to the fact that there are peaks and valleys, with certain days where you're less anxious and other days where you're more anxious. Maybe if a person was experiencing a particularly strong episode of anxiety, this inspired them to try a new treatment like CBD—and what they perceived as the effects of CBD was actually just a return to their baseline level of anxiety, or in other words, a regression to the mean?

For every junk-science treatment in the book, you can find personal testimonies that go with it. I can point you to people who claim that prayer cured their cancer; homeopathy is a billion-dollar industry; some people decline conventional medicine and reach for the ground-up rhino horn instead. Personal anecdotes are simply not a strong-enough line of evidence. Given how misleading and inaccurate they can be, what we need are scientific experiments that randomly give people the drug being tested or a placebo—with neither the subjects nor the researchers knowing who gets what.
—
So what does the scientific research in this area say? Many will point to animal studies as proof that CBD reduces anxiety.
In a 1990 study, for example, Guimarães et al provided rats with a variety of CBD doses, and they compared their maze-exploration behavior against a control group of rats. As they write,

“In order to assess the presence of anxiolytic [or anxiety-reducing] properties in cannabidiol (CBD) the drug was tested in an elevated plus-maze model of anxiety, in rats. Doses of 2.5, 5.0 and 10.0 mg/kg significantly increased the entry ratio (open/total number of entries), an anxiolytic-like effect."

An explanation of how, exactly, the elevated plus-maze works is provided by Maze Engineers on YouTube:

"The elevated plus-maze consists of four arms arranged around a small central platform in a plus shape. Two opposite arms are enclosed with high walls, and the other two arms are open and exposed. This maze utilizes the natural preference rodents have for enclosed areas to test for anxiety. The animal starts in the central platform facing one of the open arms. The animal is allowed to explore the maze for a specific amount of time. The timer is used to calculate how much time it spends on each of the arms. The number of entries into the open and closed arms is recorded, as well as the time spent in each arm.
Typically, animals will have a much greater number of arm entries into closed arms than open arms due to their natural avoidance of open spaces. When animals are treated with anxiety-reducing drugs, the number of entries into closed arms becomes much closer to the number of entries into the open arms."

So basically, as seen in Figure 1 from the study, when dosed with CBD, rats exhibited behavior indicative of lower anxiety.

—
Other animal studies have found similar results—including those that look at the swimming patterns of zebrafish, for example. For our purposes, it's not necessary to dive super deep into the animal studies, and that's because regardless of their findings, the same basic points apply: studies conducted on these model organisms don't necessarily map onto human beings. Let's be clear: I get that there are plenty of similarities between me and rats: we're both mammals; much of our biochemistry is the same; and women are horribly disgusted by us.
Despite our many commonalities, we've been separated from these organisms by tens of millions of years of evolution—so just because a drug impacts them in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that it'll impact humans in the exact same way.
Plus these studies are measuring something very specific that might not correlate with human experiences. Yes, the idea is that the maze exploration of rats is a proxy for their anxiety—and I get that you have to devise some kind of experiment to measure these things—but rats exploring their environment is not the same thing as humans having conversations or giving public speeches. So to use experiments like this to make declarative statements about how CBD could cure your anxiety would be going way too far.
You might be asking yourself: Why bother going through studies that I don't think give us a direct answer to the question at hand? Why not just skip to the very best studies? The answer is because it's important to understand what does and doesn't constitute good evidence for a given claim—and if people are using personal anecdotes or animal studies to support their views about CBD, we need to be able to explain the shortcomings in those lines of evidence.
—
Let's then move onto the studies where humans are given CBD. One group of such studies seems to demonstrate that CBD and THC have antagonistic effects—and some claim that this is proof that CBD reduces anxiety. So what do such studies find and what can we learn from them?
In Zuardi et al 1982, subjects were provided with THC by itself, CBD by itself, or a mixture of the two, compared against a placebo and diazepam—with diazepam being a medication used to treat anxiety, among other things. They found that according to several metrics, CBD and THC had opposing effects. For example, those given CBD reported feeling more alert, whereas those given THC reported feeling drowsy. Those given CBD felt strong; those given THC felt feeble. CBD, proficient; THC, incompetent. And so on, for several other metrics.
We also see that those given both compounds fall somewhere at the midway point of several measurements: alert vs drowsy, somewhere in the middle; same for strong vs feeble, quick-witted vs mentally slow, and gregarious vs withdrawn.

These findings are definitely interesting, but a big downside to this study is that it only included a whopping 8 participants. More people would have been included but they ended up spending all their grant money on Pop-Tarts and beef jerky for the THC group. When we're dealing with a sample size that small, chance variations and differences between the subjects are going to have a larger impact on the results—meaning we can't be quite as confident that an actual effect is being detected here.
—
Karniol et al had a larger sample size of 40 volunteers—still not enormous, but at least it's better than 8. They conclude the following:

"The major finding of the present work is the clear interaction observed between CBD and THC. 15 to 60 mg of CBD were able to attenuate several effects of THC, such as pulse rate acceleration . . . time production impairment . . . and psychological disturbances . . . These data corroborate previous findings with laboratory animals which have shown that CBD blocks some effects of THC."
Source: "Cannabidiol Interferes With The Effects Of 9-Tetrahydrocannabinol in man," by Isac G. Karniol et al. European Journal of Pharmacology. 28 (1974) 172-177.

A third study—this one, by Dalton et al—reached a similar conclusion. In their study of 15 volunteers, they found that CBD reduced the self-reported high of THC, and also slightly improved hand-eye coordination and performance on a wobble board. While many of these metrics don't directly measure anxiety, they do evaluate the general

Debunking: "Public Option > Medicare-For-All!"

Anton Dybal — Sun, 01 Dec 2019 04:30:34 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Gage Skidmore/Flickr

In the recent Democratic debates, a key point of contention has been what to do about our healthcare system. Some, like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, support transitioning to a Medicare-For-All, full-on single-payer system. Others, like Pete Buttigieg and John Delaney, say that's a step too far and claim that a public option is the way to go—and by "public option" they mean adding a government-run insurance plan alongside the private options.
Here I argue that a public option simply would not work the way they claim it would. The experience with Medicare Advantage in this country proves that insurance companies will use a number of tricks to dodge the sicker, unhealthier people, causing them to disproportionately end up in the public plan. This would drive up its costs and reduce the quality of coverage, ultimately preventing the public option from improving our healthcare system through competition.
Our goal should be to move away from the insurance industry status quo—yet the public option would leave it in place. The right to choose between different predatory insurance companies isn't worth maintaining, and the incentive structure they operate with is the exact opposite of what you want in healthcare. A single-payer program would actually expand our choice in the areas that matter: in terms of which doctor, specialist, or facility to visit—because every one of these, by definition, would see patients in the government plan.
Polling data pointed to as proof that a public option is more popular very often features slanted questions in favor of a public option and against Medicare-For-All. When people are supplied with both favorable and accurate information about single payer, support for the program skyrockets. The public option plans put forth by candidates suffer from other additional defects, and citing Germany as an example of how it could work overlooks very crucial differences between their system and the proposals of these candidates.
—
We're told by centrist Democrats that a public option is the better policy because it lets the American people decide what type of health coverage is best for them.
Mayor Pete, for example, argued the following in one of the Democratic debates:

"The problem, Senator Sanders, with that damn bill that you wrote, and that Senator Warren backs, is that it doesn't trust the American people! I trust you to choose what makes the most sense for you! Not my way, or the highway! Now look, I think we do have to go far beyond tinkering with the ACA; I propose Medicare-For-All Who Want It! We take a version of Medicare, we make it available for the American people, and if we're right, as progressives, that the public alternative is better, then the American people will figure that out for themselves! I trust the American people to make the right choice for them; why don't you?"

Notice first that in the process of arguing against Medicare-For-All, Pete seems to accidentally concede that it would be the best policy outcome!

". . . If we're right, as progressives, that the public alternative is better, then the American people will figure that out for themselves!"

By saying this, he seems to make clear that the public plan is the best option, yet he doesn't have the spine to actually fight for it. Now of course, who ever knows what Pete is really saying because the dude is constantly talking out of both sides of his mouth. I bet when he got married he was like: "I do—but at the same time, I don't!"

If Pete was here right now, he'd probably say: "Well, maybe I think the public option is best, but who am I to determine that that's what best for every other American citizen?" As he put it: "I trust the American people to make the right choice for them."
It might sound like a good idea in principle, but one problem I see with this viewpoint is basic human inertia: Even if we added a public option into the mix and it worked exactly how they claim it would work, the existence of a better option doesn't guarantee that people will take the initiative to enroll in that better option.
Adam Gaffney points out that:

"Those buying plans on the Obamacare marketplaces switch plans as frequently as once a year (indeed, they are encouraged to 'shop around' every enrollment period to avoid being ripped off)."

I don't know about you, but there's a very slim chance that I'm going to make the time to do a bunch of research, shop around, compare benefits, run the numbers, and switch between health insurance providers every single year to get the best value and benefits. Who the fuck has time for that? I'm way too busy making videos where I talk about how I don't have time to make important changes in my life!
The point is, even if there was a better option available on the ACA marketplace, that's no guarantee that everyone will operate as this perfectly rational and maximally-informed consumer who switches over to it—meaning many people will stay in their shitty private insurance plans and continue getting screwed over.
"I trust the American people to make the right choice for them!"
Really? Because I don't. I mean let's be honest with ourselves here: There are lots of stupid people in this country who make poor decisions. Exhibit A: we just elected Donald Trump as our country's president. That doesn't exactly scream "expert decision makers" to me.
"I trust the American people to make the right choice!"
*campaign aide whispers*: "Pete, you're only polling at 5%!"
"What?! Fuck the American people. They don't know what they want!..."
—
The biggest problem with the public option is that it simply wouldn't work the way that its proponents claim it would. They present us with this idealized scenario where the government plan is a cheaper and better option that would increase competition and force private insurers to either improve their product or ultimately be driven out of business.
Herzlinger and Boxer, for example, writing for the Harvard Business Review, claim that:

"Private insurers will be forced to compete with the public option's lower costs through improved pricing, service, and quality."

Here is what would actually happen: profit-seeking insurance companies would use a number of techniques to cherrypick healthier clients, and the non-profit public option would basically end up as a dumping ground for sicker people, driving up its costs and decreasing the quality of coverage.
And this isn't just two opposing sides speculating about what would happen; we have real-world examples of this dynamic when you compare traditional Medicare against Medicare Advantage. Himmelstein & Woolhandler write extensively on this subject in an article titled "The 'Public Option' on Health Care Is a Poison Pill." Yeah more like a poison suppository!

". . . decades of experience with Medicare Advantage offer lessons about that program and how private insurers capture profits for themselves and push losses onto their public rival—strategies that allow them to win the competition while driving up everyone's costs. . . . Private insurers employ a dizzying array of profit-enhancing schemes that would be out of bounds for a public plan. These schemes . . . continually evolve in response to regulators’ efforts to counter them.
§ Obstructing expensive care. Plans try to attract profitable, low-needs enrollees by assuring convenient and affordable access to routine care for minor problems. Simultaneously, they erect barriers to expensive services that threaten profits—for example, prior authorization requirements, high co-payments, narrow networks, and drug formulary restrictions that penalize the unprofitably ill. While the fully public Medicare program contracts with any willing provider, many private insurers exclude (for example) cystic fibrosis specialists, and few Medicare Advantage plans cover care at cancer centers like Memorial Sloan Kettering. Moreover, private insurers’ drug formularies often put all of the drugs—even cheap generics—needed by those with diabetes, schizophrenia, or HIV in a high co-payment tier."

As they explain on Investopedia:

"You can see how a Medicare Advantage Plan cherry-picks its patients by carefully reviewing the co-pays in the summary of benefits for every plan you are considering. . . . out-of-pocket costs will quickly build up over the year if you get sick. The Medicare Advantage plan may offer a $0 premium, but the out-of-pocket surprises may not be worth those initial savings if you get sick. 'The best candidate for Medicare Advantage is someone who's healthy,' says Mary Ashkar, senior attorney for the Center for Medicare Advocacy."

Himmelstein & Woolhandler go on to describe additional tricks used by the insurance industry:

"§ Cherry-picking and lemon-dropping, or selectively enrolling people who need little care and disenrolling the unprofitably ill. A relatively small number of very sick patients account for the vast majority of medical costs each year. A plan that dodges even a few of these high-needs patients wins, while a competing plan that welcomes all comers loses. In the employer market, cherry-picking is easy: Private insurers offer attractive premiums to businesses with young, healthy workers and exorbitant rates to those with older, sicker employees.
The CMS, in theory, requires Medicare Advantage plans to take all comers and prohibits them from forcing people out when they get sick. But regulators' efforts to enforce these requirements have been overwhelmed by insurers' chicanery. . . . And as a last resort, Medicare Advantage plans will stop offering coverage in a county where they've accumulated too many unprofitable enrollees, akin to a casino ejecting players who are beating the house.
Finally, Medicare Advantage plans cherry-pick through targeted marketing schemes. In the past, this has meant sign-up dinners in restaurants difficult to access for people who use wheelchairs or offering free fitness center memberships, a perk that appeals mainly to the healthiest seniors.
. . . In sum, a public option insurer that, like traditional Medicare, doesn’t try to dodge unprofitable enrollees would be saddled with more than its share of sick, expensive patients and would become a de facto high-cost, high-risk pool. . . . The result: The public plan (and the taxpayers) absorbs the losses while private insurers skim off profits, an imbalance so big that private plans can outcompete a public plan despite squandering vast sums on overhead costs, CEO salaries, and shareholder profits."

—
Given that insurance companies have so many different techniques to tilt the playing field, there's no good reason to believe that introducing a public option would drive down the cost of insurance plans through competition—so contrary to what centrist Democrats tell us, it wouldn't do anything to save us money on healthcare in this country! If there's one piece of low-hanging fruit, if there's one essential outcome of any healthcare reform plan, it is reducing our insanely high per capita healthcare spending. A public option fails to accomplish even this bare minimum, because it leaves in place the insurance company status quo.

Single-payer, on the other hand, replaces these many different profit-seeking insurance companies with a single government-run insurance program—thus eliminating an enormous amount of needless healthcare administration in this country. If we cut administrative costs in half—which is perfectly doable under single-payer—we could save anywhere from $350 to $500 billion each year, depending on which numbers you use.
As Physicians for a National Health Program write,

"[A public option] would do nothing to streamline the administrative tasks (and costs) of hospitals, physician offices, and nursing homes, which would still contend with multiple payers and hence still need the complex cost-tracking and billing apparatus that drives up administrative costs."

Now you might say, "hang on, Anton, there are other approaches we could use to drive down administrative costs in this country." Pete Buttigieg, for example, in a healthcare white paper of his, provides a number of such proposals including "harmonizing standards for transactions," "creating a central clearinghouse for claims," and requiring "integration of electronic health records, billing, and reporting systems."
While these sound like impressive and serious ideas, after going through this long list of wonky proposals, he anti-climactically tells us that maybe "this could generate up to $10 billion in savings a year." That translates into a whopping $30 saved, per person, each year on healthcare. 30 whole dollars? Dude, consider healthcare fixed in this country!
Compare this $10 billion against the $350 to $500 billion that Medicare-For-All could save in this area, and you see just how limp-wristed and pathetic his reforms truly would be.
And it's not just that a public option would miss out on these savings here; it would also leave in place the seedy business practices of insurance companies: the claim denials that drown people in debt; the fine-print clauses that screw people over; and the refusals to pay for treatments or medications that could improve or even save people's lives.
Profit-seeking insurance companies have the exact opposite incentive that you want in healthcare: Their goal is to provide as little healthcare as possible while taking as much money as they can from you. What we should have is the complete reverse of this: a system whose goal is provide as much healthcare as we can at the lowest possible cost. That is why we need single-payer and that is why a public option simply isn't good enough.

—
Let's take a closer look at the choice argument, as well. We're told that one of the key virtues of a public option is that it preserves the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose what, is my question? Which insurance company you get screwed by? Kyle Kulinski often points out that this isn't a choice worth preserving:

"Freedom of choice for your insurance company? Nobody likes their insurance company! You want freedom of choice to determine which mafia is ripping you off? You want the Irish mafia or the Italian mafia? You pick! Here, I'm giving you a choice!"

Not only that but when it comes to the more important choices of which doctor you're gonna see, which clinic you're going to visit, and which specialist you're gonna consult with, Medicare-For-All would actually expand your choices and increase healthcare competition because it wouldn't have the same restrictive limitations that insurance companies do. Here's how the lovely Kim Iverson explains it:

"Right now, what we've got actually, is, you are very limited when you select an insurance plan—which many people don't even get to select their insurance plan! Their insurance is provided by their employer. So most people actually have very little choice, and there's very little competition going on. Your boss tells you which insurance provider they're gonna offer you as an employee. Then, inside of that insurance provider, they tell you which doctors, hospitals and clinics are in their network. So you don't have all the choice in the world. You actually get a very limited choice.
When we have Medicare-For-All, all the choices open up. If every hospital, every doctor, every clinic is all going to accept the Medicare-For-All system—because that's the only system to accept—then you, as a patient, get to pick anybody! There is nowhere that's going to say, 'no, sorry we don't accept your insurance,' because they do! There's only one insurance company. So actually, eliminating all the private insurance companeis creates more competition, because now, you get to go to any hospital, any doctor, any clinic, any provider."

By the way it's kind of funny that in every thumbnail of hers, she's trying to look as sexy as possible. Now that is what my channel has been missing all this time! (Stay tuned for my next video on the Israel-Palestine conflict where the thumbnail is just gonna be a picture of me flexing.)

Anton Dybal — Tue, 12 Nov 2019 18:32:25 +0000

Thumbnail photo: Perlinator/Pixabay

You'll often hear it said that Medicare-For-All is too extreme a position because many Americans like their private health insurance. While it sounds like the kind of propaganda you'd hear in an insurance commercial, many Democratic candidates have made some version of this argument. It's apparently part of their bold agenda to maintain the status quo.
As I argue here, even if people like something, they can still support switching to something better. Satisfaction with the coverage and cost of Medicare is higher than it is for private insurance, and Medicare-For-All bills wouldn't just universalize the program as is, but they would radically improve it, as well.
Approval of our healthcare system scales with income, and many people in this country skip out on doctor visits or medications due to high cost—problems and inequalities that single-payer would eliminate. Private health-insurance companies operate with the perverse business model of taking in as much money as they can while paying out as little as possible in healthcare. Contrary to what industry apologists will tell you, claim denial rates are at about 20% despite the high amount that we pay in premiums.
Much of the framing that's used by Medicare-For-All opponents is very deceptive and sometimes even turns the facts upside-down. A system that tethers healthcare benefits to employers keeps people in jobs that they otherwise might want to quit. Yes, many unions fought hard for their healthcare benefits, possibly sacrificing wages in the process, but the simple solution to this once single-payer gets passed is simply another round of negotiations that they would've eventually engaged in anyway.
—
Opponents of Medicare-For-All dishonestly talk as if the program would take healthcare away from people and thus leave them in a worse-off position. As an example of this, listen to what Amy Klobuchar said in one of the recent Democratic debates:

"I am just simply concerned about kicking half of America off of their health insurance in 4 years, which is exactly what this bill says."

Yes, and what else does this bill say that you're leaving out of your description? Medicare-For-All would eliminate duplicative private health insurance—but she's leaving out the essential detail that it would replace this private health insurance with comprehensive healthcare for all American citizens!
The way she frames the conversation completely turns reality on its head, because she makes it seem like Medicare-For-All leaves fewer people with healthcare, when in reality, it provides a full package of benefits for every single one of us—and it is our current system that leaves millions of Americans without health insurance! Klobuchar's deceptive wording here is nothing but a baseless scare-tactic, and I don't know which is worse: Her terrible arguments on healthcare, or her incredibly corny, pre-planned one-liners?
"Bernie wrote the bill, but I read the bill!"
"We're gonna build a blue wall and make Trump pay for it!"
"Back in Minnesota, that's what we call all foam and no beer!"
Wow, Amy, you drink beer?! That makes you so relatable to blue-collar workers in the Rust Belt! Next debate she shows up like: "Look, I'm a Washington outsider, just like you at home. I love football, I'm addicted to opioids, and I'm dying of the black lung."

—
There's also a related argument that making the switch to single-payer would cause an enormous amount of upheaval, instability, disruption, and chaos to our healthcare system. For example, Joshua Morris writes the following for The Maine Wire:

"A move as disruptive as single-payer at this stage would eliminate private insurance, a benefit enjoyed by more than 180 million Americans. It would create uncertainty and chaos, hurting the very people it purports to help."

Yeah, you should see the way things function in countries with single-payer healthcare: People go to the hospital, and whatever they need is already paid for—or as Joshua Morris would call it, complete fucking anarchy.
Once again, we see that the framing here completely reverses the facts. Single-payer would do the exact opposite of what he argues; rather than creating uncertainty, single-payer is actually the best way to combat healthcare uncertainty. It is under our current system that people are constantly losing their healthcare benefits for any number of different reasons, including quitting their job, getting fired, not being able to afford their premiums, or moving to another state. If you want uncertainty and chaos in healthcare, there is no better way to bring it about than maintaining the status quo!
Medicare-For-All, on the other hand, would provide all Americans with healthcare for the entire duration of their lives: no switching between providers, no waiting several months until your employer benefits kick in, no needing to transition from your parents' plan to your own—instead, everyone always has healthcare, full stop. Medicare-For-All is really the perfect antidote to the very instability that they're pretending it will cause. Morris might as well argue that putting a roof over your head would make you more exposed to the elements.
—
He also describes private insurance as a benefit that's "enjoyed" by 180 million Americans. Yes, if there's one thing we enjoy and love in this country, it's the profit-seeking middleman known as the private insurance industry. My hobbies include hiking, videogames, and waiting on hold to speak with a Cigna representative.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but I feel like he's misusing this word here. Going to the dog-park is something that people enjoy. Paying a monthly premium to Aetna seems like it belongs in a different category than this.
While in this case, it could've just been a poor choice of words, believe it or not, the immense pleasure that we supposedly derive from our private insurance is another one of the main arguments made against Medicare-For-All. John Delaney, for example—who supports a public option—argued the following on The Young Turks:

". . . about 150 million Americans have private insurance right now, and 70% of them like it. So I just think it's a terrible idea for us, as a party, as a matter of politics, to run on making those plans illegal. . . . Literally 150 million Americans have private insurance, and Gallup just did a poll, 70% of them like it."

The first thing worth establishing is a basic point of logic that Delaney seems to be overlooking: People can like something, yet still replace it with something better. If you would've asked me about my last car, for example, I would've said: "It's fine. I like it." My current car, however, is a hell of a lot better in so many different ways.
The polling data on health insurance also isn't nearly as simple as Delaney makes it out to be. He is correct that according to 2018 Gallup data, 70% of Americans with private insurance rate their healthcare coverage as either excellent or good. He fails to mention, however, that according to this very same Gallup survey, 79% of Americans on Medicare or Medicaid described their health coverage in the same way.
They also found that 70% of those on Medicare or Medicaid are satisfied with their healthcare cost, compared against only 51% of those on private insurance. So I don't think it makes sense to describe switching to the more popular program as a losing political strategy.

—

Delaney also described running on Medicare-For-All as "political suicide." You know what's really political suicide? Being John Delaney. Dude is polling at 0.2% and he wants to tell us how to run a political campaign? You couldn't even get twelve people to show up to one of your campaign events! You could've comfortably had that rally in my living room!
"And now, the man you've all been waiting for, John Delaney!!!"
One guy is like: "...Yay!..."
Now this Gallup data I cited does combine Medicare with Medicaid, and considering that there's almost 2x as many people on Medicaid as Medicare, one could argue—assuming this is a representative sample—that this data moreso shows us satisfaction with Medicaid than Medicare. Fair point, so let's disentangle the two.
2015 Gallup data investigated satisfaction with the way the health system is working. Responses by insurance type were as follows: military or veterans, 78%; Medicare, 77%; Medicaid, 75%; Union, 71%; current or former employer, 69%; and plan fully paid for by you or family member, 65%. Why 41% of the uninsured are satisfied is a complete mystery to me. I think what happened here is that they responded sarcastically and the Gallup pollsters took them seriously.
"Are you satisfied with the way the health system is working?"
"Oh, yeah, it's fucking great. Thanks for asking."

From this data, we find that the average satisfaction rate of the 3 private-plan types is 68% compared against 77% for Medicare. Note also that people on Medicare are happier with their care despite the fact that they're mostly 65 or older—an age group that consumes about 3x more healthcare resources per capita than everybody younger. One would think that more frequently interacting with the healthcare system and needing to pay for things more often might reduce your satisfaction with the system, yet Medicare satisfaction rates are about 10% higher than for private insurance.
I would also note that these are the satisfaction rates of Medicare as it currently exists, with its many flaws and insufficiencies—in terms of coverage gaps, out-of-pocket spending necessities, and so forth. Considering that the Medicare-For-All bills would plug many of these holes and improve the program, presumably it would be even more popular than the current program.
One last thing to note about 51% with private insurance being satisfied with cost: the satisfaction rate is this low despite the fact that according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, "the average percent of health insurance paid by employers is 82 percent for single coverage and 71 percent for family coverage."
—
The Kaiser Family Foundation and The LA Times conducted a 2019 survey of Americans with employer-sponsored insurance, and they found the following:

"Four in ten report that their family has had either problems paying medical bills or difficulty affording premiums or out-of-pocket medical costs, and about half say someone in their household skipped or postponed some type of medical care or prescription drugs in the past year because of the cost."

They also presented people with the following question: "How well do you think the current health insurance system in the U.S. works for people like you?"
After waiting for the laughter to die down, they discovered that the higher the deductible, the lower the percentage of people who thinks it works well for them. And the higher the household income, the better they think our health insurance system works for them. So the question I would invite you to ask yourself is: Should we have a multi-tiered, class-based healthcare system that caters to wealthy Americans, or should we have a system that serves all of our healthcare needs equally?
And the thing is, no matter how good your health insurance is, sooner or later we're all gonna end up getting screwed over by our current system. The people with more money can simply absorb it much better than others. The only people I see consistently winning under this system are healthcare executives.

—
Another component of Delaney's argument against Medicare-For-All is that it would wrongly take away the healthcare benefits that union members fought long and hard for:

"My dad was a union electrician, he was a 60 year member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and his union fought so hard to get him, and us, a great healthcare plan. And I just think about my dad, and go to him and say you're gonna lose this plan, which he loved, and he used to talk about all the time, and you gotta go on Medicare, he wouldn't wanna do that!"

I don't know, I feel like these conversations with his father just never happened.
"Hello, son, how was school today?"
"It was good, father. How was work as a union electrician?"
"Oh, you mean the job that provides me with a great healthcare plan that I love very much and worked very hard to negotiate? I had a good day at that job!"
Delaney doesn't seem to realize that he's actually making our case for us right here. Think about it: He's telling us about the Herculean, strenuous efforts that it took just to provide these union employees with a decent package of healthcare benefits—benefits that are simply the norm and taken for granted in other developed countries with universal healthcare!
Call me crazy, but I don't think that anybody in this country should have to go on strike, and form a picket line, and protest, and engage in grueling negotiations for months with company executives—just to be able to go to the fucking doctor when they're sick! We should have a system where all Ame

Debunking: "Medicare-For-All Is Unaffordable!" & Refuting The Mercatus Study

Anton Dybal — Tue, 22 Oct 2019 07:39:47 +0000

Probably the most common argument you'll hear made against Medicare-For-All is that it's extremely expensive and there's no way we could afford it—now if you'll excuse us, it's back to spending trillions of dollars in Afghanistan. People who make this claim will reliably cite the widely-publicized Mercatus Center study, which found that over the next decade, Medicare-For-All would cost the government an additional $32.6 trillion. While this is a lot of money, it's actually $2 trillion less than we'd spend under our current healthcare system.
We're told by the author of that study that the $32 trillion number is likely an underestimate given that it was arrived at using assumptions that he calls unrealistically generous—assumptions about drug pricing, reimbursement rates and healthcare administration. A close examination of the subject finds that not only are these assumptions justified, but two of them are actually far too conservative—and by my calculations, in just these three areas of healthcare, Medicare-For-All could save over $5 trillion in 10 years—and that's while providing all Americans with comprehensive healthcare. Several other studies arrive at very similar numbers. Proof that these savings are attainable comes from comparing the US against other countries in these areas, and also looking at government healthcare programs within the United States.
Surveys of US physicians find that the majority support single-payer healthcare as the best financial reform we could make, and the greatest frustration among physicians internationally is the administrative hassle that comes from having many different payers.
Rather than having us pay out-of-pocket to private insurance companies, Medicare-For-All would fund universal healthcare through our tax dollars. While more money would obviously be spent in taxes to pay for this, private healthcare expenditures would vanish and the net amount spent per capita would decrease given the savings that Medicare-For-All provides. Not only that, but the financial burden on poor and middle class Americans would be further decreased by having taxes that scale with income level and by distributing the taxes among many different areas of the economy.
—
If there's one starting point for this conversation, it's the recent Mercatus Center study written by Charles Blahous. There's been an incredible amount of misinformation and misunderstanding about this study, by all parties involved, so we're gonna do our best to sort through it all and ascertain the truth.
Let's start with how the findings of this study were treated in the media. This Bloomberg headline basically sums up how it was received, understood, and reported, at least at the most superficial levels: "'Medicare for All' Would Cost $32.6 Trillion Over 10 Years, Study Says."
In came the naysayers to crap their pants and express their astonishment at what sounds like an astronomically large number. Paul Ryan said "$32.6 trillion dollars. That's how much Washington Democrats' single-payer healthcare proposal would cost over 10 years. . . . It is just absurd."
Dan Crenshaw, responding to Bernie Sanders, said "your plan costs $32 trillion, and bankrupts my generation."
Howard Schultz, presidential candidate and CEO of Starbucks, calls it "unaffordable." He's like: "The only thing that should cost $32 trillion is a Starbucks frappucino!" Every time I hear this guy talk about politics it's just non-stop complaining about how terrible Medicare-For-All would be. He's so against single-payer healthcare that you'd think it would make him the single-payer!
Despite how confidently they talk about the subject, these people are not actually providing us with an informative, economic analysis of Medicare-For-All; all they're basically doing is saying: "Big number scary!"
Curiously absent from their cries of agony are comparisons of what Medicare-For-All would cost versus what our current system would cost. And it just so happens that precisely this comparison was provided in the very Mercatus study that they're citing!
Blahous found that if you make a few assumptions about how Medicare-For-All would work, over a 10-year-period, national health expenditures under Medicare-For-All would be $57.6 trillion. (The $32.6 trillion figure is what it would cost on top of what's already being spent by the government on healthcare.) $57.6 trillion over a 10-year period is a very large amount of money; there is no doubt about that.
An even larger amount of money, however, is what we're projected to spend on healthcare under our current system: $59.7 trillion, according to the Centers For Medicare & Medicaid Services. That is to say, according to these numbers, implementing Medicare-For-All would actually save us $2.1 trillion over a 10-year period!
So whenever people point to the eye-popping numbers from this study as proof that Medicare-For-All is unaffordable, understand that what they're actually arguing is that we can't afford to spend less money. Despite the way they've been reported, the numbers in this study show that Medicare-For-All would actually save us money, overall—not cost us more.

(Highlights added by me)

—
Now it turns out that if you read the full study, you'll find that things are much more complicated. That "$2.1 trillion saved" statistic came from an analysis that took for granted several assumptions about how Medicare-For-All would work—assumptions that the author of this study, Charles Blahous, goes on in the paper to reject.
One assumption was that drug costs would decline. As Blahous writes,

"This analysis credits the M4A proposal with approximately $846 billion in additional savings over the 2022–2031 period from negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs. This is an aggressive assumption reflecting the intent of the bill to empower the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate lower drug prices on behalf of beneficiaries and specifically to 'promote the use of generic medications to the greatest extent possible.'
There are limits to the potential effectiveness of this approach to lowering healthcare costs. Generics have prices 75 to 90 percent lower than those of brand-name drugs, but they already make up roughly 85 percent of all prescription drugs sold. . . . This analysis assumes virtually perfect success for M4A in replacing brand-name drugs with generics, both for those now on Medicare as well as for the population as a whole; therefore, actual savings are likely to be less than assumed under these projections.
. . . It is [also] a matter of wide speculation whether granting negotiating power to the HHS secretary could produce savings."

So here is the key question we have before us: How much money could realistically be saved on prescription drugs under Medicare-For-All? A good starting point for this analysis—and something that I almost never see conservatives do—is to simply ask what other developed countries spend, per capita, on pharmaceuticals?
A 2017 Commonwealth Fund analysis, using OECD data, compares the United States against 9 countries: Sweden, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, the UK, France, Canada, Germany and Switzerland. The average amount spent on pharmaceuticals in these countries, per capita, is $532—compared against $1,011 in the United States, which is almost twice that amount.

(Highlights added by me)

Let's say that through drug price negotiations and perhaps other legislative approaches, the United States managed to catch up to what is simply the average amount spent, per capita, in other countries. That would cut our pharmaceutical spending in half. How much would this save over a 10-year period?
Data from Statista.com shows that in 2016 and 2017, the US spent about $330 billion per year on pharmaceuticals. And according to CMS.gov, spending over the next decade in this area is expected to continue growing at about 5%.
So from a starting point of $330 billion in 2017, if you increase that by 5% every year, you arrive at a total of $4.4 trillion spent over the next decade on pharmaceuticals in this country under our current system. If all we managed to do via Medicare-For-All was simply attain international mediocrity in this area, we'd spend about half that amount, per capita, and thus save $2.2 trillion over the next decade—and that's just on prescription drugs alone.
Recall that Blahous described $846 billion in drug savings as an "aggressive" overestimate; the fact of the matter is that simply dropping our spending to the average of other developed countries would save $2.2 trillion over 10 years! And I don't think I'm calling for anything crazy or radical here; all I'm saying is: "Hey, maybe we could simply be average in this area?"
"You fucking lunatic! Get outta here with your liberal fantasies of being average!"
It's quite possible that we could save even more than this. Given that our country has a very large population of 330 million—much larger than any other country in this comparison—this large purchasing power could likely allow us to spend even less than the average of these other countries—similar to how big companies negotiate lower prices with their suppliers when they buy things in bulk.
Let's look at these numbers in a different way. Blahous describes $846 billion in drug savings as a likely overestimate. Run the numbers and you find that this really wouldn't be a very substantial decrease. Knocking $846 billion off a $4.4 trillion price tag is a saving of only 19%. To say that we're incapable of cutting drug spending by 19%—when we spend almost 100% more than the average of other countries—is to completely lack imagination and completely lack political will, as well. If all we did was set the bar this low and cut drug spending by 19%, instead of spending $1,011 per capita, we'd spend $819 per capita—which would still be more than every other country on this list!
Rather than $846 billion in drug savings being an aggressive overestimate, if anything it's the bare fucking minimum that's attainable. This is a great example of how conservative analysis, on healthcare, is completely and utterly divorced from reality. It ignores the facts, it ignores the numbers, and it ignores the uncomfortable existence of many different countries that have already done what they claim is impossible.
—
One thing worth considering about the preceding analysis is the possibility that we use more drugs on average, in the US, and that could be part of the reason that we spend so much more than these countries. Does this play a role here? Well part of the reason we spend so much on prescription drugs in this country is because of all the stress... over the high price of prescription drugs in this country... ("Wait, is he serious?") No, I think one of the real reasons is that so many of us in this country are addicted... to getting screwed over by Big Pharma! Ok, I'm done here.
In a 2014 paper titled "International Comparison Of Medicines Usage," researchers compared 13 different countries and ranked the United States 3rd in medicine usage. So our higher-than-average medicine usage rates could, indeed, partly be responsible for driving up our per capita pharmaceutical spending.
Still, I question how much of a role this plays, and here's why: France, in this study, was ranked the highest in medicine usage rates—yet if you look at their pharmaceutical spending, you see that they spent $553 per person in 2015. This is only slightly higher than the average of all these countries—and close to half of what the US spent, per capita—despite the very similar drug usage rates of the two countries. So the point is that you can use more drugs, per capita, but still spend radically less based upon how your healthcare system is structured
By the way, look how low New Zealand's medicine usage rates are?! I'm pretty sure they have like one aspirin bottle that the entire country shares!

(Highlights added by me)

—
And in case you're still somehow questioning the idea that substantial price reductions are attainable in the US, it's worth noting that acccording to CBO calculations, the Veterans Health Administration and Department of Defense "paid roughly half as much for brand-name drugs as retail pharmacies did, on average."
Sweet, so after I come back from a pointless war with PTSD, at least I've got that to look forward to.
The CBO explains how, exactly, the VA achieves these drug savings:

"Largely because of federal price controls, VHA's pharmaceutical costs are significantly lower than those of private health care systems. Two caps set in legislation mean that the maximum price that VHA pays for a drug is either the best commercial price net of certain discounts and rebates or the average price paid by pharmacies minus a large statutory discount, whichever is lower. VHA receives additional discounts if drug prices rise faster than general inflation (which they have generally done). VHA negotiates further discounts with drugmakers for the drugs included on its formulary (or list of preferred drugs), and in return steers its enrollees to use those drugs."

So not only are substantially lower drug prices reachable internationally, but some of the very same mechanisms responsible for the lowering of these prices are operational and effective within the United States.
Some of the specific policy differences responsible for higher US drug prices are outlined by The Commonwealth Fund:

"One reason U.S. prescription drug prices are higher may be the relative lack of price control strategies. Unlike the U.S., many other countries employ centralized price negotiations, national formularies, and comparative and cost-effectiveness research for determining price ceilings. In the U.S., health care delivery and payment are fragmented, with numerous, separate negotiations between drug manufacturers and payers and complex arrangements for various federal and state health programs. And, in general, the U.S. allows wider latitude for monopoly pricing of brand-name drugs than other countries are willing to accept."

Recall from earlier Dan Crenshaw saying that Medicare-For-All "bankrupts" his generation. Yes, nothing sends people into bankruptcy quite like spending less money does. Watch out! This new diet and exercise program will turn you into a fat piece of shit!
And funny he says that considering that some of the very policies Medicare-For-All would enact saves his fellow veterans loads of money each year. You know what really bankrupts your generation, Dan? Letting the pharmaceutical industry jack up drug prices to hilariously high levels.
This is such fucking projection here! It is our current system that generates thousands of actual medical bankruptcies each year. Under Medicare-For-All, nobody—literally nobody—is going to get slammed with $200,000 medical bills for a stay at the hospital or needed emergency surgery. Nobody's drug prices are suddenly going to get raised to $9,000 a month.
When opponents of Medicare-For-All talk about how it'll "bankrupt" people, they're just using the sort of dramatic, hyperbolic language that's commonly seen in partisan politics. When supporters of Medicare-For-All talk about healthcare bankrupting people, they're using the term literally because it happens every single day in this country. For conservatives, the term is a cute, rhetorical device to use in their Tweets. For progressives, it's a description of the actual reality under our current system.
—
Let's move onto another assumption that Blahous rejects, and that's that under Medicare-For-All, administrative costs would be much lower. As he writes,

"This analysis assumes substantial administrative cost savings generated by replacing private insurance with national single-payer insurance, specifically a reduction of seven percentage points (from

Debunking "Ghost Hunters": Their Equipment, Tactics & "Haunted Houses"

Anton Dybal — Tue, 01 Oct 2019 00:04:14 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Quest TV/YouTube; SYFY/YouTube; shrikeshmaster/Pixabay

Turn on your television or open up YouTube, and you'll find that there is no shortage of people who claim to be "ghost hunters." These people visit abandoned buildings or houses they claim to be haunted to capture a bunch of spooky footage and detect the presence of ghosts. As I argue here, there's no good reason to believe that anything supernatural is encountered or measured during these excursions.
[Plot twist: It turns out that I'm actually a ghost, and the only reason I'm making this video is to throw you off our trail.
What if I was actually a ghost? The more I think about it, the more it makes sense: I'm extremely pale; I scare people; I often feel invisible to the women around me; and I'm dead inside. I'm joking... only like three of those things are true.]
The EMF meters used by ghost-hunters can be triggered by any number of different things including power lines, cell phones, or handheld cameras. A large number of manmade sources can also produce the audio recordings that are pointed to as proof of the spirit world. The ghostly speech that they claim to hear is oftentimes heavily distorted nonsense that they morph into intelligent language through a combination of creativity, bias, and suggestion.
Claiming that one can feel a spooky presence in a room proves nothing to the observer at home, and bringing in alleged mediums to communicate with these spirits is just inviting yourself to be lied to. Given that the goal of these shows is to provide entertainment and generate revenue, there's an obvious incentive to exaggerate or even engage in outright fraud—something that former employees or clients of these shows can attest to.
Many characteristics of these so-called "haunted houses" in fact have very straightforward, natural explanations—and whenever we're told that something is supernatural, we should always ask ourselves: What else could be going on here?
—
Believers in ghosts, and those who claim to hunt them, use many different lines of evidence to back up their beliefs. The core question that we need to ask ourselves is: Does the evidence they provide convincingly demonstrate that ghosts do, indeed, exist?
One category of evidence falls into what I call the "unfalsifiable" category: ghost hunters will walk around a spooky building and claim that they felt something touch them—or that they feel an amorphous, spooky presence in the room with them.
We see an example of this in the show Paranormal Lockdown:

"Oh man, something's messing with my head... I'm gonna come into the room! Something's happening in this room. Doesn't feel right. I feel pressure on my back. I just felt a hand push me! There's another hand that pushed me! There is a presence here. Something's happening in this room!"

He's like: "Bro, I should not have taken all that LSD before I came here! I am tripping balls right now!"
No, perhaps this guy genuinely did have the experience he claims he did, but for the person watching at home trying to determine for themselves whether ghosts exist, this proves absolutely nothing. Any one of us could make outrageous claims like this, and at the end of the day, all we have to go off of is that person's say-so. I mean it'd be one thing if we had video of a ghostly hand appearing and slapping this guy across the face, but it's literally just footage of a guy squirming around in a kitchen. Not exactly rock-solid proof of the paranormal.
That's not to say that taking people at their word is always unjustified; sometimes there's nothing wrong with it, like when you ask somebody what they do for a living, or when they tell you that they drive a Toyota Corolla. People don't typically lie about such mundane subjects—and even if a person did lie about the car they drive, this isn't going to fundamentally alter the way we look at the world. Claiming that you were assaulted by disembodied creatures from the spirit world is a very different category of belief—and one that requires some very convincing evidence. As Carl Sagan put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
So if it wasn't an encounter with ghosts, what could explain this guy's experience? Maybe he's lying because it's funny to him or because he needs to make his show more interesting. Maybe he's mentally ill. Maybe he's on drugs. Maybe he's severely sleep deprived.
Here's how David Hume thought about eyewitness testimony as it relates to miraculous events:

"If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion."
From David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, L. A. Selby Bigge, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1902), pp. 114-16.

Which would strike you as more miraculous: to learn that there are ghosts who can harass people, or to learn that certain people can lie or be deceived? I think we all know the answer to that question.
Given the complete lack of physical evidence to corroborate these claims—as well as the many alternative explanations—I submit that there is no good reason to believe them.
—
"Oh, so you want physical evidence, huh?" In come the various gadgets that ghost-hunters use to prove that they're in touch with the spirit world. While this is definitely a step up from making bald assertions about a spooky vibe that you're feeling, flashing lights and beeping speakers are only as good as the tools producing them. Here's what YouTuber RalphTheMovieMaker said in his video titled "Ghost Shows Suck":

*ghost hunter's equipment starts beeping*
"Is that hard evidence? You know what hard evidence means? Hard evidence is if you killed somebody and they came to your house and you were covered in the person's blood and you had the same exact gun used to kill the person. That's hard evidence. That's like indisputable evidence that you did it. What's their hard evidence? A thing beeps. A thing beeps fast."

The beeping thing

It's not enough to just hear something beep and then conclude that ghosts are real. We need to ask ourselves: How does this equipment work, and what evidence is there that ghosts are being detected?

Let's start out with EMF detectors, which are a must-have in the ghost-hunter's toolkit.
"EMF detector? Check. Thermal imaging camera? Check. Fleshlight? Check."
"No, you idiot! I told you to bring the flashlight—not the fleshlight. How is this gonna help us find a ghost?"
"I don't know, I figured we'd set it up and maybe he'd try to fuck it?"
…We see an example of an EMF detector being used in an episode of the show "Ghost Hunters":

". . . And I'm gonna put this EMF detector next to the oil can . . . Mr. Gallagher! We have a couple of devices, maybe you'd be interested in trying to interact with us. . . . Alright, so EMF is going off there now. . . . Can you change the pitch of that device? *pitch changes* That's unreal!"

While you can certainly record this device going off and have it seem to coincide with your dialogue, all this thing does is measure electromagnetic fields—which the technological world we live in today is absolutely drowning in.
As we read on the website EMF Explained,

"Human-made sources of electromagnetic fields include: vacuum cleaners, hair-dryers, refrigerators, AM / FM radio and television, emergency service radio (police, fire, ambulance), air traffic control, remote controls, mobile phones, and Wi-Fi modems."

Even a website dedicated to selling these tools—GhostHuntersEquipment.com—tells us the following:

"Electromagnetic fields are present in power lines, computer monitors, televisions, appliances and home wiring . . . Always keep in mind that meters read the environment so there could always be a natural explanation to a reading."

What steps do these ghost-hunters take to rule out every other possible source of EMFs in their environment? Just because the lights are turned off in the room doesn't mean power isn't flowing through the building. They're using flashlights to see where they're going. They carry walkie-talkies around with them. They're using television-quality cameras to record everything. They're probably using their phones to take selfies with captions like "OMG! SHITTING MY PANTS IN THIS HAUNTED HOUSE RIGHT NOW!"
There's probably powerlines outside nearby. I'm sure there are plenty of radio stations whose transmissions are passing through that building. And on top of that, some of the other tools that they use to detect ghosts themselves are a source of electromagnetic radiation! Maybe the ghost of Mr. Gallagher truly is fascinated by this oil can, or maybe some fat guy next door is microwaving a burrito?
Since there are so many possible sources of EMFs around these people, the idea that detecting them proves the existence of ghosts is downright laughable. Ghost-hunters simply haven't ruled out alternative explanations—yet they're incredibly fast to not just jump to a conclusion, but jump to a completely outlandish conclusion.
—
"But Anton, it's not just electromagnetic fields that they're detecting; sometimes they'll capture audio recordings of them communicating with a ghost!" Such recordings are known as Electronic Voice Phenomena—or EVPs, for short.
The first thing I want to point out about these is that oftentimes, the recordings don't sound anything like what the ghost-hunters interpret them as. A great example of this comes from that same episode of Paranormal Lockdown:

"*ambiguous audio chirp*
*astonished ghost hunter*: "[The audio said] I'll get you!"

I'm sorry, but that sounded nothing like that. It was literally just an ambiguous chirp of audio, and somehow what this guy hears is "I'll get you." Listen to it again, in isolation, and tell me what you hear. This just doesn't sound like a meaningful piece of human or ghostly speech to me; this guy is just hearing what he wants to hear. Putting subtitles on the screen and playing it back several times is supposed to prime your brain in such a way that you agree with him, but isolating the audio and honestly listening to it makes clear that this guy is making a mountain out of a molehill.
These people remind of that SNL skit where one of the ghost-hunters farts, and they play back the audio, treating it as a serious encounter with the paranormal:

*fart sound*
Ghost Hunter 1: "Listen, it sounded like he said a name. Julian! Did you hear it? Julie. Julie. Who is Julian and are you Julian?"

—
On another YouTube channel called "'Believe" A Paranormal Experience", they make it seem like they're having an actual back-and-forth conversation with the spirits:

"What was this place called, guys? What are we standing in?
*ambiguous audio*
Did it say prison?
My name is John. Tell me your name!
*audio sounds like it says "Pat"*
Pam? It was a woman.
. . . Did you meet God when you died?
*ambiguous audio*
*subtitles*: sorta
Is there a heaven?
*ambiguous audio*
They said yeah?"

This is pretty much exactly how these conversations with the spirit world always go: They ask a question, pick up a severely distorted chunk of audio, and they read into this ambiguous audio some kind of meaningful answer to their question.
The problem with this approach is that there are so many different ways you could interpret these snippets of audio. Let's look at another example from this video and I'll show you what I mean:

"Are you a guard or are you an inmate?”
*ambiguous audio*
“Inmate!"

If they had asked a different question here, the audio is vague enough that they could morph it into a meaningful answer to that question as well. Here's what I mean by this:
"How many children did you have?"
*same ambiguous audio, this time the subtitles say 'Eight'*
. . . "What's your name?"
*same ambiguous audio, this time the subtitles say 'Nate'*
. . . "What is your favorite animal?"
*same ambiguous audio, this time the subtitles say 'Snake'*
The point is, it really doesn't matter what they pick up on the audio, because it tends to be so distorted and unclear that you could conveniently hear a meaningful answer to virtually any question that you ask. If you think about it, what they're doing is distorting already-distorted audio.
"What year was I born?"
*completely garbled, strange, hilarious-sounds, like a fat alien choking on its tongue*
"Oh my God! He said 1994! Clear as day."
Notice also the many jump-cuts that they do. There's no telling from this footage what percent of questions yielded nothing of substance worth showing. For all we know, they could've been there for two hours to only get two minutes of usable footage. This is clearly a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses; they're obviously not going to show us the many examples where the questions weren't answered, or where the alleged "answer" was unintelligible nonsense or completely unrelated to the question at hand.
I also wanna know why the ghosts are only seemingly capable of providing such pitifully brief, barely audible answers to their questions? Doesn't that strike you as a little suspicious? Why can't the ghost have a full-on conversation with them, like: "Heyyy, what's up? My name's Chris. I'm the ghost that hangs out here. Whatchya guys up to? How can I help?"
—

Anton Dybal — Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:26:42 +0000

In their attempts to undermine evolution, some creationists will argue that genetic mutations are never beneficial. As I show here, they are flat wrong about this and there are many such examples of beneficial mutations: enzymes taking on new functions; bacteria changing their size or lifestyle to avoid predation; and humans becoming completely immune from deadly illnesses. In many of these examples, the precise genetic changes that confer the benefits have been identified.
Other creationists concede that yes, beneficial mutations exist, but they occur so rarely that they couldn't possibly be responsible for any significant evolutionary changes! This too is plainly untrue, as scientific research in this area finds that anywhere from 1 to 6% of mutations are beneficial. Creationist attempts to support a much lower percentage come from deeply flawed analyses that don't reliably quantify mutations, or that don't even attempt to characterize mutations. Other creationists simply misstate what the scientific research shows in this area.
—
Barney Maddox makes the case for this viewpoint in an article for the Institute For Creation Research—exactly the organization I think to consult when I'm looking for trustworthy information on evolution.
You get a good taste of what they think on the subject in the "Store" section of their website, where you can purchase such books as How Darwinism Corrodes Morality by Jerry Bergman. Yes, it starts with a belief in evolution, and before you know it, you're cheating on your wife and smoking crack next to a dumpster!
The subtitle of this book is: "Darwinism, Immorality, Abortion & The Sexual Revolution." Dude, those are like my four favorite things right there!

As Barney writes,

"[Biology textbooks] . . . fail to inform students that unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed (or are so rare as to be irrelevant)."

Ok, let's get the obvious out of the way first: saying that beneficial mutations have "never been observed" is different from saying that they have been observed, but they're very rare. This guy doesn't even seem to know what it is that he's arguing in favor of! "Those things that have been occasionally observed have never been observed!"
As is so often the case, creationists on this point are simply wrong about the facts. There have been many documented examples of beneficial mutations taking place in many different kinds of organisms, both in the wild and in the laboratory. I'm just gonna provide a few noteworthy examples here, but trust me when I say that a comprehensive list of every documented example simply wouldn't fit inside of a YouTube video.
In Campbell Biology, we read the following:

"One group tested whether the function of an enzyme called B-galactosidase could change over time in populations of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli). B-galactosidase breaks down the disaccharide lactose into the simple sugars glucose and galactose. Using molecular techniques, the researchers introduced random mutations into E. coli genes and then tested the bacteria for their ability to break down a slightly different disaccharide (one that has the sugar fucose in place of galactose).
They selected the mutant bacteria that could do this best and exposed them to another round of mutation and selection. After seven rounds, the 'evolved' enzyme bound the new substrate several hundred times more strongly, and broke it down 10 to 20 times more quickly, than did the original enzyme.
The researchers found that six amino acids had changed in the enzyme altered in this experiment. Two of these changed amino acids were in the active site, two were nearby, and two were on the surface of the protein. This experiment and others like it strengthen the notion that a few changes can indeed alter enzyme function."
Source: p. 157, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

In a TalkOrigins article written by Richard Harter, we learn about another example:

"Bacteria that eat nylon . . . Well, no, they don't actually eat nylon; they eat short molecules (nylon oligomers) found in the waste waters of plants that produce nylon. They metabolize short nylon oligomers, breaking the nylon linkages with a couple of related enzymes.
Since the bonds involved aren't found in natural products, the enzymes must have arisen since the time nylon was invented (around the 1940s). It would appear this happened by new mutations in that time period. These enzymes which break down the nylon oligomers appear to have arisen by frameshift mutation from some other gene which codes for a functionally unrelated enzyme.
This adaptation has been experimentally duplicated. In the experiments, non-nylon-metabolizing strains of Pseudomonas were grown in media with nylon oligomers available as the primary food source. Within a relatively small number of generations, they developed these enzyme activities."

Think about what this means for the Christian worldview: If this bacteria keeps evolving in this direction, all of those anti-gay preachers that crossdress on weekends are gonna need a new material to make their stockings out of!
Joe Boxhorn, also on TalkOrigins, provides us with two more examples, these in response to predation:

"In this study [by Shinako et al 1990], an amotile, short (1.5 micrometer) rod-shaped bacterium was grown with the ciliate predator Cyclidium. Medium transfers occurred every seventh day. After 8 to 10 transfers long bacterial cells (up to 20 micrometers) appeared in cultures which had the ciliate. . . . They coexisted with a shorter morph. After appearance of the long form, the density of ciliates in the experimental flasks declined. Feeding experiments showed that the ciliates fed preferentially on the shorter cells.
[Example #2—or I guess #4 or 5, overall. There's so much evolution going on that I'm already starting to lose track of it all!] . . . Chlorella vulgaris is a common unicellular green alga that is used as a 'lab rat' in labs throughout the world. We've grown the same strain of it for thousands of generations on agar and in liquid culture without it losing its unicellular morphology. . . . [In Boraas et al,] steady-state unicellular C. vulgaris cultures were innoculated with the predator Ochromonas vellesiaca, a phagotrophic flagellate. Within less than 100 generations a multicellular form of the Chlorella became dominant in the culture. The alga first formed globose clusters of tens to hundreds of cells. After 10-20 generations in the presence of the flagellate, eight-celled colonies predominated. These colonies retained the eight-celled morphology indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. The basis of the change appears to be a change in the cell wall."

For our next example of a beneficial mutation, we're gonna look no further than an article written by another creationist: Alex Williams of Creation.com:

"At this point Darwinists will make a lot of noise about numerous experiments which demonstrate beyond doubt that some mutations can lead to increased fitness, both in humans and in experimental populations. This is certainly true. A recent example is the discovery that a single nucleotide change in ethnic Tibetans (compared with Han Chinese) has allowed them to cope with the chronically low oxygen levels that occur on the high Tibetan plateau."

What's hilarious is that near the start of his article, this same creationist says: "Beneficial mutations are simply assumed to exist because Darwinian theory demands that they exist."
Yes, we're simply assuming the existence of those things that even you provide real-world examples of.
Can we also just stop for a moment to talk about how silly the term "Darwinist" is? It's basically this weird, attempted smear-term that makes it look like we're cultishly bowing down at the altar of Charles Darwin. Yes, he was the originator of the idea—but since he published The Origin Of Species, there's been over 150 years of work and research in this field by countless other scientists. So let's stop pretending like every idea and every scrap of evidence in the field comes from Charles Darwin alone, because that's simply not the case.
And why don't creationists do this with other scientific fields? Why aren't we called "James Huttonists" for accepting the findings of geology? When I say the universe is billions of years old, why am I never smeared as an "Edwin Hubblist"?
It's important to note that in several of the examples I provided, we're not just inferring or assuming that a beneficial mutation has taken place; the exact genetic changes which confer these benefits have been identified—flatly contradicting Barney's claim that "unequivocally positive mutations are unknown to genetics, since they have never been observed."
They have been observed—and this is something that even your fellow creationists can prove to you.
By the way, I don't really care much about credentials—because at the end of the day it's your arguments that matter—but I did find it kind of funny to learn that Barney Maddox, whose credentials are proudly hoisted in front of us by the Institute For Creation Research, is a urology specialist out of Cleburne, Texas. Yeah, if I have any questions about my urine stream, I'll give you a call.
And I have to ask, if humans truly are the perfect creation of God, why would we even have, as an occupation, medical doctors like Barney who specialize in diseased human bodies? Why not just create us without all of these life-ruining ailments? It's a bit puzzling that Barney has the worldview he does because he's basically an expert on the many ways that part of our body has been imperfectly created by God.
—
The next step creationists will take is to argue that, ok, beneficial mutations do take place—but they're so incredibly rare that there's no way they could produce significant evolutionary changes over time! All of the numbers they use to support this claim come from deeply flawed analyses.
One statistic is from John C. Sanford's creationist propaganda book Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome:

"Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medline. He found 453,732 'mutation' hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word 'beneficial' (about 4 in 10,000)."
Source: p. 26. Genetic Entropy & The Mystery Of The Genome, by John C. Sanford. 2005.

So basically, what this guy did was ask: what percent of papers that include the word "mutation" also include the word "beneficial"? And from this, creationists seem to think they're arrived at a reliable estimate of what percentage of mutations are beneficial: 0.04% of them.
Think about how incredibly faulty this analysis is. The word "mutation" could be used in countless contexts that wouldn't involve classifying one unique genetic mutation as either harmful, neutral, or beneficial. The word "mutation" could plausibly be used in papers about speciation, cell reproduction, the testing of a medicine, the milking of cows, crop distributions around the world, gender roles in the X-men movies—literally any subject that relates to biology in some way.
I really doubt that this guy took the time to read all 453,000 papers—or even just the abstracts to ascertain their contents—because even if it just took one minute per paper, this would've taken him over 7,000 hours! Think about all of the scripture you could've read with that time! With 7,000 hours you could've almost made it through the "begats" by now!

I would also add that even if we assumed every usage of the word "mutation" was in the context of a paper that ultimately did focus specifically on genetic mutations, how would this analysis account for overlap where the same mutation is talked about in hundreds or even thousands of different papers? For example, you could have 10,000 papers written about a genetic disease where, at one point or another, they use the word "mutation" to describe how this disease initially came about. Even though all 10,000 papers would be about one particular mutation—say, the one that causes sickle cell disease—according to this analysis, that would be counted as 10,000 hits in the "not a beneficial mutation" ledger.
The assumption being made here is that any paper that includes the word "mutation" is actively categorizing one particular unique mutation as either beneficial, harmful, or neutral. This assumption makes no sense given the countless different ways the subject of mutation could be brought up as well as the repeat discussion of subjects in the literature. These numbers provide us with no meaningful indication whatsoever of what percent of mutations are beneficial.
—
Alex Williams, in his Creation.com article, provides another completely useless analysis on this point:

"The Human Gene Mutation Database currently contains records of more than 141,000 mutations. . . A September 2012 summary reported that of these about 6,000 constitute 'disease associated' and 'functional' polymorphisms (different versions of a DNA sequence). Notice that the classification recognizes just two categories—mutations are either 'disease associated' or they are 'functional'. There is no category labelled 'beneficial'."

"There is no category labelled 'beneficial'", he tells us. The implied conclusion is that since none of these 141,000 mutations are beneficial, the occurrence of beneficial mutations must therefore be extremely rare.
There's just one problem with this conclusion: All of the mutations compiled in this database are related to human disease! Just go to their homepage and you'll read that: "The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD®) represents an attempt to collate all known (published) gene lesions responsible for human inherited disease."
Even the reference Alex Williams provides us with on this point makes this clear in the very first sentence!

"The Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD) constitutes a comprehensive core collection of data on germ-line mutations in nuclear genes underlying or associated with human inherited disease."

So you could go to the Haemophilia A section, for example, and look for every recorded instance of a person having a small deletion mutation, or a missense mutation, in the genes associated with that disease. That is the kind of thing that this database collects, so I wouldn't exactly expect it to be brimming with examples of beneficial mutations!

And again, the same problem from earlier rears its ugly head: the very genetic diseases tracked on this website must have been a part of God's creation plan for us. What kind of sick monster would intentionally create people with a disease like haemophilia? I would genuinely like to hear a creationist try to wriggle their way out of this uncomfortable position.
"Uh, hemophilia obviously allows people to have a greater spiritual connection with God! You know who else bled a lot? Jesus, during his crucifixion."
No, let's be clear: The diseases in this database aren't the result of poor lifestyle choices or dietary habits; these are genetic diseases. This entire database is a shining testimony of God's failure during creation.
And even if we do focus on the narrow category of human disease, you can still find several examples of beneficial mutations that have taken place.
Adam Lee writes the following in a BigThink article:

"All humans have a gene for a protein called Apolipoprotein AI, which is part of the system that transports cholesterol through the bloodstream. Apo-AI is one of the HDLs, already known to be beneficial because they remove cholesterol from artery walls.
But a small community in Italy is known to have a mutant version of this protein, named Apolipoprotein AI-Milano, or Apo-AIM for short. Apo-AIM is even more effective than Apo-AI at removing cholesterol from cells and dissolving arterial plaques, and additionally functions as an antioxidant, preventing some of the damage from inflammation that normally occurs in arteriosclerosis. People with the Apo-AIM gene have significantly lower levels of risk than the general population for heart attack and stroke.
. . . a different mutation, in a gene called PCSK9 . . . has a similar effect. People with this mutation have as much as an 88% lower risk of heart disease."

Sarah Williams provides another example in PNAS:

"One percent of Northern Europeans . . . are now known to carry a mutation in a gene called CCR-5 that renders a cellular receptor defective and confers total immunity from HIV infection."

Combine all three of these mutations, and wow, you could start doing whatever you w

Debunking Republicans: "Guns Don't Kill People!" & "Criminals Will Switch To Knives!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 26 Aug 2019 20:45:02 +0000

Thumbnail photos: docmonstereyes/Flickr; Conmongt/Pixabay

You'll often hear it said that guns don't kill people; people kill people—and in the absence of access to firearms, criminals and killers will simply switch to other tools to get the job done.
Yes, people are ultimately responsible for the homicides they commit, but guns make it much easier for them to kill people to a degree that other weapons simply don't compare to. Even if we granted that the gun user was the problem, this would still be an argument in favor of restricting certain people from having guns. The absurdity of this "guns don't kill people" argument is made clear when you substitute guns for much more powerful weaponry.
It wouldn't make sense to ban every single object that could potentially be used as a weapon because these other things have beneficial primary functions and real-world utility separate from killing people, whereas that's precisely what guns are designed for.
True, mass killings and homicides could be committed by other means, but for a variety of reasons, it's much more difficult to kill somebody with explosives, building fires, knives, or hammers than it is to kill them with guns. People are much more likely to die from gunshot wounds than stab wounds, and pointing to killers making the switch to knives instead of guns undermines the argument that gun control would be ineffective.
—
Fox News shows us a clip of a person making the case that guns don't kill people; people kill people:

Fox News host 1: "A Facebook post now going viral of a Chicago arms instructor proving the point that guns don't kill people; people kill people. Watch."
Instructor Mike: "Here you have all three loaded firearms, all three. Here we go: *stares at firearms for several seconds*
What are you waiting on? You need to get up off your freaking butt right now and you need to start killing people.
Maybe, guns in and of themselves don't kill people!"
Fox News host 2: "Hahaha! There ya have it!"

My question is, who even needs a firearm when you can buy one of those tactical flashlights that are always being advertised on Fox News? Break in here and you're gettin' some light shined in you face!

Yes, if a gun is just sitting there on a table, it's not going to kill somebody on its own—unless, of course, somebody happens to bump into that table, knock it on the ground and trigger a misfire. Your gun might not spontaneously start shooting people, but leave it on the table like that and it's only a matter of time until your toddler walks into the room and shoots you in the face with it.
You could make this same argument about other types of weapons and you see just how silly it is:
"Fully automatic weapons don't kill people; people kill people!"
"These high-grade military explosives in my kitchen aren't just going to blow themselves up!"
"If I just leave my M1 Abrams tank sitting in the driveway, it's not going to kill anybody on its own!"
"My nuclear arsenal will hurt nobody unless I push the big red button myself!"

Yes, tools require a tool user—but different tools are much more deadly than others. It would be much more difficult to kill somebody with a coffee cup or a phone charger than with a shotgun or a pistol. To pretent like all weapons are just these inert objects with no material difference is to intentionally play stupid and intentionally overlook the ease with which certain tools allow you to kill people.
I came across a YouTube comment that I think perfectly sums it up:

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people.......................more effectively with guns."

—
You hear a similar version of this argument made in a YouTube video by Shamelessly Jess, which accrued a whopping 21 views at the time I watched it. 21 views, wow... the only place you'll find a smaller audience than this is a John Delaney campaign event!:

"But the problem is, is that people are really out here protesting saying that we need to give up our guns, and we should ban guns, because guns kill people. But what people are failing to realize is, is that a gun, it's not just going to walk into a store, into a public place, or into a school, and just start unloading on people by itself. People are not openly recognizing that these weapons cannot be used without an operator. So who's really doing the killing here? Because I could leave my guns up against the wall and leave 'em there, and they would not move until I wanted them to. But you people do not get that. You people are trying to say that guns are the problem when in reality, it is the people behind them."

Yeah, we get it, Jess: The gun isn't literally going to sprout legs, walk across the room, and shoot somebody completely on its own... unless we're talking about the Remington T6, that is.

Commercial-narrator voice: "Introducing the Remington T6, the firearm of the future. Equipped with the latest technology, the T6 is capable of scanning its surroundings to identify and neutralize threats.
T6: 'Intruder alert! You have 10 seconds to vacate the premises.'
Child entering kitchen: 'Uhh, I live here!'
T6: '5, 4, 3...'
Child, calling to father: 'Daaaddd?'

The T6 is the homeowner's best friend and the criminal's worst nightmare. You can run from the T6—but it'll chase after you! Order now and you'll also receive a pocket Constitution and a free box of heat-seeking bullets that specifically target undocumented immigrants.
The T6: The smart-gun of the future for the moron of today."
Guns aren't the problem, she says, it's the people behind them that we need to worry about. Even if we accept that she's correct about this, wouldn't this be an argument in favor of more gun control around who can and can't possess weapons?
If the competency and sanity of the gun-owner is the key variable, why not require rigorous safety training before gun purchases are allowed? Why not have mandatory psych evaluations every 6 months or so to make sure that people are mentally fit enough to be owning a gun? Who not pass red-flag laws that allow the state to take guns away from people deemed irresponsible owners and deemed a serious threat to the people around them? Even if you grant the point she's making, you still arrive at the same conclusion: More gun control, and not less, is the answer.
—
She goes on to make the point that other objects can be used as weapons, so why not ban them, as well?

". . . So we should get rid of cars, right? We should just not use cars because we can use cars as a weapon, just like we use guns, right? Guns can be used as a weapon to harm people, and to kill people. But you see, you people fail to realize that you can turn literally anything into a weapon. But your focus is on guns!"

If we're going to ban guns, we should ban cars too because they also can be used as a weapon... Yeah, the thing is, cars have real utility outside of killing people. Ending lives is not what they're designed or primarily used for, despite the way some people drive on the highway; we use them to quickly move us from Point A to Point B. Even though there is a real danger of car crashes or the striking of pedestrians, cars provide us with benefits and value that we as a society have determined outweighs the harms and dangers.
Compare this against guns. Not just the primary, but the sole purpose of guns is to shoot and kill either people or other living creatures. It's not like using a gun to kill somebody is a perversion of that tool; you're not misusing a gun when you shoot somebody with it; instead, you're simply using your gun in exactly the way that it was intended for.
Conservatives will make similar arguments about other potential weapons: "I can beat somebody over the head with a hammer, so does that mean we should ban hammers?" Maybe we should ban hammers because the next time I hear an argument like this I'm probably going to use one to smash my fucking computer in half!

Again, hammers aren't designed to be a killing tool; they're primarily used for construction, for banging nails into wood. Baseball bats are mostly used in recreational sporting games. If you pull out a knife you're probably using it to prepare food or open packages or look cool and manly in front of a woman. All of these items have real utility and real value outside of hurting and killing people. Guns, on the other hand, are designed and used for one thing and one thing only: Shooting and killing things.
"Uh, that's not true! I use my gun for target practice!"
Yeah, and what are you practicing doing? Shooting people. But fine, if all you're interested in is the thrill of target practice, you can do the exact same thing with an airsoft gun or a BB gun.
"Oh, well I'm just a gun collector and enthusiast who really enjoys firearms."
Collect stamps, you fucking douchebag. Like, of all things, you choose to collect deadly weapons that you can quickly kill large numbers of people with?
"Oh, well I use my gun for hunting and food acquisition!"
Fine, you know what? If you want to get your meat from hunting, or if you live in a rural area where grocery stores are few and far between, I would be open to allowing restricted types of firearms for hunting. But let's be realistic here: None of us are living like Lewis and Clark in the 1800s; we live in a developed country in the year 2019. People, by the thousands, are not going to start starving to death if they can't go out and use a gun to actively hunt their own game.
Jess concedes that "Guns can be used as a weapon to harm people, and to kill people."
No, it's not that they can be used for that purpose; that's what they're explicitly designed for. It's not like people mainly use their guns to hammer nails into walls or mix cream into their coffee—they use them to shoot and kill things. We can debate whether such tools should be legally allowed but let's at least have an honest conversation about the utility and purpose of firearms.

—
She also says:

". . . you can turn literally anything into a weapon. But your focus is on guns."

Yeah, and why do you think that is? Why do you think we do focus so much on guns? Is it just a coincidence? Pure happenstance? Or does it have something to do with the unique lethality of guns?
"You can turn literally anything into a weapon," she says. Technically this is true, and if a person was determined enough, I'm sure they could find a way to kill somebody with a pencil or a shoelace or a bottle of shampoo. But arguments of this sort overlook the painfully obvious fact that certain weapons are more effective and dangerous than others. That is why we don't see an equal distribution of mass killings or general homicides committed with every conceivable tool ranging from guns, knives, hammers, cars, and bombs—all the way over to plastic bags and 12-inch dildos.
Where are all the mass killings where a person beats 15 people to death with a coffee mug? Where are the news stories of a crazed high school student who used a piece of rope to kill 12 people in a mass strangling? If you turned on the news tomorrow and learned that 20 students died in a mass killing that morning, what would you assume the weapon of choice was? Could've been anything? Maybe he used a crowbar or a broadsword? Nonsense. We all know what conclusion you would jump to—and there's a very good chance you'd be right about it.
There is a reason that killers in the United States so predictably turn to guns as their tool for the job—and that's because they're extremely effective at quickly killing people using as little effort as possible in a manner that no other tool compares to.
Our focus is on guns and not these other weapons because 2/3s of murders in America are committed using firearms. Statista.com, using FBI data, shows that in 2017, almost 11,000 Americans were murdered by firearms of any type—out of about 17,000 homicides that year. By comparison, only about 1600 were murdered by knives or other cutting instrument

Debunking Republicans: Gun-Free Zones & "Good Guys With Guns"

Anton Dybal — Sun, 18 Aug 2019 02:09:33 +0000

Thumbnail photos: mohamed_hassan/Pixabay; Hustvedt/Wikimedia Commons

After a mass shooting, there are many myths that Republicans will trot out in their attempts to argue that more gun control is not the answer. One is that the vast majority of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones, and the other is that the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Listen to the way right-wingers talk about this subject and you'll begin to believe that if you so much as switch your gun on safety, mass-murdering maniacs will crawl out of the woodwork and descend upon you!
The claim about gun-free zones is based upon a data-set where the locations of mass shootings are horribly misclassified. What we're told are "gun-free zones" often contain armed security, police officers, members of the military, and run-of-the-mill gun-toting citizens. The policies within these so-called gun-free zones often do, in fact, allow people to carry guns on site. On top of that, mass shootings committed during the commission of another crime or within private residences are excluded from the analysis—despite the fact that this latter category comprises the vast majority of mass shootings.
Nationwide data makes very clear that the more relaxed a state's gun laws, and the higher its rate of gun ownership, the more mass shooting deaths per million people. Loosening our gun laws and having more people carry more guns in more locations would sharply increase the number of all-cause gun deaths in the United States—and also the number of mass shootings.
More good guys with guns might sound good, in principle, but it's difficult to put more guns in good guys' hands while simultaneously keeping them out of bad guys' hands—especially given Republican efforts to block the very kinds of laws that would help accomplish this goal. In many cases, untrained "good guys with guns" can actually cause more harm than good, and the deterrence effect would hardly apply to suicidal mass shooters.
Conservatives make the fundamental mistake of focusing on how we should respond once the mass shooting has already begun, while the more important question is: How can we prevent such mass shootings from occurring in the first place? More gun control—and not less—is the answer.
—
Conservatives commonly cite numbers provided by John Lott of The Crime Prevention Research Center, who tells us that 94% of mass public shootings since 1950 have taken place in gun-free zones. Sometimes the cited percentage is even as high as 98%, as Donald Trump claimed in a speech of his.

The first point of response is that the data isn't nearly as clear-cut as conservatives make it out to be. What conclusion you arrive at depends heavily on what you do and don't count as a mass-shooting—and what does and does not qualify as a gun-free zone.
Meg Kelly points out a problem with these often-cited numbers in a Washington Post article:

"Lott used a wide definition of 'gun-free zone' to compile this data. He said he included any place where a 'general citizen' wasn't able to carry a concealed weapon. This included any state that didn't have either a right-to-carry or concealed-carry law."

What are called "gun-free zones" under such a loose criteria can still, in fact, have people with guns on site. As Amy Sherman writes for Politifact,

"Lott characterized Fort Hood and Washington Navy Yard, military sites attacked by gunmen, as gun-free despite the presence of armed security.
'There's an obvious logical problem with such a conceptualization: How can a place be a gun-free zone if guns are present?' [Louis] Klarevas writes. 'The implication is that rampage shooters are only deterred by armed civilians, not by armed guards and cops. But that's an absurd suggestion.'"

"Hey, look at that gun-free zone over there!"
"You mean the place where there's a bunch of armed security walking around?"
"Yeah, that's the one!"
Another example of this is a 2015 mass shooting in Chattanooga, Tennessee which killed five people. The CPRC writes the following about this incident:

"Abdulazeez fired at the Army/Navy recruitment center from the parking lot. . . . Media reports suggest that there was at least one service member on the premises who had a personal firearm and used it to fire at Abdulazeez."

Absurdly enough, this, too, was classified by the CPRC as a "gun-free zone." This guy literally got into a gunfight with soldiers and John's like "Yup, let's go ahead and chalk it up as a gun-free zone."

You can also find examples where Lott classifies as "gun-free" locations where general citizens themselves were carrying guns. Take the 2007 Arvada, Colorado mass shooting, for instance. As Lott writes:

". . . Technically people aren't allowed to carry permitted concealed handguns at a church, but 18 people who asked for permission to carry were made volunteer security guards."

"Dude, there's only like 18 people with guns who hang out at this place. Definitely a gun-free zone." This is complete silliness—especially considering that this particular mass shooting is one that conservatives point to as proving the value of using guns to stop mass shootings! Here's what we read in a Fox News article by Andrew O'Reilly entitled "Texas church shooting not the first time a good guy with gun takes down mass shooter":

". . . in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at Colorado Spring church before being shot by church member and volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam."

Is there anything John Lott won't classify as a gun-free zone?
He's like: "This is a really nice gun-free zone you have here."
I'm like: "John, we're at a firing range right now."
Another misclassification is the 2015 Umpqua Community College shooting. As Amy Sherman continues,

"Lott says that the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon was in a gun-free zone and points to a school policy that bans possession of firearms 'except as expressly authorized by law or college regulations.'
[UCC] spokeswoman Anne Marie Levis previously told PolitiFact Florida the school's gun-free policy didn't apply to students with a valid permit. 'UCC was never designated as a "gun-free zone" by any signage or policy,' she said. 'Umpqua Community College does comply with state law by allowing students with concealed carry licenses to bring firearms on campus.'"

And here's what we learn in a ThinkProgress article (John's like "Think"? "Progress"? I'm not interested in either of those things!):

"Public colleges in Oregon are prohibited from banning guns on campus, thanks to a 2011 state court decision. . . . Multiple reports at the time revealed that there were several armed students on campus at the time of the [UCC] shooting."

A 2007 Salt Lake City shooting took place in a mall where a "No guns allowed" sign was posted, prompting Lott to classify it as a gun-free zone.

But according to GunsToCarry.com,

"'No Weapons' signs under Utah gun laws have no force of law unless they are posted in areas that are mentioned by the law as being off limits. The law specifically mentions 'places of worship' and 'private residences.'"

The 2015 San Bernardino shooting is an example where Lott appears to violate his own criteria. His definition of a gun-free zone includes "Places where it is illegal to carry a permitted concealed handgun."
But here's what he writes about the San Bernadino shooting, which—you guessed it—took place in a gun-free zone, according to John:

"The shooting took place at the Inland Regional Center, which is a state-run facility for individuals with developmental disabilities, including children. According to California law, the carrying of firearms is prohibited in state or local public buildings. However, concealed carry permit holders are exempt from this prohibition."

So as we can see, many locations that Lott describes as "gun-free" are not, in fact, gun-free zones by any reasonable definition of such a term—making his claim that 94% of mass shootings take place in gun-free zones an obviously inaccurate overstatement of the facts.
—
John's criteria for what constitutes a "gun-free" zone is flawed for another reason, explained by Evan & Devin in their ThinkProgress article:

". . . his mass shooting report expands the gun-free zone definition to include areas where Lott feels it might be difficult to obtain a permit or where there might not be many permit holders despite being able to legally carry."

He also excludes from his data-set all mass shootings that took place within private residences—where gun ownership is allowed—and also mass shootings that took place during the commission of another crime. He explains his logic in both cases as follows:

"The official FBI definition of mass public shootings excludes 'shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence' or that occurred in the commission of another crime such as robbery. The reason for this is pretty obvious: the causes and solutions for gang shootings over drug turf are dramatically different than the types of mass public shootings that we see at schools and malls where the point of the attack is to kill as many people as possible.
The FBI also includes only shootings in 'public places' . . . The reason for this is clear: for example, if the attack is in a home, the attacker is much more likely to know if a gun is owned in the home and who might have access to it. By contrast, when an attack occurs in a public place, the attackers don’t know who they have to be concerned might have a gun to stop them."

According to a 2015 report by Everytown For Gun Safety, of the 133 mass shootings between January 2009 and July 2015, 94 of them—or 71%—took place in private residences. This means that Lott is excluding from his data the largest category of mass shootings. When you broaden your inclusion criteria and more finely categorize mass shootings, you reach a very different conclusion from him.
As Sherman continues in her article,

"Klarevas uses three definitions: he refers to 'gun-free zones' as places where civilians are not allowed to carry guns, and there aren't armed personnel stationed on the property. He calls 'gun-restricting zones' places where civilians can't carry guns, yet armed security is routinely present -- such as military facilities or certain college campuses. He refers to places that allow civilians to carry guns as 'gun-allowing zones.'
Using these categories, Klarevas examined 111 shootings since 1966 in which six or more people had been killed in each incident -- regardless of whether it occurred in a public or private location or if it was in the commission of another crime. He found 13 took place in gun-free zones and five took place in gun-restricting zones. That means that the majority occurred in areas where there was no evidence that private guns were prohibited."

So only 13 out of 111 took place in completely gun-free zones—or about 12% of them. Thus, when you more accurately group shootings by the level of gun restriction, and when you include shootings in private locations and where other crimes are being committed—that is to say, when you take into consideration all mass shootings—the statistic is almost completely reversed: 88% of mass shootings did not take place in gun-free zones.
Everytown For Gun Research reaches a similar conclusion, using a timeline from 2009 to 2015, and also examining all mass shootings where four or more people were killed:

"Ninety-four of the 133 incidents (71%) took place wholly in private residences. Of the 38 incidents in public spaces, at least 21 took place wholly or in part where concealed guns could be lawfully carried. All told, no more than 17 of the shootings (13%) took place entirely in public spaces that were so-called 'gun-free zones.'"

John's like: "If you just exclude all of these mass shootings that didn't take place in a gun-free zone, you'll find that almost all of the ones that are left took place in gun-free zones! Ta-daahh!"
No, with that said, I do understand why Lott used the criteria he used. He's interested in a very particular type of mass shooting: Not one that takes place in a private home for interpersonal reasons, not one that happens during a gang war or robbery gone wrong, but he specifically focused on the mass shootings where somebody goes out in public and tries to kill as many people as they can. When we think about mass shootings, this is what we tend to imagine anyway. Even still, when we do look only at this particular type of mass shooting, it's clear from a close examination of these events that what Lott calls a "gun-free zone" is very often anything but.
—
I would also ask, to what degree would such gun-free policies be enforced and effective? When I was in college, for example, every building on campus had a "no guns allowed" sign posted on the doors—yet there were no metal detectors I had to walk through, nobody ever searched my bags to confirmed that I was unarmed, so I could've had a gun on me every single day and nobody would've ever noticed. Plus I was so drunk half the time that for all I know I did have a gun on me!
There wasn't actually anything there to deter me from possessing a gun—and so it would be with many other locations where they technically don't allow guns but do nothing to determine whether people are actually complying with their policy before they can enter the establishment. Just something else to keep in mind about "gun-free zones."

—
With all of that said, while the statistics used by conservatives on this question are misleading and incomplete—while the classifying of locations as "gun-free" is very often done in error—there is some validity to the argument that certain mass shooters try to target areas where there's a lower chance of meeting armed resistance.
Here's what John Lott writes in a National Review article:

"Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College

Debunking Myths About CO2, Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases

Anton Dybal — Sun, 28 Jul 2019 05:45:15 +0000

Thumbnail photo: A loose necktie/Wikimedia Commons

The science is very clear: Manmade CO2 emissions are predominantly responsible for the global warming that we're seeing. Or are they? Manmade climate change deniers reject this idea, and there's a whole spectrum of belief that they adhere to, ranging from the idea that CO2 only has a limited impact, has no impact, or even has the effect of cooling our planet. Some go so far as to argue that the greenhouse effect would violate the laws of physics. There are many different myths about carbon dioxide, and here in this video, I'll debunk several of them.
The common refrain that CO2 is not a pollutant is irrelevant, because the more important question to ask is: Will rising CO2 levels cause harm? The fact that CO2—and other greenhouse gases—are present in very small amounts in the atmosphere doesn't mean they can't have a large impact on global temperatures. In addition to their concentration, we also need to take into consideration the properties and effects that these molecules have.
The greenhouse effect does not violate the laws of thermodynamics, because instead of creating energy from nothing, greenhouse gases simply retain energy within our atmosphere that originated from the sun. The claim that CO2 actually cools our planet is based upon a misrepresentation of NASA findings on what takes place in the outer—and not the inner—atmosphere. Direct measurements of the radiance of greenhouse gases makes clear that the greenhouse effect is a very real phenomenon.
—
Many climate change deniers will assert that contrary to the cries of alarmists, carbon dioxide is not dangerous. Courtney Kirchoff makes this argument in a LouderWithCrowder article entitled "Top 5 'Climate Change' Myths Debunked."
Louder With Crowder? Thank God for the mute button! I think what we need are more YouTube channels that provide the leftist counter-argument to channels like his. While we're at it, why not give them catchy names, too? How about: ShutYourFuckin'PieholeWithDybal? That one right there has a lot of potential.
Kirchoff writes the following:

"MYTH: Rise in CO2 is dangerous . . .
TRUTH: CO2 isn't a pollutant."

Courtney's counter-argument is a textbook example of a red herring, which Bo Bennett describes as "attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond." What she writes isn't a refutation of this so-called climate change myth; it's simply a dodge where Courtney changes the topic of discussion to a much more narrow one.
When people talk about the harms of rising CO2 levels, they're talking about many different things. We're talking about increasing ocean acidity causing worldwide coral bleaching and ultimately a massive decline in oceanic biodiversity. We're talking about temperatures increasing so rapidly that many species can't adapt quickly enough, causing them to go extinct. We're talking about pathogenic organisms expanding their range as the planet warms. We're talking about more floods, droughts, water shortages, and forest fires.
We're talking about all of those things, and more, considered collectively—and the climate change denier's response is to say: "Oh yeah? Well the literal act of inhaling more CO2 itself won't cause direct bodily harm to humans, so therefore there's nothing to worry about!"
To respond in this way is to intentionally play stupid. Just because inhaling or otherwise coming into contact with CO2 doesn't cause direct physical harm doesn't mean rising CO2 levels won't cause harm in other ways.
You could argue that water is not a pollutant. Ok? And if I boil a pot of it and splash it in your face, it's gonna severely burn you. People drown in water. Water can form massive waves that destroy your city and kill thousands. Whether a certain molecule is technically classified as a "pollutant" is a completely separate question from whether that molecule can cause harm or not.
It's like I strangle someone to death and say: "Well technically the rope was hypoallergenic."
By the way, I should also point out that the video version of this article has since been deleted. Part of me wants to believe that that's because it was so littered with obvious falsehoods that Crowder deleted it to save face—but if that's the case, why are any of his other videos still on YouTube?
—
Something else you'll hear argued is that because CO2 is present in such small quantities in the atmosphere, it couldn't possibly warm the planet in any significant way. Here's what the Reddit user "SftwEngr" has to say about the subject:

"CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere, a trace gas. What more needs to be said? CO2 isn't made of magic pixie dust, that can change entire planetary climates at 400 ppm."

Here's what this same guy had to say about my previous video on climate change:

"another Millennial who likely was repeatedly told how clever they are by his parents"

Wow, I'm gonna go run home to my mommy now, because you just owned me. I've been humiliated!
Look, just because CO2 is only a small percentage of the atmosphere doesn't mean it can't impact the climate. The often-cited counter-example is that of poison in your body: If 400 ppm of something is no big deal, why not introduce 400 ppm cyanide into your coffee or 400 ppm lead into the bloodstream of your newborn child? (He's like "That's what my parents did"; I'm like "Ah, it's all making sense now.")

If you just spell out the logic of his argument in plain English, it becomes immediately apparent how flawed it is: Small quantities of a certain molecule can't have large effects. Dan Miller, on his YouTube channel, performs a demonstration using ink and water that shows just how silly this argument is. As we can see, at 0 ppm, the water is obviously clear; at 280 ppm, it's a light gray color, and at 560 ppm, it's solid black.

The reason I like this demonstration is because here we're also dealing with the absorption of electromagnetic radiation. In this case, we're talking about visible light rather than infrared, but the point is clear: Very small quantities of certain molecules can radically alter the degree to which electromagnetic radiation is absorbed.
I also think that when deniers point out that CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, the assumption seems to be that it could only therefore impact temperatures to a similarly small degree. So since CO2 has increased from being 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere since the 1800s, one might be tempted to conclude that it could've only therefore increased global temperatures by around 0.01%.
Scientists actually have several ways of determining what impact a doubling of CO2 levels would have on worldwide temperatures. As Rebecca Lindsey writes for Climate.gov,

"Scientists say that doubling pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels will likely cause global average surface temperature to rise between 1.5° and 4.5° Celsius (2.7° to 8.1° Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial temperatures. (Current concentrations are about 1.4 times pre-industrial levels.)
. . . Broadly speaking, climate scientists infer sensitivity by looking at the correlation between global concentrations of carbon dioxide and global average surface temperature. They look at the correlation using modern observations, paleoclimate records like ice cores, and computer model experiments."

Another problem with this line of thinking is that molecules differ in the degree to which they contribute to global warming. The University of Michigan's Center For Sustainable Systems shows us the global warming potential that different molecules have, with global warming potential being defined as "the relative effectiveness of GHGs in trapping the Earth's heat over a certain time horizon."
CO2 is typically used as the baseline and therefore has a global warming potential of 1. The global warming potentials of other greenhouse gases are much more pronounced: methane, 25; nitrous oxide, 298; CHF3, 14,800; and sulfur hexafluoride, 22,800.

So the point is, it's not just the concentration of molecules that matters; we also need to take into consideration the properties and effects of these molecules. Simply saying that 400ppm is a small number proves absolutely nothing.
—
Deniers will also sometimes point out that water vapor itself is a greenhouse gas, and because it's present in such large quantities in the atmosphere, this somehow calls into question the idea that CO2 and other greenhouse gases can have any significant impact. Here's what they write on FriendsOfScience.org. "Friends of Science," yes, that's exactly the description that comes to mind when I envision climate change deniers.

"Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O . . . While the minor gases are more effective as 'greenhouse agents' than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 75% of the 'Greenhouse effect'."

This argument has always struck me as a bit weird: "You say we should worry about manmade greenhouse gas emissions, but water vapor is, by far, the most abundant greenhouse gas!" Ok? Well it's not like we're intentionally bringing comets from outer space into our atmosphere and vaporizing them, thus directly increasing the concentration of water vapor, so what relevance does that even have? It's these other greenhouse gases that we're emitting into the atmosphere through our actions—so since they're the ones whose concentrations are increasing, they're the ones that are going to be increasing the temperature of the planet.
Not only that, but when you warm the planet by emitting these other greenhouse gases, you also ultimately do end up increasing the atmospheric concentration of water vapor. As The Union Of Concerned Scientists writes,

". . . a vicious cycle exists with water vapor, in which as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the Earth's temperature rises, more water evaporates into the Earth's atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet. The higher temperature atmosphere can then hold more water vapor than before."

I'm still waiting for a group of deniers to form The Union Of Unconcerned Scientists:
"My God, the planet is warming!"
They're like: "Oh, whatever man. I'm sure it'll be fine."
...They tell us that water vapor is the greenhouse gas that's seriously driving the greenhouse effect. Ok, well even using your logic, we are increasing the concentration of water vapor, so now what?
Let's look at some numbers on this question. Citing data from Held 2000, Skeptical Science writes the following:

"How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (eg - loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Held 2000)."

YaleClimateConnections elaborates on this subject:

"Claims that water vapor is the 'dominant' driver of recently observed climate change are spurious at best. While uncertainties in the magnitude of water vapor feedbacks are one of the key areas concerning climate change, none of this research casts any doubt on the role of carbon dioxide and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases as the initial forcings behind our current climate perturbation."

—
Deniers have other ways of arguing that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is no big deal. A good example of this comes from a Daily Wire article written by Mike Van Biezen:

"The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:
The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface. The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers. Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth. However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.
It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth."

This is one of those arguments that might seem convincing and intimidating on first glance because it's replete with scientific terminology and appears to have been written by someone who knows what he's talking about, but if you carefully break down and think about what being said here, it really makes no sense.
By the way, in the article, Van Biezen is quick to describe himself as a "data analysis expert." If there's one thing climate change deniers love, it's finding a person with scientific credentials who agrees with them. They will give that guy a megaphone, publish his articles—I've even heard that Dennis Prager will personally give him a back massage.

Sure, you can find deniers with a scientific background, but I never find myself feeling impressed by this. I'm like: "Oh, I see you're an earth science professor and you're wrong. Cool, now I know two things about you."

"It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal imp

Debunking: "Humans Are NOT Causing Global Warming!"

Anton Dybal — Thu, 11 Jul 2019 17:36:29 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Abet Llacer/Pexels; NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/Flickr; Mriya/Wikimedia Commons; OpenClipart-Vectors/Pixabay; Nobbler 76/Wikimedia Commons

Deniers of manmade climate change will claim that our greenhouse gas emissions are not causing global warming; instead, other factors are responsible. And I've gotta hand it to them; they're very creative when it comes to explaining away Earth's warming temperatures: Milankovitch cycles, the Sun, volcanoes, too many people leaving the stove on—anything but greenhouse gases, basically, are responsible. Here I argue that the explanations they put forth cannot account for the planet's warming temperatures.
Milankovitch cycles are long-term processes that wouldn't cause the rapid rate of warming we're currently seeing. Even if they were responsible, we should be in the cooling phase of the Milankovitch cycle—so why the global warming? On top of that, even if we were in the rising phase of the cycle, this wouldn't nullify the warming effect of greenhouse gases; if anything, it would compound the warming and should thus alarm us even more. Measurements of the planet's orbital changes simply don't support this narrative.
Solar output has been largely static over the warming period, as proxy measurements via sunspots and direct measurements via satellite makes clear. The differing rates that layers of the atmosphere are warming at also support greenhouse gases as the cause—not solar energy. Volcanic greenhouse gas emissions pale in comparison to those from human activities—and the molecular signature of the CO2 being released matches up with fossil fuel emissions and doesn't match up with volcanic emissions.
Scientific analyses of the question make clear that natural forces cannot account for the warming we've observed, and it is only with manmade greenhouse gas emissions that you can explain the rising temperatures.
—
I came across the Milankovitch cycle argument being made on Twitter by the user "@TinPotDickTator". He shared a graph of temperature and CO2 going back over 400,000 years, and as we can see, there have been regular spikes and drops in temperature. As he put it:

"Who created the previous climate cycles, prior industrial civilizations?"

Ya know, sometimes I do actually suspect that that's the case. It sometimes seems as if the fossil fuel industry so enjoys polluting the planet that it's not enough for them to do it just the one time; they love it so much that they created a time machine to travel back and experience the joy of destroying the environment over and over again.
I'm sorry, but have any of you ever heard a single person argue that humans are the only conceivable cause of all climate change throughout all of Earth's history? This guy is attacking a strawman, plain and simple.
"Haha! You say humans are causing global warming today, but in order to be logically consistent, that must mean that they were also the cause of global warming 300,000 years ago!"
This would be like saying: "You say this person died of heart disease, but that means nobody in Earth's history could've ever died of anything else!" If the human brain was capable of having a miscarriage, this argument would be what came out.
—
In the course of our very productive Twitter debate, he went on to tell me that I should look up "Milankovitch cycles"—as if I've never heard of them before—arguing that these explain the past and present temperature increases.
What, exactly, are Milankovitch cycles? An article on UniverseToday.com explains:

"A Milankovitch cycle is a cyclical movement related to the Earth's orbit around the Sun. There are three of them: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession [or wobble]. According to the Milankovitch Theory, these three cycles combine to affect the amount of solar heat that's incident on the Earth's surface and subsequently influence climatic patterns."

So the argument is that the cyclical nature of temperature changes over time proves that orbital variations—and not human activity—are the cause of our current warming. It certainly seems like a plausible explanation when you look at graphs like the one he presented us with, but when you closely examine the subject, you find that this position does not stand up to scrutiny.
TinPot tells us that "Currently we're at peak of latest cycle with cooling due."
Ah yes, cooling should be happening any minute now, so clearly there's nothing to worry about here—except for the fact that the planet is not cooling; it's instead warming at an alarmingly rapid and accelerating rate!
"Hey, these cycles which tell us that the planet should be cooling right now explain the fact that our planet is instead rapidly warming!"
I'm sorry, this just isn't a very convincing argument to me. If you're going to invoke a certain pattern to explain a set of data, shouldn't that set of data actually match up with that pattern?
The OSS Foundation puts it bluntly:

"Simply put, based on the evidence, mankind has forced the Earth climate system to depart from it's natural cycle forcing."

Maybe you'd argue that we're still in the midst of an upward spike and that's what's causing the temperature increases? Well look at the past spikes in temperature on this graph and you'll see that they took about 10,000 years to materialize. On average, these were increases of about 10*C. 10,000 years divided by 10*C = 1,000 years for each 1*C increase in temperature.
Compare that against present-day rates of warming. NASA temperature data shows us that from 1910 to 2018—a period of about 100 years—temperatures have increased by about 1.3*C. Let's just round down and say they've increased by 1*C. So this is a 1*C increase over the past 100 years compared against past Milankovitch-cycle warming rates of 1*C for every 1,000 years. That is to say, current warming rates are 10x faster than what we've seen during past warming spikes—indicating that clearly more than just Milankovitch cycles are at play here.

As the EPA points out in a report of theirs:

". . . changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit as well as the tilt and position of Earth’s axis affect temperature on very long timescales (tens to hundreds of thousands of years), and therefore cannot explain the recent warming."

And even if it was correct that we were in the midst of a Milankovitch spike right now, this wouldn't disprove or negate the idea that greenhouse gases are warming the planet. We know what effect greenhouse gases have on atmospheric temperatures, and pointing out that there's an additional source of warming wouldn't somehow magically nullify the greenhouse effect.
By analogy, imagine that I'm hanging out with my non-existent group of friends and we're roasting hotdogs in a bonfire, as I've been told twenty-somethings love to do in their spare time.
While my hotdog is being cooked by the flames from the fire, I also start roasting it with an acetalyne blowtorch at the exact same time. It would not make sense to say: "Actually, the blowtorch isn't warming the hotdog, because if you look closely, you'll see that the hotdog is in a bonfire." Two things can be true at the same time, and two different sources of heat can be increasing temperatures at the same time. It's not like these options are mutually exclusive.

So if anything, the Milankovitch cycle enthusiast is actually making an argument in favor of even more drastic measures to combat climate change, because they're basically arguing that in addition to the Milankovitch cycle warming spike, we're compounding the temperature increase by sharply increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. The truth of their argument should therefore make us more alarmed about global warming—not less.
Notice on his graph that CO2 concentrations in the modern era have skyrocketed. They're increasing at such a rapid pace that you can't even depict them on this timescale as anything other than a straight upward line. And modern CO2 levels on his graph stop at 360 ppm when really, in 2019, they're at about 410 ppm—a level that is quite literally off the chart. Doesn't this unprecedented spike in CO2 levels suggest to you that something other than Milankovitch cycles are at play here? Doesn't this make you worry that maybe the temperature increase we're seeing might be connected to that?

TinPot would argue that there's nothing to worry about, writing that: "We can't emit enough GH gas to stop the coming cooling which is due to combined forces of Milankovitch cycles"
When I read things like this, it makes me wish that the next Milankovitch cycle would send our planet straight into a black hole!
This is nothing more than a bald assertion made with no supporting evidence—or as Fox News would call it, a "fact." Please point me to the scientific literature making clear that greenhouse gas emissions couldn't possibly increase global temperatures enough to override the impact of Milkanovitch cycles. It doesn't exist. This guy is just talking out of his ass.
Just look, on his chosen graph, at the amount of time that it takes for the planet to cool as a result of Milankovitch cycles: we're talking 10–20,000 years to drop about 10*C. The planet is currently warming at a rate that's 10–20x faster than that, so please explain to me how these glacially slow Milankovitch cycles can outweigh that? It'd be like dropping one ice cube every 30 minutes into a pot of water boiling on high and expecting that to be enough to bring it back to room temperature.
Climate change deniers also seem oblivious to the basic fact that you can compare Earth's recent orbital changes against the temperature increases to see whether there's a correlation or not. Bloomberg presents us with exactly such a comparison using data from NASA GISS, and as we can see, Earth's orbit simply hasn't been changing in such a way that would account for even a fraction of the temperature increases that we've seen lately. The orbital changes have been negligible, having a net zero impact on global temperatures since 1880.

—
Deniers will often invoke not just Milankovitch cycles, but also an increase in solar output to explain the warming that we're seeing. The solution is obvious: We destroy the Sun.
Here's what the most boring man in the world, Patrick Moore, argues in a PragerU video:

". . . we do know there are many more factors in play than simply the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. Factors such as the shape and size of the Earth's elliptical orbit around the sun, activity from the sun, and the amount of wobble or tilt in the Earth's axis, among many others."

*me making snoring sounds because Patrick Moore put me to sleep* "...Oh, what? Yup, mmhmm, I'm awake."
*In unenthusastic robot voice with tone varying awkwardly*: "We do know that Patrick Moore is an extremely terrible speaker. Why does he sound so rigid when he reads a script?"
Yes, that is the Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada who now exploits his former ties with that organization to get handsomely rewarded as a corporate lobbyist. I guess it makes sense that he speaks with a complete lack of emotion because I suspect that he's quite literally sold his soul to the oil industry.
Whenever you hear deniers invoke alternative explanations for present warming trends, pay close attention and you will ine

Debunking William Lane Craig: "Objective Morality Comes From God!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 24 Jun 2019 03:02:21 +0000

Thumbnail photos: University of Notre Dame/YouTube; Gebhard Fugel/Wikimedia Commons

William Lane Craig is a theologian and philosopher who argues that if God does not exist, then there is no solid basis for objective morality. Even if he was correct that without God, we'd be morally confused and directionless, this isn't evidence for God's existence; Craig is merely drawing attention to what he views as undesirable consequences of God not existing.
Craig's description of God as perfectly good, loving and kind doesn't match up with his many horrific actions described in the Bible, and thus calls into the question the idea that the moral guidelines coming from God would even be worth following. Divine command theory allows people to justify the worst atrocities so long as they're allegedly sanctioned by God, and the rich history of religious violence and immorality makes a mockery of the position that the best moral conduct stems from God and religion.
It would also be a very strange kind of objective morality that leads religious people to disagree with each other on virtually every single ethical question, with all parties involved citing scripture and the alleged opinion of God to back up their views. Without God, people are still capable of using reason and empathy to decide right from wrong, and even though it's not a perfect process, over time, moral progress is made. William Lane Craig, by pointing to an imaginary God, only pretends to have solved the difficult question of how to resolve moral disagreements.
—
Craig summarizes his position as follows in a ReasonableFaith.org article entitled "Can We Be Good Without God?". I meant to read the whole thing, but I kept getting distracted by my atheistic urges to go rape and murder people!

"Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God."

We're gonna take his argument piece by piece and break down what he gets wrong here. He goes on in the article to write the following:

"To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.
On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God’s own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God’s moral nature is what Plato called the 'Good.' He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth."

I see so many problems with Craig's position that it's difficult to decide where to even begin.
I guess the first thing I should point out is that, even if we granted what he's saying here, this line of reasoning does absolutely nothing to establish whether or not a God exists. This argument can't at all be described as a proof of God's existence, because to even make the argument that he's making, Craig has to assume the existence of God. Craig himself quickly concedes this in his debate against Sam Harris:

"In tonight's debate, I'm going to defend two basic contentions: First, if God exists, then we have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. And second, if God does not exist, then we do not have a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties.
Now notice that these are conditional claims: I shall not be arguing tonight that God exists. Maybe Dr. Harris is right? That atheism is true? That wouldn't affect the truth of my two contentions. All that would follow is that objective moral values and duties would then, contrary to Dr. Harris, not exist."

Answer me this, Christians: If a good God truly does exist, why would he create a universe where neckties that hideously ugly are allowed to exist?

When you step back and take a birds-eye view of his argument here, Craig basically seems to just be arguing that if God does not exist, that would have undesirable consequences. Craig doesn't like the idea of morality not being objective, so he invokes God as a remedy for this unease that he feels. This becomes absolutely clear in the concluding section of his article:

"If God does not exist, then it is plausible to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that there is no moral accountability for how we live and act. The horror of such a morally neutral world is obvious."

Oh, the neutrality!
This is no way to arrive at rational beliefs. Imagine, by analogy, a child saying: "Look, if Santa does not exist, then that means there is no jolly old fellow watching over us as we sleep and preparing to send us gifts on Christmas as a reward for our good behavior. The horror of such a Santa-deprived world is obvious."
Ok, you might not like to live in a world without Santa Claus—and I personally have a very hard time falling asleep without creepy old men watching me—but your personal preferences on how the world and universe should be is a completely separate question from how the world and universe actually are.
Perhaps, in an atheistic universe, morality is fundamentally subjective? What if there really was no solid way for the atheist to condemn the serial killer as doing something wrong—and what if, as Craig argues, morality in an atheistic world is just different individuals arbitrarily deciding for themselves what's right or wrong? Even if all of this is correct, ok, so what? Perhaps we just live in an absurd universe? Perhaps we live in a world where morality is a confusing subject where no clear answers exist? Saying "I don't like the sound of that" isn't proof of anything and doesn't justify believing in a God.
By analogy, you could claim that in a godless universe where there's no afterlife, people's brains simply shut off when they die, and that's it for them. Such a prospect might terrify you, you might not like the idea of dying forever and never returning, but whether or not you're happy or comfortable with the way the world is doesn't really have any bearing on the way the world is. There's a term for what Craig is engaged in here, and that term is "wishful thinking": "I like the way things would be if there was a God, and I don't like the way things would be if there wasn't a God." That is really what his argument boils down to here, and thus, at its core, it's fundamentally illogical.
—
I also see a problem with the way that Craig characterizes God—and by extension, his moral views—as intrinsically good, perfect, and loving. Here's what he says in that Sam Harris debate:

"As Saint Anselm saw, God is by definition the greatest conceivable being, and therefore, the highest good. Indeed, he is not merely perfectly good, he is the locus and paradigm of moral value. God's own holy and loving nature provides the absolute standard against which all actions are measured. He is, by nature, loving, generous, faithful, kind, and so forth."

I find it weird that Craig describes God as "the greatest conceivable being" because we already know who the greatest conceivable being is: His name is Anton Dybal, and you can provide him with devotional offerings at Patreon.com/aSkepticalHuman. Supporters receive access to patron-only bonus videos.
When Craig uses all of these glowing terms to describe God's nature, all he appears to be doing is simply assuming that this is the way a God would be. He thinks he's describing the way a God necessarily must be here when all he's really doing is defining God in such a way that he finds acceptable.
If you look past Craig's "greatest conceivable being" sophistry, you'll find that it's very easy to imagine a wicked God who wants people to suffer and live miserable lives. How else could you explain the existence of Christian radio if it's not a diabolical God's best effort to torture you on your drive through Nebraska?
We could also imagine an indifferent God who simply doesn't care either way whether people suffer. Or we can imagine a polytheistic universe where different gods have differing attitudes towards the suffering of humans.
Craig might say: "Oh, well you just don't understand the nature of God. Such a being necessarily would have to be good and loving and kind."
Well I don't see how this is anything more than a bald assumption, and Craig's description here seems to be circular: "God is intrinsically good and loving because if you look at the way that I'm defining God, it's a being who's intrinsically good and loving."
I'm gonna try to use this technique the next time I'm on a date with somebody and they're rejecting my sexual advances—i.e., every single date that I go on. I'm like: "No, you don't understand: You have to suck my penis because I'm defining my penis as the thing that necessarily must be sucked by you."

It seems to me like Craig describes God as intrinsically good simply because that's how he conceives of God, and that's how he wants a God to be. Once again, this is nothing more than wishful thinking: "This is how I would like a God to be, this is how I conceive of the Christian God, therefore, I'm going to define him as necessarily possessing the attributes that I would like him to possess." This argument basically boils down to: "This is the way God is because I say so and because that's how I want him to be."
—
Also noteworthy is that the very description of God's nature that Craig provides us with—his "loving, generous, faithful, and kind" disposition—seems to get turned on its head when you simply read through the Bible or just imagine certain real-life scenarios that this God must preside over.
God is loving and kind? What is loving and kind about torturing and burning your children for an infinite period of time because of finite, theological crimes they committed? I know children are annoying but they're not that bad. What is loving and kind about God commanding Moses to kill every male member of the Midianites—including children—to kill all of the non-virgin females as well, and keep the 32,000 Midianite virgin women for themselves?

God is generous? Tell that to the countless, devoutly religious people who prayed for God to cure their illnesses—illnesses that this very God himself is responsible for creating in the first place—only to have their prayers fall on deaf ears despite the fact that this God would've heard their prayers, felt their pain, understood what they wanted, was capable of remedying the situation, and yet sat back and allowed them to die miserable, painful deaths. Doesn't sound very generous to me.

It's like having somebody starving to death next to you while you're gluttonously eating a four-course meal, and despite them begging for scraps of food to save their life, you refuse to give them even the tiniest crumb—and then you turn around and see that people are praising you for your generosity. It's completely absurd.
Recall that Craig doesn't just describe God's nature as pretty loving or impressively kind; he talks about "God's . . . perfectly good nature." If it truly was the case that the Christian God Craig believes in was perfectly good, perfectly moral, perfectly kind and perfectly loving, wouldn't you expect perfect consistency with these traits and not see any deviation from them?
I see only two possible options here: Either Craig is mistaken and the God he believes in, as portrayed in the Bible, isn't perfectly good—and thus the morality that comes from his worldview isn't nearly as unimpeachable as he makes it out to be—or, alternatively, God is indeed perfectly good, and that applies to even the most wicked tales from the Bible and the most horrific Christian ideas like an afterlife in hell. Craig subscribes to the notion of divine command theory—whereby any of God's pronouncements or actions are, by definition, moral—so he would go with the latter option.
That means that when God, in the Book of Numbers, commands his followers to stone a man to death for the grave offense of gathering sticks on the sabbath, Craig would have you believe that this was a perfectly loving and kind action. When God floods the Earth and virtually every human being drowns to death, we're to believe that this was a perfectly good and moral action. When God commands his chosen people to invade, pillage, and massacre city after city in the Old Testament—brutally killing thousands of people each time over in the process—we are to believe that such commands were consistent with and illustrative of God's perfectly kind and good nature.
Could anything be more ethically backwards than this very idea? And if these are the sort of actions sanctioned by the God that Craig points to, doesn't this call into question the idea that this God's moral guidelines are even worth following? It's like, who invited the mass-murdering psychopath to the ethical roundtable?

Anton Dybal — Tue, 11 Jun 2019 03:58:51 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Nathan Flach/YouTube; AE911Truth.org

9/11 truthers will argue that molten steel was seen dripping out of the Twin Towers prior to collapse, and that it was also found in large quantities in the debris pile after collapse. They claim that the only way to explain these observations is the usage of thermite to bring down the buildings in a controlled demolition. As I show here, this position is unjustified for many different reasons.
There's no good reason to believe that the molten material dripping out of the buildings was steel; aluminum from the airplanes is a better explanation given its low melting point and given that it glows bright orange at the temperatures that would have been present within the towers. The fact that we only see this material dripping from the location where fires are raging and where debris was present makes aluminum the much more likely explanation.
The alleged molten steel in the debris pile has never been tested to actually confirm its composition, so once again, I think molten aluminum—both from the airplanes and the buildings themselves—makes much more sense. The so-called World Trade Center meteorites that we're told contain previously molten steel, as far as I know, haven't been tested to confirm their composition. Rust on the surface proves nothing—as the everyday formation of rust stains makes clear— and the obvious presence of still-solid steel embedded within these meteorites contradicts the assertion that they're proof of non-solid steel.
Severely deformed steel beams also don't support the demolition hypothesis, because neither thermite nor conventional demolition charges attack steel in this way, whereas building fires are more than hot enough to cause steel to become highly pliable. Finally, hot surface temperatures in the debris field can't be used to infer the existence of below-ground pools of molten steel, and the allegedly motionless hot-spots actually shifted around constantly after collapse—exactly as you'd predict from fires, and not at all what you'd expect if they were static pools of molten steel.
—
One key piece of evidence that truthers point to to support a thermitic demolition is video of molten metal flowing out of the South Tower prior to its collapse. Here we see a stabilized video of this posted by Nathan Flach on YouTube:

Here's what Jonathan H. Cole argues about the subject in his famous video entitled "9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate":

"But there's a problem: Office and open-air jet fuel fires cannot melt steel. The National Institute of Standards and Technology said, that the maximum air temperatures was about 1800 degrees [F], or about 1000 degrees colder than what's needed to melt steel. So what could melt steel and explain all the evidence? Independent scientists began to piece that evidence together, and they suggested some type of thermitic material must have been used as part of the Tower's demolition."

Notice first the unsubstantiated assumption that what we see dripping out of the building is molten steel, specifically. Obviously no samples were taken of this dripping material to confirm its composition, so all truthers are doing is assuming that that's what it is. As the saying goes, assumption is the mother of all failures.
Given that the temperature of the fires burning within the Twin Towers were, indeed, insufficient to melt steel—which has a melting point of about 1400–1500*C—the next reasonable question to ask is: Were there any other metals present in that area that the fires could have melted? The answer is yes: aluminum, which has a melting point of 660*C.
How hot were the fires in the Twin Towers? Here's what NIST has to say about the subject:

"Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers"

"Pfft, yeah right, like I'm gonna trust those Illuminati talking points from NIST! What's next, you're gonna tell me that I should get vaccinated and brush my teeth?"
Given the unwillingness of truthers to believe any information provided by NIST, here's another source on this question: an article by Gerald Newman about the famous Cardington Office-Fire Test:

"The recorded maximum atmosphere and unprotected steel temperatures were 1213°C and 1150°C respectively."

So the fires burning within the Twin Towers would've been several hundred degrees Celcius hotter than the melting point of aluminum.

"But aha!", the truther will say, "molten aluminum is silver—not bright orange!" Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, made this observation in a lecture of his:

"We're told by NIST that this substance must be melted aluminum from the airplane. But, melted aluminum looks like melted aluminum! It's silvery. It doesn't glow in daylight conditions."

It is correct that aluminum is silver at relatively low liquid temperatures—but heat it past a certain point and it glows bright orange. An article on 911Debunkers.Blogspot concedes this, but goes on to argue that it's bright orange only within its container; once poured, it immediately silvers. AE911Truth makes the same assertion:

"Molten aluminum appears silvery when poured in daylight conditions, even if initially heated to the yellow-white temperature range in the crucible."

911Debunkers links to a video showing this to substantiate their claims. In the video, a guy heats molten aluminum to 1800*F, or almost 1000*C, and while it is bright orange within its container, it instantly turns silver when he goes to pour it.

And no backyard scientific demonstration is complete without some twangy guitar music playing in the background! It makes me wanna don a leather jacket and go fight somebody at a pool hall!
Me, in tough-guy voice: "You talkin' to me, bro?"
He's like: "What? I've been sitting here for two hours and haven't said a word to anybody!"
The obvious drawback to this demonstration is that he's using a very small quantity of aluminum. This is like half a Pepsi can's worth of aluminum. It's like he found three paper clips in his desk and he's like: "Alright, time to melt these babies down and do some science!"
You can find other videos of larger quantities of molten aluminum that aren't just bright orange within their container, but remain bright orange as they're being poured. Here's a video of an aluminum manufacturing factory, posted by LA Machines on YouTube. As we can see, the molten aluminum is a very bright orange color, and we see no signs of it turning silver as it's being poured. I mean Christ, I almost had to put on a pair of sunglasses just to watch this video!

I also like the complete lack of protective clothing that they're wearing here. They're like: "Hey, you ready to go handle a massive cauldron full of bubbling-hot liquid metal?", and he's like: "Yeah, hang on, lemme just grab my sweatpants and T-shirt real quick."
"What if it splashes up on you?"
He's like: "Please, I've been doin' this for almost three weeks; I think I know what I'm doin' here."
Here's another video where a much smaller amount of molten aluminum is poured into a shredding machine—why? I have no fucking idea—and as we can see, while being poured, it retains its bright orange color.

By the way, you think pouring liquid aluminum into a shredding machine is weird? I found another video where a guy poured molten aluminum into the mouth of a dead mackerel. I wanna know what could possibly possess a person to do such a thing?

This guy's at a job interview and they're like: "So, what do you like to do in your spare time?"
And he's like (nervously): "Uhhh.....play videogames?"
They're like: "Why's this guy smell like fish?"
Richard Gage is simply mistaken when he says that molten aluminum "doesn't glow in daylight conditions." Even small quantities of molten aluminum can turn and stay bright orange while being poured. Yes, tiny amounts of bright orange aluminum might cool and silver very quickly, but larger amounts will not, analogous to how a cup of coffee will cool to room temperature much faster than a bathtub filled with coffee will.
—
Keep in mind that there was an abundant supply of aluminum within the Twin Towers in very close proximity to where we see this molten material dripping from, and that's the airplanes that crashed into them.
According to a post on Stack Exchange, about 70 to 80% of an aircraft's weight would come from aluminum. Excluding fuel and cargo, ModernAirliners.com tells us that the lightest variant of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers, the Boeing 767, is about 176,000 pounds. 70% of 176,000 pounds is 123,000 pounds of aluminum, which melted down, works out to about 6,206 gallons, or 78 80-gallon bathtubs worth.
Obviously not all of the aluminum would've made it inside and not all of it would collect in one area where it's heated to a liquid, but even if just 10% of it was liquefied, we're still talking 620 gallons, or 8 bathtubs worth. This is more than enough to account for what we see dripping out of the South Tower before its collapse.
For what it's worth, I don't support what we can call "the burning log hypothesis" put forth by NIST:

"Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

The reason I don't buy this as an explanation for the orange color is because the color looks to me like it's far too uniform to be caused by burning office materials; if this was the explanation, I'd expect to see a lot more patchiness and discoloration. And as we've seen, molten aluminum can glow bright orange when it's sufficiently heated.
Also worth noting is that if you look closely at the footage, you'll see that some of this material does appear to silver on its way down—as we would expect from cooling molten aluminum.

—

Debunking Conservatives: "U.S. Gun Control Doesn't Work!"

Anton Dybal — Tue, 21 May 2019 18:03:08 +0000

Thumbnail photo: JustFacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Opponents of gun control will argue that within the United States, strict gun laws have failed to reduce crime and gun violence—instead causing it to sharply increase and thus being counter-productive. Chicago and Washington D.C. are the key examples of this failure that they point to. As I show here, their portrayal of the data on this subject is extremely misleading.
In D.C., the gun homicide and suicide rate actually declined after a gun ban was passed—only spiking 12 years after its passage at the onset of the crack epidemic. And the vaunted decrease in gun violence after the repeal of the gun ban was simply the continuation of a 17-year trend. The Chicago gun ban also coincided with a slight reduction in the murder rate—and once the crack epidemic wore off, homicides were almost at half the level that they were before the gun ban. The continued presence of guns in areas with strict gun control is facilitated by the loose gun laws of neighboring, Republican states and regulatory loopholes.
Only selectively examining and sharing the data that appears to support your position—and ignoring everything else—is no way to reach a rational conclusion on the subject. Many counter-examples exist where the passage of strict gun laws has reduced gun violence rates—and where the loosening of gun laws has increased gun violence. In fact, looking at nationwide data on this question makes absolutely clear that the stricter a state's gun laws, the lower its rate of gun deaths, gun suicides, and mass shootings. In short, gun control within the United States is actually very effective—and only by ignoring the facts and misrepresenting cherrypicked data can you reach a different conclusion.

—
When talking about this subject, the first thing to be aware of is the conservative tendency to only shine a spotlight on the few examples where the data appears to be supportive of their position. Although I will examine the validity of the arguments that they make about their go-to locations within the United States—namely, Chicago and Washington D.C.—it's important not to fall into the trap of exclusively engaging them on this subject on their chosen territory, because doing so can cause you to miss the big picture and make it seem like this question is much more debatable than it actually is.
A broad overview of this subject using data from the entire country leads us to the very clear conclusion that more restrictive gun laws lead to fewer gun deaths. A number of different graphs and studies unequivocally demonstrate this point.
In a CNBC article by John W. Schoen, we see the following graph created using data from the CDC and the Boston University School of Public Health. The graph compares the number of firearm deaths per 100,000 people—which include homicides, suicides and accidental discharges—against the number of firearm laws for all 50 states. As we can see, the more gun laws that a state has, the fewer the firearm deaths. Conversely, the fewer the gun laws they have, the larger the number of firearm deaths.

Notice also how steep the trendline is. The states with the lowest number of gun laws have an average firearm death rate of about 16 per 100,000 people—surpassing 20 per 100,000 in some states—compared against roughly 4 per 100,000 for states with the most gun laws. This is a very sharp difference right here.
Look at Arkansas way up there at almost 24 guns deaths per 100,000. I actually visited Arkansas recently, and now I think I understand why I drove by a high school and saw that their mascot was a trauma surgeon!
"Welcome to Little Rock High School, home of The Bleeding Robbery Victims!"

We see a similar analysis in a 2013 study performed by Eric Fleegler et al.
As they write in the paper,

"We used state-level firearm legislation across 5 categories of laws to create a 'legislative strength score,' and measured the association of the score with state mortality rates. . . . A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually."

They also present this data graphically, and as we can see, the higher the legislative strength score, the lower the number of firearm deaths per 100,000 people.

We also see in their paper that the higher the legislative strength score, the lower the percentage of household gun ownership—serving as further proof of my conclusion from a previous video that easier access to more guns leads to more death.

When you look at gun suicide rates, specifically, you see the same trend: the stricter a state's gun laws, the lower its firearm suicide rate. The Trace presents us with a graph on this question using suicide data from the CDC, and a gun law strictness criteria which uses rankings from the Giffords Law Center and The Cato Institute.

What does the data indicate about America's favorite past-time, mass shootings?
Paul Reeping et al explored this in a 2019 BMJ paper, using a measurement of legal restrictiveness or permissiveness that included over a dozen factors, including:

". . . standard firearms ownership and permit requirements; if semi-automatic, high capacity magazines, machine guns, and suppressors are permitted or restricted; if the state employs a right to self-defense, ability to conceal, ability to open and vehicle carry, ability to conceal carry in state parks, or whether a gun permittee can carry in a restaurant serving alcohol."

Their data clearly indicates that the more permissive a state's gun laws, the higher the number of mass shootings per million people.
Is there a single person here who can genuinely say they're surprised by the fact that providing easier access to a wider assortment of guns that people can carry in more locations makes it more likely that people are going to die by guns in that state? This legitimately has to be one of the least surprising findings of all time, right up there with the recent scientific discovery that jumping in front of trains is not good for you.
—
Now you might be saying, "Hang on a sec, Anton: Maybe other things about these states lead them to have such different gun death rates; perhaps the gun laws aren't necessarily the cause?"
I think it's pretty obvious that there is a causal linkage between gun deaths and gun laws in a state. It doesn't seem very wild to assert that having more of those things that shoot and kill people in your state would lead to more people being shot and killed in your state. But let's say it is something else about these states that leads them to have fewer gun deaths. This still gets the conservative nowhere.
If you map the political affiliation of all 50 states onto this firearm death graph, you find that the blue states tend to have the lower firearm death rates whereas the red states have much higher rates. So if you're a conservative trying to argue that other confounding variables are at play here, given that the blue states are the ones that perform so much better, you really lose either way, because you'd basically be arguing that it's some other left-wing policy that leads them to have such superior outcomes to the red states in this area.

If I were to say that the people making this argument are shooting themselves in the foot, I'd be right twice. They're like: "No, you don't understand: Our states are terrible because of these other Republican policies." Brilliant rebuttal.
"Pfft, look at these liberal pansies, not dying from guns. Oh, you want some soy to go with your lack of gunshot wounds?"
—
What about the relationship between gun control strictness and state crime rates? Conservatives are quick to describe the value of using firearms to deter crime, so by their logic, one would imagine that states which provide easier access to guns have lower levels of crime.
Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find any data that directly compares these two variables. But we can do our best to approximate such a comparison by comparing statewide crime rates against the toughness of gun control in those states.
SafeHome.org provides a map of the US which colors states according to the stringency of their gun control. The criteria used here came from the 2015 Brady Campaign State Scorecard. The stricter a state's gun laws, the darker red it's colored on the map. Let's compare this map of gun control strictness against nationwide crime rates, which are graphed in an article by Laura Allan on Motovo.com using FBI crime data.

Debunking Republican Gun Control Myths: "More Guns = Fewer Deaths!"

Anton Dybal — Sun, 05 May 2019 20:35:25 +0000

Thumbnail photo: Modified from Ben Shapiro/Twitter

Many conservative gun advocates will argue that increased rates of gun ownership—both internationally and within the United States—actually lead to fewer deaths. Some take the more modest position that gun ownership rates simply don't correlate with more deaths. A handful of graphs and statistics that purport to demonstrate this point are commonly cited and passed around within right-wing circles. As I show here, this position is flawed for many different reasons.
The graphs and data they cite suffer from glaring deficiencies, including comparing the US against failed states, not controlling for confounding variables, and using misleading metrics that suggest the opposite of what the truth actually is.
Among developed countries, higher gun ownership levels directly correlate with higher gun homicide and all-cause homicide rates. The same trend exists for gun deaths, generally, which include suicides, homicides, and accidental discharges. People with a gun in the home are much more likely to die in a gun homicide or suicide than those without a gun in the home—and gun-owners are also much more likely to use their gun to commit criminal homicide or suicide than they are to use it in a defensive homicide.
The conservative tendency to dismiss the high number of gun suicides as an irrelevancy makes no sense, especially considering that guns are uniquely and instantaneously effective as a means of committing suicide. An overall cost-benefit analysis of this question, both internationally and within the United States, shows that people are much more likely to be harmed by guns than they are to benefit from them.
—
We read an example of this argument in a Daily Wire article entitled "Six Facts That Show Gun Control Is Not The Answer" by Amanda Presitigiacomo (Pres-tiggy-uh-como? Press-tih-geeya-como? Christ, it's like three different last names were smushed together in some freak accident! We'll just call her Amanda P for short.)

"More guns do not equate to a higher homicide rate, despite what the Left purports. In comparison to countries like Russia, Venezuela, and Mexico, the United States has an exceedingly higher number of guns per capita, yet a lower homicide rate."

How about, Amanda Presitigia-put-me-in-a-coma when I have to read your arguments?
After sharing this fact with us, she then shows us a graph which compares the homicide rate against the gun ownership rate of a bunch of different countries. As we can see, there's no clear correlation between the number of guns per capita and the homicide rate of these countries. Proof that the left is full of crap when they talk about guns, right?

Well the first thing to do is look at which countries the United States is being compared against here. With only a few exceptions, all of the countries on this graph with a higher homicide rate than the United States are located either in Africa or Central and Southern America, where conditions are not at all comparable with those in the United States and other developed, Western nations.
Many of these countries have been absolutely ravaged—for decades—by extreme poverty, internal warfare, brutal government oppression, drug cartel violence, and so forth. It's not even enough to say that conditions are dismal in many of these countries; many of them are outright failed states.
There's something called the Fragile States Index (formerly called the Failed States Index) which basically ranks countries according to how terrible things are there. I'm pretty sure Donald Trump refers to it as The Shithole Countries Index. As far as I can tell, there's no clear cut-off point at which a country officially becomes known as a "failed state," so let's just arbitrarily say that of the 178 countries in the Index, the top 30 or so can be considered either a failed state or close to being a failed state.
Of the 24 countries in this graph with a higher homicide rate than the US, 7 of them are in the Top 30 of the Failed States Index: Congo, Ethiopia, Guinea, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Mali, Pakistan. Venezuela is #32 and Angola is 35. So basically, 9 of these 24 countries, or 38% of them, are either failed states or close to being failed states.

If these are the countries that you're comparing the United States against, it's easy to make us look good by comparison, but that's like bragging about having a higher test score than everybody in the special-ed class. You're seriously gonna compare the United States against the Congo? I'm pretty sure the people there are legally required to commit murder!
And even of the countries on this graph where conditions aren't quite bad enough to land them in "failed state" territory, many are nonetheless plagued by extreme crime, cartel violence, poverty, and a rich history of being crushed by brutal rulers—many of which have been backed by the United States, I might add. And here, of course, I'm referring to many of the Central and Southern American countries on the list, including Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Venezuela and Colombia.
Obviously you're going to have a higher homicide rate in such countries due to these many other factors—and I've never heard anybody argue that the only thing that contributes to the homicide rate is the gun ownership rate.
If you want to seriously investigate and isolate the impact that gun ownership itself has on homicide rates, you would do your best to eliminate as many confounding variables as possible, and that means you would compare countries that are very similar in many respects: in terms of their development levels, their poverty rates, and so forth. An analysis that compares the United States against a bunch of failed or struggling states—and then declares victory—is just not a serious one.
I mean, fine, if you want to be super pedantic and technical, you can say that these numbers prove that more guns per person doesn't necessarily always translate into a higher homicide rate. But lets get serious, run these comparisons among countries that are actually comparable, and let's see what conclusion we arrive at.
—
Let's begin by examining gun homicide rates, specifically. In a 2017 article, Alex Berezow looks exclusively at developed countries, comparing the number of guns per 100 people against the homicide by firearm rate, and as we can see, a direct correlation is unmistakable: the more guns, the higher the firearms homicide rate.

On the data-science website KDNuggets.com, we see a slightly different version of this comparison that plots gun homicides vs number of guns per 100 people among all countries with a GDP of over $20,000. Here we see that more guns tends to equal more gun homicides in similar countries.
Here's this same graph, except with the United States excluded. The same trend is clear, and it becomes even more clear if you remove the data point from conflict-embroiled Israel.

What kind of trend do we see within the United States? Here's a graph which compares gun ownership and gun homicide rates across all 50 states using 2014 data, and as we can see, there is no detectable trend. Ben Shapiro shared this graph in a Tweet where he said: "Notice near total lack of correlation."

This guy is really something when it comes to gun advocacy, by the way. Ben Shapiro is so pro-2nd Amendment that he sleeps with a gun under his gun! This guy's so pro-2nd Amendment that instead of gun silencers, he buys gun amplifiers. He's so pro-2nd Amendment that he'll invoke the Stand Your Ground Law on your property!
Of all the graphs I've seen used by right-wingers to support their views on this subject, this one is definitely the strongest. It's using what I would argue is the best measurement of gun ownership, namely, the percentage of the state population that owns a gun. It's also comparing states within the same country, so conditions within these states would presumably be similar. They're not identical, however, and that's the important thing here.
Different states do vary according to several metrics which impact the homicide rate, including poverty level, education, alcohol usage, and so forth. A 2007 study published in Social Science & Medicine by Matthew Miller et al used 2001–2003 data to examine the relationship between firearm ownership rates and homicide rates, and after controlling for many different variables, they found a clear, positive relationship.

"Analyses controlled for state-level rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, per capita alcohol consumption, and a resource deprivation index . . . Multivariate analyses found that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership had significantly higher homicide victimization rates of men, women and children."
Source: "State-level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001–2003," Matthew Miller et al. Social Science & Medicine, 64 (2007) 656–664.

And here's a graph from the paper showing that when you group states by their robbery levels, higher gun ownership rates are correlated with higher firearm homicide rates.

A similar 2013 study by Michael Siegel et al used a much larger data set—from 1981–2010—and after controlling for state-level confounders, they found that:

"Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates [within the United States] . . . This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

—
What trends do we see when we look more broadly at all-cause homicide rates?

The Crime Prevention Research Center, in a 2014 article, plots the homicide rate against the number of firearms per 100 people in developed countries, generating a positive correlation. Interestingly enough, however, when the United States is excluded from the analysis, we see an inverse correlation, albeit a very modest one. Put the U.S. back in, however, and the direct correlation returns.

—
Here's another graph that gets commonly cited by gun advocates which looks very convincing at first glance. The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is compared against the gun homicide rate from 1993–2013, and as we can see, the more guns in this country, the lower the homicide rate! Ben Shapiro shared this graph on Twitter, saying "Please explain how more guns inevitably means more murder."

And then he was like "Become a supporter today and you'll receive the Leftist Tears (Hot or Cold) tumbler."
Then Steven Crowder barged in and he was like: "Nah, bitch, join The Mug Club instead!"
What's with all of these right-wingers and their weirdly political, beverage-container promotions? We should start doing something similar on the left to compete with them: "Become a supporter at Patreon.com/aSkepticalHuman and you'll receive the Social Democrat tupperware set, complete with a Liberal Values spatula!"

The first thing to note about this graph is that we shouldn't make the mistake of confusing correlation with causation here. As I've already noted, many different factors contribute to a country's gun homicide rate—and in the case of the United States here during this time period, Max Ehrenfreund points out in a Washington Post article that several different factors contributed to a decline in the homicide rate, including a larger police force, better police technology, lower alcohol consumption and a reduction in environmental lead levels.
Given the impact of these many different variables on the homicide rate, it's difficult to isolate what impact gun ownership itself actually had. If the number of guns owned in this country stayed flat during this time period, perhaps the homicide rate would have decreased even more dramatically?

Debunking David Pakman: "Male Circumcision Is Beneficial!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 22 Apr 2019 03:27:19 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Angelo Esslinger (whitesession)/Pixabay; Clker-Free-Vector-Images/Pixabay; joffi/Pixabay;

Advocates of male circumcision use several key arguments to justify performing this procedure on infants and young children. David Pakman, in particular, is a particularly forceful advocate of circumcision, and while I tend to agree with him on probably 95% of issues, this is one area where I think he gets it completely wrong. It's like the reverse of that common expression, where in this case, even a not broken clock is wrong twice a day.
The argument that circumcision is justified by its medical benefits does not stand up to scrutiny. The commonly-cited CDC and AAP reports are deeply flawed, and the international medical community largely disagrees with their conclusions. The medical conditions pointed to can be treated or prevented by much simpler, more effective and more ethical means. And most of these conditions are only experienced in adulthood—so it doesn't make sense to use them to justify infant circumcision.
UTIs can be treated by antibiotics; HPV can be vaccinated against; and all the other STDs can be avoided by practicing safe sex. Penis cancer is also extremely rare, and the number of complications arising from circumcision far outweigh the number of penile cancer cases that circumcision could prevent. Circumcision can cause horrendous and even deadly complications—and the very worst complications were actually excluded from the cost-benefit analysis that the CDC and AAP performed.
The hygiene argument is ridiculous because cleaning underneath the foreskin is an extremely minor inconvenience, and the alleged aesthetic superiority of a circumcised penis is nothing more than a personal preference. It should left up to the individual to decide, when he's old enough, whether or not he'd prefer to have a mutilated penis. To permanently amputate part of your child's genitals when they're too young to resist is deeply immoral, disrespects their bodily autonomy, and ultimately disagrees with the decision that many of them would've made for themselves.
—
In a 2012 video of his, David Pakman argued the following:

"A pediatricians group, the American Academy of Pediatrics, has announced its first major shift on circumcision in more than a decade, deciding that boys flat-out are better off circumcized than not, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks."

And in another video, he cites a CDC draft report which reached a similar conclusion:

"US health officials yesterday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, and the Center For Disease Control And Prevention has come out and said the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks. And they went on to say that this is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, but that 'the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks.'
. . . The basis for these guidelines from the CDC, why they've determined that the benefits outweigh the risks, but leave the decision to individual parents, are that circumcision cuts a man's risk of getting HIV from an infected female partner by 50 to 60%, reduces the risk of genital herpes and certain strains of HPV by 30% or more, and lowers the risk of urinary tract infections during infancy and cancer of the penis in adulthood."

Clearly I'm not alone in disagreeing with his position here. One of the top comments on this video says:

"Looks like the like bar got circumcised."

Ouch.
The first thing I would say in response to this is that the international medical community largely disagrees with these American organizations on circumcision. As Svoboda & Van Howe write in a 2013 Journal Of Medical Ethics publication,

"The Finnish Union of Medical Doctors is opposed to non-medical circumcision on the grounds that it involves risks, inflicts pain and injury, and violates the child's right to decide about his body, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) has gone so far as to discourage its membership from participating in the procedure as it carries risks without countervailing benefits. The Swedish Paediatric Society has called infant male circumcision an 'assault on boys.' . . . the German [Association Of Pediatricians -- BVKJ] also strongly opposes the procedure."

And as Robert Darby points out in a Kennedy Institute Of Ethics Journal paper, other child health organizations that oppose male circumcision include the British Medical Association and The Royal Australasian College Of Physicians.
Where are the videos of David reporting on the positions of these medical organizations? I haven't seem them. Instead what I see is a completely one-sided presentation, where only the findings that support his viewpoints are reported to his audience, whereas those that reject his views on circumcision do not receive the same attention. This is no way to reach a rational conclusion about the subject and it's no way to properly inform your audience.
—
And if you look into the specific medical claims made by the CDC and AAP about circumcision, you find that they've been widely criticized in the scientific literature. Not only that, but there are many additional flaws and omissions in their analysis that—if corrected—would radically alter their conclusions. Let's go through claim-by-claim and explore what they got wrong here.
One alleged medical benefit of circumcision that Pakman points to is protection against penile cancer. As the AAP writes in their report,

"2 case-control studies . . . show an association between circumcision and a decreased likelihood of invasive penile cancer."

When you take a closer look at their numbers, however, you find that it's very hard to justify infant circumcision on these grounds. As they continue,

". . . It is difficult to establish how many male circumcisions it would take to prevent a case of penile cancer, and at what cost economically and physically. One study with good evidence estimates that based on having to do 909 circumcisions to prevent 1 penile cancer event, 2 complications would be expected for every penile cancer event avoided.
However, another study with fair evidence estimates that more than 322,000 newborn circumcisions are required to prevent 1 penile cancer event per year. This would translate into 644 complications per cancer event, by using the most favorable rate of complications, including rare but significant complications"

So even according to their own numbers, it would take anywhere from 900 to 322,000 circumcisions to prevent a single case of penile cancer—and for every 1 case of penile cancer prevented, there'd be anywhere from 2 to 644 complications from those circumcisions!
And this is the number arrived at by using a very low complication rate of 0.2%. Peter Adler points out in a paper of his that a number of at least 1.5% or 2% is much more realistic.

"The CDC claims a complication rate of 0.2%, but this is deceptive as the CDC is only referring to risks during the surgery. The CDC states that the median complication rate during and after the surgery is 1.5%; European physicians put the complication rate at 2%; others call 2% to 10% a reasonable estimate; but severe meatal stenosis was found in 20% of boys 5-10 years after circumcision in the neonatal period, often requiring surgical correction. The CDC did not disclose this."

Using a complication rate of 1.5 and 2%, for every 1 instance of penile cancer prevented, we'd see between 4800 and 6400 complications arising from circumcision. Even if all we do is look at this from a purely medical, cost-benefit analysis standpoint, these numbers do not at all indicate to me the value of circumcision as a preventative measure.
—
Here's something else to take into consideration. As Morten Frisch et al put it in a 2013 Pediatrics publication,

"Penile cancer is one of the rarest forms of cancer in the Western world (∼1 case in 100,000 men per year), almost always occurring at a later age. When diagnosed early, the disease generally has a good survival rate."

It doesn't make much sense to me to use a medical condition that almost always occurs at a later age as a justification for circumcizing infants who won't be at risk of contracting this cancer until well into their adult life. Why not allow men, when they're old enough to decide, to make up their own minds about having their foreskin removed, if the vast majority of them at this age will still be able to receive the protective benefits of circumcision against penile cancer given its typical age of onset?
Other data seems to raise doubts about whether or not circumcision even protects against penile cancer. As Frisch et al continue,

"It is remarkable that incidence rates of penile cancer in the United States, where ~75% of the non-Jewish, non-Muslim male population is circumcised, are similar to rates in northern Europe, where ≤10% of the male population is circumcised."

Now of course, you might say that penile cancer rates in the United States are higher relative to circumcision rates because of other factors—like an unhealthier diet, more obesity and so forth.
I'd be willing to grant that circumcision might indeed reduce one's risk of developing cancer of the penis. If you're removing a significant portion of the penis's skin, it logically follows that there are fewer cells in that area at risk of becoming cancerous. Call me crazy, but I don't think that prophylactically amputating part of the body in all infants is a rational cancer-reduction technique.
I mean we could take this to an extreme and say, chopping your arms off would completely eliminate your risk of getting cancer of the arms. You might think that's a ridiculous analogy, so let's come up with a more serious one: we chop your legs off instead.
No, let's say we started cutting off the pinky fingers of infants. That would probably reduce their risk of contracting cancer of the hand while still leaving their hand functional. Instead of five fingers at risk of becoming cancerous, they would only have four fingers at such risk—and presto!, just like that, we've reduced cancer rates of the hand. Narrowly focusing only on the question of cancer-incidence here is to overlook the much bigger and more obvious question of whether such unconsenting amputation is ethical in the first place—which I would argue, it plainly is not.
—
Another medical benefit of circumcision that Pakman points to is a reduced risk of urinary tract infections during infancy. Here's what the AAP reports on the subject:

"There is fair evidence from 5 observational studies that UTI incidence among boys under age 2 years is reduced in circumcised infant boys, compared with uncircumcised boys . . . The degree of reduction is between threefold and 10-fold in all studies.
. . . There is a biologically plausible explanation for the relationship between an intact foreskin and an increased association of UTI during infancy. Increased periurethral bacterial colonization may be a risk factor for UTI."

The first thing to point out is that there's a very simple treatment for urinary tract infections that doesn't involve cutting off part of your penis, and that's antibiotics. As Peter Adler writes,

". . . since urinary tract infections in infants can be treated with antibiotics, there is no reason to circumcise any boy to prevent a UTI, let alone 100 boys to prevent one UTI at the risk of 2 or more complications."

Especially embarrassing for the circumcision advocate is looking at this issue from a financial perspective, which Svoboda & Van Howe do in their paper:

"If 195 circumcisions are needed to prevent one urinary tract infection, and the cost of circumcision is US$200, then US$39,000 will be spent to prevent one urinary tract infection. The cost to diagnose a urinary tract infection is about US$200, and the cost of treatment via antibiotics is about US$18. Already, the senselessness of the pre-emptive surgical course is clear.
But what about the costs related to harm and complications? The cost of a meatotomy (a corrective procedure in which meatal stenosis, or circumcision-induced constriction of the urethral opening, is repaired) is between US$1000 and US$1500. With one case of meatal stenosis occurring as a result of every 5–20 circumcisions performed, the cost of this corrective surgery in a population of 195 males would be between US$9,750 and US$58,500. So, between US$48,750 and US$97,500 would have to be spent to save approximately US$218. Either through incompetence or design, the AAP fails to make these straightforward calculations."

That is a pretty damning analysis right there. It seems to me, from these numbers, that we'd be able to save far more lives if we took just a fraction of the money spent on circumcisions and re-invested it more wisely into our healthcare system.
—
Next we have the data showing that circumcised men are less likely to become infected by several STDs. Citing that AAP report, David says the following:

"Also circumcised males, less likely to get infected with a long list of STDs over the course of their life."

Svoboda & Van Howe point out that some of this research isn't nearly as clear-cut as the AAP makes it out to be:

". . . an association [is] shown in some studies between human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and circumcision status. Embarrassingly, the findings in these highly publicised studies can be completely attributed to sampling bias and lead-time bias. Studies of HPV that have used proper sampling techniques have failed to find an association between these infections and circumcision.
If the AAP had evaluated these trials properly, rather than repeat their results without exploring them for fatal flaws, it would have reached a different conclusion. Of course, if it had bothered to mention the existence of an effective HPV vaccine anywhere in their technical report, it could have skipped the circumcision-prevents-HPV discussion altogether.
The AAP’s discussion of syphilis is likewise myopic. While it notes that the prevalence of syphilis, primarily in Africa, has been found to be lower in circumcised men, they fail to note that two of the African randomised trials found the incidence of syphilis to trend higher in the men randomised to early circumcision. Consequently, the evidence is conflicting.
Likewise, if the AAP had systematically reviewed the medical literature, as it claims to have done, it would have discovered that circumcised males have a significantly greater prevalence of having a sexually transmitted infection in general . . . There is no excuse for this lack of scholastic rigor."

Their analysis about HIV transmission also appears to be flawed. Here's the claim that's made in the CDC report:

"Male circumcision can dramatically reduce a man's risk of acquiring HIV infection by 50 to 60 percent during sex with HIV infected female partners."

Sounds pretty compelling, right? I about circumcised myself when I read this!
One major drawback in this analysis is that these statistics are largely based upon studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa on adult men. There's very little medical basis for extrapolating these results to the circumcising of infants—in the United States—where the prevalence of HIV as well as the common transmission mechanisms are completely different. As Frisch et al put it:

"Three RCTs in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa suggest that circumcision in adulthood may lead to a noticeable reduction in risk of heterosexual HIV acquisition in areas with extremely high HIV prevalence.
. . . However, there is no evidence that circumcision, whether in infancy, childhood, or adulthood, is effective in preventing heterosexual transmission in countries where HIV prevalence is much lower and routes of transmission are different, such as Europe and the United States. Sexually transmitted HIV infections in the West occur predominantly among men who have sex with men, and there is no evidence that circumcision offers any protection against HIV acquisition in this group."

Svoboda & Van Howe elaborate on this point:

"The epidemiological differences are in fact vast; in Africa, one of the 'best' places to become infected with HIV is at a health clinic through iatrogenic exposure, whereas in the developed world, HIV is primarily transmitted by injecting drug users and by gay men. The dramatic differences between the African and American medical and epidemiological settings could hardly be more stark."

There's another glaring problem with using the reduced risk of contracting STDs to justify infant circumcision, and that's there's exactly zero newborn infants having sex without condoms.
Even if it was the case that circumcision had all of these protective effects against sexually transmitted diseases, the only people at risk of contracting these STDs are people who are sexually active—and thus old enough to be capable of deciding for themselves whether they want to be circumcised or not.
The average American male loses his virginity at the age of 17 years old—and if you're an A Skeptical Human viewer, it's probably more like 28. I'm joking...you're probably all a bunch of virgins. "Hey, you know what, man? Go fuck yourself." Yeah, unfortunately that's the plan!
So if the average American man first has sex at 17 years old, and circumcision only offers these protective effects against STDs when a man is old enough to be having sex, why not allow men to make up their own mind about whether or not they want to be circumcised? What's the rush?
It's like someone says, "Holy shit! There's gonna be a hurricane that hits 17 years from now. We need to start boarding up windows and stockpiling food today." No, actually, we really don't.
—
There's another major reason that this argument fails to justify child circumcision, and that's that there are other, much more effective ways to protect against STDs that don't involve amputating parts of the penis.
Anton Dybal — Tue, 02 Apr 2019 18:34:42 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Ghedoghedo/Wikimedia Commons; Scott Hartman & Andrew Knapp et al/Royal Society; H. Zell/Wikimedia Commons

Creationists will often claim that there are no transitional fossils which show us evolutionary change taking place from one form to another. This I find particularly ironic because creationists themselves are the perfect transitional form between humans and ostriches with their heads in the sand!
Even if they were correct about transitional fossils, there are many other lines of evidence proving evolution. As I show here, however, creationists are flat wrong about this, and there's a large number of transitional fossils of organisms ranging from fish to horses to whales to turtles to dinosaurs.
I also talk here about creationist misconceptions about the fossil record, the double standard they apply to evolution vs their religious beliefs, and I give a few examples of some good old-fashioned creationist quote mining. Finally, I address the so-called "missing link" in evolution, examining the fossil record of human ancestors while also describing the many problems with that term and the general line of thinking behind it.
—
The United Church of God writes the following in an article entitled "What Does The Fossil Record Show?",

"After an immense worldwide search by geologists and paleontologists, the 'missing links' Darwin predicted would be found to bolster his theory are still missing."

As is so often the case, creationists are simply mistaken when they make this argument. Let's take a look at what I think are some of the clearest examples of evolutionary change taking place in the fossil record.
—
Matt Friedman, in a 2008 Nature publication, examines the evolutionary development of flatfish asymmetry. And this, I think, is a very fitting example, because flounder is exactly what the creationist does when they talk about this subject!
As we can see, in Trachinotus, the eyeballs are on both sides of the head like a normal-looking fish. In Psettodes, one of the eyeballs is on the top of the head, and in Citharus, both eyeballs are on the same side of the head.
Friedman performed a careful analysis of Amphistium and Heteronectes fossils, and he found that one of the eyeballs was consistently positioned at the midway point between the top of the head and the original position on the side of the head. So basically, fossils of these organisms capture a key stage in the progression from symmetrical eyeballs to the asymmetrical eyeballs that are characteristic of many modern-day flatfish.
I couldn't find information on when members of the Trachinotus or Psettodes genus first appear in the fossil record, but as we learn on The Paleobiology Database, Amphistium and Heteronectes first appear 56 million years ago compared against 28 MYA for Citharus. So as we would predict from evolution, the organisms with a more migrated eye appear later in the fossil record than those with only a partially migrated eye.

Turtle evolution is something that's examined in a 2010 publication by Tyler Lyson et al. As we can see here in this phylogeny from the paper, Eunotosaurus had some fairly thick ribs. A close relative, Odontochelys, had a very similar body design, yet the protective ribcage had developed even further and become more elaborate, with the early appearance of several bony protrusions. Finally, in Proganochelys, we see that the protective shell is fully developed.
Particularly noteworthy is the timeline of these organisms. As we learn on The Paleobiology Database, Eunotosaurus is first observed in rock layers from 265 million years ago. Odontochelys? 232 million years ago, and Proganochelys, 228 million years ago. So the organism with the least developed protective shell appears earliest; the one with a moderately developed shell appears later; and the one with a fully developed shell appears the very latest—exactly as we would expect if evolution was taking place.

The evolution of whales is something else that's well-preserved in the fossil record. Robert Boessenecker, in a University of Otago article, has a great image of whale skeleton evolution, capturing the minor differences between Georgiacetus, Dorudon, Aetiocetus, Tokarahia, and Balaenoptera.

Especially noteworthy is the hind limb reduction that we see taking place here, with clearly visible and likely still functional hind limbs in Georgiacetus, and the barely noticeable, tiny, vestigial hind limbs in all the other species. What kind of a God would create organisms with non-functioning bones like this in the exact location where functioning bones used to exist in very similar looking predecessors? What could such a creation plan be if not an obvious attempt to trick us into believing that evolution took place? Isn't a much more reasonable explanation that these bones were reduced in size over time simply because having them didn't provide any survivalistic benefits?
God's like: "At long last, these whales of mine are perfect in every detail, from the flippers to the brain to the blood vessels. Truly a marvel of creative engineering. Now before I forget, I'd better be sure to add some useless bones that have no function."
Or maybe he just screwed up and accidentally dropped a few bones in the vat during creation? He's like: "Whoops! Oh, whatever. It'll be fine. Besides, I need to get back to work on creating leukemia."

The timeline of these fossils, once again, is exactly what we would predict from evolution. Georgiacetus, with its relatively large hind limbs, first appears 48 MYA, whereas Dorudon appears in the fossil record with its sharply reduced hindlimbs 7 million years after Georgiacetus, plenty of time for such a reduction to take place. And from that point on, the vestigial hindlimbs remained vestigial in subsequent species of whales.
Also captured in the fossil record of whales—as we see on Whaleopedia.org—is the movement and evolution of the blowhole.
50 MYA, nostrils were at the very front of the skull in the family Mesonychidae, with this family being comprised of close relatives to the earliest whales. 45 MYA, in Protocetidae—the family featuring some of the earliest whales—the nostril has moved about a third of the way up the skull. It's slightly further up the skull 40 MYA in Dorudontidae, and by 25 MYA in Squalodontidae, it's all the way at the top of the skull.

One of the most famous transitional fossils is Tiktaalik, which is though to represent the bridge between aquatic and terrestrial tetrapods. Especially interesting is how this fossil was discovered by scientists. They didn't just stumble upon it one day and say: "How fortunate!" Instead, they saw that there was a gap between two similar-looking fossil organisms, and they intentionally set out to discover an intermediate form between these two.

As Richard Dawkins writes in The Greatest Show On Earth,

"So, we are left with a gap between Panderichthys, the amphibian-like fish, and Acanthostega, the fish-like amphibian. Where is the 'missing link' between them? A team of scientists from the University of Pennsylvania, including Neil Shubin and Edward Daeschler, set out to find it.
. . . They deliberately thought about where might be the best place to look, and carefully chose a rocky area of exactly the right late Devonian age in the Canadian Arctic. There they went—and struck zoological gold. Tiktaalik! . . . In almost every particular, Tiktaalik is the perfect missing link—perfect, because it almost exactly splits the difference between fish and amphibian . . ."
Source: p. 168–169, The Greatest Show On Earth, by Richard Dawkins. 2009.

And here we see how Tiktaalik fits into the proposed sequence of evolutionary change.

The evolution of ceratopsian skull ornamentation is something else that we see a clear progression of in the fossil record.
Andrew Knapp et al, in a 2018 paper, show us a phylogeny beginning with Liaoceratops, which first appeared in the fossil record about 125 MYA. Protoceratops andrewsi—first detected about 86 MYA—has a fairly similar skull to Liaoceratops, but a frill at the top of skull has clearly started to develop. In subsequent, closely-related species—all first appearing 84 MYA—we see that this development has progressed even further, with much more pronounced frill ornamentation appearing in the genuses Centrosaurus, Achelousaurus, Pachyrhinosaurus, Chasmosaurus, and everybody's favorite, Triceratops.
How can you look at the timeline and morphology of these fossils and conclude anything other than descent with modification?

By the way, this is also a clear example of a partially developed trait, which creationists are always asking for examples of: "What good is a halfway developed arm or wing", they'll ask? I could ask the same thing about your halfway developed brains! (I kid my creationist friends. I'm sure your brains are perfectly developed—they're just severely damaged in some way.)
Here we have a non-developed frill, a halfway-developed frill, and a fully-developed frill.

And just to be clear, the pictures make the skulls look similar in size, but there was actually a significant increase in size over time from the tiny Liaoceratops to the medium-sized Protoceratops to the gigantic Triceratops.
—
Equine evolution is something else that's richly documented in the fossil record. Over time, members of the horse family have dramatically increased in size, from the tiny Mesohippus to the larger Merychippus to the even bigger Pliohippus and, finally, to Equus, the modern-day horse.

And these are pretty significant morphological changes right here. If you found yourself face-to-face with a real-live Mesohippus and tried to throw a saddle on him, trust me when I say that it would not end well.
"Hya! Forward! Oh, looks like he's completely crushed to death."
It's worth noting at this point that evolution very rarely follows an exclusively straight line path, like some of these images might seem to indicate. It's not like first you had Mesohippus, then all of these evolved into Merychippus, then all of these evolved into Pliohippus, which all evolved into Equus. No, evolution typically follows a very branching pattern, as we can see here in this equid phylogeny taken from the cleverly-named Humbolt.edu article "Horses Before The Cart."

Rather than one species evolving into another which evolves into another in a straight line, what tends to happen is that populations will split off into different groups, and these groups—being subject to different evolutionary pressures—will evolve in different directions and slowly diverge away from one another in appearance. Maybe one group will dramatically change while the other stays about the same; maybe both groups will radically change—but the key point is that evolution tends to follow a branching pattern rather than a unidirectional one.
Now of course, there are specific evolutionary pathways that you can isolate and follow. In the case of equids, for example, there is a pathway that gradually takes you from small to large over time, from Mesohippus about 35 million years ago to Merychippus about 16 MYA to something like Pliohippus about 15 MYA all the way to Equus in the modern era. So obviously yes, there is a direct, unbroken line of descendants that transforms over time, but just understand that around this line of descendants, all kinds of other evolutionary changes would be taking place among close relatives of these organisms.

Also important to note is that what are often described as transitional fossils might not necessarily be the actual direct ancestors of these later organisms. This specific Mesohippus fossil, for example, might not actually be th

Debunking: "Climate Change Model Predictions Are Unreliable!"

Anton Dybal — Sun, 17 Mar 2019 06:41:16 +0000

Thumbnail photo: Edited version of graph from: "Testimony of John R. Christy." Docs.House.gov. Feb 2, 2016.

Many climate change deniers argue that the predictions made by climate change models are unreliable, don't match up with the observations, and oftentimes vastly overestimate the rate of warming and the associated consequences. As we'll see here, this is simply not the case.
The land and ocean temperature predictions have been extremely accurate. Projections have actually underestimated the rates of sea level rise and Arctic ice melting—precisely the opposite of the "climate science alarmism" that deniers love to rant and rave about.
Only in the very specific case of middle tropospheric warming do predictions outpace the observations. Much of this data, however, has since been corrected to account for various forms of bias, with the revised data showing only a very slight deviation between the models and the measurements. The real irony is that the most inaccurate predictions are made by so-called climate change "skeptics," who absurdly project a decrease in temperatures over time.
In addition to making these points, I also argue here that deniers often misleadingly present their data and wildly overstate their conclusions. I also examine some of the reasons for models differing from observations, I discuss the classic mistake of conflating weather with climate, and I debunk a ridiculous argument made by Jordan Peterson about whether we can measure the impact of our climate-related actions.
It is a damn good video, if I might say so myself, so I hope you all enjoy.
—
We read an example of this argument on the climate change denialism website WattsUpWithThat.com. (Oh, look at that! They've got a little "Donate" button on the side of their website. Yeah, the only thing I'll be sending you people is a lump of coal. They're like: "Really? 'Cause we would genuinely appreciate that. How do you think we keep the servers running over here?")
As Mike Jonas writes,

"There are dozens of climate models. They have been run many times. The great majority of model runs . . . have produced global temperature forecasts that later turned out to be too high."

Mike Jonas, I think that's one of the Jonas brothers, right? He's like: "When I'm not singing on stage, I'm busy spreading climate change misinformation online." His groupies are like: "Eww, not interested."
The key basis for claims like this is the following graph, created and presented by climate scientist John Christy, co-developer of the UAH satellite temperature record. As we can see, this graph compares satellite and balloon observations against the average temperature increase predicted by many different climate change models.

Starting around 1998, there's a clear divergence between the model predictions and the actual temperature recordings. Here's another commonly-cited John Christy graph which shows the same basic trend. And CMIP5, in case you're wondering, is described on their website as:

". . . a collaborative effort involving 20 climate modeling groups from around the world . . . as part of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP)."

So is this proof that climate models do, in fact, overexaggerate the future warming trend? While on first glance, such a conclusion might be justified, once you actually carefully investigate the subject, you find that there are many different problems with this position.
The first thing to point out is that some of the data used by Christy in these graphs has since been revised upwards to correct for various forms of bias. As I'm sure you all know from your extensive experience collecting data from space, measuring temperature via satellite is no small undertaking. As they write in a SkepticalScience.com article,

". . . there are a number of challenging biases in the satellite record which must be corrected and accounted for. For example, the orbital drift of satellites, the fact that they have to peer down through all layers of the atmosphere but need to isolate measurements from each individual layer, etc.
. . . contrary to Christy's assertion that TLT measurements are made by a single satellite, they have actually been made by several different satellites over the years, because the measurement instruments don't have lifetimes of 34 years. Splicing together the measurements from various different satellite instruments is another of the challenging biases which must be addressed when dealing with satellite data."

Yeah, not to mention the fact that all the NSA spy satellites keep getting in the way!
"Move! I'm trying to record the temperature here!"
"You move, bitch! I'm trying to spy on this guy watching porn!"

One set of measurements used in this Christy graph—from RSS—has since been revised upwards by RSS to account for bias caused by orbital drift. As Zeke Hausfather writes on CarbonBrief.org,

"Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) . . . have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998."

And note that 1998 is right around the time period when the divergence began in that Christy graph. Here we see this data correction depicted graphically in that same article.

Remote Sensing Systems, on their website, compares their most recent set of measurements (version 4) against the CMIP5 model predictions, and as we can see, the difference is significantly less pronounced than it appears in the Christy graph, with many of the data points during the original period of divergence being well within the 90% envelope—with the 90% envelope basically describing the area within which 90% of model projections lie.

Benjamin Santer et al, in a 2017 publication, take it a step further and show us the average of all of these different satellite datasets after they've been recently corrected to account for various biases. As we can see, these observations track very closely to the CMIP5 predictions. Compare this against the John Christy graph and you see that the difference is night and day.

—
I also have a few problems with the Christy graph that are purely a matter of visual presentation. One that they mention on Skeptical Science is the lack of uncertainty ranges. When presenting data in a graph where uncertainty exists, you want to illustrate the range within which the true statistic likely lies. So when you provide a 95% confidence interval, for example, you're basically communicating that we're 95% confident that the true statistic lies somewhere within this range. When you provide a 95% envelope, you're showing that 95% of the models lie within this particular region.
No such uncertainty ranges are presented in this famous John Christy graph. Skeptical Science provides a re-made version of his graph that does include a 95% envelope for the model predictions. They also separate out the different sources of data, rather than simply providing the averages, to show that there's a considerable spread in the data points depending upon which satellite you're getting your information from. And finally, they include the most recent, updated versions of the RSS and UAH data sets.
When this is how the data is presented, the divergence between model predictions and observations appears much less pronounced than in the Christy graph. So how you present the data can make a significant impact on what conclusion people walk away with.

You'll also notice that Christy's UAH data set provides the lowest temperatures. Perhaps that's not a big surprise considering that his co-publisher of this data, Dr. Roy Spencer, is the author of such timeless classics as Global Warming Skepicism For Busy People and An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy.
So yes, bias might be partially at play here, but I think I know what's really responsible for these low UAH data points: Christy's enormous moustache is somehow interfering with his instruments. Look at this guy! Is he a climate scientist, or the police chief of Vicksburg, Mississippi?

And this might be kind of a minor gripe, but it does bother me that the model predictions continue to be plotted on the graph past the point where the observations are being plotted, past the year 2015. This makes the difference appear even more significant—but we have no idea what the data points during those future years would actually be. What if they would've actually caught up to or even surpassed the model predictions? Indeed, more recent data from RSS shows that after 2015, there was a fairly significant temperature spike—significant enough to exceed the average of those model projections.

—
With all of that said, for the sake of argument, let's assume that deniers are correct and let's say that the Christy graph is a completely accurate description of how the models compare against the observations. Even if that was the case, the most we could do from this is draw a very narrow conclusion because this is very specific data that Christy is looking at.
These measurements and these model predictions specifically focus on temperature changes within the middle of the troposphere, between 20,000 and 50,000ft above the surface—as Christy made absolutely clear in his Congressional testimony on the subject.

I'm not sure why the graph is labeled surface to 50,000ft, because he writes in the description of this graph that it depicts "global bulk (termed 'mid-tropospheric' or 'MT') temperature," and he defines the mid-troposphere in that same section as being "between 20,000 and 50,000 ft." Maybe he was trying to deceive people into believing that this data includes surface temperatures, or maybe this is just some weird atmospheric science terminology that I'm not familiar with—but this is no small difference right here.
It's like your pilot says: "Alright, everybody. We've now reached our cruising altitude of 20,000ft."
And you're like: "Dude, we haven't even taken off yet!"
By the way, why does every pilot on the planet seem to have the exact same voice and style of speaking: *rapidly and in monotone airplane-pilot voice*: "Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, this is your captain speaking. We'll be arriving in Phoenix in about two and a half hours, so sit back and enjoy your flight!"
Just once I want to have a pilot who's like: "Hey, uhh, what's up, guys?... I'm your pilot. Hope you're doing well. Um, so, let's see here... Looks like we are headed to Cleveland today. Huh. Ya know, I got family in Cleveland. My mother in law. She's a real bitch! Anyway, let's get this show on the road, I'll try not to crash this thing into the ground and, uh... yeah. That's basically the gameplan.
Enjoy your flight—or should I say my flight. I'm the one doin' all the hard work up here; you're just gonna sit on your ass and eat peanuts the whole time! You people are lazy. Entitled. It sickens me! Anyway, I'll let you know when we're close. Captain out."
So like I said, the Christy graphs look specifically at the middle of the troposphere. His reasoning for doing so is explained in a lecture he gave:

"Now the reason we picked tropical atmospheric temperatures is a very good reason: This is a cross section of how the temperature of how the earth is supposed to behave, the atmosphere. . . . So if you go to the layer that's about 10–50,000ft, in the tropics, you see that's where the biggest signal is. If you want to find, according to climate models—these are climate model average simulations—if you want to find the response to globally increasing greenhouse gases, that's the place to find the biggest response."

I think his reasoning is pretty straightforward and fair, but many deniers go way too far and conclude that since these models were wrong about temperature changes in this particular section of the atmosphere, that therefore means that all climate change predictions all across the board are equally as inaccurate. Here's a great example of a climate change denier leaping to that unjustified conclusion. As Larry Hamlin writes "Reagan Cut Taxes, Revenue Boomed"; "REAGAN TAX CUT HELPED BOTH RICH, POOR"; "I Think About The Reagan Tax Cuts While Fucking My Fat Wife."

(As if it’s not obvious, this last one I made up because it’s funny.)

Aside from being tax cuts passed by Reagan, what, exactly, were the Reagan tax cuts? These refer to two main pieces of legislation that he passed, one in 1981 and the other in 1986. Regarding the first set of cuts, Investopedia writes that:

"The biggest tax cuts were for wealthy Americans, with the top rate cut from 70 percent to 50 percent over three years. The bottom bracket was cut from 14 percent to 11 percent."

They also write that the law included:

". . . a reduction in the capital gains tax from 28 percent to 20 percent; and a higher estate tax exemption."

About the 1986 tax cuts, Investopedia writes the following:

"The Tax Reform Act of 1986 lowered the top tax rate for ordinary income from 50% to 28% and raised the bottom tax rate from 11% to 15%. . . . For businesses, the corporate tax rate was reduced from 50% to 35%."

To really understand the impact of these bills on the income tax, you have to look not just at the rate changes but also the bracket changes. As we can see in these extremely exciting tables provided by TaxFoundation.org, when you compare 1980 against 1982, you see that the number of brackets was reduced from 17 to 14. The top rates were brought down, as well.
When you jump all the way to 1990—when the Reagan tax cuts were fully phased in—you see that there were only two brackets, with the rate either being 15% or 28%, with the cutoff point between the two brackets being $19,450. So the basic impact of the Reagan tax cuts was to sharply reduce the top marginal rates and make our tax system much less progressive.

It's difficult to understand what effect these changes would have on people in various income groups without running the numbers—which I painstakingly did because I care about the truth (and I also don't really have anything better going on, so, I mean, here I am. ["Hey Anton, come hang out with us tonight!", "I can't; I'm too busy calculating the tax rates people would've paid in the 1980s."])
Let's imagine individuals in 3 income tiers, with one making $8,000 per year, another making $19,450 per year, and another making $500,000 per year. Accounting for inflationary differences, in today’s dollars, these would be $20,900, $50,700, and and $1,300,000—so basically, lower-class, middle-class, and upper-class. And since $8,000 per year does sound absurdly low, keep in mind that the minimum wage in 1982 was $3.35/hour. $3.35 x 40 hours x 52 weeks = about $7000—so that's slightly above the minimum wage.
So what impact did the Reagan tax cuts have on these 3 income tiers? Let's start with the person making $500,000 per year. According to the 1980 brackets, they would've paid about $330,000 in taxes, or an average of 66%. According to the 1982 brackets—which were modified according to the first tax bill—this person would now be paying $241,000 per year, or 48.3%. Finally, according to the 1990 brackets—the point at which the Reagan tax cuts were all phased in—this person would now be paying $137,000, or an average of 27.5%. So the average percentage paid in taxes by a very wealthy individual went from 66% to 48% to 28% under Reagan.
What about the middle-class earner making $19,450? In 1980, they would've paid $4000, or 20.5%; in 1982, $3600 or 18%; and in 1990, $2900 or 15%. So the average percentage paid by this middle class individual would've dropped from 21% to 18% to 15% under Reagan.
Finally, what would the person making $8000 pay? In 1980, they would've paid $1000, or 12.2%; in 1982, $900 or 10.8%; and in 1990, $1200, or 15%. So this lower-class earner would have paid an average rate of 12%, then 11%, then 15% under Reagan.

Comparing the pre- and post-Reagan numbers, we find that the very wealthy individual's average rate dropped by 38%, compared with the middle-class drop of 6% and the lower-class increase of 3%. As we can see from this analysis, the overwhelming benefits of these tax cuts went to the very wealthiest Americans, whereas middle-class earners received modest benefits and lower-class individuals actually ended up paying more in taxes as a result of the fabled Reagan tax cuts.

This is why it's so important, when talking about tax cuts, to ask a series of follow-up questions: Tax cuts for who? Cuts on what specific taxes? Republicans have a long and rich history of trying to misleadingly sell their tax cuts to Americans by framing them as dramatic reductions that all of us will experience—hammering us endlessly with terms like "middle-class tax cuts" in a shameless attempt to make them palpable. The reality of the situation is that the overwhelming majority of benefits very often go to the ultra-wealthiest of Americans who are already doing spectacularly well.
—
The laundry list of praise for the Reagan tax cuts seems virtually endless. Republicans point to such things as GDP growth, income growth, deficit reduction and unemployment reduction as proof that the cuts were a success.
Let's start out by examining the deficit under Reagan. For all three of you who don't know what that is, "the deficit" basically describes the amount that the government spends each year in excess of the revenue that it takes in.
The conservative spectrum of what impact the Reagan tax cuts had on the deficit range from "tax cuts pay for themselves" to "the tax cuts modestly increased revenue." What are the facts?
It's time for an A Skeptical Human Fact Check™, brought to you by TheDailyFact.com! No, I'm totally joking—and I just made that website up right now! What if I, like, thought that was cool and tried to make that a thing on my channel: The Skeptical Human Fact Check™? "It's time for your Fact Check Replay™ of the night, brought to you by Blue Cloud Insurance!" (People are like "This is weird...")
The starting point of this analysis is simply to look at the deficit under Reagan, who was president from 1981 to 1989. As we can see in data presented on TaxPolicyCenter.org, in 1981, the deficit was $180 billion. This increased to about $400 billion from 1983 to 1986, then decreased to about $250 billion by 1989—$70 billion more than when he took office.

Deficit numbers can be misleading, however, because two different components contribute to the final statistic: government revenue and government spending. Even if revenue stayed perfectly constant—or even increased—from year to year, the deficit could increase if spending went up. Indeed, as we can see, spending under Reagan did increase from $1.5 trillion to about $1.9 trillion.
More important for our purposes is to look at the revenue numbers. As we can see, after the passage of the first tax bill, revenue dropped, from $1.36 trillion in 1981 to $1.21 trillion in 1983. From that point on, it increased quite significantly, all the way up to $1.6 trillion in 1989. So does that prove that the Reagan tax cuts did, indeed, pay for themselves by promoting explosive economic growth? No, it doesn't, and that's because there are many other factors we need to take into consideration.
First and foremost is that the tax code isn't the only variable that changed over this time period, so we can't confidently say that the tax cuts were entirely responsible for the revenue increases. Rather than individual policy changes taking place in a vacuum, in the complicated real world, many different laws are being passed simultaneously that affect many different sectors of the economy, so pinpointing the precise effects of one particular policy change becomes very difficult—at least for an armchair researcher like myself. (And of course, I don't mean "armchair researcher" in the sense that I'm a person who spends his time researching armchairs. [I'm like "Oooh, that one looks comfortable!"])
We also need to take into consideration demographic changes that could impact these numbers. The most obvious one is population growth. The US population increased by about 17 million from 1981 to 1989. Now obviously newborn babies aren't going to be contributing to the pool of revenue straight out of the uterus—those fuckin' lazy moochers!—but a steadily increasing population means more people paying taxes, and thus, a larger amount of revenue collected each year.

Something else that would impact the numbers is inflation. Now the numbers I'm showing you here are inflation adjusted, but sometimes, Republicans will take the deceptive route of showing us the non–inflation adjusted numbers to make the revenue increases appear even more pronounced. Sometimes even this isn't enough for them and they just outright lie about the numbers. Tim Pawlenty, for example—former Governor of Minnesota and author of the modestly-titled book Courage To Stand—said that

"When Ronald Reagan cut taxes in a significant way . . . revenues actually increased by almost 100 percent during his eight years as president."

No, actually, they didn't. Even using the non–inflation adjusted numbers, we see that revenue increased from $600 billion in 1981 to $1 trillion in 1989. An increase of $400 billion from a starting point of $600 billion is not a 100% increase; it's a 67% increase—or 65% if you use the exact revenue numbers.

You might think I'm splitting hairs here, but the numbers really do matter. Imagine a kid that comes home from school after a long day of active shooter drills and getting high in the bathroom. His parents are like: "How'd you do on the test today?" He got a 65% on the test, or a D, yet he's like: "I did great! I almost got a 100%!"
This isn't just a minor difference in phrasing or perspective; this is a gross exaggeration. Using the inflation-adjusted numbers, you arrive at a much more modest revenue increase of 20%, from $1.36 trillion to $1.64 trillion.
But ya know, I think the title of Pawlenty's book is quite appropriate, because it takes some serious balls to publicly distort easily verifiable facts like that. I'm just waiting for the sequel to his book entitled The Courage To Stand And Lie To Your Face.
—
Also rarely talked about in conservative circles is the fact that Reagan, several times, did the unthinkable and increased taxes when he was president. ("No...it's not possible! It can't be!" Yes, it is possible.) As Nicole Lewis writes for the Washington Post,

". . . Reagan receives a lot of praise for lowering taxes, but his tax increases are often overlooked. Even before the 1981 tax cut took full effect, under pressure from Congress, Reagan boosted taxes several times: in 1982 with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, again in 1983 with the Social Security Amendments, and in 1984 with the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of these tax increases aimed to increase federal tax revenue, after it declined following initial cuts."

None other than a former domestic policy adviser under Ronald Reagan explains this in a 2011 paper entitled "Reagan’s Forgotten Tax Record." As Bruce Bartlett puts it,

". . . [Reagan] eventually endorsed the 1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act. According to a Treasury Department analysis, it raised taxes by close to 1 percent of GDP — equivalent to $150 billion per year today — and was probably the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. That was just the first of 11 tax increases that

Debunking Creationism: "Life Can't Come From Non-Life!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:07:01 +0000

Thumbnail photos: NASA/NASA.gov; MasterTux/Pixabay; Ali Zifan/Wikimedia Commons;

One reason that creationists believe in a God is because, in their view, life can't come from non-life. Here, I'm gonna take a close look at the scientific research into the origin of life and I'll present potential mechanisms for every step of the process, including the chemical synthesis of the building blocks of life, the polymerization of these chemicals into biologically useful molecules, the combination of these molecules into a proto-organism, and finally, the reproduction of this proto-organism.
I'll also debunk a variety of creationist arguments made in this area including the argument from statistical improbability, the argument that abiogenesis is impossible, as well as the claim that research in the field unintentionally proves that a God must have created life.
—
In an article on BlueLetterBible.org about the origin of life, Don Stewart quotes the theologian Bernard Ramm who says the following:

"Theologian Bernard Ramm writes:
'Science is still unable to put forward any satisfactory explanation as to how life arose in the first place.'"

Ah, yes, because when I'm looking for reliable scientific information about the chemical origins of life on Earth, who better to consult than the local theologian?
The first thing to point out is that even if he was correct about science not yet having an explanation for the origin of life, this wouldn't justify saying that a God was responsible. Sometimes the correct and rational answer to a question is simply: "We don't know." The fact that there isn't presently a complete scientific explanation for something doesn't mean that there never will be in the future. You can point to countless things that science used to be unable to explain that are now perfectly explained by science. Neil DeGrasse Tyson had a great quote on the folly of using this God of the Gaps logic:

"If that's how you want to invoke your evidence for God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller."

It is correct to say that there isn't a perfectly complete scientific explanation for how, exactly, life arose—and I would argue that there almost certainly never will be.

You're just demanding too much if you expect scientists to come out and say: "Here is the exact stepwise process that took place: An 87-nucleotide self-replicating RNA strand with the following sequence originated in this exact location on the planet at exactly 5:54pm 3 billion, 814 million, and 59 years ago. Four days later, it found its way inside of a vesicle 15 micrometers in diameter, and three hours later, the following polypeptides with this exact sequence also found their way inside the vesicle."
We're never going to be able to explain the origin of life with that degree of precision because such clear and fine-grained evidence just doesn't exist for a process that took place around 4 billion years ago. What we can do, however, are put forth plausible ideas for how this could have happened given the conditions present on the early Earth—ideas that might not be well supported by scripture, but are well supported by laboratory evidence.
—
So what does the science tell us about how life could have originated on Earth? While there are many question marks and competing ideas out there in this field, I'm gonna run through some of the more mainstream ideas for how this could have happened.
So here's how it all started: 6,000 years ago, God snapped his fingers and magically created life—which he then promptly destroyed in a worldwide flood because he was too stupid to get it right the first time around. And if you don't believe this, you're gonna burn in hell—just as The Scientific Method dictates.
No, back to the real world: The essential starting point for life is some kind of self-replicating molecule that's subject to natural selection. While DNA is the molecule we might think of, it's pretty widely accepted that RNA would've been the first genetic material because it's much simpler than DNA and can also take on additional functions.

The other key components of early life would've been proteins that perform various roles, and a lipid bilayer that would enclose the proto-cellular contents and protect them from the surrounding environment. In my purely speculative opinion, I think proteins would've been a later addition, with the very earliest proto-lifeforms consisting of little more than RNA within a protective, lipid bilayer.

How could the building blocks of these various molecules have originated on the early Earth? The simplest way to put it would be to say that they would've been the product of chemical reactions that were taking place. Douglas Palmer writes the following in Prehistoric Past Revealed:

"In 1953, [Stanley] Miller passed a mixture of methane, ammonia, and hydrogen through water into which electrical energy was continuously sparked. Miller thought that this replicated in the simplest possible way the biochemical and physical conditions of early Earth. Within days, an impressive array of organic molecules were indeed synthesized, including 25 amino acids, which are the building blocks of proteins.
Since then, other energy sources have been tried, including radiation and ultraviolet light, and even more complex molecules have been synthesized, including adenine, the base for nucleic acid."
Source: p. 141–142, Prehistoric Past Revealed: The Four Billion Year History Of Life On Earth, by Douglas Palmer. 2003.

Many creationists are quick to point out drawbacks in the Stanley Miller experiment. Here's what Casey Luskin writes on EvolutionNews.org. That website domain really pisses me off, by the way, because it makes you think that it's just a standard, scientific website providing news about evolution, when really every article on there is just pure creationist propaganda.
"Welcome to EvolutionNews.org! This just in: Evolution is bullshit! Haha! Got 'em! Nice!"
I'm like "Uhh, ok, I'm gonna go back to reading Science Daily. This is not the website for me."
Here's what Luskin has to say about the Stanley Miller experiment

". . . it has . . . been known for decades that the Earth’s early atmosphere was fundamentally different from the gasses used by Miller and Urey.
. . . an article in the journal Science stated: 'Miller and Urey relied on a "reducing" atmosphere, a condition in which molecules are fat with hydrogen atoms.'"

They're correct about this, but creationists always fail to note that many similar, subsequent experiments have been performed that use more accurate atmospheric gases as well as different energy sources, and the results have been very similar. As they write in Campbell Biology,

"Many laboratories have since repeated Miller's classic experiment using different recipes for the atmosphere, some of which also produced organic compounds.
However, it is unclear whether the atmosphere of early Earth contained enough methane and ammonia to be reducing. Some evidence suggests that the early atmosphere was made up primarily of nitrogen and carbon dioxide and was neither reducing nor oxidizing (electron-removing.)
Recent Miller-Urey-type experiments using such 'neutral' atmospheres have also produced organic molecules. In addition, it is likely that small pockets of the early atmosphere—perhaps near the openings of volcanoes—were reducing. Perhaps the first organic compounds formed near volcanoes or deep-sea vents, where hot water and minerals gush into the ocean from Earth's interior."
Source: p. 508, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition, by Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

Some critiques of the Miller experiment are downright laughable. Here's what Don Stewart has to say about it:

"It must be emphasized that Miller never produced one living cell in his experiments."

Not one living cell? What a fuckin' loser!
What kind of absurdly unrealistic expectations is Don Stewart operating with here? Does this guy really think that life should spontaneously come about in the laboratory over a period of mere days or weeks? When we're talking about the origin of life, we're talking about enormous timescales here, where hundreds of millions of years are available for these chemicals to mix together and form a variety of compounds. He's like: "Yeah, you should totally be able to replicate this in the laboratory over the weekend." I mean for fucks sake, Don, even God took 7 days for creation.
(Doesn't that strike you as kind of ridiculous by the way? It's not like this is some 40-year-old dad working on a DIY construction project; this is an all powerful God we're talking about here, and he's like: "Alright, I finished up the stars today! I'm gonna take a breather, chill out for a bit and watch the game.")
And just because the Stanley Miller experiment didn't generate life doesn't mean the experiment isn't valuable; the Miller experiment, and experiments like it, show us that many of the key molecules used by life can spontaneously come about through chemical reactions that would have been taking place on the early Earth.
—
Another source of the building blocks of life would've been meteorites. As they write in the textbook Evolution,

". . . This pool of molecules might have grown more diverse as a result of matter arriving on extraterrestrial objects such as carbon-rich meteorites and comets, which are known to carry amino acids, purines, and pyrimidines."
Source: p. 384, Evolution, by Carl T. Bergstrom & Lee Alan Dugatkin. 2012.

And purines and pyrimidines, for those who don't know, are key components in RNA.

Campbell Biology notes that lipids and sugars have also been found in such meteorites—with sugars being another essential part of RNA, forming part of its backbone.

"Recent studies have shown that the Murchison meteorite also contained other key organic molecules, including lipids, simple sugars, and nitrogenous bases such as uracil."
Source: p. 508, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition, by Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

—
So as we've seen, the integral parts of primitive lifeforms would have been present on the early Earth, coming either from chemical reactions taking place on the planet or even being transported here from outer space. But it's one thing to just have a bunch of building blocks floating around; how could these have actually been assembled into biologically useful polymers?
Campbell Biology outlines a very simple mechanism of amino acid and RNA polymerization:

"A 2009 study demonstrated that one key step, the abiotic synthesis of RNA monomers, can occur spontaneously from simple precursor molecules. In addition, by dripping solutions of amino acids or RNA nucleotides onto hot sand, clay, or rock, researchers have produced polymers of these molecules. The polymers formed spontaneously, without the help of enzymes or ribosomes."
Source: p. 509. Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition, by Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

Here we see an animation of this process, provided by ExploringOrigins.org:

Video transcript: "Researchers have shown that clays, such as montmorillonite, are able to catalyze the formation of polymers of RNA from single nucleotides. Nucleotides, shown in white and blue, adsorb to the surface of a small clay particle, shown in brown. As the surface becomes more crowded, nucleotides that are close together can undergo a chemical reaction resulting in the formation of a polymer, or strand, of RNA."

They also provide another mechanism of RNA polymerization in their article on nucleic acids:

"Another possibility is that strands of RNA could have formed in salty ice water. David Deamer's lab at the University of California at Santa Cruz has found that the process of freezing a dilute solution of chemically activated RNA nucleotides causes the nucleotides to become concentrated as ice crystals form, eventually resulting in the formation of strands of RNA."

The textbook Evolution elaborates on how amino acids could've formed early proteins:

"When [Sidney] Fox mixed large amounts of the amino acids aspartic acid and glutamic acid, and subsequently placed the mixture into water, the amino acids present were strung together in a peptidelike structure. The bonds between the amino acids, however, were weak and unstable, and they were different in structure from the peptide bonds that join amino acids in most organisms.
Subsequent work by Claudia Huber and her colleagues found that amino acids do link together via stable peptide bonds if a compound such as carbon monoxide (CO)—which is thought to have been present in Earth's atmosphere—is used in the laboratory experiments."
Source: p. 384–385, Evolution, by Carl T. Bergstrom & Lee Alan Dugatkin. 2012.

Vesicle or early–cell membrane formation is probably the simplest process, because it's the intrinsic chemical nature of certain lipids to form a spherical bilayer when added to water. As Campbell Biology puts it,

". . . vesicles can form spontaneously when lipids or other organic molecules are added to water. When this occurs, the hydrophobic molecules in the mixture organize into a bilayer similar to the lipid bilayer of a plasma membrane. Adding substances such as montmorillonite, a soft mineral clay produced by the weathering of volcanic ash, greatly increases the rate of vesicle self-assembly. This clay, which is thought to have been common on early Earth, provides surfaces on which organic molecules become concentrated, increasing the likelihood that the molecules will react with each other and form vesicles."
Source: p. 509, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition, by Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

Something I haven't yet covered is how such lipids could be formed and concentrated in the first place. One potential process is described in an Exploring Origins video:

Video transcript: "Hydrothermal vents, from deep-sea black smokers to land-bound geysers, may have been sites where prebiotically important molecules on early Earth were formed. This animation shows the formation of fatty acids deep in the Earth below a geyser. Mineral surfaces can catalyze the stepwise formation of hydrocarbon chains from carbon monoxide and hydrogen. Here hydrogen atoms are shown as white spheres. Carbon is grey, and oxygen in red.
The reaction results in the growth of hydrocarbon chains of various lengths that are eventually released from the mineral face as fatty acids and related compounds. Because the fatty acids are at low concentrations in the water, they are unable to form higher order structures such as micelles and membranes.
Following the violent explosion of the geyser, some water is released into the atmosphere as tiny, microscopic droplets. Fatty acids synthesized along the mineral walls of the geyser are found in low concentration in these droplets, with the longer fatty acids at the air-water interface. A gust of wind evaporates the water molecules and the water droplet, causing the fatty acid to form lightweight airborne particulates that can be transported across the landscape, perhaps eventually settling out and accumulating in localized areas."

Debunking 9/11 Truthers: "Explosive Squibs & Lateral Debris Ejection!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 28 Jan 2019 01:30:37 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Omar Raafat (mirorss94)/Pixabay; AE911Truth/YouTube

The basic position of 9/11 truthers is that the Twin Towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. One piece of evidence they use to support this view are alleged explosive squibs that we see during the collapse of the buildings. They also point to the lateral ejection of heavy debris as something that only could be caused by powerful explosions.
Here I'll explain what's wrong with these arguments in my first of many videos on 9/11, made possible by some generous funding from the CIA as part of their diabolical, government-disinformation program. Pour yourself a nice, tall glass of fluoridated water and settle in, because it's time for some "official story" propaganda.
Here I'm going to argue that these alleged squibs are much better explained by the falling mass of the building rapidly increasing air pressure at lower levels, causing windows to burst and eject debris. The explosion hypothesis makes no sense, because explosions wouldn't cause individual windows to break like this—especially if they took place in the center of the building around the core columns, as truthers allege. The only way that they could be right about this would be if impossible explosions took place, which sent debris on impossibly straight paths to exit out of individual windows, leaving all others intact.
The outward ejection of heavy debris during the collapse can also be explained without invoking explosions, because when part of a building smashes into and crushes another part of a building, that's obviously going to send debris in all kinds of different directions. Specific non-explosive mechanisms that could account for lateral debris ejection include pulverization, tipping over, and elastic rebound.
Finally, truthers don't seem to realize that they contradict themselves by using alleged explosions to prove that a non-explosive, thermitic demolition took place.
—
In the second edition of the documentary Loose Change, they show us several examples of the alleged explosive squibs that were seen during the collapse of the Twin Towers.

"In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from the building 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave. Here, here, here, here, here, and here."

In their report on the collapse of the Twin Towers, The National Institute of Standards and Technology provided an explanation for these so-called squibs—or should I say covered up these squibs? Wake up, sheeple! Ron Paul 2012. No, I shouldn't say that, and I see no good reason to doubt their explanation because it makes perfect sense:

"The falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it, much like the action of a piston, forcing material, such as smoke and debris, out the windows as seen in several videos."

Some truthers, not satisfied with this explanation, try to poke holes in what they call the piston theory. We read the following on 911Research.WTC7.net:

"The squibs emerge from the facade 10 to 20 floors below the exploding rubble cloud inside of which the tower is disintegrating. The thick clouds appear to contain the pulverized concrete of the floor slabs, which was the only concrete component of the tower. But the piston theory requires that the floors have already pancaked down to the level of the squib, making them unavailable for the production of the concrete dust more than 10 floors above."

This guy's just plain wrong about this. The piston theory says that some of the dust and debris created by the building destruction will get rapidly forced downwards as the building is being crushed—so it's perfectly in line with the piston theory to see debris ejection happening below the current crush point. He thinks he's refuting the piston theory when he's really just misunderstanding it.
You don't need to take on board any outlandish assumptions to accept this explanation for the squibs. The idea is that some of the air, dust, and debris finds its way into the elevator shafts and other downward access points, subsequently being pushed down the building from the crushing and ultimately forcing its way out of a window when the pressure gets high enough. Which part of this do truthers think is not possible? Every one of those steps in the process seems completely reasonable to me.
It's not a perfect analogy, but I like to think of it as similar to how a syringe works: When you press the plunger at the top, what happens to the air inside of the syringe? It gets forced downwards, because there's nowhere else for it to go. With the floors being crushed, obviously much of the debris and air would escape outwards to the sides, but all you have to grant is that some of it would move downwards through the building.
"That's preposterous! A much more likely explanation is the greatest conspiracy of all time!"
—
Aha!, the truther might say, there's another reason why these must be caused by explosives, and that's the extremely rapid speed that they move at! Here's how David Chandler puts it in the documentary 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out:

“And naysayers tend to say, well, that's just air being blown out the windows. It doesn't really work to say it's just air pressure. I've estimated these are coming out faster than 100 miles an hour."

Huh, so that's what a socially awkward Amish person looks like. I'm surprised they didn't conduct this interview while he was churning butter or something!

I like their super intense background music, by the way. It sounds like something out of a Terminator movie! David Chandler's like "Come with me if you want to live." I'm like: "Get away from me, you weirdo!"

"I've estimated these are coming out faster than 100 miles an hour."

Ok, and since when did air become incapable of traveling at rapid speeds? You ever heard of this thing called "wind" before? Last I checked, it can move pretty damn fast! If there's a hurricane or tornado, we're talking 100+ miles per hour, easily—no explosion necessary.
I mean for fuck's sake, a measly little sneeze pushes air out of your nose at 40 miles per hour—yet a gigantic, collapsing building weighing millions of tons can't produce air speeds over 100 miles per hour? What a ridiculous, made-up standard this guy is operating with.
He's like: "Well, it can't be just air and debris because it's moving fast."
Ok, what if it's air and debris that's simply moving fast? What is the problem here? It's like he just drew an imaginary line in the sand and he's like: "I'm sorry! Now that I drew this line, it's physically impossible for you to cross it!" Motherfucker, you just made that line up two seconds ago!
What do I know, though: he's the expert. What are his credentials again? "30 Year Math and Physics Teacher"? Cool, dude, I guess I'll catch you at the next PTA meeting, then. I'd be willing to bet that the only experience this guy has with building construction comes from raising barns with his fellow villagers!
"Hey, bro, what are your credentials?"
I don't have any relevant to the field—but I'm not the one being presented to the audience as if I am some kind of expert. Remember, the title of the documentary is 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out.
Being a math and physics schoolteacher doesn't exactly qualify you as an authority on skyscraper construction and building demolition. He's like: "Hey, you know what? I've actually learned a lot about the design of buildings from cleaning spitballs off the ceiling!"
Don't get me wrong, schoolteachers do play an important role in society: Who else is going to indoctrinate our children to believe a bunch of patriotic nonsense? Yes, teachers are important, blah blah blah. I just find it funny that Chandler is portrayed as an expert in this field. Even if he was, however, experts can still be wrong about things. Waving your credentials—or non-credentials—in front of our face simply doesn't demonstrate the soundness of your argument.
—
Phil Molé, writing for Skeptic magazine, points out another flaw in the truther's argument about squibs:

"Videos of the WTC collapse show that these plumes do not begin until after the towers begin falling and increase in intensity as the collapse continues — this is not the scenario one would expect if the plumes were actually explosives used to cause the buildings to fall."

Very good point. The truther argues that the squibs are the cause of the collapse, when really, the collapse is the cause of the squibs. If we were seeing a bunch of squibs before the collapse initiated, they might be onto something. The squibs, however, are invariably seen only after the onset of collapse—which is perfectly in line with what the piston theory would predict, and completely contradicts the demolition hypothesis.
—
Another argument made against the piston theory was presented by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth, in a lecture:

"And, in fact, they're these focalized ejections that occur halfway between the corners of the building. Also, say this was the open office space, 60 ft long, the elevator hoistway's over here. The piston's gonna shove the air into this room. It's gonna fill the room fairly uniformly with air pressure before it breaks any windows, right? And then it might break several, but not these highly focalized, pinpoint accurate, geometrically precise violent ejections. No. It's extremely unlikely."

First off, he's completely wrong when he says that these squibs occur halfway between the corners of the building. The very video evidence from Loose Change that he just presented his audience with refutes that statement. Look at this shit: The squibs are all over the place. Sometimes they're fairly close to the center, although other times they're very left of center, right of center—there's just no consistent pattern that we see in these squibs.

What kind of a shitty and disorganized controlled demolition would this be? They're like: "Ah, just hurry up and put the explosives wherever! Let's get the fuck outta here and watch the game." The random location of these squibs runs counter to the idea of a precise, controlled demolition.
And isn't Richard Gage an architect? You'd expect a little more precision from him than this. These squibs are occurring all over the place and he's like: "They occur halfway between the building corners!" I just hope he doesn't bring that same lack of attention to detail into his architecture.
His client is like: "Now it's really important that the chandelier is in the center of the hallway right when people walk in," and Gage is like: "Yeah, of course. I'll get it done."
Two weeks later he comes back with a drawing and they're like: "What the fuck, man? This chandelier is like 40ft off center!", and he's like: "Oh, whatever. Close enough. Now where's my paycheck, bitch?"
—
Maybe these squibs are just mistimed explosions, you might argue, and that explains their disorganized nature? So let me get this straight: These nefarious, all-powerful actors who masterfully pulled off the greatest conspiracy in human history did such a shitty job of rigging up the building that several explosives went off several seconds before they should have? What kind of bumbling demolition technicians would be responsible for such shoddy work?
Several seconds of error might not sound like a long time, but in the world of controlled demolition, that's the equivalent of your pizza delivery guy taking 9 hours to bring you your food.
"Sorry, bro: Traffic was rough."
"Traffic was rough? The guy who ordered that pizza doesn't even live here anymore!"
Go watch some actual controlled demolition videos and you'll see that the precision timing of the explosions is virtually perfect, down to milliseconds. The room for error is extremely small, and it would be laughably embarrassing for any demolition firm to so ineptly rig up a building that several explosives fire several seconds before they should have.

It would be humiliating enough if this happened during a standard operation, but during a demolition where the entire world is going to have cameras pointed at the buildings during the collapse? During a demolition that will kill thousands of people? When the stakes are so high, you'd think they'd at least try to check their fucking work and avoid making such absurd and visible mistakes.
—
Gage, in that lecture, also claims that air pressure would cause multiple windows to break simultaneously—and we wouldn't see these single window failures like this.
I see where he's coming from, but here's why I think he's wrong: When such enormous amounts of air pressure are built up, this air is going to travel through the past of least resistance. So if one individual window is the first to fail—even if just milliseconds prior to another one—wouldn't the huge amounts of pressure push the air out of that particular window and relieve the pressure on the other windows?
Think about it as analogous to the failure of a levee during a flood: Even though the entire levee is made of the same material, what often happens is that as the pressure from the swelling river builds up, the initial structural failure of the levee will take place at one particular location—and water will begin to travel through that particular failure point. It's not like the entire levee uniformly collapses at once. So single-point failures through the path of least resistance does seem to make sense when the operative force is air or water pressure.

An example of levee failure.
I also find it interesting that air pressure, in Gage's view, couldn't break individual windows like this—but apparently explosions can? That seems completely backwards to me. Think about it: If there were explosions going on anywhere on that floor, the debris isn't just going to break a single window; it's gonna get thrown in every single direction and break dozens of windows. Precisely what they're pointing to as proof of explosions couldn't possibly have been caused by explosions.

Debunking: "The Left Is A Violent Mob!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 07 Jan 2019 05:05:15 +0000

Thumbnail photos: cantfightthetendies/Flickr; Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons.

A common Republican talking point is that the left regularly engages in politically motivated violence—something that they claim has especially been on the rise in recent years. Conservatives use language like "the left is an angry mob"; they talk about "the violent left"; right-wing media outlets like Fox News put banners on the screen that say things like "Out-of-control violence from the left." I would say that my goal in this video is to help people fight back against this myth, but then I might be accused by Sean Hannity of encouraging left-wing violence!

As we'll see here, when you actually look at the data on the subject, you find that deaths from right-wing violence and right-wing terrorist attacks far outweigh the number of deaths from left-wing attacks. This is a trend that we see in recent years and this is a trend that goes all the way back to the 1980s.
Oddly enough, Republicans also cite many examples of alleged left-wing violence or incitements to violence that are actually nothing of the sort. They seem to be simply confused about the meaning of words and they wildly misinterpret what's being said—in a manner that reeks of intentional dishonesty.
It doesn't make sense to portray an entire party as represented by the extremely rare, violent individual, and you'll be shocked to hear that there also seem to be a number of contradictions and double-standards built into the right-wing position on this subject. Finally, I'll talk in this video about the far left and the far right battling it out at protest events.
—
Let's start out by doing something that right-wingers almost never do when they talk about this subject, and that's take a complete look at the data on this question.
Matthew Lenoe writes the following in a Washington Post article:

"The real threat of violence comes from the right. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism reports that right-wingers and white supremacists were responsible for 74 percent of the murders committed by political extremists in the United States over the past decade. Only 2 percent were committed by left-wing radicals. Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute, has calculated that 'terrorists inspired by Nationalist and Right Wing ideology have killed about 10 times as many people as Left Wing terrorists since 1992.'"

Ok, you might say, maybe over the past decade or two, this has been the trend, but we're talking about political violence over only the past few years! That's when the left-wing violence has really ramped up and far surpassed right-wing violence, you might argue. This again is just not true.
Luis Romero, in a Quartz article, shows us data on the ideologies of US terrorists in 2017. He finds that 37 incidents were committed by right-leaning people compared against 11 that were committed by left-leaning attackers. That is to say, even in 2017—one of the years in which we've been led to believe that left-wing violence has reached epidemic proportions—3x as many US terror attacks were committed by right-wingers than left-wingers.

(Red and blue highlights added by me—as if anyone gives a fuck)

More data on this question is revealed in a Washington Post analysis. As we can see, in 2017, 36 terrorist attacks were committed by right-wingers whereas 10 were committed by left-wingers. The fatality numbers in these attacks were 11 and 6, respectively. So basically, in 2017, 3x as many terrorist attacks and 2x as many political murders were committed by right-wingers.
If you look at the data going all the way back to 2002, what you see is that there has been a similar number of left-wing and right wing attacks—yet there have been far more fatalities in right-wing attacks, which leads us to an obvious conclusion: These girly, leftist soyboys simply aren't man enough to get the job done! No, what this data shows it that, over the past 15 years, right-wing terrorist attacks have been much more lethal than left-wing attacks.

(Red and blue highlights added by me)

The final set of data is the most comprehensive, and it comes from a 2017 publication by The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, also known as START, for short. (Pfft, yeah, "START the liberal propaganda" is more like it!)
In their paper, they categorize terrorist attacks by the ideology of the attacker from the 1970s all the way to the 2010s. As we can see, the ideological categories include left wing, environmental, right wing, religious, nationalist or separatist, and single issue.
Complicating the analysis is that there's often overlap between these categories. As they write in the paper,

"One-third (33%) of the attacks were classified as having been motivated by more than one type of ideology; therefore, each column sums to a number (of ideologies) greater than the number of attacks that occurred in each decade."

So in some cases, for example, what they classify as a nationalist or separatist attack also gets classified as either a left-wing or a right-wing attack. I'm gonna simplify the analysis by showing explicitly left-wing attacks in blue, right-wing attacks in red, and everything else in monochrome.

As we can see, the comparative number of terrorist attacks committed by each group has fluctuated over the decades—although overall, we can say that more attacks have been committed by left wingers. More specifically, more left wing attacks were committed in the 1970s, 80s, and 2000s, where as more right-wing attacks were committed in the 1990s and 2010s. When we look at the data presented as a percentage of attacks, we see similar trends.
More important than the number of attacks are the number of deaths as a result of these attacks. Looking at the raw numbers isn't very informative because all other data points in the graph are dwarfed by the number of deaths from the September 11th attacks.
When we look at the percentage of deaths by each category, a more visible picture emerges. The overall conclusion is that more deaths have resulted from right-wing terrorist attacks. More specifically, more deaths resulted from right-wing attacks in the 1980s, 90s, and 2010s, whereas only in the 1970s did more deaths result from left-wing attacks. So similar to what we saw earlier in that Washington Post data, right-wing terrorist attacks tend to be more deadly than left-wing attacks.

Indeed, as they write in the paper,

". . . most left-wing terrorist attacks in the 1990s (82%) were carried out by environmentalist groups like the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF). Terrorism motivated by environmentalism comprised nearly one-quarter (23%) of all attacks in the 1990s, but resulted in no deaths.
. . . The number of attacks by left-wing extremists increased 80 percent in the 2000s. These attacks were nearly all motivated by environmentalism and carried out by perpetrators affiliated with ALF and ELF. All of these attacks were intended to cause property damage and intimidation; none were lethal."

This is a little misleading, actually, because I heard that in some of these attacks, the vegan activists did try to beat a few people to death; they were just so scrawny and fatigued that they couldn't cause any serious damage and they were like "Fuck this; let's get outta here and eat some humus." (I know! A skinny people vegan joke. How original!)
So since a large portion of left wing terrorist attacks are oriented towards property damage and intimidation, we might be able to infer that people on the left surpass the right when it comes to lesser offenses like vandalism and theft—but we can't say this for certain because the data isn't perfectly clear on this question.
Also noteworthy is that Timothy McVeigh's 1995 Oklahoma City bombing killed 168 people—so this one attack was responsible for many of the right-wing deaths we see during this decade.
This data may have also underestimated the number of right-wing attacks, and this is due to how they categorized the ideologies of attackers. For example, they write that:

"At least 46 percent of the anti-abortion attacks in the 1990s—including all of the lethal attacks and all of the attacks for which the assailant’s religious identity was specified in source documents—were carried out by perpetrators whose anti-abortion beliefs were rooted in Christianity.
. . . As a narrowly defined single issue, attacks motivated by anti-abortion ideology were classified as religiously motivated if source documents specifically indicated the assailant’s religious identity."

They don't state anywhere in the paper that they classified any of these anti-abortion attacks as right-wing; it appears that they may have classified them as only single-issue attacks or religious attacks. I would argue that anti-abortionism is basically a right-wing position, even if grounded in religious beliefs.
Aside from this, though, they appear to have done a pretty good job of classifying attacks in multiple categories as appropriate, so let's just base our conclusions off the data as is and not overcomplicate things.
So the overall conclusion we can reach from this data is that more attacks were committed by left wingers in the 70s, 80s, and 2000s—although more deaths resulted from left-wing attacks only in the 1970s. I think it's informative, interesting, and important to look at the overall history of left-wing versus right-wing attacks, but remember, the argument being made by conservatives is that the left is a violent mob—not that they used to be a violent mob in the 1970s over 40 years ago.
But even if you want to take a deep, historical look at this question, you find that from the 1980s onwards, significantly more deaths have consistently resulted from right-wing terrorist attacks in the United States. This is a conclusion that we also reach when look at data exclusively from the past decade or so—or even just the past few years. So pretty much no matter what your timescale is, you find that this conservative argument about the left being uniquely violent is a complete reversal of the facts.
—
How is it possible for the conservative to be so obviously wrong on this question? Frankly I think that's because a lot of conservatives' idea of researching this question is to watch Fox News B-roll footage of violent Antifa protesters. Many of these people live in an echochamber where they're largely getting just one side of the story presented to them.
Here's a comment where a guy is just flaunting his ignorance on the subject, from an Axios article on the prevalence of right-wing violence. WhiskeyBravo writes:

"This is absurdly laughable. I can’t even take it remotely seriously. Look at the reality of any of these events, it is universally Antifa socialist types who begin the violence. Just YouTube 'Portland Riot' or something similar, and you can do the same for any other location. The true 'right wing' stuff is very few and far between."

Notice that one thing is conspicuously absent from this comment of his, and that's actual data to support his position. Here is the full extent of this guy's research on the subject: He's watched some YouTube videos on the Portland Riot and probably some other Antifa protests. Well I guess that settles it, then! We can just throw our data in the trash can and pack it all in!
Notice also that this guy is spotlighting a much lesser form of violence. The article he's commenting on presents data on acts of domestic terror, and this guy's like "Oh yeah? Well what about these protests where some people beat each other up?" Fine, we can talk about the protests, but the occasional mutual skirmish between the far left and far right isn't exactly on the same level as premeditated political killings.
And I simply wasn't able to find any data that breaks down and compares the political ideology of people who committed exclusively these less severe crimes. This START terrorism data is probably the best that you're going to find on this subject.
As we'll see later in the video, this guy is also just flat wrong when he says that "it is universally Antifa socialist types who begin the violence."
Comments like these are a clear reminder that just because somebody confidently asserts something doesn't, in any way, suggest that what they're saying is true.
—
Brietbart, since September 2015, has been collecting a list of 639 incidents of "Acts of Media-Approved Violence and Harassment Against Trump Supporters." Right, I'm sure they bust out the confetti and champagne on CNN every time another incident like this takes place.
I looked at the first 100 of these events, and only 11 of them featured actual violence. And of these, most of the violence is very minor: One guy forcefully grabbed a Republican woman's arm; a Republican candidate was punched in the face at a bar during a discussion about politics—which is probably the first recorded instance of a drunken disagreement leading to violence.
Another guy punched a female representative in the arm—my goodness, punched in the arm? She was probably in critical condition for months after this! A man who was canvassing for a Republican candidate alleges that he was punched in the back. A Republican college student was shoved backwards. A Trump supporter gets punched and a fight breaks out, but both of them are shoving each oth

Debunking Creationism: "Evolution & Speciation Has Never Been Observed!"

Anton Dybal — Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:10:28 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Andrew Z. Colvin/Wikimedia Commons; Виталий Смолыгин/PublicDomainPictures

Many creationists argue that evolution has never actually been witnessed taking place by humans, and this is something that they're just plain wrong about. There is one thing that has never been observed, however, and that's a creationist making a good argument. I've never seen it happen before and this one is certainly no exception.
Human observers have seen a wide range of evolutionary changes take place. These include the breeding of animals; evolved resistance to herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics; and clear examples of descent with modification in response to environmental pressures that have been observed both in the wild and the laboratory, in organisms ranging from bacteria to plants to fish to birds.
Creationists will sometimes also claim that speciation has never been seen, which is also incorrect. Even if they were right when they said these things, however, evolution is a process that takes long periods of time, and even if we couldn't personally watch evolution happen in real time, there are still many other forms of evidence demonstrating evolutionary change.
Here, I provide many examples of evolution taking place before the eyes of human observers. I also dissect creationist arguments made in this area and explain the many things they get wrong. I point out that creationists make faulty attempts to minimize the observed evolutionary changes; they shift the goalposts whenever convenient for them; they're confused about the scientific language; and oftentimes, they have impossibly high standards for what we should be able to see take place in real time—standards that they don't at all apply towards their own religious beliefs.
—
Henry Morris makes this argument in an article entitled "The Scientific Case Against Evolution," written on The Institute For Creation Research (Yeah, I'm sure their "research" is just fucking groundbreaking.):

". . . the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring."

Let's begin by assuming, for the sake of argument, that he's correct: Nobody has ever observed evolutionary changes taking place in real time before their very eyes. Even if he was right about this, this wouldn't disprove evolution, because you don't need to personally observe an event in order to be able to rationally deduce that it took place.
By analogy, imagine that there's a fire investigator trying to figure out what caused a building to burn down. He finds traces of gasoline all over the building debris; he also finds an empty, bright red, discarded gas can right next to the building with a note taped to it that says "I burned down your building because I hate you." There's also a detailed, step-by-step plan next to it with "How to burn down this building" written at the top.
This would be a pretty open-and-shut case of deliberate arson. Who would be foolish enough to challenge a fire investigator in this situation by saying things like: "Well, you didn't personally witness somebody splashing gasoline all over the place and lighting a match, so we can't say with confidence what caused the building to burn down." Could you imagine somebody smugly saying this and thinking they've said something clever? They'd be like: "Sir, let's have the paramedics take a look at you. Clearly you've inhaled a bit too much smoke and carbon monoxide, because you are delusional right now!"
Even if you didn't witness something taking place, you can still collect evidence to determine what was the cause of the event—and so it is with evolution. We might not have personally witnessed the evolutionary history of life on earth—because last time I checked, we don't have a lifespan of over 3 billion years. Anyone who's read their Bible knows that humans can only live for a maximum of a thousand years. But 3 billion years? Please, don't be ridiculous.

So yes, while we haven't personally watched the evolutionary history of life on earth play out, there is still abundant evidence supporting this history. You can look at the rich fossil record over time; you can compare the anatomy and DNA of various organisms; you can look at the biogeographical distribution of life on earth; and you can look at things like vestigial structures shared by many closely-related species.
When you look at these independent lines of evidence, what you find is that they all agree with each other and point to the exact same conclusion. So even without direct observations of any evolutionary changes, we could still prove that evolution has taken place in the past.

Paul K/Flickr; Andrew Z. Colvin/Wikimedia Commons; Виталий Смолыгин/PublicDomainPictures; H. Zell/Wikimedia Commons; Richard Lydekker/Wikimedia Commons.

—
The thing is, creationists are simply wrong when they say that evolution has never been observed by humans. On the contrary, there are many such documented examples.
For starters, we have the examples where humans didn't just observe the evolution, but they actively facilitated and brought about the evolutionary changes. I'm talking, of course, about artificial selection. The spawn of Satan himself, Charles Darwin, in The Origin of Species, gave the example of pigeon breeding, where a wide range of pigeon forms were brought about by intentionally breeding to accentuate certain characteristics.

Dog breeding is another clear example of artificial selection. Every dog breed you see today has been descended from wolves, and most of them have been bred specifically for certain behavioral or physical characteristics.

Yes, human activity is responsible for bringing about these changes, but artificial selection is proof of the more general concept that if only certain organisms with specific traits end up reproducing, changes can be passed down over time and can accumulate to the point that the descendants are very different from the ancestors.

This happens in the wild, as well—except instead of humans deciding on who will reproduce, the surrounding environment is the de facto decider: Organisms with genetic mutations that make them more capable of acquiring food, evading predators, and attracting the opposite sex will reproduce more frequently, and they will thus pass down their unique genes over time—as well as the accompanying attributes that give them their survivalistic and reproductive advantages.
Contrary to what creationists claim, this process has been directly observed by humans again and again, both in the laboratory and in the wild. One example is described in Campbell Biology:

"Consider the medium ground finch (Geospiza fortis), a seed-eating bird that inhabits the Galapagos Islands. In 1977, the G. fortis population on the island of Daphne Major was decimated by a long period of drought: Of some 1,200 birds, only 180 survived.
Researchers Peter and Rosemary Grant observed that during the drought, small, soft seeds were in short supply. The finches mostly fed on large, hard seeds that were more plentiful. Birds with larger, deeper beaks were better able to crack and eat these larger seeds, and they survived at a higher rate than finches with smaller beaks. Since beak depth is an inherited trait in these birds, the average beak depth in the next generation of G. fortis was greater than it had been in the pre-drought population."
Source: p. 469. Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. Jane B. Reece et al. 2011.

Bergstrom & Dugatkin give an example of guppy evolution in their cleverly-named textbook Evolution:

"In many of the streams of the northern mountains of Trinidad and Tobago, guppy populations can be found both upstream and downstream of a series of waterfalls. . . . At upstream sites, the small fish (Rivulus hartii) is the only predator that guppies face. If females can produce offspring that start off relatively large and can quickly grow past a certain size threshold, such offspring will be safe from predation by R. hartii.
. . . At high predation sites, guppy predators are much larger; they can eat a guppy no matter how large it gets. At such sites, natural selection should favor producing much smaller fry. That is, because a predator can eat a guppy fry no matter how big it is, then natural selection should now favor females that produce as many fry as possible, rather than producing larger but fewer fry, because such females will have higher reproductive success.
. . . David Reznick, John Endler, and their colleagues experimentally manipulated predation stress in wild guppy populations by transplanting a group of 100 male and 100 female guppies from a high-predation, downstream site into a low-predation, upstream site, and they cordoned off the transplanted guppies so they could track the populations over time.
. . . When Reznick and his team sampled the descendants of the transplanted populations 5 and 12 years after the original transplant, they found that the descendant population had evolved in the predicted direction, with females producing larger but fewer offspring than their ancestors from a high-predation site."
Source: p. 74–75, Evolution, by Carl T. Bergstrom & Lee Alan Dugatkin. 2012.

Pfft, yeah right! I'm sure some evolutionist just swapped out the fish when nobody was looking!
The evolution of soapberry bugs has also been directly observed and documented by humans. As Manuel Molles Jr. writes in Ecology: Concepts and Applications,

"The soapberry bug, Jadera haematoloma, feeds on seeds produced by plants of the family Sapindaceae. Soapberry bugs use their slender beaks to pierce the walls of the fruits of their host plants. To allow the bug to feed on the seeds within the fruit, the beak must be long enough to reach from the exterior of the fruit to the seeds. The distance from the outside of the fruit wall to the seeds varies widely among potential host species. Thus, beak length should be under strong selection for appropriate length.
. . . During the second half of the twentieth century, three additional species of the plant family Sapindaceae were introduced to the Southern United States. . . . Carroll and Boyd were particularly interested in determining whether the beak length had changed in the soapberry bugs that shifted from native to introduced host plants. . . . Figure 4.12 shows the relationship between soapberry beak length and the radius of fruits of their host plants. As you can see, there is a close correlation between fruit radius and beak length."
Source: p. 89–90. Ecology: Concepts and Applications, Sixth Edition, by Manuel C. Molles Jr. 2013.

And here we see this figure from the book which shows precisely that: The deeper the seeds, the longer the beak.

They go on to demonstrate that these changes are genetic in nature:

". . . are the differences in beak length due to genetic differences among populations of soapberry bugs or are they the result of phenotypic plasticity? Fortunately, Carroll reared juvenile bugs from the various populations on alternative host plants so we can answer this question.
As it turns out, the differences in beak length observed in the field among bugs feeding on the various native and introduced host plants were retained in bugs that developed on alternative hosts. Here we have evidence for a genetic basis for interpopulational differences among soapberry bugs. Consequently, we can conclude that the differences in beak length documented by Carroll and Boyd were likely the result of natural selection for increased or decreased beak length."
Source: p. 89–90. Ecology: Concepts and Applications, Sixth Edition, by Manuel C. Molles Jr. 2013.

Richard Dawkins, in his book The Greatest Show on Earth, gives an example of a radical evolutionary change being observed very precisely in the laboratory. Summarizing research performed by Richard Lenski et al, he describes how a population of E. coli bacteria evolved an entirely new metabolic pathway that allowed them to utilize a new chemical as a source of energy and nutrition:

"In 1988, Lenski took one such population [of E. coli] and infected twelve identical flasks, all of which contained the same nutrient broth, including glucose as the vital food source.
. . . Every day, for each of the twelve tribes, a new virgin flask was infected with liquid from the previous day's flask. A small sample, exactly one-hundredth of the volume of the old flask, was drawn out and squirted into the new flask, which contained a fresh supply of glucose-rich broth. The population of bacteria in the flask then started to skyrocket; but it always leveled off by the next day as the supply of food gave out and starvation set in.
. . . Lenski and his team have continued this daily routine for more than twenty years so far. This means about 7,000 'flask generations' and 45,000 bacterial generations. . . . Shortly after generation 33,000 something utterly remarkable happened. One out of the twelve lineages, called Ara–3, suddenly went berserk. [Population density] shot up sixfold.
. . . glucose was not the only nutrient in the broth. Another one was citrate . . . but E. coli normally can't use it. . . if only a mutant could 'discover' how to deal with citrate, a bonanza would open up for it. This is exactly what happened with Ara–3. This tribe . . . suddenly acquired the ability to eat citrate as well as glucose, rather than only glucose. The amount of available food in each successive flask in the lineage therefore shot up. And so did the plateau at which the population in each successive flask daily stabilized."
Source: p. 118–128. The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, by Richard Dawkins. 2009.

So hey, the next time you get some E. coli on your lettuce and you're dying in the hospital, you can at least share some fun facts about the bacteria with the nurses.
I'm in the hospital like: "...Here's the real kicker: Shortly after generation 33,000..."
The nurses are like: "Anton, please get some rest. You're very weak."
I'm like: "I'm very weak... You're very boring is more like it!"
And then I flatline, and they're like "Should we even try to save this asshole?"
—
The final examples we'll look at for now involve the evolution of resistance to herbicides, insecticides, and antibiotics. As Molles Jr. continues in Ecology:

"The application of . . . massive quantities of herbicide over . . . a large area has the potential to create strong selection pressures on weed populations for the evolution of resistance.
. . . [researchers] focused on Johnsongrass, Sorghum halepense, a serious weed in soybean fields that can reduce soybean yields by over 90%. Farmers began growing glyphosate-resistant soybeans in Salta Province in the year 2000. Following a few years of effective weed control with glyphosate, farmers began to report inconsistent control of [the weed] Johnsongrass across the province.
. . . [the researchers] concluded that the ineffectiveness of glyphosate at controlling Johnsongrass . . . was a consequence of 'evolved heritable resistance' to the herbicide. Johnsongrass is not the only important weed species to evolve resistance to glyphosate. As of 2007, new cases of herbicide-resistant weeds were being documented at a rate of approximately one per year."
Source: p. 96–97. Ecology: Concepts and Applications, Sixth Edition, by Manuel C. Molles Jr. 2013.

Now, I know what you’re thinking here: Johnsongrass? What kind of a boring-ass, unoriginal plant name is that? You know the guy that discovered this was some dickhead named Johnson who was like: “Gee, what should I name this new plant I discovered? Oh, I know: How about Johnsongrass?”
Campbell Biology gives an example of evolved insecticide resistance being observed by humans in real time:

". . . the fruit fly D. melanogaster has an allele that confers resistance to several insecticides, including DDT. This allele has a frequency of 0% in laboratory strains of D. melanogaster established from flies collected in the wild in the early 1930s, prior to DDT use. However,

Debunking Libertarianism: "Taxation Is Theft! Abolish The Income Tax!"

Anton Dybal — Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:02:52 +0000

Thumbnail photos: 5chw4r7z from Cincinnati/Wikimedia Commons; LillyCantabile/Pixabay; Department of Defense/Wikimedia Commons; James Montgomery Flagg & Infrogmation of New Orleans/Flickr.

Libertarians often argue that taxation is theft, and they also argue that we should abolish the income tax. In this video, I'll explain the many problems with their position, and here are some of the key points that I make:
Comparisons between taxation and robbery are absurd, because the person who is mugged has no say in the matter, whereas the citizen gets to vote on what our tax rates are and what programs we do or don't fund. Tax revenue is also used to benefit the person who is taxed, whereas the robbery victim gets nothing out of the transaction—except a couple of stab wounds, if he's lucky. Any talk of government force used to collect taxes is vastly overstated by libertarians, as any such force is always an absolute last resort.
There shouldn't be any opting out of paying the income tax because there's no opting out of living in the society made possible by the income tax. The very fact that you live in our country means that you're the beneficiary of many programs funded by our tax dollars—so it only makes sense that you pay your fair share. Finally, a system of voluntary taxation simply wouldn't work because the funding would dry up and the quality of society in every area would decline.
—
We see this argument being made in an article on Libertarianism.org written by Michael Huemer—which I think is a very fitting name, because his article and his arguments are a rich source of comedy. He begins by writing the following:

"'Taxation is theft' is a popular slogan among libertarians. It captures the sentiment that we should hold the state to the same moral standards as non-state actors."

Right off the bat this strikes me as a strange notion. I don't think that we should hold the state to the same moral standards as non-state actors, certainly not in all areas. The libertarian argument here is that if I'm not allowed to do it, the state shouldn't be allowed to do it. I would argue that there are plenty of areas where this thinking falls flat.
The state rightfully has the authority to punish people when they commit crimes. This doesn't mean that if somebody commits a crime against you, that gives you the right to shackle them in your basement for a period of time that you deem fit for the offense committed against you.
The state can force you to participate in jury duty so that we keep our (so-called) criminal justice system moving; you can't force somebody to come to your house and help resolve a domestic dispute. The basic point is that it actually does seem acceptable to vest within the state certain unique powers that would seem strange if given to everyday citizens to use as they please.
That said, obviously I'm not saying that the state should have unlimited powers to do what they please. I would agree that there are certain areas where the state—or more specifically, certain actors within the state—should be held accountable for their wrongdoing: For example, when they kidnap and torture people without due process under the guise of fighting terrorism.
Here's the thing, though: I don't consider taxation to be a form of wrongdoing. We take some of everybody's money, we pool it together, and we use it to keep our country running and make it a better place. To put it bluntly, I think our system of taxation is a good thing—not a bad thing.
—
Why all of the outrage about this? Well, according to libertarians, taxation isn't just analogous to theft; in their view, it is theft. As Huemer continues:

"Imagine that I have founded a charity organization that helps the poor. But not enough people are voluntarily contributing to my charity, so many of the poor remain hungry. I decide to solve the problem by approaching well-off people on the street, pointing a gun at them, and demanding their money. I funnel the money into my charity, and the poor are fed and clothed at last.
. . . Now compare the case of taxation. When the government 'taxes' citizens, what this means is that the government demands money from each citizen, under a threat of force: if you do not pay, armed agents hired by the government will take you away and lock you in a cage. This looks like about as clear a case as any of taking people’s property without consent. So the government is a thief."

Here's the problem with this analogy: When you're just going around sticking people up at gunpoint in the street, nobody has a say in it. It's just your decision and it's necessarily being done against the will of your victims. When people vote to elect government representatives, they have a say in what their tax dollars are or are not being spent on. People play a key role in the decision-making process every time they step inside of a voting booth.
There's no voting booth for robberies where you get to decide, "Ok, this Tuesday when I get robbed, is he gonna point a gun in my face, or is he gonna threaten to stab me? Is he gonna take 20%, 50%, or all of my income?" No, here is the decision you get to make when you get robbed: Comply with whatever the demands are, or risk being seriously injured or killed.
We could theoretically have a society where no income taxes are collected if this is what everybody voted for. The reason we don't have such a system isn't because we're all immoral monsters who support theft; it's not because we've drank one too many cups of Big Brother's Kool-Aid on the subject and can't think for ourselves; it's because your libertarian vision of a society is a shitty vision that very few of us have any confidence would work to anything approaching the degree that our current system works.
You're crying "theft" when really what you should be crying is "we're not convincing enough." And I find this ironic coming from libertarians, because they tend to be the strongest proponents of the "pull yourselves up by your bootstraps" mentality! I thought you guys were all about personal responsibility? Why are you whining and playing the victim here? Instead of the evil state and its mindless supporters being out to get you, maybe you guys just aren't selling a very convincing product in the marketplace of ideas?
—
Huemer compares government taxation to robbing people on the streets at gunpoint, and comparisons like this are a staple in the libertarian community. Here's another problem with these analogies: The money that you're paying in taxes is being used to maintain and improve the society around you—and this is something that you and everybody else will benefit from.
It would be a very strange kind of robbery where somebody holds you up at gunpoint, demands only 20% of the money that you have, and then comes to your house the next day and spends that money improving your life: repairing your cracked driveway, mowing your lawn, sending a doctor to check up on you, and hiring security guards to keep watch and make sure that you're safe.
Imagine that you're walking down the street one night and a guy pops out from an alleyway pointing a gun at you. He says: "Hands up! Gimme a fraction of your money!"
You're like: "Just a fraction of my money? Don't you want all of it?"
He's like: "No I don't want all of your money! That would be totally unreasonable."
You're like: "Uh, ok, here ya go,"
Then he takes the money, runs across the street, and buys you car insurance with it. Again, this would be a very strange kind of robbery. I don't know whether I'd call the police or say thank you!
That's another thing that these analogies get wrong: When you get robbed, the criminal tends to take everything of value that you have. When you get taxed, however, only a portion of your income goes to the government—with the percentage that you pay scaling with the amount that you earn.
And if I'm supportive of paying taxes to fund these government programs, if I sign off on this system every time I cast my ballot, what am I doing, stealing from myself? I'm agreeing to give a portion of my income in exchange for certain programs and services. To call this theft is to simply misuse the term.

I call the police and I'm like: "Yeah, I'd like to report a robbery."
They're like: "Do you have any suspects?"
I'm like: "Well, yeah: Me. I went to the store, gave them money in exchange for some things, and that means I basically stole from myself. So I'd like to turn myself in because I deserve to be locked up."
If you called the police and said this, the only place you'd get locked up in is a mental institution.
And I have to say, even if I was mugged on the street at gunpoint, if I found out that the robber was funneling this money into a charity to feed the poor and desperately hungry, I would genuinely feel better about it than if he was just some common criminal spending the money on drugs or who knows what else.
—
Let's imagine that we took the advice of libertarians and did away with taxation, relying purely on charities and voluntary contributions to feed the poor. Under such a system, if the charitable donations aren't enough, what would happen to these starving people? To find the answer, look no further than the words of Michael Huemer:

". . . not enough people are voluntarily contributing to my charity, so many of the poor remain hungry."

If there's no turning to taxation, what would we do in this situation? What is the libertarian solution to a situation where people are on the brink of starving to death and they're not receiving the volunteer support necessary to feed them? "Uh, how about those lazy bums just get a job and stop relying on government handouts."
Yes, people should take personal initiative to improve their circumstances, but what if there are no jobs available, or what if they suffered an on-the-job injury because workplace regulations were slashed in your libertarian paradise? What if they're incapable of working to support themselves, and the volunteer support just isn't there to feed them? Here is the libertarian approach to humanitarian aid: "If they can't work and charity isn't enough, fuck 'em. Let 'em starve."
And I have to say, Huemer's priorities seem to be entirely backwards here. He seems to view petty theft as more morally outrageous than mass starvation. Taxing a small portion of everybody's income and using it to feed the poor is precisely how we should deal with problems like this—and the libertarian solution isn't a solution at all. The libertarian crosses his fingers and hopes for the best; the statist takes action and actually tries to solve the problem.
Yes, there's more to lifting people out of poverty than simply providing them with aid. I don't think that anybody should expect the government to solve all of their problems, and I do agree that people should take it upon themselves to work as hard as possible to improve their life. Supporting social safety nets is not the same thing as supporting laziness and parasitism.
But until we start moving these people in the right direction, until we provide them with the necessary resources and knowledge to lift themselves out of poverty, through taxation we can at least guarantee that they're getting the food that they need to survive and stay healthy. And I am more than happy to pay a portion of my income in taxes to support these programs.
—
We see a slight variation on the theft analogy in a YouTube video created by Tomasz Kaye:

"Oliver explains that he's had a run of bad luck and is raising money to cover tuition fees for his kids. You want to help Oliver out, so you give him some money. To your surprise, George doesn't offer Oliver any help. You try to persuade him, but it's no use. Imagining yourself in this situation, do you think it's ok to threaten to use physical force against George to get him to do the right thing?
Now, imagine a slightly different situation: This time, a group of your friends take a vote. 6 out of 10 are in favor of threatening George to get him to help Oliver. Does this democratic process make it ok to threaten George?"

Expanding the analogy to include more people is supposed to illustrate to you that simply voting to endorse such a system doesn't make the system right. Here's what this analogy gets wrong, though: When 10 random people hold an impromptu straw vote, there is no legal force behind their consensus.

If 10 people that I know came up to me and said: "Bad news, Anton: We took a vote and you gotta hand over 500 bucks," I wouldn't be under any moral or legal obligation to listen to them. This isn't some elected body that the community has agreed to vest decision-making powers in; these are just 10 assholes, as far as I'm concerned, and the only thing they're gonna get from me is a stiff middle finger. This gets back to that earlier point that I made: Society has agreed to give the government certain powers and responsibilities that ordinary people don't have.
—
Huemer takes issue with the idea that receiving benefits from taxation justifies the process:

"Imagine that I hold you up at gunpoint and take $20 from you. I also leave one of my books behind in exchange. When you see me later without my gun, you call me a thief and demand your money back. 'Oh no,' I say, 'I am no thief, for I gave you something valuable in exchange. True, you never asked for the book, but it’s a good book, worth much more than $20.'
This reply on my part would be confused. It doesn’t matter that I gave you a good in exchange, and it doesn’t matter whether the book is really worth more than $20. What matters is that I took your money without your consent.
. . . The lesson: Taking people’s property without consent is theft, even if you also benefit them, and even if you helped them obtain that same property."

Libertarians can't seem to take five steps without creating some over-simplified analogy that doesn't capture the reality of what's taking place. "What matters is that I took your money without your consent," he says. This is what he keeps getting wrong. It is not without our consent. The way our representative democracy works is that whatever happens—at least in principle—happens with our consent—or at least with the consent of the majority.
Libertarians, more than anybody, tend to have a serious hard-on for our founding documents, so let me quote The Declaration of Independence on this point:

"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Taxation is a process that takes place with the consent of the governed. Huemer's entire argument hinges upon this being done without our consent when precisely the opposite is the case. Libertarians don't seem to understand the basic nature of the very government that they're critiquing.
Now of course, as a result of political corruption, the will of the people is often ignored in favor of the demands of corporations and the wealthiest Americans. But if we were to reform our campaign finance system, this would no longer be a problem, and tax dollars would be spent on whatever the people want it to be spent on.
Yes, people in the minority will be outvoted, and thus the system of taxation might not be what they want, but this is what happens when you live in a large society: Sometimes, you get outvoted; sometimes, you lose.
Whenever you hear a libertarian say "taxes are collected without our consent," translate that in your head to "taxes are collected without my consent." When did you become the lead decision-maker for our country? You're just one guy making crappy arguments on the internet. Just because this is what you want doesn't mean that this is what everybody else wants, or that it's what we should or are going to do.
In a democratic system, not everybody can get what they want. Living in a large, modern society necessarily entails compromise and political loss for some percentage of people. And I should reiterate that if everybody opposed the income tax, we would vote for people that would get rid of the income tax and the programs that are funded by it. The fact that these programs continue to exist is largely the result of genuine popular support for these programs. If the income tax was truly the outrageous crime that libertarians make it out to be, politicians that oppose the income tax would be swept into office.
Despite the fact that his analogy has nothing to do with reality, how would you feel in this situation? I can say that if a robber forced me to give him $20, yet he gave me a book in exchange, I would feel strangely better about this than if I was robbed and got nothing out of it. I'm constantly going out of my way to buy new books anyway, so if anything, this robber is just expediting the process!
At the very least it would give me an interesting story to tell. And if it really is a good book, I'll probably read the fuckin' thing! He gets 20 bucks, I get a bunch of new knowledge—it's a win-win, as far as I'm concerned! Leave it to a libertarian to make an analogy where receiving a new book that they can learn from is a bad thing.
"Hey, the only book I need is my greasy copy of The Fountainhead."
—
Libertarian arguments on this subject place a strong emphasis on the use of force or threats by the government. As that Tomasz Kaye video continues,

"Eventually, if he still doesn't pay, agents with guns will break into his house and take him away against his will. Almost everyone pays the bills without protest. They know that agents are prepared to use as much force as necessary to overpower you if you resist. Do you think it's acceptable for the agents to threaten violence against George if he doesn't give his money towards helping Oliver's family? If we approve of state programs that redistribute wealth, we must also approve of threats of violence made against peaceful individuals, because this is how the funds are collected."

They make the point that if you approve of this system, you approve of "threats of violence being made against peaceful individuals." Who is threatening violence here? That doesn't sound like standard IRS protocol to me. Nobody is saying if you don't pay your taxes, we should get goons from the Italian mafia to kick you around and beat you to a bloody pulp—and needless to say, this isn't how it works under our current system.
I get a letter in the mail from the IRS and I'm like "Ah, fuck. I forgot to pay my taxes on time. Alright, lets see what we got here."
*opens letter and starts reading*
"Dear Mr. Anton Dybal,
As of May 2018, you have an outstanding tax balance of $608.29. If you fail to make your payment within the 30-day grace period, I'm gonna send my boy Vinny down there and he's gonna break ya' friggin' kneecaps! Capiche?
Thank you for your cooperation and understanding,
—The Internal Revenue Service."
on The Joe Rogan Experience, and about 2 hours into their conversation, they started talking about climate change. It became immediately apparent that Candace is stunningly uninformed about the subject.
"Ehh, Anton, that podcast was months ago! You're just now getting around to making a video on it?"
Yeah, I'm just now getting around to making a video on it. You know what? Where's your timely video on the subject? Yeah, that's what I thought.
During the conversation, Candace argues that websites which end in dot-com are untrustworthy. She talks about how she spent a single night researching climate change—yet feels strongly enough to disregard the overwhelming consensus among climate scientists. She argues that climate scientists can't be trusted—yet is incapable of providing even the tiniest scrap of evidence to support this claim. She also makes clear that she doesn't understand the most elementary concepts in the field like the distinction between climate and weather.
In this video, I'm going to carefully examine, debunk, and frankly just laugh at these, and other, arguments that she made. There is zero depth to her understanding of any facet of the climate change issue, and every time she opens her mouth on the subject, she doesn't just put her foot in her mouth; she puts her entire leg in her mouth. I can only think to describe her performance in this exchange as a clinic on how to publicly embarrass yourself—and how anybody considers Candace Owens to be a serious thinker worth listening to is a baffling mystery to me.
—
Near the start of the exchange, Joe Rogan brings up the climate science consensus:

Joe (reading article excerpt): "In 2014, the vast majority (87%) of scientists said that human activity is driving global warming, yet only half the American public ascribe to that view."
Candace: "Well, what website is this."
Jamie: "Scientific American."
Candace: "Yeah, dot-com, though? Like, 'cause that means it's making money. I don't trust that. If it was a dot-org, I would probably take that. But this is just a random website."
Joe: "Well, Scientific American is not necessarily a random website."
Candace: "Yeah, I don't believe this, like, at all. Just so you know."
Joe: "You don't believe this, 'like,' at all?" [Ooh, nice little jab there from Joe! Look at him visibly cringing as he says this. I feel your pain Joe! I feel your pain.]

Scientific American—It's just some random website! You know, the longest continuously publishing magazine in the United States, one of the most widely read and respected scientific websites on the internet—also known as "just a random website." Talking about Scientific American in this way is a pretty clear indication of how little she reads about science.
I don't trust a dot-com website's information on climate change "because it's making money"? Where to even begin?

The first thing I would point out is that this website is simply reporting to you the results of a survey conducted by Pew Research. It's not like this is just the wacky, made-up opinion of some crackpot, nobody author; this is a survey of scientists from a very reputable polling organization.

If you wanted to seriously refute what's being stated in this article, you'd have to be like: "Well, I'm familiar with this survey, and here are some of the methodological drawbacks that cast doubt upon their findings." Obviously Candace does nothing of the sort; she just carelessly and thoughtlessly dismisses it by saying: "Mmm, ends in dot-com—I don't buy it."
I should also point out that "dot-com" doesn't necessarily mean they make money off the site. Yes, in the case of Scientific American, they are making money, but so what? Just because a website is making money from their content doesn't mean the information is therefore inaccurate or suspect. If a website wrote an article explaining that the earth is spherical, the fact that they make advertising revenue from this article doesn't mean that the earth is flat.
Candace Owens is the communications director for Turning Point USA—which I find hilarious, because this woman uses the filler word "like" probably three times per sentence, and they're like "Yup, put her in charge of communications." "Oh my gawd, I'm, like, so excited to like have the opportunity to like work for you guys!" A person with the communication skills of a ditzy high-school girl is the director of communcations. Might as well select the drunkest member of your friend group to be the designated driver for the night!
Here's the reason I bring this up: number one, I think it's hilarious, and number two, the website address of the organization that she works for is TPUSA.com. By her own logic, anything on this website is therefore untrustworthy simply because of the "dot-com" at the end of the web address. Donald Trump's campaign website? DonaldJTrump.com—can't trust it because it ends in "dot-com." I have a sneaking suspicion that not a lot of thought went into this argument of hers.

"I don't trust that. If it was a dot-org, I would probably take that."

Oh! That is teriffic news. Way to keep a weirdly open mind, Candace. Obviously this is a ridiculous standard to have. That said, the website of Pew Research does end in dot-org, so presumably—by her standards—these survey results actually are trustworthy.
—

Jamie pulls up another article on the climate science consensus where the domain address ended in dot-org. Presumably now Candace will accept this information, right? If she was consistent, this might be the case, but when you're just talking out of your ass and making shit up on the fly, anything goes, apparently—and her claim that "if it was a dot-org, I would probably take that" gets tossed out of the window and she seems to forget that she ever said that just two minutes ago.
Here is how she responds when she's presented with the results of 7 studies on the climate science consensus—supplied to her via her specially-ordered dot-org website.

Candace: "Just my recall on a lot of things that I read, and this was a while ago, so this is when I first formed my opinion on not believing this. I read a shit-ton of articles. Can't recall the data, 'cause, like I said, this was something I was super passionate about. It was like, somebody posted something and then I went on like a tear reading about it. But it was essentially just noting that, in a lot of these studies, like, when you go and you, if we had time to sit down and really pull this up, they're polling, ya know, 10,000 scientists that are within a community that is, like... these dot-orgs, do you believe in everything that MediaMatters.org puts out, for statistics? Right? That's a political arm of the Democratic Party."
Joe: "You're talking about a different subject. Politics versus science."
Candace: "But this has been politicized! That's the thing. . . . Global warming in particular has been politicized. 100% it has been politicized! That's the whole reason I fell down this dark hole one night reading about it.
. . . I didn't do a deep dive on all of this because I read about it because it was at a forefront of a discussion, so I read about it all night and my conclusion was that, they started pulling up all of these studies . . . and they started showing how, like, these communities of scientists were, in fact, somewhere behind that dot-org, someone that was being funded. So to me the issue got too politicized for me to believe that global warming was something that was going to wipe out the world."

Let's be clear on what, exactly, we just witnessed: She's presented with the results of 7 studies that examine the publications or opinions of climate scientists who have spent their entire adult lives studying this subject. Her response is that this one night, she read some articles on the subject—and therefore that apparently qualifies her to discount the opinions of the experts in the field.
"Sure, you guys might have carefully studied this subject and published research for decades—but I reject your opinions because I read a 'shit-ton' of articles on the subject on one particular evening." Just imagine the audacity that it takes to make a statement like this. Imagine her showing up at a climate-science conference and saying something like this in front of the audience. You think they'd be like: "Oh, that's very interesting! Maybe we should, uh, reconsider?" No, she would literally be laughed out of the room.
And I love that all of a sudden, she has a problem with dot-orgs, as well. Earlier she told us that "If it was a dot-org, I would probably take it." Now, dot-orgs are suddenly untrustworthy—because MediaMatters is a dot-org. And how is the Union of Concerned Scientists comparable to MediaMatters.org? These are completely different organizations that focus on completely different subjects.
She's like: "Well, one website that ends in dot-org has an agenda", therefore, what, all of them do? What is her point here?
"No, dude, the Union of Concerned Scientists is, like, totally biased." Ah, yes, perhaps we should balance things out by taking a look at what the Union of Unconcerned Scientists, or the Union of Apathetic Scientists, have to say about the subject?
So now dot-coms and dot orgs are unacceptable? What websites on the internet can we get our information from? Dot-edus? "Pfft, like I trust those liberal universities!" Ok, how about dot-govs? "Yeah, as if the government ever gets anything right!" Maybe dot-nets; how 'bout that? If it's not a dot-net, I don't wanna fuckin' hear about it.
It should be pretty clear to you that it's not the organizational structures of these websites that Candace has any valid grievances against. It's not the domain address which is a problem for her; it's the information which contradicts her worldview. Pretending like an entire category of websites are—by definition—untrustworthy, is just a pathetic attempt to dismiss this uncomfortable information.
—
I should also note that all they're doing on this website is relaying to you the results of studies that were conducted elsewhere. It's not like this particular website conducted all 7 studies, so what does it matter what their domain address is?
As I noted earlier, if you wanted to seriously respond to these numbers, you'd do so by pointing out specific flaws in these studies that call into question their findings. Of course Candace doesn't do this, and I would be shocked to learn that during her one night of researching the subject, she so much as glanced at the contents of even one of these studies.
"Oh yeah? Well I bet you haven't read them either, Mr. 'A Skeptical Human'!"
Yay! An opportunity for me to brag on the internet and feel smart! Listen here, non-existent person who I'm responding to so that I can toot my own horn and self-promote another video of mine: I've actually read all 7 of these studies very closely, and I posted an hour-long video where I talk about how the data was collected, what conclusions we can reach about the global warming consensus, and why the arguments made on this subject by deniers should be rejected. If you're looking for a change of pace from the ignorant rantings of Candace Owens, check it out.

Let me try to summarize Candace's laughable attempt to cast doubt upon these consensus studies. This is basically what she argues: During my one night of researching the subject, this unnamed person started pulling up some unnamed studies and showed how some unnamed scientists who are behind some unnamed website were, in some way, being provided with funding of an unspecifed amount from an unspecified source which had an unspecified effect on their unspecified findings.
What can you even say in response to something like this? All I can think to say is that the lack of any details or specificity makes clear that she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about. She just has this vague, amorphous idea that these scientists and their findings are untrustworthy—but she can't provide any data to back this up because she doesn't know anything about the subject. She just makes a bunch of empty assertions without a shred of evidence to support them. She just has a feeling that these studies are untrustworthy. "Facts don't care about your feelings," Candace.
—
She also claims that climate change has been politicized. Yeah, it's been politicized by conservatives. Conservatives don't reject climate change for sound, scientific reasons; they reject it because their political team rejects it, and all of the right-wing media outlets and commentators that they listen to pollute their head with pseudoscientific, unsound arguments about the subject.
I know I'm going to trigger a lot of you right-wing snowflakes when I say this, but the simple fact of the matter is that the people who agree with the climate science consensus on the subject are correct about the subject. It's amazing to me that this is a controversial statement. Conservative deniers are simply on the wrong side of the scientific debate and the scientific consensus—just as they're on the wrong side of the debate whenever they reject evolution in favor of young-earth creationism.

That's another issue where they might say: "Oh, the science has become politicized!" Yeah, it's become politicized in the sense that a large portion of the right rejects the science on the issue. Whenever you hear a conservative say something like "The science has become politicized," translate that in your head to "conservatives reject the scientific findings and the scientific consensus on this subject"—because, whether they realize it or not, that is what they really mean when they say this. They're complaining about something that they're responsible for.
I'm digressing a little bit, but I can already hear the predictable conservative response to this point: "Yeah, liberals are all about science, like when they say there are more than two genders—despite the fact that any biology textbook will tell you differently!" Yeah, as if you've ever read a biology textbook before!
"Oh yeah? Well the scientific consensus has been wrong before!" Correct, but it's not the 1700s anymore—and when it comes to subjects like climate change and evolution, the data—at least on the large points—is in.
—
At another point in the conversation, Candace continues to showcase to the world how little she knows about the subject by making the elementary mistake of conflating climate with weather:

Joe: "Well let's be clear: Global warming, global climate change, is definitely real. It's happening."
Candace: "Well, but it's always happened. . . . Does the climate change? Yes, the climate changes. It was different weather yesterday than it was today. The climate is forever changing. Like, that's the problem is that people are making it seem like that's something weird. It's not unique."

"Yes, the climate changes. It was different weather yesterday than it was today." Climate describes long-term trends, whereas weather describes short-term changes. If you can't separate these two things in your mind, if you don't understand the difference between climate and weather, clearly you don't know the first thing about the subject. This would be like a person trying to challenge consensus viewpoints in chemistry when they don't even understand the difference between atoms and molecules. Could you imagine anything more absurd?
Yes, climate has changed throughout Earth's history. Brilliant observation, Candace. I find it hilarious that climate-change deniers point this out as if people who understand climate change don't already know this, as if it's some sort of revelation to us, as if it's some sort of original discovery that they're responsible for making.
Who is it that told you that climate has changed throughout Earth's history? Climate scientists—the very same climate scientists who are also telling you that it's currently changing as a result of human emissions. By your own logic, if these climate scientists are untrustworthy, shouldn't we also not believe them when they tell us that climate has changed in the past as well? Candace only takes for granted and considers valid the climate-science conclusions that agree with her preconceived views on the subject.
And here's the thing about climate: There are reasons that it changes. Specific things happen within the atmosphere or solar system that cause climate to change; it's not like climate just randomly and mysteriously drifts around with no apparent cause.
You could point to one point in earth's history and say the climate changed here because of heav

Debunking: "Drug Decriminalization In Portugal Is A Failure!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 03 Dec 2018 23:12:42 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Aivazovsky/Wikimedia Commons; Chrisdesign/OpenClipArt

When having conversations about the drug war, it's important to look at real-world examples of policies that work and don't work. Probably the most commonly-cited example of an alternative to the drug war approach is Portugal. Faced with sharply increasing rates of addiction and drug-related disease, Portugal, in 2001, decided to switch tactics and decriminalize all drugs. At the the same time, they also implemented a variety of harm-reduction initiatives like needle-exchange programs, increased funding for addiction treatment, and so forth.

Here, we're gonna take a close look at the data before and after decriminalization in several key areas, including drug usage, intravenous AIDS transmission, and criminality. The final conclusion I reach is that decriminalization in Portugal has been an overwhelming success.
I'm also gonna debunk some of the most common arguments you'll hear made by drug warriors on why they think Portugal's policy change has been a failure. As we'll see, rather than being firmly grounded in facts and solid reasoning, these arguments are filled to the brim with fallacies and falsehoods.
—
Let's begin by looking at drug usage rates. Opponents of the policy change would have you believe that decriminalization would lead to an epidemic of drug usage in the country—almost as if you couldn't even set foot outside without stepping on discarded needles and tripping over doped up homeless people! What are the facts?
Glenn Greenwald puts Portugal under a microscope in a 2009 CATO Institute publication entitled "Drug Decriminalization In Portugal: Lessons For Creating Fair And Successful Drug Policies." Here in this graph from the paper, we see data on the percentage of students in the 7th, 8th, and 9th grade that have used a wide variety of drugs, ranging from cannabis to cocaine to heroin to LSD. As we can see, usage rages for virtually every single drug have declined from 2001 to 2006. Another graph—looking at 10th, 11th and 12th graders—shows the exact same trend.

"Think of the children!", we're often told by supporters of the drug war. Sounds like something a pedophile might say! No, my response is: Yeah, why don't you think of the children?
You might be asking yourself: Why would usage rates in children, specifically, drop following decriminalization? It might have something to do with that rebellious teenager cliché: When using drugs is against the law, kids might feel cool and daring when they try them—especially when these drugs are against the law for all members of society and not just children. This is what Eddy Engelsman, the former Dutch Drug Czar, suggested after teenage cannabis use dropped significantly in Holland following a relaxation of their drug laws. As he put it,

"'We succeeded in making pot boring.'"
Source: p. 230, Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It, Second Edition, by Judge James P. Gray. 2012.

There's also a section in Ken Burns' documentary series on Prohibition where Pete Hamill says the following:

"Never underestimate the need for young dopes to defy the conventional laws. You want something—you want them to brush their teeth? Make it illegal. Make toothpaste illegal. And they'll be standing on the roof brushing away."

Now obviously he's being facetious here when he says this. (As I say that, Pete Hamill kicks down my door and he's like "No, I was being totally serious. Fuck toothpaste. I hate that stuff." Then he smiles and he's missing like half of his teeth.)
I think there is something to this idea—and now that drugs are no longer against the law in Portugal, there's no longer that same opportunity for youthful rebellion. So now, to get that same feeling of danger and adventure that they used to get from drugs, children in Portugal are gonna have to turn to some other form of criminal activity, like jaywalking. I did that the other day and—my goodness!—what an adrenaline rush!
A cop sees me jaywalking and he's like "Hey! Come on, man: What are you doing?"
And I'm like: "I'm not going back to prison! You'll never take me alive!", and then I pull out an uzi and just start spraying in his general direction.
The cop ducks for cover and he's like: "Jesus Christ! I was just gonna give this guy a warning! A jaywalking ticket is ten dollars in this city!"

Another graph from Greenwald's paper takes a look at lifetime usage rates among 15–24 year olds of any illicit drug between 2001 and 2007. And lifetime usage, of course, describes a person who has used a drug at least a single time in their entire life. As we can see, there's been a slight usage increase in 15–24 year olds, from 13% to 15%. In 15–19 year olds, there's been a slight decrease from 11% to 8%. And, in 20–24 year olds, drug usage increased from 14% to 22%.
Drug warriors might be tempted to look at a single data set like this and conclude that decriminalization has been a failure—because, according to certain metrics, usage has gone up. However, when you look at a more expanded data set of this same age range, you get a completely different picture.

As we can see here in this graph from the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, yes, between 2001 and 2007, lifetime drug usage increased from 12 to 15%—but past-year and past-month usage actually declined!, from 8 to 7% and 6 to 4%, respectively. And these, I would argue, are much more important metrics than overall lifetime usage, because these are much more reflective of your actual habits and whether you're addicted.
According to this lifetime prevalence criteria, I would technically be classified as a user of cocaine—because I tried cocaine exactly one time in my life over 3 years ago. Frankly it wasn't that interesting to me and I don't plan on using it again—and that once-in-a-life usage statistic isn't indicative of how I'm living my life, because here has been my relationship with recreational drugs for the past year or two: crystal meth every single day, baby! No, I'm kidding: completely stone-cold sober with the exception of caffeine like once or twice a month—'cause I'm fuckin' hardcore like that!
I show up at a Narcotics Anonymous meeting and—after being quiet and cagey for the whole meeting—I finally muster up the courage to talk after much prodding from the organizer. I'm like: "Well, you know, this is kind of hard to talk about...but 3 weeks ago...I had a cup of coffee."
They look around at each other and they're like: "Is this guy fuckin' serious?"
Once-in-a-lifetime users are not the people that we should be worried about, because the guy who tried cocaine one time isn't likely to be overdosing in the gutter or breaking into your house and robbing you to pay for drugs. If you catch me breaking into your house and stealing shit, I'm doing it purely for the excitement—or most likely because you're not supporting me on Patreon and I'm taking what I feel is rightfully mine.

You hear a noise at night and you're like: "Hey! Who's there? *turns on flashlight* Is that...A Skeptical Human?"
And I'm like "Yeah, man. What's up?"
You're like: "What are you doing in here?"
I'm like: "Not much. I'm just havin' a look around, seein' what I like."
You're like: "Dude, you can't just break in here and steal shit."
And I'm like: "I don't know, man. I think I'd find your argument... a little more persuasive if you were to become a supporter on Patreon."
You're like: "Wow, dude: Your Patreon appeals are getting more desperate by the day," and then you become a supporter and we all live happily ever after.
So not only did the more important metrics of past-year and past-month usage decrease from 2001 to 2007, but they decreased even further in 2012, down from 8 to 7 to 6% and 6 to 4 to 3%, respectively.

We see a similar, although slightly different, trend in 15–64 year olds: Overall usage increases from 8 to 12% from 2001 to 2007, then drops down to 10% in 2012. For past-year usage, we see a smaller initial spike from 3% to 4% between 2001 and 2007, then a drop to 2% in 2012. Finally, past-month usage stayed at about 2.5% in 2007 and dropped to about 1.5% in 2012.
What could explain this initial spike and the subsequent moving back in the direction of normalcy that we see in these lifetime usage numbers? This could be due to what I call the "celebration phase": Drugs are decriminalized, a small percentage of additional people go out and try these drugs, but—as the number of past-month users makes clear—they don't become hooked, they don't become habitual users, but instead, they were just having some harmless fun, and after a few years, decriminalization becomes the norm, it loses the exciting appeal of novelty, and usage rates begin to drop back down.
This usage data could also be pushed upwards even if drug usage rates have stayed the same, and here's how this could work: When using drugs is against the law—even when people are told that the survey results are confidential—some percentage of respondents might lie and say that they don't use drugs when they actually do. Pot smokers are notoriously paranoid after all!
Maybe they suspect the survey information will get passed onto the police and they'll get their house raided, or maybe they're worried their university will see the results and rescind their scholarships. The basic point is that the criminalization of drugs might cause people to under-report their drug usage—and this post-decriminalization spike might be nothing more than a spike in honesty as opposed to a spike in drug usage.
What about the drops in past-year and past-month drug usage? Isn't this the exact opposite of what drug warriors assured us would happen in Portugal? Why were they so embarrassingly wrong in their dire predictions?
Well the drop in past-month and past-year prevalence is almost certainly the result of Portugal placing a stronger emphasis on harm reduction in their drug policy. Portugal didn't just decriminalize drugs and that's the end of it; they decriminalized drugs, and they used the freed up resources to help offer drug addicts the stigma- and fear-free treatment that they need. Indeed, the decriminalization is a key component of the harm reduction strategy.
As Greenwald explains in the paper,

"Interviews with Portuguese drug officials confirmed that before decriminalization, the most substantial barrier to offering treatment to the addict population was the addicts’ fear of government officials as a result of criminalization . . . they were afraid of being arrested and prosecuted.
. . . Moreover, decriminalization freed up resources that could be channeled into treatment and other harm-reduction programs. A related rationale for decriminalization was that removal of the stigma attached to criminal prosecution for drug usage would eliminate a key barrier for those wishing to seek treatment.
. . . they did not embrace decriminalization despite their belief that it would lead to increased usage. Rather, they embraced decriminalization as the best option for minimizing all drug-related problems, including addiction."

—
Drug usage is one thing; but more significant metrics are drug-related diseases and deaths, so let's take a look at how Portugal has been doing in these areas since decriminalization.

As we can see here in this graph from Greenwald, since 2001, there has been a sharp divergence in the breakdown of new cases of HIV and AIDS: In 2001, there was a 50/50 diagnosis split between drug users and non-users, whereas only five years later in 2006, only about 35% of those who received HIV and AIDS diagnoses were drug users.

Here we see another graph which goes back several years earlier, taken from an article by Alex Wodak on TheConversation.com. In the years leading up to decriminalization, HIV infections among injecting drug users were skyrocketing, from 169 infections in 1993 to 1,497 in 2000. Immediately after decriminalization, this number began to plummet, down to only 56 infections in 2012.
Very important to note is that decriminalization itself is, in large part, responsible for this trend. How do we know this? Because Portugal had already begun a needle-exchange program 8 years before decriminalization—in 1993—yet intravenous HIV infections continued to dramatically increase, and only began decreasing after decriminalization.
This is a very clear indication that it's simply not enough to implement harm-reduction programs while simultaneously treating drug users as criminals, because the fear of prosecution will keep them away from these programs. Only after you eliminate the prospect of legal trouble do they come running.
Greenwald also shows us the following graph, illustrating that in the decade before decriminalization, acute drug-related deaths were increasing very sharply. And just to make it absolutely clear, an acute, drug-related death is a death whose proximate cause was the drug itself. So in the years leading up to decriminalization, annual deaths from drugs increased from less than 50 in 1987 to over 300 by 1999.

The TDPF shows what the trendline is like after decriminalization. I don't know if their inclusion criteria for "drug-induced deaths" is the exact same as that of Glenn's "acute drug-related deaths," but much more important than the absolute numbers are the general trends. As we can see, starting in 2001, the number of drug-induced deaths was 80. This number dropped precipitously in the following years, down to about only 20 per year over the next decade.

Anton Dybal — Sat, 17 Nov 2018 06:46:17 +0000

Thumbnail photo: Christopher Monckton/ClimateDepot

A commonly-made global warming–denier argument is that there was an 18-year pause in global warming which started in 1998. Some argue that this outright disproves global warming, while others say that it shows climate-change alarmism to be unjustified. Others reach the related conclusion that the alleged pause means that scientists and climate models are untrustworthy and over-exaggerate the warming trends.
Here, I'm going to examine the many flaws in this argument, with the key point being that this global warming pause was based upon biased, inaccurate data that has since been rejected and corrected by the scientific community. Once biases are removed, the 18-year pause in global warming vanishes—and thus, the bedrock supporting the denier's conclusion ceases to exist, causing the entire argument to crumble.
I'm also going to make some points about how we should and shouldn't look at data to reach conclusions, and I'll address the idea that these data corrections are part of a fraudulent conspiracy by devious scientists to make it look like global warming is occurring.
—
Katie Tubb, writing for The Heritage Foundation, attempts to introduce the 18-year pause in a weirdly poetic way:

"A whole generation of people have been born, learned how to walk, ride bikes, drive cars, graduated from high school, celebrated 18 birthdays, and are now considered legal adults while the data show there has been no global warming over their lifetimes."

Oh, it's such...beautiful prose! I was choking back tears when I read this...because I was crying from boredom. Jesus Christ, I thought that list would never end!: "...learned how to walk, ride bikes, had their first kiss, cheated on their boyfriend, had an abortion, became a crack addict, had her car re-possessed, got in a bar fight with a lesbian, went to jail for two months...", alright, lady! We get it!: 18 years. My goodness, it almost took me 18 years to read that introduction!
—
When it comes to climate change deniers who make terrible arguments, Aaron Bandler of The Daily Wire is the cream of the crap. In a 2016 article, he writes the following:

"There has simply not been a lot of global warming in recent years. As The Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro has written:
'For example, The Economist reported in 2014, "Between 1998 and 2013, the Earth’s surface temperature rose at a rate of 0.04°C a decade, far slower than the 0.18°C increase in the 1990s." That forced the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to come up with a whole new way of evaluating its data to fight those results. It also forced global warming advocates to claim that the oceans somehow ate up all of the excess heat in the air.'"

Let me just pause right here to say that Ben Shapiro seems like exactly the type of person who would be getting his climate change information from reading The Economist. It's no wonder he's so misguided on the subject!
As Bandler continues:

". . . This trend continued in 2015, which was nowhere near the hottest year recorded by satellite, meaning that there has been an 18-year pause in global warming."

The data used by Bandler to support this claim about the global warming pause is provided in a ClimateDepot article by Christopher Monckton—in this painfully low-resultion image.

They've also been keeping track of this alleged warming pause in a very... interesting way: "The Freedom Clock edges ever closer to 20 years without global warming."

The Freedom Clock! Who knew that climate change denialism could be so patriotic? What a cheap attempt this is to link your argument with a positive-sounding term like "freedom."
—
Let's begin, as I often do, by assuming that this argument and this information is all correct, and we say: Yes, there has been an 18-year pause in global warming. Even if this was the case, what would this really mean? You don't study or reach conclusions about a long-term process like climate change by viewing small chunks of temperature data in isolation, just as we don't draw conclusions about the general trend of the stock market by looking only at stock prices from the last month.

If you expect to see a perfectly straight, upward line, you're just not thinking realistically about the subject. Climate is a complex process, and there will inevitably be year-to-year, even several-year fluctuations. The key question is: What is the long-term trend?, and if you look at any temperature data that goes back over a hundred years, an upward trend is unmistakable. Deniers are looking at a small chunk of data by itself when what they really should be doing is paying attention to the overall trend.
And the IPCC points out something important about the year 1998, the start of the alleged pause in global warming. As Thomas Karl et al write in a 2015 Science publication:

"IPCC acknowledged that trends since 1998 were tenuous because the period was short and commenced with a strong El Niño."

And for those who don't know or didn't watch Bill Nye in junior high school, El Niños are these complex natural events that happen every few years where we see dramatic changes in ocean temperatures and worldwide weather. The NOAA writes that:

"El Niño and La Niña can cause the 'seasonal climate' -- the cumulative effects of the weather over a season -- to deviate from normal at many places around the globe."

So basically, the starting year of this 18-year pause is a very high spike brought about, at least in part, by an El Niño. And of course, if you start recording your data right when a very high peak occurs, it's easy to make it look like there's a flat or even downward trend, because relative to this spike, the following years will appear lower in comparison. This isn't just cherrypicking right here; this is statistical malpractice.
—
Christopher Monckton attempts to defend himself against accusations of cherrypicking when he writes the following:

"Our latest topical graph shows the . . . trend on the RSS satellite . . . dataset for as far back as it is possible to go and still find a zero trend. The start-date is not 'cherry-picked' so as to coincide with the temperature spike caused by the 1998 el Niño. Instead, it is calculated so as to find the longest period with a zero trend."

Dude, that's exactly what cherrypicking is!—selecting a specific subset of data that gives you the conclusion you're looking for. This guy's like: "I'm not cherrypicking. This is what I'm doing," and then he goes on to basically provide a textbook definition of cherrypicking.
This would be like barging into my room to find me in bed with your girlfriend, and I'm like: "Dude, relax! I'm not fucking your girlfriend; I'm just sticking my penis in her vagina and thrusting!" Ridiculous!
Let me show you how easy it is to play this game: Here is NASA temperature data that dates back to 1880. (Ignore the complete lack of an 18-year pause; we'll get to that later.) Obviously the overall trend is that temperatures are rising over time.

What I decide to do is isolate a section where there's a momentary flatline, or even decline, in global warming. Let's go with the 10-year period from 1900 to 1910. I show you only this portion of the data and say: "Uh, temperatures actually decreased here for ten years, so what happened to all that global warming?", and then deniers in the audience applaud until their hands are red and Fox News offers me a job.
Would anybody take me seriously if I did this? Would any climate scientist watching be like: "I gotta say, man: I'm impressed!" Of course not.
A lot of climate change deniers are also Republicans, so let's imagine that I were to make an analogous argument with the stock market. They point to the stellar gains we've seen since Trump's election as proof of how good his policies are for the economy.

I say: "Oh yeah? Did you know there was a two-month period from January to March 2018 where the stock market actually declined?" What would they say in response to this? "Brilliant point"? "Time for me to rethink my beliefs on the stock-market trend"? No, they'd be like: "You fucking idiot!: You have to look at the long-term trend—which is clearly upwards!"
—
Believe it or not, there's also a second layer of cherrypicking going on here. Not only has the specific period of time been cherrypicked, but the source of the data has also been carefully selected to show us the lowest rate of warming. Monckton is showing us data from one particular set of satellites—RSS. Whenever a person shows you data from only one very specific source among many, pun intended, that should give us pause.
Long-term temperature measurements come from a variety of different sources including land stations, ocean buoys, and yes, satellites as well. There is a real prospect that one specific source of temperature data could be inaccurate, for whatever reason, so you're likely to get the most accurate results by pooling and averaging the data from these many different sources.
Indeed, Monckton later in the article does show us data from HadCRUt, the National Climate Data Center, and NASA GISS, and as we can see, this temperature data does show that there was warming over the same 18-year time period. Yet it's the RSS data that's the source of the title and punchline of his article.

Now there's a serious discussion to be had about whether satellite data is more trustworthy than land-station data—and I'm sure Monckton would argue that he spotlighted this data because he thinks it's the most accurate. That said, there is a real possibility that he looked through all the data, found the one that showed the lowest rate of warming, and then—after the fact, whether he was aware of it or not—crafted an explanation for why that source of data is the most trustworthy one. This is a cognitive bias that we're all susceptible to.
If the situation was reversed and it was the land-station data which showed no global warming over this time period, there's a good chance that he would be showcasing this data in his article.
In the interest of fairness, I should also point out that this RSS data doesn't appear to come from just a single satellite; as we see on the RSS website, for most of the time, there was overlap between at least two satellites recording this temperature data. Even still, as we'll soon see, relying on one specific source of data like this can lead you astray.

—
The argument about the 18-year global warming pause is flawed for a more straightforward reason: the data that originally showed the pause has since been retracted and thoroughly rejected by the scientific community. Let's start out with the RSS satellite data, which is the basis for Monckton's primary ClimateDepot graph.
As we read in a 2017 CarbonBrief article:

"Researchers from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) . . . have released a substantially revised version of their lower tropospheric temperature record.
After correcting for problems caused by the decaying orbit of satellites, as well as other factors, they have produced a new record showing 36% faster warming since 1979 and nearly 140% faster (i.e. 2.4 times larger) warming since 1998."

And here in this graph produced by CarbonBrief, we see the new, corrected data compared against the old data, showing that the warming trendline is significantly steeper after you account for the orbital bias.

After the correction, you find that there is a 2.4x faster warming rate since 1998. And note that 1998 is precisely the year that this alleged global warming pause began. Also note that the revisions were published by the very organization whose data was being used by deniers to substantiate the pause!
This point really needs to be underscored: When the very group that has collected a set of data comes out and says "this data is not accurate," we should listen to them and we should take them seriously, because who would know better about the accuracy of a data set than the people who collected this data set?
Think of it like a company is recalling an automobile: Imagine Ford holds a press conference where they explain that their 2018 Mustangs have been experiencing catastrophic brake failures. This is the company that's responsible for manufacturing this car; I would trust them when they say: "The brakes are fucked up; come in to get them repaired."
"Pfft, yeah, like I'm gonna trust Ford when they tell me that Mustangs are malfunctioning. What do they know about their own cars?" Alright, man: Have fun plowing your speeding car into a brick wall. But hey, look on the bright side: That's one less carbon-emitting vehicle on the road!
Here's a more detailed explanation from CarbonBrief on what motivated the changes to the RSS data:

"As these satellites circle the Earth, their orbits slowly decay over time due to drag from the upper atmosphere. While the satellites are designed to fly over the same spot on the Earth at the same time every day – a precondition to accurately estimating changes in temperatures over time – this orbital decay causes their flyover time to change. . . . Some satellites have fairly large orbital drifts, going from measuring temperatures at 2pm to 6pm or 8pm. Since the temperature changes since 1979 are on the order of 0.6C or so, it is relatively easy for bias, due to changing observation times, to swamp the underlying climate signal.
. . . To account for changes in observation times, the RSS group used a number of different approaches and models to try and estimate what the temperature would have been if the measurement time remained constant. This involves a combination of satellite observations (when different satellites captured temperatures in both morning and evening), the use of climate models to estimate how temperatures change in the atmosphere over the course of the day, and using reanalysis data that incorporates readings from surface observations, weather balloons and other instruments."

—
"But aha!", you might point out, "it's not just this RSS satellite data which showed a global warming pause; so did other data from other organizations—including the IPCC!" Technically this other data showed a slowdown in the

Debunking: "The 97% Global Warming Consensus Is A Lie! It's Actually 52%!"

Anton Dybal — Wed, 07 Nov 2018 00:28:04 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Dori/Wikimedia Commons; Skeptical Science/Wikimedia Commons

If you've spent any time arguing with climate change deniers, you've probably discovered two things: #1) Your forehead hurts from banging your head against your desk, and #2) One of their go-to arguments is that the 97% consensus among climate scientists is not an accurate statistic. (By the way, when I say "global warming deniers," I don't necessarily mean just people who deny that the planet is warming, but also people who accept that it's warming but reject that human activity is responsible.)
Some deniers simply point out deficiencies in the consensus studies; others point to a survey which reaches a conclusion in the ballpark of 50%; and some go to the absurd length of arguing that the true statistic is actually only around 1% of the relevant scientists.
Here, we're gonna take a comprehensive look at the different studies and surveys used to reach conclusions about what percent of scientists believe that manmade global warming is occurring. I'm also going to break down the many flaws in the arguments and critiques used by deniers to poke holes in these studies, and to reject this data and support a much lower figure—on occasion agreeing that they do have valid critiques. (Yes, as the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day—although in this case, it's more like twice a month, or twice a quarter, if we're being generous.)
After taking everything into consideration, here are the basic conclusions that I reach at the end of my analysis: Only 0.27% of climate change publications reject anthropogenic global warming; 84% of scientists, across a variety of fields, accept manmade global warming, as do 84% of climate scientists, overall, and 93% of the climate scientists that are most actively involved in research. And the remaining percentages aren't uniformly climate change deniers, but actually encompass a broad spectrum of belief. Finally, 85% of scientists believe that global warming is dangerous.

So while yes, technically the true statistic is lower than 97%, the data makes absolutely clear that the overwhelming majority of scientists accept manmade global warming. Much more important than the conclusion I reach is how I went about reaching this conclusion, and on that note, let's get started.
—
Ian Tuttle, in an article for The National Review, writes that

"The myth of an almost-unanimous climate-change consensus is pervasive. Last May, the White House tweeted: 'Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.' A few days later, Secretary of State John Kerry announced, 'Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent.'
'Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists' say no such thing."

So where does this 97% statistic come from, and why do climate change deniers reject it? One of the main sources of this number is a 2013 study by John Cook et al.
Here's how this study worked: They searched the literature and found 12,000 scientific papers on climate change. Based on what was written in the abstracts, the papers were classified as either endorsing anthropogenic global warming, rejecting it, or not expressing a position. 67% expressed no position; of those that did express a position, 97% accepted, and 2% rejected, anthropogenic global warming.

Let me start out by agreeing with my climate change–denying friends—all zero of them: From this study, we can't reach a firm conclusion on the beliefs of climate scientists, because this wasn't an opinion survey. So when people cite this study as proof of what it is that climate scientists believe, as proof that they think climate change is dangerous, they are going too far. Now of course, many climate scientists do believe exactly that; I'm simply saying this particular study doesn't demonstrate that.
Here's the thing, though: Nowhere in the paper itself do they claim that their findings are exact reflections of the climate science opinions on these questions; they're very careful to state that their paper is only informative on the precise questions that they sought out to answer. As they write in the concluding section,

"The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research . . . Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage . . . endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."

Obviously the fact that it's not an opinion survey doesn't mean that it's completely worthless; this study is very informative on the question of what conclusions are being reached and taken for granted within the climate science community, and how prevalent these conclusions are.
—
Climate change deniers critique the methodology of this study in a way that makes clear that they don't actually understand the methodology of this study.
One critique is that the volunteers who did the abstract classifications were collected from the Skeptical Science website, which takes a staunchly pro–anthropogenic global warming position. (And of course, I don't mean pro–global warming as if they're cheering this on; they're like "Yes! Keep those greenhouse gases flowin', baby!" They travel to the North Pole just so they can flip off polar bears and be like "Just drown already!" No, I mean these volunteers were on the pro–global warming side in the sense that they believe that it's occurring.)
So yes, deniers are correct about where the volunteers came from and they're also correct in arguing that this could have biased the rankings. This would be a valid criticism if not for the fact that a core component of the study completely nullifies it.
As Cook et al write in the paper,

"In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. . . . 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors."

Table 4 from the study shows us the data on how these authors rated their own papers, and as we can see, among papers that took a position, 97% of the self-raters described their papers as endorsing anthropogenic global warming. This is exactly the same as the 97% statistic that was arrived at by the volunteers.

Anthony Watts writes the following on the climate change denialism website WattsUpWithThat.com:

"Most people who read the headlines touted by the unquestioning press had no idea that this was a collection of Skeptical Science raters opinions rather than the authors assessment of their own work."

It's actually both, as they make absolutely clear in the paper. I love that this guy's like "Oh, the media isn't accurately describing the contents of this paper"—in the exact same sentence that he also isn't accurately describing the contents of this paper. That is richer than Al Gore plans to get off carbon taxes! If these deniers had actually read and understood the paper, they would know better than to level this completely toothless critique.
Deniers also point out that some scientists whose papers were classified disagree with the classification reached by the volunteers. Another article on WattsUpWithThat is entitled "Cook's 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists' papers according to the scientists that published them," and then they go on in the article to cherrypick a measly 4 scientists who say that their papers were misclassified. From this, they conclude the following:

"The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless."

Really, dude? It's "littered" with falsely classified papers? This is the overstatement of the century. You found four people to attest to this—out of the 29,000 authors whose papers were analyzed in the study. 4 out of 29,000! That's like being in a football stadium filled with people, being told that a single person in the arena is a rapist, and saying "My goodness, this place is littered with rapists." Sorry, but the only thing that football stadium is littered with are nacho containers that Chris Christie dropped onto the ground so he could get into a fist-fight.

And again, this critique completely fails to take into consideration that 1,189 authors rated their own papers in the study and found almost perfect agreement with the rankings of the volunteers. Yes, there's a tiny percentage of papers where I'm sure there was disagreement, but to laser-focus on this is to miss the forest for the trees. It's very nice to shine a spotlight on four authors' individual grievances and to treat them as if they're representative of all of the authors, but if you actually look at what these authors collectively tell us, you find that the climate change–denier critique doesn't even make a dent, and it just doesn't match up with the facts.
—
Some deniers cleverly try to invert the findings of the study and argue that it actually proves the exact opposite of what it claims to. We hear this argument made in a PragerU video featuring Alex Epstein, author of the timeless classic The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels. (By the way, with Christmas right around the corner, I think we've found the perfect gift for the shameless oil lobbyist in your family!):

"One of the main studies justifying 97% was done by John Cook, a climate communications fellow for the Global Change Institute in Australia. Here's his own summary of his survey: 'Cook et al found that over 97% of papers surveyed endorsed the view that the earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.'
Main cause means over 50%. But the vast majority of papers don't say that human beings are the main cause of recent warming. In fact, one analysis showed that less than 2% of papers actually said that."

In support of this claim, Epstein references a Library of Economics and Liberty publication by David Henderson entitled "1.6%, not 97, Agree That Humans Are The Main Cause of Global Warming." Ah, yes, because when I'm looking for sound information on climate research, I consult the Library of Economics and Liberty, just as I get my information on astronomy from The Scuba Diver Quarterly.
Henderson looks at the number of papers in that Cook et al study that explicitly quantify human activity as causing more than 50% of global warming, and he finds that only 64 papers meet this criteria out of the 3,974 that expressed a view. As he concludes,

"The 64 who think the main cause is humans is, drum roll please: 1.6%. 1.6% is pretty different from 97%"

Now here, Henderson actually goes too far and needs to be reeled back in. This isn’t the percentage who think the main cause is humans; this is the percentage that explicitly stated and quantified in their abstract that the main cause is humans. Again, this wasn’t an opinion survey, so Henderson is wrong to frame these results as elucidating the beliefs of these climate researchers.
But let's ask the question: Is it wrong of Cook et al to describe this 97% as the percentage of papers which endorse anthropogenic global warming? I think a solid case can be made that they do actually overstate things—although I will talk later about how I think the climate change denier framing on this issue is all wrong.
In the paper, Cook et al describe "the scientific consensus" as the idea that "human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW." Thus, when they say "endorsement" or "rejection" in the paper, they mean endorsement or rejection of this specific idea. In the Cook et al study, there were three categories of endorsement: "Explicit endorsement with quantification"; "Explicit endorsement without quantification"; and "Implicit endorsement."
I invite you to ask yourself: Is it fair to describe a paper as endorsing the view that most warming is caused by human emissions if the paper doesn't explicitly state and quantify this? Perhaps we can infer that this is what they're saying even if they don't say it outright, or perhaps we can only confidently say this if they come right out and say that "most" or "over 50%" of the warming is caused by human activity.
I see where both sides are coming from here, but for the sake of analysis, let's just concede that, yes, they're overstating things, and the most we can say is that 97% of these papers endorse the idea that some warming is caused by human activity—not most of it. Still, the point remains: 97% of papers that took a position accept the reality of at least some manmade global warming. I don't see how this finding does any favors for the climate change denier, and when they force us to make this minor modification, what they're ultimately doing is snatching defeat from the jaws of defeat.
Now you might be saying at this point: "Hang on a sec, douche: The 97% statistic is misleading because most people who present that statistic don't provide the caveat that it's 97% of the papers that took a position! If you include the papers that took no position, it's actually only 33% that endorse manmade climate change." Ok, fair point: It's only 33% of all papers—and the percentage of all papers that reject manmade climate change is 0.65%. To look at these numbers in another way, the ratio of papers that accept and reject anthropogenic global warming is 50:1. So we can present this data any way you like—and you still lose.
—
One last point about this Cook et al study before we move on. In an article on WattsUpWithThat.com, Anthony Watts writes that:

"The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues . . . reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was 'dangerous.'"

No, this paper didn't "reveal" anything of the sort, actually, because nowhere in the original paper do Cook et al claim that their data is informative on the question of the danger of climate change. "Our crack team of researchers have discovered that your data doesn't support what you didn't say your data supports." Yeah, I think that's kind of how that works!
—
In my opinion, the most remarkable aspect of the Cook et al study is the miniscule percentage of papers that reject anthropogenic climate change—either explicitly or implicitly. According to their results, only 78 out of 12,000 papers reject manmade global warming.
This finding is similar to the other paper-abstract analyses that have been conducted. One of these was published by Naomi Oreskes in 2004. She investigated the subject in her study

". . . by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords 'climate change.'
. . . Of all the papers, 75% . . . either explicitly or implicitly [accepted] the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Another similar study was published by James Lawrence Powell in 2012. As he writes on DeSmogBlog.com,

"I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases 'global warming' or 'global climate change.' The search produced 13,950 articles.
. . . To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.
. . . By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming."

When his findings are represented graphically, as we see here, it really shows you how pitifully tiny is the number of papers that reject global warming. The sliver on the pie chart is basically the thickness of a strand of hair. At its widest point, it's like four pixels across.

—
I don't know about you guys, but I'm ready to take a look at some actual opinion surveys which show us what it is that climate scientists believe about global warm

Debunking Charlie Kirk's Arguments At Politicon 2018 In Debate vs Hasan Piker

Anton Dybal — Tue, 23 Oct 2018 09:07:17 +0000

Thumbnail photos: The Young Turks/YouTube

Charlie Kirk debated Hasan Piker at Politicon 2018, and Kirk's performance was nothing short of a right-wing talking-point extravaganza. He made faulty arguments on subjects like corruption, socialism, government programs, and the effect of Democratic policies. Here we're gonna take a close look at his arguments and I'll explain the many things that are wrong with them.
—
During one exchange, Kirk claimed that some of the worst-run cities in America are Democratic, and that that is the product of their policies:

"Charlie Kirk: Why is it that the most murderous, hopeless, and poorest cities in America are all run by Democrats? . . . Your very policies are put on trial in Philadelphia and Chicago and Oakland and Portland and Seattle and Milwaukee."
Hasan Piker: Yeah, you know, like Rahm Emmanual, the big socialist who said Chicago needed socialized medicine, and that's why there's gun violence. What kind of dumb argument is this?
Charlie Kirk: Chicago is already entertaining universal basic income, which you support.
Hasan Piker: You're saying they're premeditatively having a lot of violence because they're gonna implement universal basic income? Please make a good argument, one time.
Charlie Kirk: Well they also have the strictest gun laws in the country . . . Can you answer the question [about cities], though?
Hasan Piker: Because some Democrats are bad! What do you want me to say!
Charlie Kirk: Or maybe the ideas are bad, Hasan. Maybe the ideas don't work?"

First thing is first: Nice ugly-ass sneakers, dude. Those look like the kind of things that an out-of-shape dad would wear at his son's soccer game or something! Might as well put on some dirty, gray sweatpants to go with them, while you're at it! Charlie should do us all a favor and toss those sneakers back into whatever dumpster he fished them out of.

Alright, so this argument, about some of the worst-run cities being Democratic, is one that I also heard Fox News recently make. Their source for this claim was a WalletHub study which found that 8 of the 10 worst-run cities are Democratic. Here is the other crucial side of the equation that is completely left out by Kirk and Fox News and every other conservative who makes this argument: the majority of the best-run cities are also Democratic—6 of the top 10, according to that same study. And this is no surprise when you consider that cities generally tend to be Democratic—oftentimes even within deep red states!

So if we're going to blame Democratic policies for the condition of these worst-run cities, shouldn't we logically also be crediting Democratic policies for how good these best-run cities are doing? To only look at one side of this equation is extremely dishonest.
And here perhaps I'm just being kind of nit-picky, but he claimed that all of the worst cities in America are run by Democrats. This is just factually incorrect, as there are clearly examples of terribly-run cities with Republicans in charge.
It's also important to point out that present-day political leadership isn't necessarily responsible for the abject state of these cities; many other factors could also play a role. Maybe within cities, generally, there tend to be high rates of crime and poverty, with this perhaps having to do with the high cost of living, unemployment rates, close proximity of people, and so forth?
I can tell you that if I had to ride the subway every day and I was surrounded by people wearing ugly-ass Charlie Kirk shoes, I'd probably turn to a life of crime, as well!—and by that I mean I'd rob them of their shoes and throw them into a bottomless pit! I would just do things the old-fashioned way where you kick their ass and hang their shoes from a powerline, if not for the fact that they're such a god-damn eyesore! I wouldn't want to pollute my already depraved-enough Democratic city with such filth!
You also need to look at the history of these cities' political landscape: What if some of them had Republican rule for decades, and only recently switched to Democratic? What if the shitty conditions of those cities was largely brought about by the Republican policies, and the people got so fed up that they voted Democrat as a corrective to try to alleviate these problems?
I would also question how much of an impact city-wide policies even have. What if, in certain areas, it's the statewide or even the federal policies that are predominantly influential? What if a blue city in a red state is doing poorly, but if you actually did a close analysis, you'd find that the blue city is suffering because of the statewide Republican policies? Just to give one potential example, imagine a red state that declined the Medicaid expansion under Obamacare: perhaps the inability or difficulty in paying one's medical bills as a result of this pushes more people in blue cities into a life of crime?

And it's not like a city can just do whatever the fuck it wants in every single area; city policy is often restricted by state and federal guidelines. Can a city, just out of the blue—quite literally—adopt a single-payer healthcare system? I don't think it works that way. And individual cities may not even have the funding to do some of the things they want to do because of the complex nature of raising and allocating government funds across the country.
Kirk claims that the policies and the ideas are to blame, but things are clearly much more complicated than he leads us to believe. And if you look at how red states compare to blue states, you see that, in many key areas, red states underperform. And this is important because I would argue that, in many areas, statewide policies are more influential than citywide policies—although, yes, many of my points about confounding variables and so forth would also apply here.
I'm not going to go super in-depth on this point—although it's something I might address in more detail in a future project—but I'll just give two quick examples on education and crime. As we read on PoliticsThatWork.com,

"The top 15 states with the largest percentage of the population having bachelor's degrees are blue. Massachusetts tops the list with 38% of its population holding a bachelor's degree.
. . . The partisan gap is even more dramatic with regard to post graduate degrees (e.g., a master's degree, PhD, law degree, medical degree, MBA, etc.). The 16 states in which the largest percentage of the population has graduate degrees are all blue."

And as a Smart Politics analysis reveals,

". . . a Smart Politics analysis of partisan control of state legislatures finds the 27 states with Democratic-controlled legislatures with an average violent crime rate of 390 incidents per 100,000 residents. The average violent crime rate for the 14 states with Republican-controlled legislatures was 11.1 percent higher, at 433 incidents per 100,000 residents.
. . . For Democratic-controlled states, the property crime rate was 3,044 incidents per 100,000 residents compared to 3,351 incidents per 100,000 residents for Republican-controlled states – or a 10.1 percent higher rate under GOP legislative control."

There was a comment on this article written by user "being goode" which says the following:

"It is clear to me that the red states have citizens that take personal initiative and self reliance very seriously. They have a criminal element that is not afraid to go to work. As such they 'pull themselves up by their boot straps' and 'getter done'…."

That is some funny shit right there.
So not only is Kirk's argument one-sided and deceptive, not only does a full examination of the data actually undermine his position, but Kirk fails to take into consideration the complex reality of which levels of policy are responsible for the condition of a city. And if you run statewide comparisons, you see that blue states do better in several key areas.
Hasan definitely could've done a better job of pushing back against this point—but of course, it's always easy to Monday-morning quarterback. And with that said, Hasan did make a great point when he was like: "Oh, so they're premeditatively turning to violence in Chicago because they're considering implementing UBI?" Ah, yes, the scourge of psychic, politically-motivated criminals: I might just try to make a shitty TV show out of that, or something!
—
Another silly argument that Kirk made was about the inefficiency of government.

"Can you give me one piece of evidence where an American government program grew and it got more efficient and it did a better job at delivering value to the citizens? One!"

He makes this as if it's a gotcha point, but I would note that most people probably don't know much about the history of specific government programs and how exactly their performance has changed over time in comparison to their funding levels. So while many people might not be able to think of a good answer to this question on the spot, that doesn't mean that there aren't any good answers. Hasan's answer to his challenge was Medicare, which I think was a pretty good one.
And here's the thing about many government programs: You don't notice when they're working well. When you go to the grocery store and buy food that's not saturated with all kinds of harmful chemicals, you don't think anything of it; you don't think to give credit to the government agencies that are responsible for holding companies accountable in these areas; you just think: This is the way things are.
If you've been sufficiently brainwashed by Fox News propaganda, you might even thank the free market for your food not being mixed with a healthy portion of fecal matter! (Or I supposed I should say an unhealthy portion of fecal matter. I don't think there is such a thing as a healthy portion. "Try some delicious fecal matter today. It builds strong, healthy bones!" Hey, I get all the fecal matter I need from reading The Daily Wire!)
When you go for a swim in the lake or the river, you take for granted that you're not going to be swimming in putrid, toxic water; you don't take into consideration that the conditions of the waterway are the product of strict environmental regulation and government-mandated cleanup efforts. I would love to see your attempted free market solution to cleaning up a horribly polluted river. For those who recall, the Dave Rubin, libertarian solution, as he outlined on The Joe Rogan Experience, was basically to share your outrage on social media when they start dumping in the river.
To answer Charlie Kirk's challenge directly, there are several government programs that have done a better job as their funding and size has increased. In an article entitled "The Forgotten Achievements of Government," Douglas J. Amy provides several examples.
One successful program is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration:

"In 1970, the year before the creation of OSHA, 22,000,000 people were injured on the job and 14,000 died from job-related injuries. Since then, OSHA has helped to cut occupational injury and illness rates by 40 percent. Even more important, between 1980 and 2002, workplace deaths fell from 7.5 per 100,000 workers to 4.0."

Pfft, sounds to me like OSHA is just getting in the way of my freedom to have my arm chopped off by dangerous and poorly-maintained equipment!
Other successful examples are the National Institutes for Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

"A variety of programs run by the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local Public Health departments have greatly improved the health of most Americans. For example, the scourges of polio, cholera, and smallpox have been effectively eradicated from this country – a huge achievement. And vaccination programs have reduced by 95% our risks of contracting potentially debilitating diseases like hepatitis B, measles, mumps, tetanus, rubella, and diphtheria. Federal funds spent on buying and distributing these vaccines have saved countless lives."

Another successful government program—at least, before Scott Pruitt and his cronies started handcuffing it—is the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is just a sampling of some of the EPA's greatest accomplishments, taken from their website:

"1973: EPA begins the ban that will phase out all use of lead in gasoline, resulting in a 98% reduction in lead levels in the air. The phase-out protects millions of children from serious, permanent learning disabilities by helping to reduce blood lead levels by 75%.
1978: EPA and other federal agencies ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as a propellant in most aerosol cans. CFCs destroy the earth's ozone layer, which protects life on earth from the harmful ultraviolet rays of the sun.
1980: EPA develops a nationwide program for toxic waste site cleanups under the new Superfund law
1994: EPA announces a new set of pollution-control standards to reduce by 90% the toxic air pollutants from chemical plants by 1997."

Protecting our ozone layer from being completely destroyed? Sounds to me like a clear example of government overreach! What is this, George Orwell's 1984?
I'm sure you could find examples of things that these agencies did wrong, areas where they could've done better, examples of wasteful projects, but at the end of the day, these programs have been a net benefit to society.
If we sharply reduced the funding to these government programs, obviously that would make it much more difficult to do their jobs, and that means that they would accomplish less. That means more toxic chemicals in the environment, more fecal bacteria mixed in with your food, and more preventable on-the-job accidents, just to give a few examples. Increasing funding to government programs like this—within reasonable limits, of course—makes the world and our country a better place.
—
Kirk also appeared to just completely fabricate statistics at various points in the debate. For example, he claims the following about Cuba:

"[Cuba?] Where their life expectancy is 15 years less than the United States?"

A quick Google search reveals that the average life expectancy in Cuba is 80 years, compared to 79 years in the United States. So rather than their life expectancy being 15 years less than ours, it's actually 1 year more.
At another point in the debate, he appears to just make up another statistic:

"Even though 85% of all jobs in this country are created by small businesses."

SmallBusiness.com writes that "62% of all private sector jobs created since the great recession [were] created by small businesses." And the U.S. Small Business Administration reports that 49% of private sector employment comes from small businesses. The U.S. Small Business Administration—sounds like a pretty god-damn reliable source when it comes to small businesses! Where is Charlie Kirk getting his non-facts from on these points? The U.S. Slightly-Less-Small Business Administration?
Now, I don't even have a dog in this fight on either question; I don't have anything to gain or lose by him being right or wrong on these points. Just get your fuckin' facts right, man.
—
At another point in the debate, Kirk made the argument that because you don't trust our currently-corrupt government, it doesn't make sense to make it bigger.

"Charlie Kirk: I don't trust the government, therefore, why make the government bigger? Hasan says he doesn't trust the government, and he wants to make government bigger!
Hasan Piker: Make the government accountable! . . .
Charlie Kirk: We agree that lobbyists have too much access to this government. You wanna make that government bigger, stronger, more powerful; I wanna make that government smaller, more accountable to the citizens. That's a huge difference between conservatives and progressives!
Hasan Piker: . . . More government doesn't necessarily always mean more bad government. It's not like I'm advocating for corruption here. Actually, as a matter of fact, if you wanna talk about corruption, let's talk about lobbying! . . . Let's talk about how money is speech, like how we fund politicians. Let's talk about the fact that politicians spend 70% of their time raising funds for their next campaign! I don't like that system."

This is the exact same moronic point that Dave Rubin made when he embarrassed himself in his interview on The David Pakman Show. I don't know if they're getting their crappy information from the same source or what, but you'll have to ask Dave "The Snowflake" Rubin yourself, because this free-speech crusader block

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: "People Come To U.S. For Care!"

Anton Dybal — Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:03:39 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Photo #1043976/PxHere; Kristopher Radder - Official U.S. Navy Page/Flickr

A Republican healthcare argument that you'll sometimes hear is that many people travel to the United States for care; this, they argue, proves that our healthcare system is great, and some say that people come here because we have the best doctors and medical facilities in the world. As we will see here, there is no good evidence available to justify reaching these conclusions, and there are many flaws in this argument.
While many do come to the United States for care, a much larger number of people leave the United States for care. Medical tourism takes place to and from many different countries for many different reasons, and the complex reality of the situation is nothing like the crude, one-sided picture that conservatives paint for us.
—
We heard this argument being made by Donald Trump during one of the 2016 presidential debates—on one of those exceedingly rate occasions where they actually asked a question relevant to public policy:

"She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster, somewhat similar to Canada. Have you ever noticed, the Canadians, when they need a big operation, when something happens, they come into the United States in many cases because their system is so slow, it's catastrophic, in certain ways."

This is just a side point, but notice that Trump here uses the hyperbolic language that he's constantly using: things he dislikes or disagrees with are always a "disaster," a "catastrophe," a "nightmare," whereas things he supports or likes are always "incredible," "the best you've ever seen," or "amazing."
Frankly I think he uses this kind of exaggerated language to compensate for his extreme ignorance. Since he's too uninformed to provide thoughtful, evidence-driven arguments on whatever the subject may be, there's nothing else he can do except puff his flabby chest out like this. It's like the poker bluff of political conversation.
At the very least, we can say that over-using these words causes them to lose their force. If we describe longer wait times for surgery as a catastrophe, what language will he use the next time something truly catastrophic happens, whether there's a giant earthquake or he's unable to go golfing for a whole week? He will be at a complete loss for words, and the only way he'll have left to convey the gravity of the situation will be to hold a press conference where he just stammers incoherently while pissing his pants—much like me when I talk to women!
—
Stefan Molyneux made a similar argument in a video of his, and he even provided a personal anecdote:

"The idea that I'm somehow benefiting from Canada's healthcare system, ohhh, that's just a shame that some people try to take that approach. A couple of years ago I had a growing lump in my neck that was found by my dentist, and I won't go into all of the ins and outs, but basically, I was in the Canadian healthcare system, and it took forever to get ultrasound, took forever to get a diagnosis.
. . . I ended up having to go to America to have an operation, which left me with this little scar here, 'cause they went up and took out the lump. It did turn out to be cancerous; it was lymphoma. So I went through treatment up here in Canada. But, yeah: Socialist medicine, it nearly killed me. And I did have to flee to America. And thanks again to those listeners who helped pay for the air fare and the operation."

I don't even believe him when he says that his motive for traveling to the U.S. was to circumvent wait times; the specialist that he got assigned to in Canada was probably just a black guy or something! (By the way, before all "Molyneux isn't a racist" people flood the comments section, that was just a joke. So chill the fuck out, and you can get back to watching your "Blacks Have Low IQ" videos in no time!)
There's something very important to note about the people who travel to the United States for care: Many of them do so only when they have lots of money that allows them to do this. In Molyneux's case, he actually had to resort to crowdfunding both his travel and operation! As he put it, "thanks again to those listeners who helped pay for the air fare and the operation."
Needless to say, many people don't have the luxury of being able to appeal to such a large and generous audience, nor do they have tens of thousands of dollars set aside for unexpected travel and medical treatment. So rather than being a testament to the quality of the United States healthcare system, this is moreso an illustration that having lots of money grants you certain priviliges that the less fortunate simply don't have access to.
"Hey, I had to start a GoFundMe campaign just to pay my medical bills. Isn't the United States phenomenal?" Yeah, dude: We are truly the envy of the world. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to working my third job just to pay off the hospital bill for a single aspirin that I was given!
—
Let's look at one final example of this argument, made by user "V.V." on one of my videos in a comment which is a treasure trove of idiotic arguments. As he put it,

"if American healthcare is soooo bad, can someone tell me why ppl around the world come to America for Surgery or Long term treatment when they can afford out of pocket costs."

Key phrase here: "...when they can afford out of pocket costs." Healthcare in the United States is so ridiculously expensive compared to the rest of the world that many people are obviously unable to do this.
—
This argument breaks down for a more important reason, however. People from other countries sometimes do travel to the United States to receive care; yet people from these countries also travel to other countries to receive care. What's more, people in the United States also travel to other countries to receive care! This is a general activity that's known as "medical tourism," and the things that motivate people to do this are wide-ranging. Let's take a look at the numbers and the driving factors behind this medical tourism.

In the case of patients traveling to the United States, one key motivation—as conservatives will be sure to let you know—is to receive care in a more timely manner. As we read on the creatively-titled website USNews.com,

"[The Fraser Institute] said difficulties in obtaining timely medical care at home is, increasingly, leading Canadians to seek it abroad."

Another motive is described on Wikipedia—and here we're talking about patients coming not just from Canada, but from all around the world:

"The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care."

I can tell you what doesn't motivate medical tourism to the United States: the desire to save money. But hey, if you're lookin' to burn a fuckin' hole in your wallet, come on over! Or maybe I'm wrong about this? Maybe some subset of U.S. medical tourists do come here out of some combination of masochism and thrill-seeking? Perhaps they just want to feel the adrenaline rush of virtually bankrupting themselves after spending only a few days in the hospital? What an experience!

So what kind of numbers are we talking about here? Based on how conservatives frame the subject, you would expect people to be practically trampling one another to come here for care! As the US International Trade Commission writes in a 2015 report,

"About 0.5% of all air travelers entering the United States annually—between 100,000 and 200,000 people—list health treatment as a reason for visiting (this data excludes travelers from Canada and Mexico, the majority of whom travel to the United States overland)."

How many Canadians, specifically, travel to the U.S. for care? I can't find precise statistics, although I can tell you that the number is very likely to be less than 60,000. As The Fraser Institute writes in a 2017 report,

"In 2016, an estimated 63,459 Canadians received non-emergency medical treatment outside Canada"

And this is the number of Canadians that traveled to any country for medical care—not just the United States. Let's generously say that 50,000 Canadians come to the U.S. every year for medical care.
How many Mexican medical tourists are there each year? I can't find clear statistics on that question, but for the sake of analysis, let's come up with what I think is a reasonable estimate: Statista.com shows that, in 2017, there were 19 million visitors from Mexico to the U.S. According to that USITC report, 0.5% of air travelers came to the U.S. for health treatment. 0.5% of 19 million is 95,000.
Adding all of these numbers together, we find that 200,000 worldwide plus 50,000 from Canada and 95,000 from Mexico yields a grand total of 345,000 people that travel to the U.S. each year for medical treatment. My goodness: That is a lot of people right there. That's right around the number of people who voted illegally in 2016–times 345,000! If I was a mindless partisan who only cared about making his own position look good, I could stop right here and say: "See? Look at all these people that come to the United States for care. That proves it: The U.S. healthcare system is phenomenal."
But if you want to honestly evaluate this question, you have to look at all of the numbers, and when you do, you find that the conservative position crumbles before your eyes. Here is the key fact that a right-winger will never tell you—even if you tie him to a chair and torture him by forcing him to listen to Bernie Sanders speeches: When it comes to medical tourism, way more people leave the United States and go to other countries than come from other countries to the United States! As Fred Hansen writes in The Institute of Public Affairs Review,

". . . the number of Americans traveling abroad for healthcare . . . is up from 500,000 in 2006 to 750,000 in 2007."

In recent years, these numbers have doubled. As PatientsBeyondBorders writes,

"We estimate some 1,400,000 Americans will travel outside the US for medical care this year (2017)."

1.4 million versus 345,000. That is a ratio of over 4:1; that is to say, 4x more people leave the United States for care than come to the United States for care. Listen to right-wingers discuss the issue, and they frame it as if medical tourism is a one-directional phenomenon where people all across the world are clamoring to receive care in the United States. In reality, it's actually a bi-directional process that runs much more in the opposite direction.
If the right-wing logic is that having people come to the U.S. for care makes our healthcare system great, doesn't it logically follow that having people leave our country for care makes our system shitty? Since way people more leave our country for care than come to our country for care, isn't our system therefore much more shitty than it is great? Just applying their own logic here completely undermines their position.
I should also point out that this statistic of 1.4 million is counting only the Americans that physically left the country and went to another for healthcare. Millions of additional Americans take advantage of other countries' healthcare systems in additional ways. For example, as Fred Hansen continues,

"5.4 million Americans purchased drugs from other countries over the Internet last year."

And millions of Americans do this each year despite the fact that it isn't even legal!
Needless to say, Americans are traveling to other countries—or purchasing prescription drugs from them—largely because the cost of these things in the United States is outrageously high. As Horowitz & Rosensweig write in The Physician Executive,

"Low cost is the primary reason that patients from industrialized nations seek medical care in less developed countries. . . . Patients from the United States typically fit one of two profiles:
1. Working class adults who require elective surgery but have no health insurance or inadequate insurance benefits
2. Patients who desire procedures not covered by insurance such as cosmetic surgery, dental reconstruction, gender reassignment operations, or fertility treatment."

And as Hansen reveals, these price differences are significant:

"Services abroad are, on average, 80 per cent cheaper according to the founders of PlanetHospital. Their data show that heart surgery which costs more than $50,000 in the United States can be purchased for $20,000 in Singapore, for $12,000 in Thailand and between $3,000 and $10,000 in India.
Offering dental work at one-fifth of US prices and inexpensive drugs, Mexico is attracting the majority of American medical travellers. . . . Stomach surgery, eye exams and routine check-ups are among the major services that Americans are seeking in Mexico."

Now when you hear this, you might be imagining people traveling to some shithole third-world facility where the surgery room is illuminated by a single flickering light bulb and the doctors—who don't have a clue what they're doing—cut you open using rusty medical equipment. You wake up and you're like "Doctor, my head hurts!", and he just hands you a bottle of vodka. And you're like "But I'm only 12!", and he's like [in super Russian voice:] "It doesn't matter. Drink."

So you might imagine that care received in other countries is substandard; In reality, the quality is perfectly acceptable. As Horowitz & Rosensweig continue,

"These countries have large, modern medical facilities that are staffed by well-trained physicians who perform complex procedures."

What more could a man ask for?
Another example of these price differences are provided by Nian Hu on ThisIsInsider.com:

"Sarah May Grunwald is an American citizen living with severe Crohn's disease, a chronic illness that necessitates frequent hospitalization, surgeries, and medication. However, she said she had trouble receiving adequate healthcare in the US. She told INSIDER that her medical bills from the US have landed her deep in debt. And her monthly medication, which costs about $500 a month, is simply 'impossible to afford.'
Now that she is living in Italy, Grunwald said she is finding it easier to maintain her health. She said that she pays about five euros, roughly $5.79, every month for her medication. And the medical procedures that used to cost her thousands of dollars in the US, she said, now cost 'so little' that she cannot even recall the exact cost. She estimated that she pays 'under 20 euro' for every hospital visit."

So as we can see, trying to avoid paying the extremely high healthcare costs in the United States is one of the core reasons that people travel to other countries for care. It's not the only reason, however. Another reason is the very same reason than many Canadians travel to the U.S. for care: long wait times!
In an article for The Fiscal Times, Beth Braverman describes this, as well as an additional motive. (By the way, what kind of a last name is "Braverman"? What kind of weirdly insecure caveman would make that his last name? "Me...braver man!" Ok, buddy: Whatever you say!)

"In addition to traveling in order to save money, some medical tourists plan trips because they want to have a treatment that’s not approved in the United States or because they’ll have a shorter wait by going abroad."

So as we can see, there are several reasons that people leave the U.S. for care, although our expensive healthcare system is the primary reason.
—

Listen to conservatives talk about the issue, and the impression you get is that everybody around the world is pushing and shoving to get into the United States—and the United States alone—to nibble off a piece of our healthcare pie. Just take another look at this right-winger's YouTube comment. Marvel at the stupidity:

"if American healthcare is soooo bad, can someone tell me why ppl around the world come to America for Surgery or Long term treatment when they can afford out of pocket costs."

Here is one of the key things that's missing from the right-wing portrayal of this issue: people travel to other countries for medical care, as well. When it comes to medical tourism, we can summarize the situation as follows: People from a bunch

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: U.S. Quality & Outcomes

Anton Dybal — Tue, 02 Oct 2018 04:49:10 +0000

Thumbnail photos: U.S. Air Force/afdw.af.mil; Photo #704304/PxHere

A right-wing argument on healthcare that I'm going to examine and debunk here is that, yes, the United States does pay more for healthcare, but that's because we receive healthcare of a higher quality. Contrary to what conservatives argue, United States healthcare quality—as measured by objective outcomes—can only be described as average.
—
Steven Crowder, in a so-called "rebuttal" to Vox on healthcare, argued the following:

". . . This entire video only discusses costs; it does not discuss quality of service. . . . If you're looking to argue your point, if you're looking to have this conversation with somebody—usually, not from a country that has socialized healthcare, mind you. Usually people who come from socialized healthcare, they go: 'We'll give ya that one. It's better here. . . .' It is nice here, compared to where I was raised, in Montreal.
You need to, when discussing this issue . . . pin them down on quality of care. And make sure that quality of care is measured by objective outcomes, and not subjective polls asking people 'how do you feel about your healthcare?' When you frame that in, and, ok, let's get outside of costs, let's get outside of what people think about crappy healthcare because they're not paying for it and they live in socialized hellholes, what are the actual objective outcomes of healthcare? It is a losing issue for them, it's a losing issue for them internationally, it's a losing issue for Vox. Domestically, if you actually compared Medicare, Medicaid, and the private sector, it sucks!"

Before we jump into the core question of healthcare quality and outcomes, Crowder gets so many things wrong here that I have to address some of the other points he makes.
First, he complains that that entire Vox video only discusses costs—not quality of care. That might have something to do with the fact that it was a video about healthcare costs. The title of the video that he's responding to is: "The real reason American health care is so expensive."
"Hey, that video you made that was about that thing wasn't about that other thing."
"Fuck, man; ya got me!"
—
He also describes countries which provide universal healthcare as "socialized hellholes." Crowder's stand-up comedy experience is on full display right here, because this is a fucking joke.
The 2018 World Happiness Report ranks the following countries as the world's top 10 happiest: Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden, and Australia. The United States, by comparison, ranks number 18.

Every single one of these countries in the top 10 has a more progressive healthcare system than the United States. In the case of Switzerland, they have a heavily-regulated private system. In the case of the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Australia, they have a public-private blend, and in the case of Finland, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, and Sweden, they have public healthcare systems. Obviously there's nuance to each country's system, but these are the general classifications.
There is a real disconnect here between the facts and the fiction that Crowder wants his low-information audience to believe. If these countries truly are socialized hellholes, why are they among the happiest countries in the world? If the World Happiness Report is any indication, they seem a lot more like socialized heaven-holes to me, and if this is what hell is going to be like, eternal damnation doesn't sound so bad after all.
—
In the context of dismissing subjective, satisfaction data, Crowder says: "let's get outside of what people think about crappy healthcare because they're not paying for it." They're not paying for it? Yes, they are paying for it, through their tax dollars.
Conservatives want it both ways on this question: When they talk about how terrible these countries are, they'll agonize about the high tax rates that go towards funding things like health care. Then when they get shown polling data which indicates that actually, people in these countries are very satisfied with their healthcare systems, suddenly this data becomes inadmissible and they're only under the illusion of satisfaction because they're not paying for their healthcare.
Which one is it? Is the tax burden to fund this healthcare system unbearable, or do the people who live under this healthcare system not pay for it? Clearly they do pay for it through their tax dollars, but the reason I make this point is to illustrate that Crowder will shapeshift and argue in favor of whichever one of these contradictory positions is convenient for him to make.
Or let's be generous and assume he meant that people in these countries aren't aware that they're paying for healthcare through their tax dollars. Beyond demonstrating that he has mind-reading capabilities, I don't know how he could possibly prove such a bold statement. Anybody living in these countries can look at what percentage of their income is going to taxes and can look at what percentage of these taxes are going to what functions of government, so no matter how you slice it, his position here just doesn't make sense.
And make no mistake: the only reason that Crowder is making this absurd argument is because the healthcare satisfaction data deeply contradicts his political worldview. According to 2016 Commonwealth Fund polling data, only 20% in the United States said that the healthcare system "works pretty well and only minor changes are necessary to make it work better." Compare this to the average of 42% and 48% who responded this way in countries with public or mixed healthcare systems, respectively. Crowder's ridiculous argument on this point is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to weasel his way out of the healthcare satisfaction data which makes absolutely clear that he is on the wrong side of this argument.

(Healthcare classifications & highlights added by me)

If the satisfaction data indicated that countries with more progressive healthcare systems were deeply unsatisfied, and if the data showed that countries with private healthcare systems were much more satisfied, do you think that Steven Crowder would be dismissing this self-reported data? "Yeah, it may look like this data supports my position, but here's why we can't trust it!..."
There is not a chance that this would happen. He would cite this data in every single video he makes on healthcare until the end of time. It would be the first point he brings up in those videos where he debates unprepared, uninformed college students on campus and declares triumphant victory.

Who does he think he is to so confidently and carelessly dismiss this data? "Oh, what do you know about your country's healthcare system? You only live there." It's like saying: "What do you know about sex with your girlfriend? You're only fucking her!"
To presumptuously discount this satisfaction data is basically to say: "Mmm, I'm a much better judge of whether you should be satisfied or not than you are." Sorry to break it to you Crowder, but this is not your decision to make, and I would actually argue that, when it comes to the question of which healthcare systems are superior, satisfaction data on the system as a whole is some of the most informative data that there is.
—
How does this guy manage to get so many things wrong in such a short span of time? Steven Crowder is like the Fountain Of Youth of shitty arguments. It's like you take a drink from the beer glass, and it just keeps getting magically refilled.

I will listen to an argument from Steven Crowder, find three things wrong with it, then I'll go back and listen again to the exact same thing, and somehow—like he's a fucking magician or a magic genie or something—more falsehoods and flaws in the argument mysteriously appear from nowhere as if we're living in The Twilight Zone. It's almost spooky how wrong this guy is.
This is why I love making this style of content, where I can take my time to carefully analyze and address every little thing that a person gets wrong, because if I was trying to do this in real time, it just wouldn't be possible to keep up. It's like you're jogging behind somebody and you need to retrieve everything they drop on the ground, but instead of dropping one thing at a time right behind them, they just throw a bunch of shit in five different directions.
Have you ever heard of Murphy's Law? It's basically the idea that anything that can go wrong eventually will. I think it's about time that we coin a new term: Crowder's Law, which says that anything he can get wrong, he will. It's almost like he learns what the facts are, and then he argues the exact opposite.
—
But ok, Crowder wants to focus on the quality of care and objective outcomes, so let's focus on those things. He says that when discussing healthcare, you need to "pin them down on quality of care." Pin us down? Nobody is running away from anything here. What kind of delusional healthcare conversations is this guy imagining?
Liberal: "Well hello, Republican: I'd like to talk about health care."
Republican: "Ok, liberal: What do you think about...*pauses suspensefully*...quality of care?"
Liberal, while sobbing: "No, please! Anything but that!", and then the liberal sprints away in the opposite direction across five lanes of traffic just to evade the conservative's brilliant arguments on this point.
Gimme a fucking break. I've got news for you, Crowder: Your fallacy-riddled arguments are not that intimidating, and the only thing you're likely to pin somebody down on is a wrestling mat.
—
So what do the objective outcomes indicate about United States healthcare? We pay almost twice the OECD average for healthcare, so assuming that quality would scale with spending, you would expect to see significantly better outcomes in the United States compared to these other countries. Is this, indeed, what the data shows us?

Let's first look at some very general indicators from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation. (By the way, who the fuck names their son Peter Peterson?) Average life expectancy in the United States, at 79 years, is slightly below the OECD average of 81 years. In terms of infant mortality, the United States, at 6 deaths per 1000 births, is above the OECD average of 4 per 1000.

Now there are some important caveats about this data that are outlined in a Forbes article written by Gary Price and Tim Norbeck.

". . . one of the big 'knocks' on America’s healthcare system is our infant mortality rate, especially when compared to the other countries. Experts all agree that there is a lack of consistent and reliable data out there in which to make truly valid comparisons. . . . One of the reasons is that countries vary in their reporting of births.
. . . in infant mortality reporting, mechanisms vary greatly among the countries compared with the U.S. For example, in France, 'a baby has to be alive at the time of registration, which could be 24-48 hours after delivery. If the infant does not survive at that point, it is recorded as a false stillbirth.' On the other hand, if a newly born infant in the U.S. takes one breath and dies, it is recorded in the infant mortality stats.
Life expectancy has been another 'knock' on the U.S. healthcare system. Unfortunately, our suicide rate is higher than the other countries mentioned in the Papanicolas et al study, with the exceptions of only France, Switzerland and the world leader, Japan.
We have the worst rate of car crash deaths and the highest rate of gun homicides. Furthermore, we lead the world in another very dubious 'distinction' – that of obese or overweight adults."

These are very fair points about data collection and factors that account for the differences, although I think we do need to be careful not to fall into the trap of finding reasons to discount only the data that disagrees with our position. This is, of course, a psychological bias that everybody is guilty of to a certain degree, but it's something to watch for in yourself. Frank Luntz put it bluntly in his book What Americans Really Want:

"We use polls we agree with to validate our point of view, while polls that challenge our assumptions are dismissed for their methodology or their inaccuracy."
Source: p. xvi, What Americans Really Want . . . Really, by Frank I. Luntz. 2009.

If you try hard enough, you can find some reason to criticize virtually any data that contradicts your viewpoint, and I think Price and Norbeck's analysis does contain a hint of special pleading. I think they're spot on when it comes to infant mortality, but when it comes to life expectancy, I think they're a bit off track. They say: "Oh, what about our high suicide rate?" Couldn't it be argued that a high suicide rate is, in part, the product of inadequate mental health care in this country? The same could be said about many of the gun homicides in this country.
And yes, the United States has a high suicide rate, but so does Japan, with both countries having a rate of 21 suicides per 100,000 people. Despite this similarity, Japan has a life expectancy of 84 years compared to 79 in the United States. I think I know what might account for this disparity, however: In The United States, we have pseudo-intellectuals like Steven Crowder who make such memorably moronic arguments that you have to drink yourself into oblivion just to forget about them!
Another factor Price and Norbeck point to that drags down our life expectancy is obesity. As we can see here in 2015 OECD data, the United States has an obesity rate of 38%, compared to the OECD average of 20%.

Again, couldn't it be argued that high obesity rates are partly caused by the inadequacy of our healthcare system? I would argue that there's much more to healthcare than the physical act of entering an examination room or being under the knife and receiving surgery; aren't education and prevention crucial components of healthcare?
Ask any doctor—even the one Ben Shapiro constantly reminds us he's married to—and I'm sure they'll tell you that an enormous amount of needless disease and pain and suffering could be completely prevented if people simply exercised more, ate a healthy diet, stopped smoking and drinking, and maintained a healthy weight. If everybody accomplished all of those things, I genuinely believe that disease rates and hospital visits could be cut in half.
And many doctors are trying to move in the direction of not just applying Band-Aids by, for example, prescribing cholesterol-lowering medication, but are actually trying to get the person to improve their diet and address the root cause of their problem. It was none other than the ancient Greek physician Hippocrates who said "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food."
Now by this, he doesn't mean pour a bunch of pills into a bowl and eat them like cereal; even they do look suspiciously like candy, I wouldn't recommend this. (Rush Limbaugh's listening and—as he scoops another spoonful of Viagra and Oxycontin into his mouth—he's like: "Hey, spea

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: U.S. Innovation & Subsidizing Others

Anton Dybal — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 17:44:45 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Ajale/Pixabay; jnn1776/Flickr

A commonly-encountered right-wing argument is that the U.S. healthcare system generates a uniquely high amount of innovation. Conservatives also argue that the United States largely pays for the research and development that the rest of the world benefits from. Another related argument is that the United States, in one way or another, subsidizes the healthcare systems of other countries around the world. Despite the fact that conservatives confidently make these arguments as if they're established, basic truths about the way that the world is, these arguments are actually flawed in so many different ways that it's almost impressive.
—
Let's start off with an example of Steven Crowder making this argument. In a video where he thinks he's offering a brilliant rebuttal to Vox on healthcare, he argues the following:

"The only reason that other countries can price-fix on drugs is because of places that don't, allowing for the innovation and creation of new drugs. Let's say the government said 'Hey, hey, hey, listen, ok, alright: the price that people are gonna pay for your new cancer treatment, it's gonna be 100 bucks. That's it. You can't charge more,' 'But it cost billions of dollars to create?' 'Don't care! That's the cost! That's the offer you can't refuse.'
Guess what? The companies that create research, the companies that innovate, they're going to create zero new cancer treatments. There's no incentive. So we burden the cost, the private sector burdens the cost, and then these other countries piggy-back off of them and provide it at a subsidized rate. That doesn't mean that somewhere down the line, somebody didn't invest in creating new, better healthcare! You need that to keep this afloat, just like you need the United States military to keep Canada from being invaded from, I don't know, anyone!"

Crowder frames it as if companies are producing and selling drugs at a financial loss to countries with price regulation strategies—and this is complete nonsense. Companies are still making a profit when they sell to these countries—they're simply profiting less than they do in the United States, where they can jack the price up and charge obscene amounts.
Crowder's argument makes no theoretical sense: If these companies weren't making profits—or were even selling at a loss in these countries—why would they continue to produce these drugs and sell them to these countries? Purely out of the generosity of their hearts? Is this just corporate philanthropy on steroids? No, obviously they're selling to these countries to make money, so when Crowder argues that price regulation removes the incentive to produce new treatments and medications, he is simply mistaken.
He says countries that regulate prices provide these treatments and medications at a "subsidized rate." Yeah, more like at a reasonable rate. As is so often the case, right-wingers have it completely backwards on this issue: The United States is actually the outlier here—not these other countries. It is these other countries that have a sane pricing policy, and the policy in the United States is the ridiculous one.
As we read on DrugWatch.org,

". . . an IHS Markit report revealed drugs sold in the U.S. cost an average of 56 percent less in other high-income countries. Prices 'range from being one-third of the price in France to being just under two-thirds of the price in Japan.'"

And here we see the percentage saved on prescription drugs—relative to that spent in the United States—in a variety of countries which have more progressive healthcare systems. As we can see, the United States outspends these countries by a long shot. Why is this the case? Largely because pharmaceutical companies can get away with it in this country because our laws allow for it.
And the thing about health care is that people don't have a choice: If a company tries to charge $10,000 for a TV or that fancy new dildo you've been looking at for a while, you can just be like "Fuck you, I'm not gonna pay that much! I don't need your stupid TV anyway!", and you can just go home and that's the end of it. But if they charge $10,000 for a month's supply of the medication that you need to prevent you from dying or suffering, you don't have a choice in the matter; your only choice is to either buy the medication or suffer and die.
"Hey, that's freedom, baby! I can practically feel the liberty coursing through my diseased veins! *coughs disgustingly*"
This is why it's so stupid when right-wingers talk about healthcare as if it's just another shiny commodity: "furniture, television, healthcare, it's all the same stuff!" No, it's not the same stuff, and the same economic rules do not apply. The technical way to phrase this in economic terms is to say that healthcare demand is inelastic: that is to say, demand stays the same regardless of whether the price increases or decreases. This is why it makes both economic and moral sense to implement price regulation strategies: If you don't do this, the profit-driven companies will jack up the prices because they can do this and people will have to keep paying for these medications and treatments.
The pharmaceutical industry is unique in another sense. As Anna Zaret and Grace Lee describe on The Source Blog,

"It is extremely expensive to develop new drugs. The estimated cost to get one drug to market successfully is now more than $2.8 billion. These high fixed costs create barriers to entry, making it challenging and time consuming for competitors to enter the market. Because of these barriers to entry, existing pharmaceutical companies have the ability [to] set and maintain high prices for their products, because it will take time for another competitor to enter the market, compete, and drive down prices."

Add to that patent guarantees which ensure that only one company can sell a drug for up to 20 years, and what you have is inelastic demand for essential drugs paired with either a very small number of sellers or even just a single seller. This is a recipe for very high prices if you don't step in and regulate this space. The healthcare industry is a very unique one, and that's why we need to take the unique approach of regulating the prices.
Obviously you don't want to make the prices so low that the companies aren't getting a return on their investment, but everybody knows this—especially the healthcare regulators who specialize in this area. As if they need somebody like Steven Crowder to point this out to them!:
"Hey, make sure you don't bankrupt these companies by charging too much."
"Awh, dude! Great point! We totally would not have taken into consideration the most basic functional requirements of a business if you didn't just point this out to us right now!"
No, they'd be like: "Get this idiot out of here! We're trying to talk serious policy right now."
What they do in these countries is strike a reasonable balance between allowing the companies to profit without charging obscene amounts. As Keyhani et al describe, price regulation strategies include "(1) direct control of prices, (2) reference pricing and generic substitution, and (3) profit control."
So the framing that right-wingers put on this issue is all wrong. They portray it as if the prices charged in the United States are the normal prices, or the sensible prices, and any prices lower than this are the "subsidized" prices. In reality, what we have are exorbitant prices in the U.S., and reasonable prices in the other countries.
—
I also just don't understand the grammar of describing this as a "subsidy." A subsidy is basically financial aid of one sort or another: "We're going to give you taxpayer dollars to conduct your research; you're going to pay less in taxes because your industry is valuable." Those are subsidies, and that is not what's going on here.
What's going on is these companies are trying to sell drugs in these countries, and these countries are simply saying: "Here are the prerequisities to selling in our country." It's much more like a pre-sale negotation than it is a subsidy, so unless I'm missing something here, I think conservatives are completely misusing this word. This strikes me as nothing more than a crude, bungled attempt at using this term for propaganda purposes.
Nicholas Grossman makes a similar point on ArcDigital.Media. As he writes,

"With other advanced economies clamping down on the profit motive, the United States effectively subsidizes research and development of drugs and medical devices for the rest of the world."

Ryan Huber, also on ArcDigital, elaborates further on this point:

". . . our health care market is relatively freer and more dynamic than those of other developed countries. This leads to a high rate of medical and pharmaceutical innovation that ends up benefiting the rest of the world, particularly other rich countries, in a similar way that NATO nations, for example, benefit from close military alliance with the United States. In short and somewhat reductive terms: we spend more money so everyone else can be healthier."

The argument is a bit confusing, so let me try to spell out their position in plain English: Because we spend so much on healthcare in this country, we contribute a very large share of these companies' income, and we're thus supplying them with much of the revenue that they ultimately use for R&D. It is in that sense that we're subsidizing the R&D that the rest of the world benefits from.
Is there anything to this argument, and are the high rates spent in the U.S. necessary to fund these companies R&D budgets? Well this is a claim that was tested in a 2017 Health Affairs publication written by Nancy Yu et al. As they write,

". . . the pharmaceutical industry often explains that the higher prices they charge in the US provide them with the funds they need to conduct their high-risk research. This claim . . . is empirically testable. . . . We focused our analysis on the 15 drug companies that manufactured the 20 top-selling drugs globally for 2015. . . . Non-US prices came from four countries with reliable and publicly available pricing: Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom (UK).
. . . Overall in 2015 the premium earned by US net prices exceeding other countries’ list prices generated $116 billion, while that year the companies spent just 66 percent of that amount, or $76 billion, on their global R&D.
. . . We found that the premiums pharmaceutical companies earn from charging substantially higher prices for their medications in the US compared to other Western countries generates substantially more than the companies spend globally on their research and development. This finding counters the claim that the higher prices paid by US patients and taxpayers are necessary to fund research and development. Rather, there are billions of dollars left over even after worldwide research budgets are covered."

Well, that about settles it! But just for good measure, let's look at some more data on this question, courtesy of the organization Public Citizen. As we can see here, pharmaceutical industry profits in 2015 were $125 billion, compared to R&D costs of $93 billion. They make more in profit than they even spend on R&D. (By the way, don't make the mistake of subtracting R&D costs from their profits, because R&D is obviously a business-operating expense, and profits are what come after expenses are paid.)

This data proves two things: number one, prices could be reduced significantly in the United States, and these companies would still be able to fund their R&D and make a hefty profit. The second thing this data proves is that profit seems to be a higher priority to these companies than increasing R&D funding. Again, I am not opposed to these companies making a profit, but when you're making more in profits than you're even spending on R&D, don't try to tell me that the high prices we see are necessary for the very survival of your business.
Pharmaceutical industry propaganda would have you believe that these companies are just barely hanging on by a thread in their selfless struggle to provide affordable medication to the world; in reality, healthcare executives are getting sucked off in their private jets while laughing all the way to the bank and wiping away the tears of joy with hundred dollar bills.
It's one thing to see Big Pharma make this argument, but when conservatives make it, they become nothing more than useful idiots for the very pharmaceutical industry that's screwing them over: "Oh, the world should just be so grateful that these magnanimous corporations are profiting stupendously on the backs of the sick and dying in America. I think a little 'thank you' is in order. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to starting a GoFundMe campaign just so I can pay my healthcare bills!"
—
If this is the logic that they're using on the right-wing—where it's a selfless favor to the rest of the world to pay excessively high amounts for healthcare—why not increase all pharmaceutical prices by 10,000x? Wouldn't this just make us even more generous? Wouldn't enacting a policy like this mean that we're really subsidizing R&D? If more healthcare industry profits are the desirable outcome, why not move as far in this direction as we possibly can?
If you think that's a ridiculous proposal, there's a good reason why you think that, and that's because there's an obvious balance that needs to be struck between access to healthcare and industry profits. And in the non-competitive, inelastic market that is the healthcare industry, it should be up to regulators to come up with reasonable prices—not the profit-driven companies.
—
I came across a YouTube comment on that Crowder video posted by Jeff Hyson who makes the following great point:

"No one is going to stop innovating because their profit margins decrease a little bit. If anything, they'll need to be more innovative."

I think this is actually a really good point: If you can sell your products and make huge profits, you're not going to be under the same financial pressure to innovate and boost your sales as you would if your profit margins were lower.
Ask any business owner and they will tell you that when money is tight, that's when they need to get creative; that's when they need to step their game up and work harder; that's when they need to improve the quality of their products or services in order to generate more business. If the money is just flowing in effortlessly, you won't have the same incentive to think outside of the box in order to boost sales.
So, yes, while profits do enable R&D and the expansion and improvement of business, I think you could argue that effortlessly earning gigantic profits won't incentivize the same kind of innovation as slimmer profits would. As the saying goes, necessity is the mother of invention.
—
Another branch of this argument is the military aspect of it. Sometimes this is brought up simply as an analogy for what happens in the healthcare industry; other times, people bring up military spending as something that actually contributes to the healthcare industries of other countries.
Steven Crowder, in his video on healthcare, argued the following:

"The United States total cost of healthcare, total spending on healthcare . . . it's very different from New Zealand or Portugal or Norway. Also, by the way, do you know why it's different? . . . Because military! Because Sweden, on that map, they need our military to protect them from anybody! Everyone on that map benefits from the United States military! That's why they don't pay for their own military. So they can piggyback off of all the innovation and great cool stuff that we use, that's us. The land of cool stuff. You're welcome."

I really tried my best to follow and understand this argument, but I genuinely think that it's just an incoherent pile of trash.
Before we get into it, notice that Crowder euphemistically describes healthcare spending in these countries as merely "different" from what's being spent in the United States. "Oh, they're just spending different amounts in these countries." No, what they're spending is dramatically less in these countries. Let's be clear about our language and let's not shamefully tapdance around any uncomfortable facts.
His argument is that the total spending on healthcare in these other countries is lower because of military spending. This strikes me as a complete non-sequitur. How is military spending connected to healthcare spending? These are two completely separate components of government.
The only way that we could make sense of this argument would be if it went as follows: These countries spend less on their military; therefore, they can afford to spend more on healthcare. This would actually make logical sense. But this is not what happens in reality. The reality of the situation is that these countries spend less on healthcare than we do in the United States. Look at this data from The Commonwealth Fund; what we see is that these countries with universal healthcare systems spend about as half as much, on average, per capita on healthcare as we do in the United States.

Look at this data and then try to fit it within this military argument: These countries spend less on healthcare because they spend less on military? This is a nonsensical statement. There is no logical connection here between these two components of spending; there's no process by which less military spending translates into less healthcare spending, as well. So unless I'm missing something here, Crowder's argume

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: Wait Times & Rationing

Anton Dybal — Tue, 11 Sep 2018 14:18:00 +0000

Thumbnail photos: アラツク/Wikimedia Commons; Marta Cuesta (creades)/Pixabay

Whenever the topic of healthcare comes up and a right-winger is within earshot, assuming that he's not too busy calling somebody a "cuck" online, an argument that you'll invariably hear made against publicly-financed healthcare is that such systems lead to the twin problems of intolerably long wait times and an unacceptable rationing of care.
Here, I'm going to take a very close look at this subject, examining the data from a variety of countries in several key areas of healthcare. I'm not going to be hiding from any data or inconvenient facts to make my position look better; instead, I'm going to do my best to provide a very thorough and honest examination of how the different healthcare systems on offer compare to one another in terms of wait times and rationing.
We will be looking at a lot of different numbers here, and I'm not sure why I feel the need to plant that warning here, because how the fuck else do you expect to investigate the subject without examining the data? But, in case you're worried that this is going to be nothing more than a bland recitation of statistics, I'm also going to make some general points on this subject as well as debunk some of the flaws and shortcomings in the right-wing arguments that I come across. And, as always, I'll be sure sprinkle in a healthy dose of mediocre and offensive jokes.
—
We hear an argument on this subject being made in a Steven Crowder video entitled "The TRUTH About Universal Healthcare! (from a Canadian)." In this video, he goes undercover using a hidden camera to expose the grisly details of the Canadian healthcare system. Given that this is Steven Crowder we're talking about, frankly I'm surprised that he didn't dress up in drag for the occasion! Maybe we'll see that in part 2 of this video?: "Steven Crowder Undergoes Sex-Change Operation To Own The Libs—Forced To Wait 5 Months In Canada!"
In his video, he drops the following statistics:

"Consider that the average wait time to see a specialist in Canada is 17.3 weeks, and that as of 2008, over 2.8% of the country's popuation are on waiting lists to receive special treatment, and there are bound to be a few unhappy campers!"

A big problem I have with the approach many conservatives take is that they'll look at a specific example like this and assume that this is the norm in more-progressive healthcare systems. An examination of the data, however, will show that Canada happens to have the very longest wait times in this particular area.
(For simplicity's sake, I'm going to classify a nation's healthcare system into one of three categories in this video: public, private, or mixed. There's obviously a lot more nuance to each country's system, but if you're looking for a dissertation on their complex differences, you're not going to find it here.)
In 2016, the Commonwealth Fund collected healthcare data from 11 countries, and on the specific question of specialist wait times, they found the following: Canada, with its public system, does, indeed, have long wait times: 59% of patients waited at least 4 weeks to see a specialist—compared to only 25% of patients in the United States with its private system.

(Healthcare classifications & highlights added by me)

How did some of the other countries on the list perform? In Switzerland, which has a private system, only 26% waited at least 4 weeks. We also see low percentages from Germany and the Netherlands, both of which have a mixed system, with 27% waiting at least 4 weeks to see a specialist in Germany compared to 29% in the Netherlands.
On average, countries with public healthcare systems do have the longest wait times: For these 4 countries—Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the UK—an average of 50% of people waited over 4 weeks to see a specialist. For mixed systems—which we see in Australia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and New Zealand—the average was 37%. So in this particular area of specialist visits, the United States does perform better than public or mixed systems do, on average.
However, two countries with mixed systems do perform just as well as the United States does, so this seems to indicate that a private healthcare system is not necessary for short specialist wait times.
—
Another argument of this kind was written by Aaron Bandler of The Daily Wire:

"The Left has a penchant for constantly citing Britain's National Health Service (NHS) to support their clamors for socialized medicine. However, the NHS is failing . . . Patients face exorbitant waiting times. A report from the Patients Association found that 'tens of thousands of' patients seeking routine surgeries had to wait over 18 weeks . . . Additionally, more major operations, such as hip and knee replacements, had average wait times of over 100 days."

It's important to point out that they're talking about surgeries for non–life threatening conditions here. If you need emergency surgery in the UK—let's say you get wheeled in on a stretcher with 15 stab wounds and you're on the brink of death—they're not gonna be like: "Alright, let's add him to the bottom of the list! See you 100 days from now, asshole—assuming you haven't died by then! *doctors diabolically laugh together like supervillains*"
No, if it's an emergency, you're gonna get treated right away, and the surgeries are clearly getting prioritized based upon the urgency and importance of the surgery. And I've got news for you conservatives: the same thing happens in the United States!
Let's look again at the Commonwealth Fund study: In the US, 4% of patients waited 4 months or longer for non-emergency or elective surgery, whereas 32% waited between 1 and 4 months. By comparison, in the UK, we found that an identical 32% waited 1 to 4 months, whereas 12% had to wait 4 months or longer. So while he frames these wait times in the UK as an outrageous scandal, when you compared the UK against the US, all we're really talking about is a minor difference of 8%.

How do some of the other countries do this in area? Let's start with the public systems. As we can see in the table, they don't do terribly well, averaging 14% of people who wait 4 months or longer. For the mixed systems, we see an average of 6% of patients waiting 4 months or longer; France and Germany have only 2% and 0% who wait this long.
Another way to look at this data is to ask: What percentage of people wait less than 1 month for elective surgery? The US leads the pack at 61% followed closely by Switzerland at 59%. Australia comes in at third with 57% and France comes in at fourth with 51% waiting less than 1 month for non-emergency surgery.
So, once again, the conclusion we can reach from this data is that, on average, public systems have the longest wait times, with mixed systems having shorter wait times—only slightly longer than those seen in the United States and Switzerland with their private systems.
In a way, Bandler sort of answers his own question in his article: In one section he describes the exorbitant wait times in the UK, and in another, he points out that "the NHS is facing staff shortages." Couldn't that be partially responsible for the long wait times? If there are fewer doctors available to see patients, clearly there's going to be a longer waiting line formed behind each one of them—and that means more time spent in the lobby flipping through a car magazine that 15 people have coughed on that day.
(By the way, is that not the dumbest fuckin' idea you've ever heard? Shared reading material for sick people to take turns touching and holding in front of their face? The hospital staff is like: "Hang on a sec, we gotta change that weird paper thing that you sit on while you wait for the nurse; let me put on some gloves and here's some hand sanitizer for you to apply, and on your way out, make sure that you sneeze on the one newspaper that's available today.")
Anyway, how would privatization alleviate the problem of NHS staff shortages? This is a question that Dr. Bob Evans explores in a panel discussion on healthcare.

"Interviewer: But what we hear is if there are 100 people on a wait list, and 10 of them can go to the private surgery clinic, now there are only 90 people waiting for public healthcare, so what's the problem?
Dr. Bob Evans: And at the private surgery clinic, they will get care from the same doctors. It would be different if doctors were not working on both sides of the street, but they are! That's the point! When you have a two-tiered system, you steer patients who can afford to pay to the private side, and then you charge them more. The United Kingdom has demonstrated this ever since the introduction of the National Health Service in 1948.
And it's normal, economic behavior. You'd do the same thing unless you were sort of, more charitably inclined. Say, 'well, I've got a group of people on this waiting list who have money, and they're willing to pay me, and I'm gonna see them now.'
And I'm not gonna create new hours in the day from which I can now see these people privately and see patients as expeditiously in the public sector. There's kind of a notion here that, somehow, if you privatize part of the delivery system, doctors will appear from Mars!"

This, I think, is a very interesting argument. However, one counter-argument could be that by privatizing the system, in part or in whole, since doctors could charge more, this might incentivize more people to become doctors in the first place because of the prospects of making more money. This is certainly possible, although I would like to see some empirical support for this idea.
And not that I'm opposed to private, supplementary care, but I don't see why such a problem couldn't be dealt with within a public system: If staff shortages are a problem and higher pay would reduce the problem, why not just increase pay within the public system? You might say: "Aha! But that means taxes are gonna have to be raised!" And? If doctors are making more money under both systems, at the end of the day, you're going to pay for it either through your tax dollars or through your out-of-pocket spending.
—
Something you'll notice when you read conservative writing on this question—aside from "Wow! This is trash!"—is that they will present you with a statistic on wait times in a certain country, but they often won't compare it to anything. They simply throw out a statistic in isolation and say "Oh my goodness! How terrifying!"—without even showing us that it's dramatically worse than the system we have in the United States, and without demonstrating that this is the norm under public healthcare systems. Perfect example of this from Aaron Bandler of The Daily Wire:

"Here's what the NHS had to deal with right before January 1 . . . Nearly a quarter of [accident & emergency department] patients [in the UK] waited at least four hours to be seen"

Ok, and how does this compare to wait times in the US, or wait times in other countries with public or mixed healthcare systems? All he's doing here is looking at this one piece of data in isolation. The title of his article is: "7 Things You Need To Know About Britain's Failing Nationalized Health System." It's a failure in comparison to what? Clearly he means in relation to some alternative healthcare system, but no data is presented to show that his preferred system excels in this particular area! So this is basically a comparative analysis without the comparative analysis.
Commonwealth Fund data from 2016 shows that 8% of ER patients in the UK waited for 4 hours or more. In the United States, however, 11% of ER patients waited 4 hours or longer. So Bandler points to this data from the UK as proof that their healthcare system is a faulty one that we shouldn't seek to emulate, yet the very data that he's using to make his case shows that this is an even worse problem in the United States! Using his own logic here, shouldn't we conclude that the US healthcare system is an even greater failure than the one of the UK? And shouldn't a person using data to support their case make sure that the data actually does support their case?

Other countries on the list fare even better when it comes to ER wait times: In France, Germany and the Netherlands, the percentage of people that waited 4 hours or more were 2%, 3%, and 4%, respectively.
Another way to look at this data is to ask: What percentage of people waited less than an hour in these countries? The highest percentage was seen in the Netherlands, where 65% of people waited less than one hour. This was followed by 59% in New Zealand, 58% in France, 57% in Switzerland, and fifth on the list was the United States where 55% of people waited an hour or less in the ER.
An average of 18% waited 4 hours or more in public systems versus 6% in mixed systems. Compare this to private systems, where an average of 9% waited this long. Yet again, public systems have the longest wait times, although in this area, mixed systems actually outperform private systems (and the United States in particular.)
Perhaps you're asking yourself, why the discrepancy in the data? Why does the Commonwealth Fund data say only 8% of UK ER patients waited 4 hours or more, whereas this Daily Wire data indicates that nearly 25% waited this long? Well, that's because Aaron Bandler, not surprisingly, is very selectively cherrypicking a one-week period that he can use to best smear the UK's healthcare system. As we read on the source that he links to for this claim, DailyMail.co.uk, this data is "for the single week leading up to January 1."
NOBODY who's interested in seriously analyzing the performance of a healthcare system would restrict themselves to looking at a single one-week period—especially the one-week period that overlaps with some of the year's major holidays.
Christmas and New Year's time—the week during which this data was collected—is a time when people are stuffing themselves full of all kinds of unhealthy foods, drinking large amounts of alcohol, using knives to cut open the plastic packages around their many gifts, surrounding themselves with unbearable family members who make them want to blow their brains out, and so forth, so it's reasonable to assume that this is going to be a time of the year when hospitals are getting a higher influx of patients than normal—and thus, we'd expect longer wait times than normal.
It strikes me as deceptive to show this data without explaining that, at this time of the year, hospitals see many more ER patients than normal. Bandler did write "Here's what the NHS had to deal with right before January 1," but he doesn't provide the crucial caveat that this data is not representative of how the UK healthcare system generally functions, and that's just inexcusable.
There's also every reason to believe that we'd see a similarly high rate of long wait times in United States ERs around this same time of the year. As they write on MedicalCityHealthcare.com,

"'I only eat like this around the holidays.'
'I don’t drink very often, but there are so many social functions this time of year.'
. . . Any of these sound familiar? They do to virtually every ER doc in the United States, some of whom coined the term 'Christmas Coronary' to describe the more than 30% increase in heart attacks and heart-related problems that occur in the winter — specifically on Christmas, the day after Christmas and on New Year’s Day. That’s because many Americans celebrate the holidays with sudden binges of alcohol and food that puts added stress on weakened hearts."

Looking at the year-round data is much more informative, and actually comparing this data between the countries shows that the United States does not reign supreme in this area.
—
We see a similar pattern of foolishness repeat itself in a Daily Wire article written by Hank Berrien, where he quotes The Daily Telegraph writing the following:

"'The NHS figures show the number waiting at least a week to see their GP has risen by 56 percent in five years, with one in five now waiting this long.'"

Hey, at least he's not self-servingly cherrypicking the very worst data from a one-week period! Maybe the next time they're swapping shitty ideas in the break room, he can give his colleague a couple of pointers in this area?
Once again, you'll notice in the article that this data is not compared against data from any other country. If you actually did look at the numbers in other countries, you'd see that these numbers are not significantly greater than those we see in the United States.
The 2016 Commonwealth Fund data shows that, in the UK, 15% of patients had to wait 6 days or longer to see a doctor. By comparison, 16% of patients in the United States waited 6 days or longer. 5% in the UK waited 2 weeks or more compared to 7% in the US. So once again, data is being cited in an attempt to discredit the UK's healthcare system, yet the UK actually slightly outperforms the United States in this area!

Other countries do even better than both the UK and the US: In Australia, only 7% of patients wait 6 days or longer to see a doctor, compared to 4% in the Netherlands and New Zealand. Only a scarcely detectable 1% of patients in these three countries waited more than 2 weeks to see a doctor, with all three countries having mixed healthcare systems.

Debunking Creationism: "Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!"

Anton Dybal — Sat, 25 Aug 2018 03:22:57 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Waiting For The Word/Flickr; rodoluca/Wikimedia Commons

The young-earth creationist belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old massively contradicts the scientific conclusion that it's actually 4.5 billion years old. In order to maintain this belief of theirs, creationists obviously need to call into question the trustworthiness of the dating methods used by scientists to establish the age of the Earth. As you will learn here, none of the arguments or evidence used by creationists to support their position seriously calls into question the reliability of radiometric dating. In fact, there is a very sound basis for believing that these dating methods provide accurate results.
(And I have to say, I'm excited about this project, because I finally have an opportunity to speak about dating and actually know what I'm talking about!)
—
Before we jump into the specific arguments made by creationists, let's begin by first establishing the veracity of radiometric dating. The most important point to make and understand is that there isn't just one dating method used in isolation; instead, there are a variety of dating techniques that are used—all of which serve as checks on one another and all of which yield the same results. When multiple, independent lines of evidence arrive at the exact same conclusion, that is a very strong indicator that the conclusion is valid.
As Glenn J. Kuban writes on paleo.cc,

". . . these [radiometric dating] methods provide largely consistent results for the ages of various rock strata throughout the geologic column, which correlate well with non-radiometric dating methods, including cores, varves, dendrochronology, and others."

Brent Darlymple, writing for the National Center for Science Education, gives several great examples of different dating methods yielding the exact same date. As he writes,

"There are 3 important things to know about the [meteorite] ages in Table 1. The first is that each meteorite was dated by more than one laboratory — Allende by 2 laboratories, Guarena by 2 laboratories, and St Severin by four laboratories. This pretty much eliminates any significant laboratory biases or any major analytical mistakes. The second thing is that some of the results have been repeated using the same technique, which is another check against analytical errors. The third is that all three meteorites were dated by more than one method — two methods each for Allende and Guarena, and four methods for St Severin. This is extremely powerful verification of the validity of both the theory and practice of radiometric dating. . . . they all give the same result to within a few percent."

And as we can see here on the table, the dates for the St Severin meteorite range from 4.38 to 4.55 billion years.

Let's look at another example: determining the date of the K-T asteroid impact. As Darlymple continues,

". . . the K-T impact produced tektites, which are small glass spherules that form from rock that is instantaneously melted by a large impact . . . Scientists from the US Geological Survey were the first to obtain radiometric ages for the tektites and laboratories in Berkeley, Stanford, Canada, and France soon followed suit. The results from all of the laboratories were remarkably consistent with the measured ages ranging only from 64.4 to 65.1 Ma.
Numerous thin beds of volcanic ash occur within . . . coals just centimeters above the K-T boundary . . . Ash beds from each of these coals have been dated by 40Ar/39Ar, K-Ar, Rb-Sr, and U-Pb methods in several laboratories in the US and Canada.
. . . the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods . . . each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."

I could not have said it better myself. (Who am I kidding: of course I could have said it better. Nonetheless, great job Mr. Darlymple.)
As we can see here in Table 2 from his paper, the ages arrived at by all of these different dating methods are nearly identical, ranging from 63.7 million years ago to 66.0 million years ago.

These examples make absolutely clear that anybody who describes radiometric dating as unreliable has no idea what they're talking about. How could all of these independent dating methods be wrong in the exact same way? Think about how stupefyingly unlikely that would be.
Imagine, by analogy, that a murder suspect is being questioned by detectives. They say to him:
"Look, the surveillance footage clearly shows you stabbing the guy. Not only that, but your DNA was found at the crime scene, 14 witnesses saw you stab him, a text message from your phone reads 'Just stabbed this guy at the gas station, lol,' and you just wrote us a confession letter five minutes ago!"
"Nope, those are all lies, and I don't trust any of that."
This is basically what the young-earth creationist is doing when they carelessly discount all of these independent lines of evidence. If these dating methods were inaccurate, you would expect to see wildly divergent results, with some techniques yielding one date, other techniques yielding another—it would just be total chaos. Yet what we actually see is perfect consistency.
—
Given these facts, why do creationists distrust radiometric dating? One reason is that the half-lives of some elements vary under certain circumstances. Important to understand, however, is that in almost all cases, to my knowledge, this variance is very minor and doesn't even apply to the elements used in radiometric dating—certainly not to a degree that calls into question its accuracy. As Wikipedia writes,

"A small number of mostly light nuclides are affected. . . . In 7Be, a difference of 0.9% has been observed between half-lives in metallic and insulating environments."

And as we read on TalkOrigins.org,

"The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates."

It's funny to watch creationists point out the variance of certain decay rates—as if they're the first ones to figure this out or something, as if the experts in the field who use these dating methods have never considered the possibility of variance or other sources of inaccuracy, and when the creationist points out this possibility, the scientists are just dumbstruck by the brilliance of this point. No, nobody knows more about potential sources of error in radiometric dating than the people who regularly use these dating methods.
I always find it amusing when ignorant laymen try to lecture scientists about their own field of expertise. I'm reminded of a recent episode of Star Talk where they had a climatologist on as a guest. She noted that climate-change deniers will argue against global warming by pointing out that climate has varied in the past, and she was like: "Yeah, we know: We're the ones that told you this."
Something similar is going on here with radiometric dating: The experts who study this topic extensively point out that sometimes, slight variability is observed in the decay rates of certain elements; creationists seize upon this and they're like: "Aha! What do ya think about this?", and the scientists are like: "Uh, we're actually well aware of this. In fact, that's actually my research that you're citing."
—
Creationists will also argue that several scientific findings prove that radiometric dating is unreliable. One such finding is that the age of rocks known through observation doesn't actually match up with the radiometrically dated age of rocks. We're told the following in a YouTube video posted by Genesis Apologetics:

"Radiometric dating has never been validated against the absolute, known ages of rocks. Let us explain. Consider Mount St Helens: This volcano erupted in the 1980s, giving scientists the opportunity to date the rocks that were formed from the eruption. The results? Five different ages, all between 350,000 and 2.8 million years old—for rocks that we know were less than 30 years old!"

It sounds like pretty powerful evidence when you first hear about it, but the obvious question that needs to be asked is: How trustworthy is the science behind these findings? It turns out that this research is deeply flawed. Kevin R. Henke published a devastating critique of this research on the aptly-named NoAnswersInGenesis.org. One crucial mistake that these creationists made was using the wrong equipment to date their sample. As Henke writes,

". . . personnel at Geochron Laboratories . . . performed the K-Ar dating for Austin et al. . . . their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old.
. . . With less advanced equipment, 'memory effects' can be a problem with very young samples . . . That is, very tiny amounts of argon contaminants from previous analyses may remain within the equipment, which precludes accurate dates for very young samples.  For older samples, which contain more 40Ar, the contamination is diluted and has insignificant effects.
. . . Because all but one of the dates [measured by Austin et al] . . . are below the 2 million year lower dating limit established by Geochron Laboratories, the dates may be nothing more than contamination artifacts from the mass spectrometer at Geochron Laboratories."

This alone completely destroys the credibility of this study, but believe it or not, there are further methodological shortcomings that could also contribute to their findings. Henke points out that:

". . . somewhat older xenoliths (foreign rocks) and xenocrysts (foreign minerals . . . ) from the surrounding rocks may have been incorporated into the melt as it rose to the Earth's surface.
. . . Austin's descriptions in the following statements clearly indicate that he FAILED to adequately separate the phenocrysts and possible xenocrysts from the volcanic glass. Austin admits:
'. . . NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SEPARATE PLAGIOCLASE FROM GLASS'
. . . a K-Ar date on such an impure 'fraction' would be meaningless and a waste of time and money."

So as we can see, there's no good reason to believe that this Mount St Helens rock-age data proves anything more than the incompetency of creationist researchers. I think I actually have an idea of what went wrong here: these creationists, at the outset of their study, had a very good plan in place for how to conduct rigorous analysis on this question; in the course of their research, however, they ended up dropping this plan into the volcano, so they just said "Fuck it" and decided to wing it from that point on.
More examples of similar such discrepancies are cited in a lecture given by creationist Andrew Snelling. During his lecture, he shows this slide which features five examples of the known ages of rocks not matching up with the dated ages of rocks.

Notice that four of the examples show a radiometric age of less than half a million years with the fifth example showing an age of about 1.5 million years. These dates are perfectly in line with the dates we saw in the Mount St Helens study; so perhaps the explanation is, yet again, residual equipment contamination, or foreign rock intrusion? Rather than the dating techniques being flawed, perhaps it's this research that's flawed?
Snelling says the following in his lecture:

"If a recent lava flow, a recent eruption, where we know the true age of the rock from observation or historical evidence gets the answer wrong using the Potassium-Argon method, how can we trust them on ancient rocks when we don't have the historical documentation? The answer is we can't."

Or maybe we can if we simply use the correct equipment and remove foreign particles from the sample to minimize contamination?
And recall that, as Henke pointed out, this problem of equipment contamination is unique to younger rocks; if we're dealing with rocks that are hundreds of millions of years old, the trace amounts of leftover argon adding a million years or so to the sample is going to have only the tiniest effect on the dated age of the rock. Let's say the rock is 300 million years old and the trace argon makes it appear 301 million years old; relatively speaking, on a geological timescale, this difference is so minor as to be virtually inconsequential.

By the way, I love the potted plants that Snelling has on stage in front of him.

"Hey, you ready to start the lecture?", "Yeah, hang on: Let me just get my five potted plants to bring out in front of me."
I don't know why, but I kinda like it. It really livens the place up. And why just stop at plants, while we're at it? Why not have a tortoise or a cockatoo just sort of hanging out on stage with you when you give your lecture? This is the future of public speaking, ladies and gentlemen.
—
Further evidence of radiometric dating's unreliability is presented by potted-plant aficionado Andrew Snelling in an article entitled "Radioisotope Dating of Grand Canyon Rocks: Another Devastating Failure for Long-Age Geology." There, he writes the following:

"Twenty-seven Brahma amphibolite samples were collected from various Inner Gorge outcrops
. . . The model K-Ar ages for each of the samples ranged from 405.1±10 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma. Furthermore, the seven samples from the small amphibolite unit near Clear Creek, which should all be the same age because they belong to the same metamorphosed basalt lava flow, yielded K-Ar model ages ranging from 1060.4±28 Ma to 2574.2±73 Ma."

So basically, samples from one section of rock yielded wildly divergent results. Greg Neyman of Old Earth Ministries—a Christian organization, I might add—points out the very simple problem underlying this study:

". . . the dates for the Brahma come from the overlying and underlying formations because the dates for the Brahma formation are unreliable . . . after all, metamorphic rocks are not easy to date.  So, what do the [creationist researchers do?] . . . they take 27 samples from a formation that they know in advance will give them bad dates."

So what the creationist is doing here is misapplying these dating techniques and then saying: "See! I told you we couldn't trust these dating techniques." This would be like taking a bag of marijuana, rubbing some of it on your skin, and being like: "See, dude? I told you this stuff doesn't get you high." No, the only reason it's not getting you high is because you're not using it correctly. Try tearing out a page from your Bible and rolling a joint with that shit, and then come and talk to me.
"Another Devastating Failure For Long-Age Geology?" More like another example of a creationist who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing—or worse, does know what they're doing and is being intentionally dishonest.
—
Creationists will also point to examples where freshly killed animals are carbon-dated as being thousands of years old—thus, we're told, these dating methods cannot be trusted. For example, we read on CreationToday.org that:

"Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. <

Debunking The "Mysterious" Bermuda Triangle: Disappearances & Paranormal Events

Anton Dybal — Thu, 09 Aug 2018 20:23:56 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Alphaios & -Majestic-/Wikimedia Commons; Lt. Comdr. Horace Bristol, U.S. Navy/Wikimedia Commons

The Bermuda Triangle is a region in the Atlantic Ocean just off the coast of Florida where we're told that a large number of airplanes and boats have mysteriously disappeared over the years. Proposed explanations for why planes and ships go missing here include UFOs, wormholes, and even the lost city of Atlantis! There's no need to invoke such paranormal explanations, however, because a variety of prosaic, naturalistic events can account for the Bermuda Triangle disappearances.
Not only that, but there's nothing statistically anomalous about the boat or plane losses in this particular region, and even the most extraordinary stories pointed to as proof of the Triangle mystery don't actually stand up to scrutiny. Simply put, there's no good reason to believe that anything unique, mysterious, or paranormal is taking place—or has taken place—within The Bermuda Triangle.

—
Hop online to do some reading, and you will find a seemingly endless supply of absurd speculation about The Bermuda Triangle. "is the BERMUDA TRIANGLE a inter-dimensional travel gate?", asks AboveTopSecret user "blobby." And that's the big question, isn't it?
Fellow user "unholy enterprise" soberly states that "i personally believe the bermua triangle is a gate away to back in time or so called back to the past." Maybe this guy could actually use The Bermuda Triangle to go back in time to elementary school where he can learn how to spell?
"MUDDYFOX" adds his two cents into this power brainstorming session when he writes that:

"i believe that the triangle is just water above a alien base because of all the spacecraft seen going into the water around there also it is well known that the aliens live in the water on this planet"

Ah, yes, it's well-known, apparently! Exercise is good for you, smoking is bad for you, aliens live underwater! These are well-known facts about the world that we live in!
My personal favorite explanation manages to combine 5 or 6 paranormal ideas into a single sentence! As user "Blobby 2" puts it,

"it is possible the ancient atlantians were so advanced they managed to rip a hole in time ie the Bermuda Triangle, and thats why no wreckage is found as it has left our dimension to another time?"

In this one sentence, he manages to package together 1) the lost city of Atlantis, 2) ancient, advanced technology, 3) rips in the space-time continuum, 4) The Bermuda Triangle, 5) interdimensional travel, and 6) time travel. At the very least, you have to credit the ability of his mind to integrate so much nonsense into one piece of mega-nonsense. It's like when multiple Transformers combine to form one Super Robot capable of much more impressive feats of violence—except instead of violence and robots, we're talking about stupidity and ideas here.
You'll be truly shocked to find out that these posts of theirs are utterly bereft of supporting evidence. It's almost as if there's a competition going on to see who can out-embarrass each other by proposing the most ludicrous, unsubstantiated explanations!
"maybe they got sucked into another dimension," "blobby" speculates. Yeah, and maybe they didn't? Is there any good reason to believe that this—or any of the other proposed explanations—are actually operational? I don't see the evidence; all I see is fanciful speculation. If we're just using our imagination to conjure up potential explanations, can't anybody play this game? What if there's a gigantic sea monster that swallows the ships whole? What if the U.S. government captures the planes and salvages their scrap metal to build secret weapons? As titillating as this is, why just sit around and engage in bizarre speculation when we could actually research the subject and learn a thing or two?
—
"Ok, Mr. 'Skeptical Human,' if it's not Atlantian technology or underwater UFO bases, then what could explain the disappearances in The Bermuda Triangle?" Any number of things, actually. It's a mistake to think that there should be one, uniform explanation that applies to every single plane and boat disappearance. In some cases, maybe the plane just got lost and they ran out of fuel? Maybe stormy weather conditions caused the ship to sink? Maybe the pilot was drunk, fell asleep at the cockpit, and simply plummeted into the water? Why invoke the fantastic when the ordinary will suffice?
While ideally, we would want to evaluate the Bermuda Triangle disappearances on a case-by-case basis, there have been proposed some general causes that would apply to many disappearances. For example, weather conditions unique to that area could play a role. As Mindy Weisberger writes on LiveScience.com,

"Tropical storms and hurricanes are . . . common in this region of the Atlantic, which could account for many of the reported disappearances that have happened over the years in the Bermuda Triangle."

The Gulf Stream current in that area could also be responsible for sending ships off course—perhaps into more dangerous waters or weather conditions that they didn't anticipate encountering. Not only that, but this current and the regional topography could also aid in dispersing or hiding much of the debris from plane or boat losses—thus partly explaining what are described as the "creepy disappearances" within this region. As we read on VolvoOceanRace.com,

"Some of the deepest trenches in the world are found in the area of the Bermuda Triangle. Ships or planes that sink into these deep trenches will probably never be found. . . . The Gulf Stream, where the Triangle is located, is extremely swift and turbulent. It’s been reported to move faster than 5 knots in some areas – more than fast enough to throw sailors hundreds of miles off course if they don't compensate correctly for the current. It can also quickly erase any evidence of a disaster."

Add to this Gulf Stream current the fact that compass readings in this region might fluctuate due to high magnetite concentrations, and you have a recipe for serious navigational confusion—especially for inexperienced sailors. We learn the following in a Science Channel episode of "Mysteries of the Missing":

"[Nick Hutchings:] Magnetite is the most magnetic naturally-occurring substance on earth. There is about 500 billion tons around Bermuda, so it's not inconceivable to think that that much magnetite could affect the compasses of ships and possibly even airplanes that are traveling through or near Bermuda."

Another possible explanation for some of the disappearances is the release of natural gas hydrates. As H.J. Gruy writes in Petroleum Engineer International,

"Natural gas hydrates occur on the ocean floor in such great volumes that they contain twice as much carbon as all known coal, oil and conventional natural gas deposits. Releases of this gas caused by sediment slides and other natural causes have resulted in huge slugs of gas-saturated water with density too low to float a ship, and enough localized atmospheric contamination to choke air aspirated aircraft engines."

So as we can see, there are several plausible non-paranormal explanations for the loss of airplanes and ships within the Bermuda Triangle.
—
Another important point about the Triangle is that there's a lot of traffic in this particular region—so it shouldn't come as a surprise if we discovered a larger number of plane or boat losses in this area. This could just be the result of basic statistics, just as if there were more people driving on the roads in a particular city, there would be more opportunities for people to crash into each other—and thus, we would see a higher rate of car crashes.

As Michael Shermer points out in Why People Believe Weird Things,

"Far more shipping lanes run through the Bermuda Triangle than its surrounding areas, so accidents and mishaps and disappearances are more likely to happen in the area. As it turns out, the accident rate is actually lower in the Bermuda Triangle than in surrounding areas."
Source: p. 55. Why People Believe Weird Things, by Michael Shermer. 1997; 2002.

As further evidence of this latter point, we read on RationalWiki that

"Insurance rates for shipping and travel within the Bermuda Triangle are no higher than anywhere else."

Here is the single most important point to make about The Bermuda Triangle: there's nothing statistically anomalous about this region. That is to say, there is not a greater risk of your airplane or boat failing or vanishing in this region when compared with the rest of the world.
When we watch documentaries or read articles on the subject, we see misleading graphics like this one, from news.com.au, which give the misimpression that there's a uniquely high rate of accidents within the Bermuda Triangle—a problem that other regions simply don't have—and this is just flat-out false.

Take a look at this map from AnyChart.com. It shows every airplane crash from 1970 to 2009 with 10 or more fatalities. As we can see, there's a pretty even distribution of airplane crashes all across the world; it's certainly not a problem unique to The Bermuda Triangle, and this region simply doesn't stand out on the map as anomalous.

This map from Bloomberg shows all large aircraft disapperances since 1948. Again, The Bermuda Triangle simply doesn't stand out as exceptional. In fact, in other parts of the world, we see a much greater concentration of airplane losses: namely, the northwestern tip of South America, and Indochina.

And even if we looked at the data and did see a cluster around the Bermuda Triangle, and even if all variables like traffic rates and weather conditions were equal across the world, there still wouldn't necessarily be anything unique about this region; this clustering could be purely the result of chance, and drawing a triangle around this cluster could actually be a version of The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
Imagine a person who takes a pistol, shoots randomly at the side of a barn without looking, and then walks up to the barn and draws a bullseye around the area where there's the greatest concentration of bullets. That is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. As Wikipedia puts it, this fallacy "is related to the clustering illusion, which is the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist."

There's a very real possibility that people would be doing precisely this with the Bermuda Triangle. To illustrate this principle, I used a map generator from GeoMidpoint.com to distribute across the world 50 random locations.
The second map that I generated showed heavy clustering around the continent of Africa—with no points placed on the continents of North and South America. We might draw a circle around Africa and say: "What's the explanation for this high rate of airplane losses?", but in this case, there wouldn't be an explanation for this distribution; it would be purely the result of chance.

The fourth map that I created showed clustering around Australia; in such a world, would we be speculating about the spooky nature of The Australian Triangle?

Even if there was a recognizable, unusual cluster of losses in the Bermuda Triangle—which there isn't—and even if there were no clear factors responsible for this, the explanation could simply be chance distribution.
There also seems to be a bit of confirmation bias going on here: Nobody focuses on the thousands of plane flights and the countless boat excursions that have passed directly through the heart of the Bermuda Triangle with absolutely no problem; instead, we focus only on the very rare trips where something goes wrong. If this place truly was The Devil's Triangle, and there actually was an epidemic of planes and boats vanishing, why would the VAST majority make it through utterly unscathed?
The thing is, a lot of people don't understand this point, and instead have this misconception that the Bermuda Triangle is this brutally dangerous place where, the moment you cross over the imaginary boundary of the Triangle, you enter into this utterly mysterious, rarely traversed territory where death or disappearance is nearly inescapable.
For example, YouTube user "Administration" writes in a comment "why don't people fly a drone to see what's there?"
Another guy, "Da Jerry Republic," floats a similar idea:

"Why not just use a drone and a little remote control ship, then make the drone and the rc ship go over to it, and then sail the little ship into the Bermuda Triangle while the drone watches?"

People have this idea that if you enter into the Bermuda Triangle, it's a virtual certainty that you'll never be heard from again—and this is a complete fantasy.
There's also the more basic, underlying assumption that there is, indeed, something mysterious about the Triangle that needs to be explained—and this is a faulty assumption. Yet this is the framing that countless news organizations put around their content on the subject, with headlines like "Secrets of the Bermuda Triangle" from Fox News, or endless headlines from outlets like Huffington Post or The Telegraph asking if the Bermuda Triangle "Mystery" has finally been solved.
The starting position if we adopt this framing is that there is a mystery here and how do we explain it? The real mystery here is that anybody thinks there's a real mystery here. I think the constant media framing of the issue in this way arguably contributes to shaping the faulty views that many people have on this subject.
Something else that's pointed to as allegedly "mysterious" about the Triangle is the fact that no trace of many of the boats or planes that get lost here are ever found. Why is anybody surprised by this? The ocean is very big and very deep, so obviously if a boat or plane sinks out here, we're not going to see much evidence of this on the surface. And whatever debris doesn't sink will probably just get pushed around by winds and currents, and thus won't be found in the immediate region where the plane or boat went down. And this isn't a problem unique to the Triangle; this is how it would work all across the world.
People write articles about the Triangle in a campfire-storytelling tone where they say things like: "Here's the real spooky part: No trace of the boat was ever found!" Yeah, that's probably because it's at the bottom of the fucking ocean right now! I mean I'm no sailor, but I'm pretty sure that's how boat sinkings work! And I'm sure if you dove down and scoured the ocean floor for long enough, it would eventually turn up.
Something that James Randi points out in his book Flim-Flam! is that there's a lot of deception and dishonesty regarding the Bermuda Triangle. As he writes,

". . . a large percentage of the so-called wonders of the Triangle wer

Debunking Creationism: "Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisted 6,000 Years Ago!"

Anton Dybal — Tue, 31 Jul 2018 03:32:29 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Roy Buri; David Lines, Creation Evidence Museum/GenesisPark

A commonly-held creationist viewpoint is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted less than 6,000 years ago. As we read on CNET.com,

"A recent survey by YouGov . . . found that 41 percent of those queried think dinosaurs and humans 'probably' or 'definitely' once co-existed on Earth at the same time."

41%. That's almost half of Americans that believe this nonsense. Supporting evidence for this position includes the Bible, cultural evidence, archaeological evidence, and fossil evidence. As we'll see in this post, none of this evidence stands up to scrutiny, and there is no good reason to believe this claim.
—
The Institute for Creation Research writes the following in an article with the straight-to-the-point title "Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted":

"The Bible states that 'every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind' was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal 'wherein is the breath of life'—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space."

Well, the Bible says so, so therefore it must be true! Serious question: If the Bible said that the moon was made of cheese, what percentage of Christians would firmly believe this in the face of all the available evidence? 10%? 20%? 40%? The fact that the answer isn't a resolute zero says a lot about the religious mindset.
It should go without saying that this is not how scientific conclusions are reached: You don't just consult your preferred holy book, blindly assume that what is says is true, and call it a day; you have to actually present convincing evidence that what you claim is true. So what actual evidence is there to support the idea that humans and dinosaurs coexisted?
—
One piece of evidence is that the Bible accurately describes sauropods—and thus, we're told, this indicates first-hand observations of living dinosaurs. As the ICR continues:

"The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur."

Some archaeological evidence is a rock-carving in Utah which purportedly shows a sauropod dinosaur. The ICR writes the following:

"Underneath a spectacular rock formation in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah is a rock carving that resembles a sauropod dinosaur. The petroglyph has been presented as evidence supporting the biblical creation model prediction that man and dinosaurs lived together."

Here we see a picture of this alleged sauropod drawing, courtesy of AnswersInGenesis.org (with some sauropods for comparison.)

I don't see why anybody should be impressed by either this Bible passage or this rock carving: The most un-creative person in world history could imagine a large beast with four legs and a tail. It's such a generic organism! I challenge you to think of something less original than that. It can't be done.
The fact that somebody drew this or wrote about this doesn't mean that they saw it with their own eyes and coexisted with it. Maybe they were just using their imagination to conjure up an image of a massive, terrifying beast?
Or maybe they stumbled across some fossilized dinosaur bones, they saw how huge they were, and they drew the obvious conclusion that it came from a large animal? There's good reason to believe that many ancient stories or mythological creatures originated in precisely this way. As we read in Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record by Bruce Lieberman and Roger Kaesler,

". . . interest in fossils and knowledge of paleontology certainly extends back to the time of the ancient Greeks, around 400 BCE; we know this because there were ancient Greeks who wrote on this topic. . . . the Greek countryside contains fossil remains of immense animals that once walked the Earth. . . . there was a natural desire to explain what these bones represented. Typically, what the ancient Greeks did was fit the bones into their myths or used their myths to explain the occurrence of gigantic bones."
Source: p. 193; 196. Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record, by Bruce S. Lieberman and Roger Kaesler. 2010.

And what kind of a shitty dinosaur drawing is this anyway? The head is way too big; the legs are way too short; the tail is way too thick and it's inaccurately depicted as dragging on the ground. I'd love to see what kind of fucked up, inbred dinosaurs were apparently romping around 5,000 years ago!
If you think about it, it makes perfect sense, actually: What could the remaining dinosaurs do after the flood except inbreed with each other? Maybe this drawing is completely accurate, and the dinosaurs back then were just miserably deformed? Or maybe, just maybe, the biologically inaccurate features of this rock-carving—especially the dragging tail—make clear that whoever was responsible did not observe living dinosaurs with his own eyes.
The creationist argument becomes even less tenable when you discover that the researchers who have studied this petroglyph don't believe that it originally depicted what we see it as today. As we read in an article on LiveScience.com,

"The researchers found the 'neck' and 'head' of Dinosaur 1 are a composite of two separate petroglyphs, while the 'legs' appear to just be stains. 'I wonder if, during the process of weathering, chemicals from the man-made, [etched] part dripped down to form the "legs,"' Senter said. 'Lots of mineral stains are all over the canyon that contains Kachina Bridge.'"

And here we see what these researchers say was actually carved in dark gray and what's merely the result of staining in light gray.

P. Senter and S. Cole/LiveScience.com

But again, even if this creature was intentionally carved into the rock and did resemble a sauropod, this doesn't mean that humans and sauropods coexisted less than 6,000 years ago.
—
Another piece of archaeological evidence used to support this position are The Ica Stones. This is a large collection of engraved stones that originate from the Ica Province in Peru that depict, among other things, a variety of unmistakable dinosaurs. Here's one such example. The stegosaurus at the top-right is especially impressive.

Unfortunately for the creationist, it's not enough to just look at some stones that show dinosaurs and conclude that they lived with humans. Where did the stones from from? When were they originally created and by who? How do we know this? Are they authentic? Could they possibly have been faked? These are some of the questions that we need to ask and answer before we can start talking about the implications of these stones.
The young-earth creationist, however, doesn't feel the need to burden himself with such inconvenient inquiries; as Don Patton writes on bible.ca,

"These stones do not depict skeletons but live, active dinosaurs, most of whom are seen interacting with man. The obvious implication is that ancient Peruvians saw and lived with dinosaurs."

There is not so much as a trace of skepticism in this guy's words. "Well, the stones show this, therefore, this is what happened!" You could show this guy a stone with the words "YOU ARE GULLIBLE" carved into it, and I bet his reaction would be: "Oh my God...the Incans spoke English?!"
If you actually examine the history of these stones, you quickly discover that there are several reasons to doubt their authenticity. First off, as Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews writes on BadArchaeology.com,

"After talking with the locals, [Dr Javier Cabrera Darquea] claimed to have discovered many more stones hidden in a cave near the coastal mountains, where there are at least 100,000 more that he had not removed. He never revealed the location of the cave to archaeologists who might assess this cache of stones in situ."

This is a major red-flag right here. Why would you be keeping secret the alleged location of your discovery unless there's something to hide? And how could you confirm the authenticity of the stones without allowing independent teams of researchers to study them out in the field?
As they point out on The Skeptic's Dictionary,

"Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them."

If you strongly believe that these stones are not fakes, wouldn't you want to prove all of the skeptics wrong by allowing independent researchers to confirm that they're the real deal? In case you're tempted to argue that Dr. Cabrera is a trustworthy arbiter of the stones' authenticity, it's worth pointing out that he isn't even an archaeologist; he was trained as a physician, so even if he was an honest actor, he very well could just be genuinely mistaken in his conclusions about these stones.
Not only that, but one of Cabrera's sources of the stones admitted that they were outright fabrications! As Fitzpatrick-Matthews continues,

"The farmer who gave Cabrera his first stone was subsequently arrested for selling the stones to tourists. In his defence, he said that he had not in fact found them in a cave, as he had told Dr Cabrera, but made them himself. Other local people continue to make these engraved stones. They are selling forged hoaxes."

Given these facts, instead of proving that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, it's much more likely that these dinosaur-depicting Ica Stones are simply forgeries.
—
Creationists, however, have more evidence up their sleeve. As the Institute For Creation Research continues,

"Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs."

Once again, just because people imagined or talked about something like this doesn't mean that they actually lived with it.
And really? Dragon legends match up with the descriptions of certain dinosaurs? If that's the case, please let me know which dinosaurs were capable of breathing fire while flying, because I am just dying to learn about them.

Their logic here seems to imply that if multiple cultures have independently described similar mythological creatures, this creature, or something like it, therefore must exist and must have interacted with these people—and this is flat nonsense. What if, instead of dragons, these different cultures all described a gigantic man with five penises? Would we therefore conclude that he existed—and that perhaps he was engaged in some kind of worldwide flashing tour? Obviously not, so why would we treat the dragon myth any differently?

And, as is the case with other mythological creatures, descriptions of dragons could also be somewhat grounded in reality: Joseph Stromberg on Smithsonian.com argues that perhaps these myths are the result of people discovering the remains of dinosaurs, crocodiles, or even whales.
—
But enough about culture and archaeology; time to bring out the big-guns: clear fossil evidence that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. The Institute For Creation Research writes the following:

"The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as 'still squishy' and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago."

First off, notice that the creationist assumption here is that soft-tissue preservation equals recent death—and not just recent death, but death within the past 6,000 years. On what grounds do they reach such a conclusion? Where is the evidence demonstrating that soft-tissue preservation means that the organism must have died less than 6,000 years ago?
Is there research that supports this claim? They do call themselves the Institute For Creation Research, after all, so I would imagine that they have reams of data attesting to this fact! In reality, all they're doing is assuming that this is true because such a conclusion matches up with their worldview. This is lazy thinking and this is not how science is done.
As we read about in an article on LiveScience.com by Stephanie Pappas, how long soft tissue can be preserved for varies widely depending upon the conditions.

". . . scientists had thought proteins that make up soft tissue should degrade in less than 1 million years in the best of conditions. In most cases, microbes feast on a dead animal's soft tissue, destroying it within weeks. The [T. rex] tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued.
Then, in 2007, Schweitzer and her colleagues analyzed the chemistry of the [68-million-year-old] T. rex proteins. They found the proteins really did come from dinosaur soft tissue. The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex.
. . . After death . . . iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging. 'The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots,' Schweitzer said. 'They basically act like formaldehyde.'
Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay."

So contrary to what these creationists argue, soft-tissue preservation does not necessitate recent death.
—
The final pieces of evidence we'll take a look at allegedly show fossilized dinosaur footprints overlapping with human footprints. GenesisPark.com provides this example on their website, and frankly, it looks like absolutely nothing to me.

If you had no background knowledge about the subject at hand and weren't already mentally primed to be l

Debunking: "Chemtrails Are A Sinister Government Plot!"

Anton Dybal — Thu, 12 Jul 2018 02:49:11 +0000

Thumbnail photos: imagii/Pixabay; OpenClipArt-Vectors/Pixabay;

A widely-believed conspiracy theory is that there is a secret government plot to spray chemtrails into the atmosphere. As we read on Nature.com, as of 2016,

". . . a nationally representative 1000-subject poll . . . shows ~10% of Americans declaring the chemtrails conspiracy as 'completely [true]' and a further ~20–30% [describing it] as 'somewhat' true . . ."

The purported motives behind this sinister campaign include profit, depopulation, and behavior control. In this video, we're going to thoroughly examine whether or not the arguments and evidence provided are convincing enough to justify these beliefs. (Spoiler alert! The answer is no.)
—
The very first question that you should ask a chemtrailer—aside from "When was the last time you took a shower?"—is: How can you reliably distinguish between ordinary contrails and chemtrails? I have never heard a single convincing answer to this question. According to user "dfnj2015" on AboveTopSecret.com, the key distinguishing factor is the longevity of the trails we see in the sky. As he puts it,

"I've seen contrails my whole life but the water vapor dissipates. After 1998-99 the contrails stayed forming hazing shroud spanning the whole sky."

The first thing to notice is his usage of purely anecdotal evidence. He's not saying: "Here's some scientific data which quantifies a material change in contrail formation over time"; he's saying: "Based upon my faulty human memory, it seems to me like there's been a transformation over time." Even if he was correct about this, the explanation isn't necessarily that they're spraying chemtrails for nefarious reasons; perhaps minor changes in the composition of jet fuel could account for this? Or maybe air traffic has simply increased over time, and thus, contrail formation has also increased?
If there is one key attribute which characterizes conspiracy theorists, it's unjustifiably leaping to conclusions and failing to rule out alternative explanations—and that's exactly what he's doing here.
Fellow chemtrailer "Boadicea" agrees with his comrade, writing that

". . . contrails from high altitude flying planes maintain a consistent length behind the plane. Let's say twice the length of the plane. It does not remain and grow longer and wider as the plane travels. . . . As opposed to the 'chemtrails' I am talking about which remain and grow longer and longer right behind the plane as it travels and slowly expand."

These people are simply mistaken when they claim that atmospheric persistence equals chemtrails. In fact, the formation and duration of contrails will vary depending upon the local atmospheric conditions. As we read in an "Aircraft Contrails Factsheet" produced by NASA, the FAA, EPA, and NOAA:

"Contrails are line-shaped clouds or 'condensation trails,' composed of ice particles, that are visible behind jet aircraft engines, typically at cruise altitudes in the upper atmosphere. Contrails have been a normal effect of jet aviation since its earliest days. Depending on the temperature and the amount of moisture in the air at the aircraft altitude, contrails evaporate quickly (if the humidity is low) or persist and grow (if the humidity is high). Jet engine exhaust provides only a small portion of the water that forms ice in persistent contrails. Persistent contrails are mainly composed of water naturally present along the aircraft flight path."

"Oh yeah? Well that's just what they want you to believe. Who are you gonna trust?: These reputable scientific organizations, or me, some random, ignorant conspiracy theorist online?"
This explanation makes perfect sense. Think about ordinary cloud cover: which types of clouds we see on a given day will vary depending upon the temperature and atmospheric conditions; why would we expect any different from contrails? Demanding contrail uniformity would only begin to make sense on a planet which has atmospheric uniformity—which our planet most certainly does not. I don't know how things work on Planet Tinfoil, but this is not how things work on Earth.
Where is the reputable scientific literature demonstrating that ordinary contrails can't persist in the atmosphere? I've never seen such research; all I've seen is evidence-free speculation by paranoid, armchair conspiracy theorists. This is not how science is done and this is not how rational conclusions are reached.
—
There are countless videos on YouTube with titles like "Ultimate Chemtrail Timelapse" that show nothing more than ordinary contrail formation, yet the people in the comments section are falling over each other to say things like "Oh my God, they're poisoning us, and this proves it!"

Look at this shit; these are just contrails. What reason is there to believe that this is footage of anything more than contrail formation? And they show some close-ups of airplanes flying with contrails forming behind them, and they're like, "Aah! That proves it!"

What do they expect contrail formation to look like if not exactly this? "No, man, it's different. You can just, like, tell." How can you tell? You can't: You're just unjustifiably assuming that something ordinary is actually something sinister.
If you want to see the height of conspiratorial absurdity, look no further than this guy complaining about chemtrails in videogames. The title of this video is "ChemTrails in video games...let the brainwashing begin!" and it was posted by YouTuber HatrickPenry:

"Just wanna get this one posted up for educational and informational purposes. All the kids are playing this and seeing the chemtrails in the sky, and thinking that it's perfectly normal!"

I truly don't even know what to say to this, so we're just gonna move on.
—
Something else they'll point to is the grid-like pattern of so-called chemtrails, which they believe lends credence to the idea that it's a deliberate campaign to thoroughly saturate the area with these chemicals. As "Boadicea" continues,

". . . I have watched multiple planes fly in a grid pattern and literally criss-cross the sky, leaving behind 'chemtrails' which expand into cloud cover."

Sounds pretty convincing, right? Wrong. As we read in Weather World by Gordon Higgins,

"Contrails often follow the same directions because aircraft fly along designated routes called airways, somewhat like motorways in the sky."
Source: p. 179, Weather World, by Gordon Higgins. 2007.

The conspiracy theorist absurdity quite literally reaches stratospheric heights when "Boadicea" maintains that he can, in fact, distinguish between chemtrails and contrails—yet can't explain how:

"I just know what I've seen for myself. Because I'm within visual distance of the airport's flight path, I can and have literally observed the difference between typical contrails of the airlines and the so-called 'chemtrails' of the planes flying in a grid pattern at the same time. I have lived close to an airport the majority of my life. There is a visible and lasting difference. I have no idea what that difference is though."

Very convincing! Presumably if the difference is visible, you could see it and describe it to us? I mean I'm no linguist, but isn't that what the word "visible" means?
—
And it's one thing to just use your eyeballs from 30,000ft below an aircraft and draw outlandish conclusions; how about actually collecting and comparing samples from ordinary contrails and chemtrails to prove that there's a clear compositional difference? Has anybody ever done this? If so, I have yet to read about it. Or maybe I have actually read about it, but the chemtrails have erased my memory and made me forget?
They attempt to explain the chemical difference between contrails and chemtrails on Gaia.com—and they fail miserably. As they write in the article entitled "Chemtrails Versus Contrails,"

"If we look at SPICE, a United Kingdom government funded geoengineering research project that collaborates with the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh Bristol, some of the proposed particles to spray in the air include:
⦁   Sulphate/Sulphuric Acid/Sulphur Dioxide
⦁   Titania
⦁   Silicon Carbide
⦁   Calcium Carbonate
⦁   Alumina
⦁   Silica
⦁   Zinc Oxide"

Several things needed to be pointed out here: Number one, the motive behind this kind of geoengineering research is light-years away from the paranoid fantasies of chemtrailers. They're not talking about depopulation or dumbing down the populace; the goal behind these geoengineering ideas is to counteract the effects of climate change by spraying reflective particles high into the atmosphere. Given the trends in global warming, this might not be such a bad idea! But this motive is a far cry from the sinister conspiracies that we read about online.
"Bro, that's just their cover story."
Ah, yes, that's right: I forgot that these engineers and climate scientists are actually closet sadists who want to be personally responsible for genocide! That is a much more reasonable interpretation.
There also seems to be a contradiction here: Conspiracy theorists claim that chemtrail spraying is a secretive program, then they'll turn around and use as proof of this secret campaign footage of scientists publicly discussing geoengineering proposals. So which one is it? Is is a top-level secret conspiracy, or are these ideas openly discussed?
Furthermore—as they point out in their own article—these are merely proposals that have been put forth by researchers; to my knowledge, there is no massive campaign currently underway to intentionally spray these reflective compounds into the atmosphere. The question being asked here is: What is the chemical composition of the chemtrails that you claim are currently being sprayed? Their answer to this question is to point to proposals of things that might be sprayed in the future. This is not an answer to this question because we're not living in this future, potential world; we're living in the present moment where you claim these things are already happening.
—
But alas! Do not despair: Chemtrailers have one more trick up their sleeve: to provide environmental measurements of compounds like aluminum, barium, and strontium. This is arguably the central focus of the documentary "What In The World Are They Spraying?"—a documentary which I found utterly unconvincing. There, they point to a variety of measurements showing what appear to be fairly high levels of these elements in the environment.
Assuming that these measurements are accurate, I don't see how this could possibly necessitate the existence of chemtrails. Yes, the intentional spraying of these elements is a mechanism by which they could enter the environment—but we could think of countless other mechanisms that could also explain their presence. Maybe they've entered the environment through some industrial process? Maybe these compounds are released in the exhaust fumes at certain factories? Maybe they come from improper waste disposal, or they're somehow emitted from automobiles? Maybe people who argue with chemtrailers online get so frustrated that they smash their computer with a fucking sledgehammer, and in the process, they release some aluminum into the environment? Or maybe it's a combination of these, and many other factors?
Simply pointing out that certain chemicals exist in the environment does absolutely nothing to prove that these chemicals are deliberately being sprayed by airplanes. This is to once again make that cardinal mistake of not ruling out alternative explanations.
And some of the measurements from the documentary are extremely misleading. For example, there's one section where we're led to believe that pond water is being tested, and to the layman, the results appear astronomical: 375,000 ug/L. But as their own test results show, they were testing sludge—not water—and as Mick West points out on ContrailScience.com,

"Sludge is water mixed with dirt. Dirt is naturally 7% aluminum. That’s all they are finding. . . . Aluminum concentration in soil ranges from 0.07% to 10%."

Here's another example where the allegedly terrifying test results are actually nothing to be alarmed about. As Mick West writes,

"The tests from Oregon . . . list quite ordinary results for soil of 18,600 to 38,000 [mg/kg]. But then they note the results are 'Tens of thousands of times the maximum limit for water', which is true, but they are not testing water, they are testing soil."

So the chemtrailers misleadingly present data which they then go on to draw faulty conclusions from.
—
There might actually be a grain of truth here that the conspiracy theorists are blowing up into a mountain: Chemicals like aluminum, barium, and strontium are present, in trace amounts, in aircraft exhaust. But the thing is, there are perfectly reasonable, functional explanations for why these chemicals would be present. As we read in a 2014 NASA study,

"Soot, particularly as produced by engines, often contains metals in addition to carbon. Transition or heavier metals may arise from jet engine materials. Al is used in inlet ducts and Al2O3 is a bond coat material for thermal barrier coatings . . . Elements such as Sr or Ba may be added to the ceramic for stability . . . The presence of any of these elements would be indicative either of erosion, wear of these coatings or exposure of underlying alloys. . . . Barium compounds serve as corrosion and rust inhibitors; detergent; [and] anti-smoke additive in fuels. . . . Sodium (Na) and barium (Ba) are associated with detergents that neutralize strong acids, produced during the combustion process."

Notice that this flatly contradicts the chemtrail narrative: we're told that the presence of these compounds in the atmosphere necessitates deliberate spraying for sinister reasons, yet here's a clear, measurable mechanism by which they could enter the environment through standard airplane exhaust fumes for mundane, functional reasons! No specially-designed chemtrail planes with canisters of poison and no backroom machinations are required!
But if you were creative and paranoid enough, you could turn anything into a conspiracy: "They've just mixed these compounds in with the jet fuel and this is their cover story!" Really, so where are the expert airplane engineers who will state, on the record, that these chemicals don't actually have these described functions in airplanes, and that this is just a cover story? I will eagerly await their testimonies.
And where is the evidence that these trace amounts of chemicals will cause environmental harm? Don't you think there'd be some sort of testing procedures and regulations that would ensure a certain level of safety from aircraft exhaust? "Ehh, just put whatever you want in there! We don't really give a fuck. Lead? Polonium? Whatever, man. Whatever floats your boat—or I guess I should say floats your airplane!"
—
The chemtrailer, at this point, might argue that I'm just in denial, and they have rock-solid proof:

Debunking Creationism: "Evolution & Mutation Can't Increase Information!"

Anton Dybal — Mon, 02 Jul 2018 14:21:03 +0000

Thumbnail photos: JJjayco/YouTube; quimono (Arek Socho)/Pixabay

A commonly-made anti-evolution argument is that evolution or mutation does not increase—or isn't capable of increasing—information in the genome. As I'll show in this post, this creationist claim is a complete falsehood that can be disproven by countless examples. I'm also going to break down the many flaws in arguments of this kind—or perhaps I should say arguments of this species?
—
Let's start off with some examples of creationists making this argument. If there is one thing that's the Holy Grail in the creationist community, the one thing that they all bow down before, it's not actually The Holy Bible and it's not the teachings of Jesus; it's probably this video of Richard Dawkins being stumped when he's challenged on whether evolution can increase information.

"Questioner: Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
Richard Dawkins: *silently thinks for about 10 seconds while looking completely stumped by the question, then asks her to shut off the camera*"

If you're not very involved in the atheist vs. theist debates online, you'd be amazed by how many creationists orgasm in their pants when they watch this video: it gets passed around on religious forums; creationists high-five each other and declare victory when they watch it; and I've even seen people whose profile picture is a screenshot of Richard Dawkins looking stumped here. It would not surprise me to learn that there are creationists out there who have bedsheets and pajamas with little stumped-Richard-Dawkins faces plastered all over them.
Richard King writes on PuritanBoard.com:

"I think I just saw Dawkins evolve into a deer in the headlights."

Kinda funny! I gotta hand it to you. Frankly, I didn't know until just now that Puritans were even allowed to make jokes!
Yes, Richard Dawkins may have been stumped by this question. But just because one particular person on one occasion couldn't answer a particular question doesn't mean that there is no scientific answer to the question. Him being stumped doesn't mean that you've made a brilliant point. Maybe he just couldn't think of a good answer on the spot? Maybe he was ignorant but other scientists could have clued you in?
Creationists, however, would argue that there is no good answer to this question and that it is a checkmate. As Randy Alcorn and Jim Darnall argue in an article for Eternal Perspective Ministries entitled "Ten Major Flaws of Evolution - Revised",

"Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. . . . Even mutations which are in some way beneficial (such as antibiotic resistance in bacteria or wingless beetles on windy islands) result from the loss of information. This is the opposite of the vast increase in information required to get from amoeba to man, as proposed in the theory of evolution."

It is true that some of the time, a beneficial mutation does consist of a loss of information. For example, during the DNA replication process, part of a gene could fail to be copied, and this could deactivate a protein responsible for pigment color, with the end result being that the organism now blends in better with the background.
These creationists are correct that some of the time, evolution takes place when genetic information is lost. But they're mistaken when they claim that this is the only mechanism by which evolution can take place. On the contrary, there are several ways that mutation and evolution can increase the amount of genetic information.
—
One of these is through the duplication of genes: Due to a mistake in the DNA replication process, sometimes an additional copy will be made of a particular gene, and this change will be passed down to the offspring. Because the organism doesn't presently need two genes that do the same thing, this means that one of the genes is free to mutate and change in a way that could potentially benefit the organism. As we read in Genetic Analysis: An Integrated Approach,

". . . in a process called neofunctionalization, a mutation in one of the duplicates could provide a function not performed by the original gene. In rare cases where the new function provides a selective advantage, the gene can be maintained and become fixed in the population."
Source: p. 618, Genetic Analysis: An Integrated Approach, by Mark F. Sanders & John L. Bowman. 2012.

There are countless examples where precisely this process has occurred and been identified. We're going to look at several examples, but understand that this is just a tiny sampling.
As Brandon L. Logemon et al write in The Journal of Biological Chemistry,

"The copper transporter (Ctr) family of integral membrane proteins is ubiquitously found in eukaryotes and mediates the high-affinity transport of Cu+ across both the plasma membrane and endomembranes. While mammalian Ctr1 functions as a Cu+ transporter for Cu acquisition and is essential for embryonic development, a homologous protein, Ctr2, has been proposed to function as a low-affinity Cu transporter, a lysosomal Cu exporter, or a regulator of Ctr1 activity, but its functional and evolutionary relationship to Ctr1 is unclear. Here, we report on a biochemical, genetic, and phylogenetic comparison of metazoan Ctr1 and Ctr2, suggesting that Ctr2 arose over 550 million years ago as a result of a gene duplication event followed by a loss of Cu+ transport activity."

Nicholas Panchy et al provide dozens of further examples in The American Society of Plant Biologists. We're going to read the entire study together. I'm completely kidding, of course. I'm extremely joking. We'll just look at a few examples—although it is a fascinating paper.

"Some examples where neofunctionalization after duplication has likely contributed to duplicate retention include MADS box transcription factors involved in the evolution of novel floral structures, 4,5-dioxygenase and cytochrome P450 genes that contribute to pigment variation in Caryophyllales, and the recruitment of duplicated primary metabolite genes into specialized metabolite pathways.
. . . some specialized metabolic genes likely arose from neofunctionalized duplicates of primary metabolism genes, and further duplications of specialized metabolic genes have likely contributed to additional novel biochemical activities. In some cases, these duplicates are implicated in defense against herbivores and microbes as well as in attracting pollinators.
. . . a duplicated KNOX transcription factor has acquired a novel regulatory pattern that regulates leaf shape and aboveground architecture in plants. Finally, duplication can contribute to the interactions of plants with other organisms: the duplication of a receptor-like kinase gene originally involved in mycorrhizal symbiosis gave rise to the lysin motif receptor-like kinase SILYK10 in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum), which likely adopted a new role in nodulation with clear adaptive significance."

—
Not only does the duplication of individual genes or several genes increase information, but sometimes organisms undergo a wholesale duplication of their entire genome!—and sometimes, not only does this not kill them or harm them, but it actually confers evolutionary benefits.
Juan Carlos del Pozo and Elena Ramirez-Parra write the following in The Journal of Experimental Botany:

"Polyploidy is a common event in plants that involves the acquisition of more than two complete sets of chromosomes. . . . In spite of inconveniences derived from chromosomic rearrangement during polyploidization, natural plant polyploids species often exhibit improved growth vigour and adaptation to adverse environments, conferring evolutionary advantages. These advantages have also been incorporated into crop breeding programmes. Many tetraploid crops show increased stress tolerance, although the molecular mechanisms underlying these different adaptation abilities are poorly known."

Nicholas Panchy et al provide some specific examples:

". . . recent whole-genome duplications that have occurred in the lineages of several domesticated crop species, including wheat (Triticum aestivum), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum), and soybean (Glycine max), have contributed to important agronomic traits, such as grain quality, fruit shape, and flowering time."

Although more commonplace in plants, this process is not exclusive to plants. As we read in Molecular Genetics and Genomics,

"Whole-genome duplication (WGD) events have shaped the history of many evolutionary lineages. One such duplication has been implicated in the evolution of teleost fishes, by far the most species-rich vertebrate clade. After initial controversy, there is now solid evidence that such [an] event took place in the common ancestor of all extant teleosts. . . . Recent studies let us conclude that [teleost-specific whole-genome duplication] has been important in generating teleost complexity, but that more recent ecological adaptations only marginally related to TS-WGD might have even contributed more to diversification. It is likely, however, that TS-WGD provided teleosts with diversification potential that can become effective much later, such as during phases of environmental change."

To reiterate, this is only a smattering of the countless examples where these processes have taken place. Strangely enough, creationists apparently reject the idea that this disproves their argument. As Alcorn and Darnall put it,

"Mutations are thought to drive evolution, but they cannot increase information. Mutations can only change DNA by deleting, damaging, duplicating, or substituting already existing information."

I'm sorry, but if a gene or the entire genome gets duplicated, and if these duplicates diverge from the original genes and take on new functions which give the organism a survivalistic and reproductive advantage, this is clear example of mutation increasing genetic information in a manner that benefits the organism.
"Can you show me an example of mutation increasing information?"
"Yeah, here's an example of a general process by which this happens across the entire biological world."
"Those examples don't count!"
This is textbook special-pleading right here. Yes, actually those examples do count, because they demonstrate precisely what you're asking us to demonstrate. These examples also plainly refute the claim, made on Creation.com, that "selection involves getting rid of information," because as we've seen, selection can also involve duplicating and modifying, and thus, increasing information.
—
With that said, I do understand the point that gene duplication isn't enough to explain how we got from from the most primitive organisms with their very basic genome all the way to the rich diversity of life and genetic variation that we have today. Go far back enough and some of these genes must have originated on their own. So can the evolutionist provide examples of genes arising from scratch? Yes, actually, he can—or she, I suppose, in the interest of inclusivity. It is, 2018, after all: Get with the fucking times, you sexist!
As Emily Singer writes for QuantaMagazine.org,

"In 2006, [biologist David Begun] found some of the first evidence that genes could indeed pop into existence from noncoding DNA. He compared gene sequences from the standard laboratory fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, with other closely related fruit fly species. The different flies share the vast majority of their genomes. But Begun and collaborators found several genes that were present in only one or two species and not others, suggesting that these genes weren’t the progeny of existing ancestors. Begun proposed instead that random sequences of junk DNA in the fruit fly genome could mutate into functioning genes.
. . . his team came across the Pldi gene . . . The sequence is present in mice, rats and humans. In the latter two species, it remains silent, which means it’s not converted into RNA or protein. The DNA is active or transcribed into RNA only in mice, where it appears to be important — mice without it have slower sperm and smaller testicles.
The researchers were able to trace the series of mutations that converted the silent piece of noncoding DNA into an active gene. That work showed that the new gene is truly de novo and ruled out the alternative — that it belonged to an existing gene family and simply evolved beyond recognition.
Scientists have now catalogued a number of clear examples of de novo genes: A gene in yeast that determines whether it will reproduce sexually or asexually, a gene in flies and other two-winged insects that became essential for flight, and some genes found only in humans whose function remains tantalizingly unclear."

And as we read in The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences,

"De novo genes are usually defined as protein-coding genes that have evolved from scratch from previously non-coding DNA . . . There is now evidence that this mechanism has contributed a significant number of genes to genomes of organisms as diverse as Saccharomyces, Drosophila, Plasmodium, Arabidopisis and human. From simple beginnings, these genes have in some instances acquired complex structure, regulated expression and important functional roles.
. . . MDF1 is a de novo gene which is only found in S. cerevisiae. Li et al. conducted several careful experiments to demonstrate that this very new gene has a function in suppressing sexual reproduction by binding MATα2 in rich medium and thus promoting vegetative growth. More recently, it was shown that the link between nutrient availability and mating is mediated by MDF1 through its function in two distinct pathways. Thus, this novel gene has not only acquired functionality quite rapidly but has integrated into two central cellular processes."

And in case this strikes you as an extremely unlikely process, it's not like you'd just go, in one giant step—in a cascade of hundreds of the exactly-needed mutations happening all at once—from a strand of junk DNA to a perfectly functioning, complex protein. The researchers outline how this process would happen gradually and incrementally:

"Rather than an extremely rare occurrence, it is now evident that there is a relatively constant trickle of proto-genes released into the testing ground of natural selection. . . . evolutionary tinkering with this pool of genetic potential may have been a significant player in the origins of lineage-specific traits and adaptations.
. . . The earliest discoveries of de novo genes, though from very different lineages, all had one thing in common—the identified genes were short and simple. This observation led to the suggestion that the emergence of de novo genes should be a gradual process, and that these examples were neonates. In keeping with this, proto-genes gradually acquire traits characteristic of genes such as longer coding length, higher expression, cis-regulatory sequences, codon usage bias and purifying selection. Similarly, the encoded proteins get progressively integrated into cellular processes."

—
Now that we've demonstrated quite clearly that mutation can, in fact, increase genetic information, let's take a closer look at these creationist arguments and break down the many flaws in their logic. As Creation.com writes,

"[Mutations] are accidental mistakes as the genetic (DNA) information . . . is copied from one generation to the next. Naturally, such scrambling of information will often be harmful—thousands of hereditary diseases in people, for instance, are caused by just such inherited mutational defects."

Hang on a sec: aren't you the creationist here? Aren't you the ones that believe that human beings were created by a perfect being? Why would he create such disease-prone creatures? If he's all-powerful and all-knowing, presumably he knew when he created humans that many of them would suffer and die from these genetic defects, so why would he move forward with this faulty creation plan? Presumably that means he's either indifferent to our suffering or he wants us to suffer in this way—with neither option being compatible with the idea of a loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God.

"The examples commonly cited, e.g. peppered moths and the Galàpagos finches, are indeed examples of natural selection. But this is not evolution, since [no] new information has arisen."

What the hell are these people talking about? They seem to be using this weird definition of evolution where evolution is defined as the creation of new genetic information.
Not only is this simply not the definition of evolution—as anyone can learn by picking up a biology textbook—but it makes absolutely no sense as a definition of evolution. Mutation could create new genetic information that has zero impact on the phenotype or survival of the organism; perhaps a few extra nucleotides get inserted into a strand of junk DNA, for example. Alternatively, as they point out in their own article, sometimes evolution takes place as a result of information decreasing in the genome—if, for example, a protein gets inactivated and that changes the organism's coat color. So defining evolution as the creation of new genetic material is completely nonsensical—even according to their own silly and unscientific article.

"Given a pre-existing gene pool, different combinations of the genes arise through sexual reproduction and some of those may be better able to survive. So natural selection can account for the formation of different varieties, but cannot account for the origin of moths or finches"

First off, sexual reproduction is not the only mechanism of genetic variation; it's one of several, as anybody who knows anything about evolution will tell you.
And how do they know that "[no] new information has arisen"? The only way they could say that with certainty would be if they performed before-and-after genetic comparisons. But given that the diversity of Galapagos finches is something that Darwin observed over 150 years ago—far before the advent of genetic sequencing—this is not something that they could possibly demonstrate. They could make this claim with some degree of confidence if they compared the genomes of these finches to show that no replication appears to have occurred and no new genes have apparently arisen.
But clearly they've done none of these things. They're just assuming that they're correct; they're assuming that the evolution of these finches didn't involve new genetic information arising—even though it very well may have. Although this mindset might fly in your Sunday church service or during your visit to the creation museum, this is not how things work in science: You don't just blindly assume the truth of the claim that you're supposed to be proving; you collect evidence and run experiments to demonstrate the likely truth of that claim.

"natural selection can account for the formation of different varieties, but cannot account for the origin of moths or finches"

Actually it can do both. Gradual changes over time add up until, eventually, two populations

Debunking Christian Nonsense: Presuppositional Apologetics (Sye Ten Bruggencate)

Anton Dybal — Thu, 21 Jun 2018 20:28:53 +0000

Thumbnail Photos: TheThinkingAtheist/YouTube; Waiting For The Word/Flickr

A few years ago, Sye Ten Bruggencate debated Matt Dillahunty over the question of: "Is it reasonable to believe that God exists?" This was definitely not your traditional atheist vs. Christian debate, and that's because Sye is a presuppositional apologist. If you're not aware of what that means, boy are you in for a treat today—and by a treat, I mean reasons to bang your fucking head against the wall!
Presuppositional apologetics is a strand of religious argumentation that, at first glance, might seem confusing, intimidating, and perhaps even convincing. But when you break down the arguments and take a careful look at them, it becomes clear that there is just nothing to this line of reasoning.
—
In his opening remarks, Sye argued the following:

"You need to be able to know what's ultimately real to know what's true. I submit that you can't know what's ultimately real without revelation from God. How do I know what's real? The same way all of you do: Revelation from the God that all of you know exists. Christians profess that truth; professed atheists suppress it. You see, becoming a Christian is not a matter of going from unbelief to belief; it's a matter of going from suppressing the truth to professing it."

He claims that everybody, including atheists, know, deep down, that God exists, but I can tell you from first-hand experience that I don't actually know this. And I have a pretty good window into my own mind on this point, because if you weren't already aware, I am me. The very reason that I'm an atheist is because I don't think there's sufficient evidence to believe that a God exists. In announcing my disbelief, I'm suppressing God like I'm suppressing Santa Claus.
Could you imagine being audacious enough to claim that everybody who says they don't believe something actually does believe that thing? Sye is basically saying that he knows more about what you believe than you do—and this is absurd, because nobody knows better about the internal workings of your sick and twisted mind than you do. The only way Sye could reasonably make this claim would be if he was capable of reading minds, and although he does look like an alcoholic version of Professor X, this does not strike me as very likely.

"How do I know what's real? The same way all of you do: Revelation from the God that all of you know exists."

Really, so what Godly revelations have I overlooked lately? Was I just not paying attention when Jesus appeared before my eyes and said "What's up, bitch? I'm real." Come to think of it, not long ago, I do recall being in a trance-like state while feeling a warm, tingly sensation in body. Some call that The Holy Spirit; I call it smoking too much weed while playing videogames.
Another component of his argument is that we simply profess non-belief because we want to sin. As he so uneloquently puts it in his closing remarks:

"See that's your offer, that's the offer: Jesus Christ, or absurdity. But you'll probably walk out of here choosing absurdity because you love your sin."

Here's my question: If the punishment for professed non-belief and a life of sin is excruciating torture for an infinite period of time, what person would make the extremely irrational decision of saying "I'm going to put up with never-ending torture in the afterlife for a few decades of godless sin?"
This is a calculation that makes zero rational sense: 70, maybe 80 years of godless enjoyment verses an infinite period of torture? Not just a million years of torture, not just billions of years, but an infinite period of torture? If, as Sye asserts, we truly knew that a God existed and that hellfire awaits us—not just that we believed this or had a suspicion, but we truly, deep-down knew it more strongly than we know that the sky is blue—zero people would make the foolish decision to live a short, finite life of sin if the punishment for this that we knew awaited us was infinite torture. So from this, it follows that we're professing non-belief because we genuinely don't believe.
By analogy, imagine you're being held captive in a North Korean prison where cameras are watching you at every moment and your every movement is scrutinized. Your captors make very clear to you that if you attempt to steal food, they will torture you for years and then kill you, and the seriousness of this rule becomes plain to you when you see dozens of prisoners tortured and executed in front of you for this very violation.
According to Sye, here is what the atheist is doing: Despite clear, inward knowledge of their circumstances, not only are they deciding to steal food, but they're outwardly, verbally denying the very existence of the prison they're being held within as well as the existence of their captors and the punishments they mete out. This is not a decision that any person interested in avoiding torture or death would make if they truly knew that these would be the consequences of their decision. So it's ridiculous to argue that this is what the atheist is doing.
—

"No one becomes a Christian and says 'what do you know, there is a God.' You see, God doesn't send people to hell for denying what they don't know, but for their sin against the God they do know. Is it reasonable to believe that God exists? Yes, yes it is. Why? Because it's true that God exists, and denial of that claim reduces one's worldview to absurdity. Matt says that truth is that which comports with reality, he admits he can't know what's ultimately real, therefore, according to his worldview, he can't know anything to be true, and has zero basis for challenging my claim that it's reasonable to believe that God exists."

If this sounds like a bunch of incoherent nonsense to you, welcome to the world of presuppositional apologetics!
I think the reason he makes this argument—that atheists actually know that God exists—is, in part, because it's an attempt to rationalize what is the most plainly immoral Christian belief: that you will be tortured for eternity for not believing or doing the correct things—even if you didn't know any better and even if you were believing what you thought was most rational. I think that becomes clear when, later in the debate, Sye says the following:

"Matt: God makes it so that we all know he exists. What do you mean by know? Just that we're aware that God exists?
Sye: You have sufficient knowledge of God for your condemnation."

By claiming that we know that God actually does exist, this is a way to shift the blame of this extremely twisted system off of the God who presides over this system and onto the person who is the victim of this system. In Sye's view, hellfire is not a simple matter of disbelieving; it's the consequences of willful rejection.
But even if we granted that Sye was correct about this—that we truly do know that God exists and that we nonetheless reject him—this still wouldn't justify or suddenly make ethical a system of infinite torture in the afterlife. If there is one single argument that comes closest to completely refuting the idea of a Christian hell, it is this: There is no finite crime that can justify infinite punishment. Thus, the penalty of infinite torture for the finite crime of disobeying God's rules or wishes is simply incompatible with a just and moral God. Only a wicked monster would create and supervise a system like this.
Sye claims that denying God's existence reduces one's worldview to absurdity. Why? Apparently because without believing in a God, you can't know what's ultimately real, therefore you can't have absolute certainty that anything is true, and therefore you also can't challenge Sye's claim that a God exists. Here I think he's just clearly playing a word game that might seem intimidating on first glance, but doesn't survive a closer inspection.
Yes, the atheist can't say, for certain, that our experience is not actually the product of some Matrix-like simulation. This is the problem of hard solipsism that Matt concedes in the debate we can't solve. But within the universe that we perceive ourselves as experiencing, we can still do and believe rational and irrational things.
Ultimately, we might all be living in a simulation, but within this simulation, if I smash my hand with a hammer, I'm going to be in excruciating pain. So there are still consequences for our actions, and there are still reasonable and unreasonable decisions. Nobody is ever going to say: "Well, I can't say for certain that we're not living in a simulation, so maybe I should just slam my fucking car into a brick wall and see what happens?"
The same could be said about beliefs: Within the simulation, it's reasonable to believe that the sun is at the center of our solar system, and it's appropriate to describe this as a fact. And within the simulation, it could be unreasonable to believe that a God exists, so Sye is simply mistaken when he claims that the atheist "has zero basis for challenging [his] claim that it's reasonable to believe that God exists."
Sye claims that "You need to be able to know what's ultimately real to know what's true." This is something that I would reject. Within the universe as we experience it, it is true to say that the sun is at the center of our solar system. Perhaps we can't know, with absolute certainty, that our solar system indeed does exist as we experience it—and perhaps our entire perception of the solar system is just the product of computer programming or electrical stimulation of our captive brains—but just because you can't be absolutely certain about beliefs doesn't mean that these beliefs are therefore unreasonable and doesn't make them false.
"Well, as you can see here in this research we've published, the new drug causes tumors to shrink by over 50%."
"Oh yeah? Well can you prove that we're not all living in a simulation? Haha! Therefore you can't say it's true that the drug actually has this effect!"
How do you think these researchers would react here?: "Great point, sir!", or "Who let the crazy person into the press conference?" Nobody operates like this or thinks like this in their daily lives, and it would be ludicrous if they did.
I'm just imagining Sye getting pulled over for speeding, and as the cop's writing him a ticket, he's trying to argue his way out of it by saying things like: "You say I was speeding: How do you even know that the world exists? What if we're all just brains in a vat and me speeding is merely an illusion? Maybe you're just writing me this ticket because you love your sin?"
And the cop's like: "Sir, please just put your pants back on."
The final thing I'll say on this point is: perhaps it is possible that we're living in a simulation. But the thing is, there's no convincing evidence that we are, so it makes sense to operate as if the universe we experience is the universe that exists and to make decisions and adopt beliefs in accordance with the way that this universe is.
—

"Matt agrees that his view on logic is the result of the chemical reactions in his brain. I mean would you come here today and listen to a debate, it was a bottle of Dr. Pepper arguing against a bottle of Mountain Dew: You shake them up and you open them and they start to fizz. Which of those fizzes would be true? Neither. It's just fizz."

Well I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the inner workings of our complex brain is not the same thing as fizz from a bottle of soda. Fizz is not capable of thinking, perceiving, or using language to communicate and express ideas; our brains are. If this is the kind of junky comparison that you're seriously making, I question whether your brain has genuinely been replaced by a bottle of Dr. Pepper!

"If Matt's worldview is true, then our brains are just evolved meat machines, and our thoughts are the byproduct of the chemical reactions in our evolved brains. It's brain barf. He would be fizzing atheistically, I'm fizzing theistically, and you wanna know which one of those is true? You can't get truth from that."

Yes, our brains have been evolved, and our thoughts are the product of these evolved brains. Is this supposed to be some kind of clever point of refutation? Because all you're doing is stating the obvious. Being the product of evolution doesn't somehow make all of our thoughts non-rational or untrustworthy. If I tell you that Sye's arguments make me want to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, the fact that my brain is the product of evolution doesn't make that a false statement.
Why would evolution necessarily create untrustworthy, irrational brains? In order to allow the species to survive, presumably these brains would have to be functioning pretty adequately! And I see no reason why divine creation would be a guarantee of cognitive perfection. Spend five minutes listening to some televangelist babble, and that's all the proof you need that God made some serious mistakes when creating the human brain! Couldn't a God create imperfect brains? What if he just half-assed it because he wasn't that interested? What if he did a crappy job just because he thought it'd be funny to see the results?
—

"Debates presuppose truth. Matt says truth is that which corresponds to reality. Matt admits he can't know what's real. Everything he says so far is borrowing from my worldview. You can't know anything to be true unless you start with God. Everyone here knows that God exists."

"Everything he says so far is borrowing from my worldview." Really? So when I say that the Bible is a work of ridiculous fiction, I'm actually borrowing from a worldview grounded within that work of ridiculous fiction? Please explain to me how that works.
It'd be like if a scientist published a study, other scientists pointed out the many flaws in his research and reasoning, and the scientist responded by saying "In order to even reject the findings of my study, you must first actually accept the findings of my study." It's just a word-game and it's completely nonsensical. It's almost as if the goal of presuppositional apologetics is to get people so confused that they start believing in God. It reminds me of the ontological argument in that sense.

"You can't know anything to be true unless you start with God."

The problem is that he's using this weird definition of truth, where things can only be described as true if you are absolutely certain about them. Given the potential that some kind of Grand Deceiver might exist, we can't be absolutely certain about anything, so this is a foolish standard to have. If we use a less restrictive definition of truth, we actually can know many things to be true, and therefore our worldview does not reduce to absurdity.
But even if the atheistic worldview did reduce to absurdity, this wouldn't make it inaccurate, nor would prove that a God necessarily exists. As Matt pointed out in the debate, this is simply an appeal to consequences.
Sye brings up these abstract, esoteric, philosophical difficulties like the problem of hard solipsism, whether we can ever really say that we know something to be true, and he's like "Haha, you can't solve these difficulties." So what? What if we can't solve some of these difficulties? Maybe we just live in a godless universe where certain philosophical questions are fundamentally unresolvable?
I also don't see how appealing to a God solves anything here. He points out that the atheist can't solve the problem of hard solipsism, but apparently, what, the theist can? An audience member asks him to provide his disproof of hard solipsism, and his answer is far from convincing:

"Questioner: What is your disproof [of hard solipsism]?
Sye: Revelation from God."

Really, revelation from God. So how does this process work? When you're sitting in front of the fireplace late at night, does God softly whisper into your ear that we're not all brains in a vat and does he assure you that we're not living in a Matrix-like simulation? What if he's lying to you? What if you're being deceived by God? Or what if it's actually Satan presenting himself to you as God? How could you reliably distinguish between the two?
What if you're not actually receiving a revelation from God, but you're just hallucinating? Plenty of insane people over the years have claimed that God was speaking to them; do we also trust the first-hand godly encounters of the serial killer? And if not, on what grounds do you reject their religious testimony while claiming yours is genuine? Couldn't they claim the exact opposite: that theirs is genuine and yours is the fake one? There is no testable, reliable way to verify these first-person religious experiences, so there's no good reason to trust them—especially if you're a third party who's simply being told about another person's alleged experience.
And how could appealing to God possibly solve the problem of hard solipsism? If we were living in a simulation, couldn't the simulators just simulate the experience of a God communicating with you? Couldn't it be built into the simulation that a God comes to you and says "you're not in a simulation" in a manner that feels very convincing to you? The appeal to God in this case solves absolutely nothing.
Sye purports to have a way out of these difficulties, however: according to him, God has revealed things to him in a way that he can be certain.

"Matt: You've said that God reveals things to you in such a way that you can be certain. . . . How does that work?
Sye: That would be a very good question if you could know that you're not a brain in a vat. . . ."

So he completely dodges the question, prompting Matt to ask once again:

"Matt: How is it possible for God to reveal things to you in such a way that you can be certain?
Sye: Because he's God. God can do that."

You'll be shocked to hear that I'm not convinced by this. He claims that he's certain, but merely professing certainly doesn't mean that these alleged revelations are actually genuine. How strongly a person believes something is not a measurement of how true that thing is. You can find plenty of people who will express to you how certain they are that they were abducted by aliens; should we therefore believe them?
And again, I'm sure that the crazed, religious serial killer would also claim certainty that God is communicating with him. Why don't Sye and I take a trip down to the insane asylum sometime and have a nice chat with a straitjacket-wearing lunatic in a padded cell to hear all about his profound revelations from Jesus Christ?
Plenty of Muslims or members of other religions completely at odds with Christianity would also claim the same things about their God—and presumably Sye would reject these testimonies, but if all we're doing is making unsubstantiated assertions, on what grounds would he do so, and how is the impartial observer expected to distinguish between these contradictory testimonies?
Sye claims that he is certain about the authenticity of God's revelations to him; ok, and I can claim certainty that he's full of shit. So now what? He says "Aha! But I have God on my side!" Ok, and what if someone says "I also have God on my side, and he tells me that you're extra wrong!" Appealing to God in this way doesn't get us anywhere and it doesn't actually solve any of the difficulties that Sye claims it does.
We may all be brains in vats, but that shouldn't stop you from supporting me on Patreon!

Subscribe

Sign up to receive an e-mail when new content is posted!

Email Address

Wow! What a shockingly ignorant series of statements. By the way, does anybody remember—right after the election—Dave Rubin saying he was going to be the first one to hold Trump's feet to the fire? If by hold his feet to the fire you meant stick his balls in your mouth, then yeah, dude, you're doing a great job of that.

"Do you have any sense that we're going to get in some intractable war in the Middle East [under Trump] to nation build?"

Dude, the United States is presently involved in at least 7 different wars—and I don't see Trump making any Herculean efforts to stop the drone strikes and bring the troops home. As we read in a ForeignPolicy.com article, "Under Trump, the United States has dropped about 20,650 bombs through July 31, [2017]." And the organization AirWars reports that "In [Donald Trump's] first 7 months as President, we tracked 1,196 alleged incidents in which we assess at least 2,819-4,529 civilians died." We spend more on military than the next 7 highest-spending nations combined—and this spending has only increased under Trump. Any portrayal of Trump as some sort of foreign policy dove is pure fantasy.

"Trump is cutting a ton of regulation and doing a lot of state's rights stuff."

Trump is cutting a ton of regulation, and Dave frames it like that's necessarily a good thing. How about his slashing of key environmental regulations? What person who's not a coal or oil executive could possibly support such policies? Let's just look at a few examples from National Geographic.

"President Trump signs a joint resolution passed by Congress revoking the U.S. Department of the Interior’s 'Stream Protection Rule.' That rule, finalized shortly before President Obama left office, placed stricter restrictions on dumping mining waste into surrounding waterways.
. . . EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced that the U.S. government would revisit the Obama administration's fuel efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks—the first step in a rollback of one of the U.S.'s biggest efforts to curb carbon emissions. . . . Under Obama-era policy, cars and light-duty trucks would be required to have average fuel efficiencies equivalent to 54.5 miles per gallon by model year 2025.
. . . In its FY2019 budget and addendum, the Trump administration has proposed sweeping rollbacks to U.S. programs designed to study and mitigate the effects of climate change, as well as cuts to research on renewable energy.
. . . the Trump EPA has dropped 'once in, always in' (OIAI), a Clinton-era EPA policy that aimed to lock in reductions of hazardous air pollution from industrial sources."

Yeah! Take that, burdensome regulation! The Trump administration has also eliminated financial regulations that were put in place to minimize the risk of economic collapse? As CNBC reports,

"President Donald Trump on Thursday is set to sign into law the most significant rollbacks to financial regulations since the financial crisis. . . . [The legislation] removes certain checks on financial institutions designed to help spot future crises, among other changes."

And as The New York Times reports,

"He also signed a memorandum that paves the way for reversing a policy, known as the fiduciary rule, that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice."

This idea that libertarians have that less regulation is synonymous with better policy is simply not accurate. These regulatory rollbacks under Trump will increase water pollution, air pollution, increase greenhouse gas emissions, cut research on clean energy, and make it more likely that an economic collapse will occur. These are not policy changes that we should be gushing about.
I'm open to the idea that certain regulations are needlessly excessive and should be eliminated, but this careless approach that libertarians take—oh, excuse me, that classical liberals take—where they just advocate the broad-spectrum cutting of unnamed, unspecified regulations is lazy thinking and foolish policy. If Dave Rubin could name, off the top of his head, 3 specific regulations presently on the books that we should eliminate, I would be genuinely impressed.
"Let's cut regulations"—What about regulations on meat factories? Should we just let them have whatever cleanliness and safety standards they care enough to implement? How will the majesty of the free market alleviate my food poisoning or E. coli infection?
What about regulations on the quality of drinking water? Should we also eliminate these and hope that the water is somehow magically purified by the invisible hand of the market? How about pharmaceutical regulations? Let's just let any company sell anything they like and make whatever claims they choose to without any sort of standards or verification process? Sounds like a fucking terrible idea!

"But don't you think things are basically going pretty well right now? . . . Remove the Twitter hysteria . . . In terms of what's happening in the country right now—black and latino unemployment all time low, economy's chugging along—like, the basic things that matter for a society are working. That's pretty good!"

He's basically just regurgitating Fox News talking points right here. Black and latino unemployment is very low—are Trump's policies necessarily responsible for this? And how many of these jobs pay meager wages and offer no benefits? Unemployment is such an inadequate metric because it doesn't capture the quality of these jobs. It's also worth noting that since the 1970s, productivity has been steadily increasing, but throughout this same period, wage growth has been largely stagnant—for almost 50 years.
"The economy's chugging along", Dave tells us—yeah, it is true that the stock market is doing great. And the richest 10% of Americans own 84% of all stocks, so this is largely an indicator of how upper-class investments are doing. Meanwhile, 40% of Americans would not be able to afford an unexpected $400 expense.
Dave's ignorance is on full display when he claims that "The basic things that matter for a society are working." We spend almost twice the OECD average on health care in the United States. Millions lack access to health care in this country—a trend that's only increasing under Trump. A study published in the American Journal of Public Health found that 45,000 Americans die each year due to their lack of health coverage.
The American Society of Civil Engineers rates our infrastructure a D+. Hundreds of thousands of Americans get arrested and oftentimes jailed for victimless drug crimes—a trend that Trump and Jeff Sessions are accelerating. Net neutrality just got repealed under Donald Trump. We have an extremely corrupt political system—something that the Trump administration of Wall Street banking executives and billionaires sure as hell won't put a stop to.
The list of serious problems this country is facing is virtually endless. To say that under Trump, "the basic things that matter for a society are working" is a stunningly ignorant statement. This guy must be talking about a different country than the one that I live in, because if not, he is completely fucking clueless.
—
I want to take a closer look at what kind of a society we would live in if we went along with Dave Rubin's deregulatory vision. In the context of talking about why government regulation is unnecessary, he cites the example of building codes, and Joe Rogan does a great job of completely shutting him down here. It's kind of a long exchange—and I'll be jumping in from time to time to provide my brilliant, world-famous commentary—but it's worth showing in its entirety to see just how poorly Dave handles counter-arguments made against his position. On top of that, I think Joe just makes some very solid points here.

"Dave: Everything you're building here right now, do you want the government to tell you how to do all these things, and all the regulations that you gotta have your electric thing this far from this...?
Joe: Regulations like that for construction are important, though. You do have to make sure that people don't do stupid shit. Make sure you don't have a power line that's near a water line.
Dave: But I would put most of that on the builders, though: They wanna build things that are good.
Joe: Oh, that's not true! Listen, people cut corners all the time. You have to have regulations when it comes to construction methods or people are gonna get fucked.
Dave: They cut corners when there are regulations anyway.
Joe: They do, they would cut a lot more if there weren't regulations. You go to third world countries and look at construction methods, they're fucking dangerous. That's why schools collapse on kids in foreign countries sometimes.
Dave: I'm not telling you that I'm against all regulation, period."

Let me just pause here to point out that building codes were his chosen example of where government regulation is unnecessary. Joe Rogan points out that these particular regulations are actually very important, and he's like, "Ahh, I'm not against all regulation!" Yeah, but 30 seconds ago you just made pretty damn clear that this specific set of regulations is one that you're opposed to, so which one is it?

"Dave: . . . Intellectually, I like that argument, because I think you can make a very sound argument that competition would force people to do better work. If you're a plumber, you have a vested interest in doing the best plumbing job you can so that people will rate you on Yelp so that you will get more work. You don't have a vested interest in cutting corners. Now you might, right? You're gonna push it as much as you can to save as much time and energy and money as you can. But once you go over that edge, yeah, you don't wanna be known as the guy that, uh, you tighten something too much and flooded the house.
Joe: You're thinking logically, though. When people fuck things up and short things and do things terribly, they're not thinking logically.
Dave: But I don't think it's the government that they're like, 'Ah, the government gave me this regulation so that's why I'm gonna do it right.'"

Are you kidding me? Is he seriously arguing that regulations don't motivate good building practices? 'Ah, the government gave me this regulation so that's why I'm gonna do it right.' Yeah, because if you don't, you could lose your license, you'll have to pay stiff fines, you might even go to jail. This is a pretty clear and powerful incentive to do things by the book.
And who needs regulation when the consumers can just depend upon Yelp reviews? YELP REVIEWS! Can you believe you're hearing this shit? This is a serious political philosophy that this man is espousing right now. Let's humor him and hop inside the clown car with him by exploring the logistics of how a system like this would work.
If, instead of certifying electricians, we instead just relied on Yelp reviews, wouldn't this massively bias the system in favor of established electricians and against newcomers? If you decide that you want to get into this business, and you haven't yet had any clients who have rated you on Yelp, if Yelp reviews are the metric by which we assess the quality of an electrician, why would anybody hire the guy with no reviews?
In a system where electricians recieve certification which demonstrates that they're knowledgeable about the National Electric Code and similiar such regulations, even if they have no Yelp reviews, their certification is a guarantee of some level of competency, so people just getting into this business won't have that insurmountable barrier of zero Yelp reviews.
And could you think of any more ridiculous of a system than this? Let's depend upon Yelp reviews? Because, ya know, those are just notoriously accurate to a very high degree of precision. What would prevent businesses from gaming the system and paying people to put up fake reviews to inflate their apparent proficiency?
And how far would we take this mentality? Why just stop at plumbers and electricians? Why not do the same for brain surgeons? "Well, sir, looks like you have a brain tumor and we need to operate immediately. I guess now would be the best time to check Yelp to see who's the best person to cut your skull open and remove portions of your brain." Could you imagine living in such an absurd world?

“Dave: But I don't think it's the government that they're like, 'Ah, the government gave me this regulation so that's why I'm gonna do it right.'
Joe: Well, if they didn't have any regulations, there'd be no incentive whatsoever to do it right.
Dave: No, there would be an incentive!
Joe: If they knew there were no inspectors, no one was gonna check their stuff and make sure that their stuff was up to code... Listen, man, I was in construction my whole life. My dad was an architect. I've been in construction since I was a little kid. You fuckin' need regulations. These guys, a lot of people that are in construction, they'll do whatever the fuck they can to make money, and it's not good for the people that have the house because they might have that house for 5, 10 years before that problem manifests itself. The people who are establishing these codes are licensed builders or people that have been involved in construction for a long fuckin' time and they know what's safe and what's not safe. That's why those codes exist. It exists to protect the consumers.
You can't just protect the consumers through the marketplace, because it takes a long times for these problems to become a real issue. And these problems could potentially damage everybody in the neighborhood: it's not just gonna affect the person on this one lot, like if a fire starts, it burns all the houses in the neighborhood, or if a flood happens, and it floods everyone downhill. It's a real problem, and you have to be real careful with construction.
Dave: Absolutely, I get it. And my dad wasn't in construction so I'm not privy to all of that little stuff. But I genuinely believe that, at a general level, people have a vested interest in—especially now, because of phones and apps and Yelp and all of that—doing good work because that's how you will get more work.
Joe: I agree.
Dave: You're never gonna remove the people who will do shoddy, shitty malicious shit.
Joe: But you can keep them at bay with regulation. Educated regulation.
Dave: So this is where I'd say you can have some regulation.
Joe: Educated regulation: People who actually understand what's going on, and make sure someone doesn't do something stupid with a powerline, or someone do something stupid with the way they constructed main beams where they're just subject to collapse. That's important, because most people buying a house don't know what the fuck they're looking for. Most people getting a house built, they have no idea about construction methods. They need someone to inspect things and make sure that it's up to code. That's why code exists. It's very important.
Dave: Yeah. So I'm not totally with you on that. I think most of it—probably 90% of it—would be: Who has the most vested interest to build a good house? It's the builder, because he wants more work. He doesn't want the house to collapse, because then he'll be out of work."

People have an incentive in doing good work, and that's why we shouldn't worry about these problems—here we see how childishly naive and idealistic libertarianism is. "Remove all regulation and businesses will still provide safe, clean, great-quality services and products because that will boost their reputation in the community!" This is a fairy-tale right here, where everybody holds hands and skips off into the sunset trying to produce the best-quality product that they possibly can. This is straight out of Ayn Rand comic book or something.
Remove all regulation and businesses will cut costs in every way that they can to maximize profits. Sure, they need to meet some minimal standards so people aren't immediately outraged at the terrible job they've done, but compared to what's guaranteed under regulation, the end-result will without a doubt be sub-standard.
In a system without regulation, you could build a house that won't immediately fall over, and thus, will appear, on the surface, to be acceptable to its residents. And they might even leave a positive review on Yelp! Yet if there are no regulations on how to build this house, perhaps five years down the line when a mild earthquake hits, the house will collapse and kill you—something that wouldn't have happened if there were regulations the builder was forced to adhere to. But since problems like this take years to materialize, this is several years where this company could have been constructing similarly shoddy houses, leaving dozens, perhaps hundreds of people in unsafe living conditions—all while these people mistakenly believed that the company was providing good-quality housing.
And it's also not so binary, like either the builder wants the house to collapse or he doesn't. You could build a house that won't collapse, that's sturdy enough to stay standing, but that's still a shitty house. For example, you could skimp on the insulation to save money and it could be freezing during the winter and brutally hot during the summer. So he's being way too simplistic in his thinking here.

"Joe: But I'm telling you, man. These guys are jerkoffs! There's a lot of them that are jerkoffs!
Dave: So construction may be a specific thing.
Joe: It's a dangerous thing, too, because it's where you sleep, it's where your kids sleep. I think there's a lot of idealistic notions about dereg

Debunking: "Global Warming Is GOOD For Us & The Environment!"

Anton Dybal — Fri, 08 Jun 2018 23:37:12 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Avtar Kamani/Pixabay; Gage Skidmore/Flickr

You'll sometimes hear it argued that, contrary to what so-called climate-change alarmists will tell us, global warming is actually going to be good—for humans and for the environment at large. Here, I'm going to point out the many flaws in these kinds of arguments, and I'm also going to examine the many harms that result from global warming to see how they stack up against whatever benefits might emerge.
—
One example of this argument comes to us in an article written by Tim Worstall entitled: "Global warming: It's GOOD for the environment," subtitled "Don't forget: CO2 is PLANT FOOD." As he writes,

"Climate change, this global warming thing, it's going to mean that the tropical forests frazzle up and then we all die, right? It will [mean] the death of the 'lungs of the planet' – such as the miles upon miles of Amazon jungle – which turn CO2 into the O2 that we inhale. . . . CO2 is . . . plant food and more plant food means more plants, more forests and thus we're all saved: or perhaps not quite as screwed as some seem to think at least. . . . These burgeoning forests will then rather neatly lock up in the biosphere all that extra carbon that we have been releasing into the atmosphere. Or some of it."

Before we deal with the claims about CO2 and plant growth, I would start out by asking: what climatologists or biologists are making the argument that global warming means the death of tropical forests, and therefore the death of all of us? Ah yes, come to think of it, I see it right here in the latest IPCC report, in the section entitled: "Shit your pants and have a panic attack!"
He doesn't quote any scientist or piece of research that actually makes this argument—and it's certainly not one that I've ever heard before—which leads me to believe that he's just setting up a strawman here to attack, and he's thus arguing against a position that nobody actually holds.
On top of that, there's a glaring problem with this line of reasoning that's explained in Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record by Bruce Lieberman and Roger Kaesler:

"One might predict that all things being equal, the rising CO2 levels should engender increasing plant activity which will partly act to counterbalance this; thus, we have less to fear from the effects of our own species on Earth's climate. Unfortunately, these hopes are dashed because of another major negative impact our species is having on the planet: everyday thousands, maybe even tens of thousands of acres of land are cleared due to suburbanization and deforestation. . . . We are thus removing some of the important forces that serve to counterbalance temperature change and buffer the climate system."
Source: p. 233–234, Prehistoric Life: Evolution and the Fossil Record, by Bruce S. Lieberman and Roger Kaesler. 2010.

Worstall's argument completely fails to take into account the role of humans in deforesting the planet, and when this is added into the picture, what impact plants will have on mitigating rising CO2 and temperature levels becomes a much more open question.
And if it really was this simple and truly would work this way—if the increased growth of plants truly would not just act like a buffer, but cause CO2 and temperature levels to flatline—wouldn't climatologists account for this in their models and predictions? Or are the people who study this for a living so foolish and absent-minded that they've just never even considered this possibility and this brilliant guy in his 5-paragraph article is the first one that figured it out? The scientists over at the IPCC read his article and they're like "Fuck! Why didn't we think of that!" Not very likely, in my opinion.

His argument also fails to take into consideration one very obvious fact: temperatures and CO2 levels are steadily increasing. As we can see here in this graph, since 1860, CO2 levels have increased from about 300 to 400ppm. Over the same time period, temperature has increased about 1°C and continues to climb. Tree growth doesn't happen overnight, but if Worstall's hypothesis was correct, hasn't enough time passed since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution that we would start to see some sort of a plateau in both CO2 levels and temperatures? The data reflects nothing of the sort, and if the observations flatly contradict your hypothesis, that's a pretty good sign that there is something wrong with your hypothesis.
To be fair, he does leave himself a back door to slip out of when he says that at least some of this CO2 will be captured by plants—not necessarily all of it. Yes, undoubtedly some will—but the data makes clear that not nearly enough is being captured to offset the steady increase that we're seeing.
And the plant response to increased temperatures and CO2 levels isn't actually as straightforward as he makes it out to be. We'll explore this in more detail later in the video, but for now, here's just one example of this from Campbell Biology:

"Scientists are concerned that increasing CO2 concentration and temperature may affect C3 and C4 plants differently, thus changing the relative abundance of these species in a given plant community. . . . In different regions, the particular combination of these . . . factors is likely to alter the balance of C3 and C4 plants in varying ways. The effects of such a widespread and variable change in community structure are unpredictable and thus a cause of legitimate concern."
Source: p. 201, Campbell Biology, Ninth Edition. Jane B. Reece et al. 2010.

So we might be tempted to grant that—of the plants that won't be chopped down—growth all around the board will increase, yet it's not quite as simple as this: The effects of increasing CO2 and temperature levels could arguably disrupt ecosystems by changing the balance of which plants flourish in particular regions. Maybe this disruption will be mild and won't have much of an impact, but it's at least something to consider.
But let's set that aside and say: fine, CO2 levels and temperatures are still increasing, as the data make clear, but plant growth is also going to increase and that's great for the environment. Indeed, as we read in a 2016 NASA article,

"From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide"

When it comes to global warming, this is not the end of the analysis, however, because there are still all kinds of other harms resulting from climate change. It's not enough to just look at one benefit and call it a day; any serious analysis would compare the pros of climate change against the cons—and not just view one in isolation like Worstall does before reaching such a large conclusion.
I guess there is an additional benefit here that we shouldn't overlook: This tree growth might become so abundant that Tim Worstall actually gets lost in the woods and we never again have to read one of his articles!
—
We see more arguments like this being made in a PragerU video entitled "The Truth About CO2." By the way, as a rule of thumb, whenever PragerU purports to be telling you the truth about something, there's a very good chance that they're actually doing the exact opposite. In this particular video, Patrick Moore argues the following:

"All life is carbon based, and the carbon for all that life originates from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. All of the carbon in the fossil fuels we are burning for energy today was once in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide before it was consumed by plankton in the sea and plants on the land. Coal, oil, and natural gas are the remains of those plankton and plants that have been transformed by heat and pressure deep in the earth's crust. In other words, fossil fuels are 100% organic, and were produced with solar energy. Sounds positively green!"

Could this guy possibly sound any less interested in what he's talking about? It's like they put a gun to his head and said "Sound as boring as you possibly can!"
This is just a silly argument right here. He points out that fossil fuels are "100% organic". If by organic, he means the strictly chemistry-based definition "containing carbon," why should this have any relevance? The poison cyanide is technically organic; does that mean we should stir it into our morning coffee?
Or if by organic, he means organic in the sense that certain fruits and vegetables are organic, then this is just a word game that he's playing. Many people view the term "organic" in the context of foods as synonymous with "healthy, good for us," and so forth, but that doesn't mean that everything that's plant-based is necessarily healthy. The poison hemlock comes from a plant; since it's 100% organic, does that mean it's good for us? I don't think so.
Yes, fossil fuels were originally produced by solar energy; that doesn't mean that they don't cause environmental harm. To describe these greenhouse gas– and pollution-emitting fuels as "green" is flat nonsense, because "green" means good for the environment; fossil fuels are the exact opposite of that. This is the kind of brazen propaganda that even oil companies would be ashamed to push. This argument is right up there with Donald Trump talking about "beautiful, clean coal." These people are living in a fantasyland, where the price of admission is the surrender of your critical faculties.
Moore goes on to argue the following:

"If there were no carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere, the Earth would be a dead planet—period. Talk about catastrophic climate change! Take away CO2, and you'd have it. And yet the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has deemed this essential ingredient for life a pollutant! But how can something that makes life possible be bad?"

Yes, some greenhouse gases are good for the planet, because it warms it to an appropriate level for liquid water and the life that exists here. However, unless Al Gore has gone completely mad, nobody is calling for the complete removal of all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. And just as there's such a thing as to little a concentration of greenhouse gases, there's obviously such a thing as too high a concentration. If we jacked up the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere by a thousand times, the temperature on the planet would skyrocket and virtually all life on earth would quickly become extinct.
"How can something that makes life possible be bad?" Water makes life possible; you can also drown in water. Oxygen makes aerobic life possible; if humans breathe too high a concentration of oxygen, however, they'll soon develop irreversible lung damage and they might even die. The sun makes life on earth possible; move our planet a hundred times closer to the sun, however, and it will quickly become a scorching-hot, inhospitable wasteland for virtually all of the life that used to exist here. We could go on and on in this manner until we get so bored that we start to sound like Patrick Moore!
Yes, the appropriate amount of something can cause life to flourish; an excess of that same thing, however, can cause it to quickly die out. This is something that Moore concedes, in principle, but he rejects the idea that CO2 today is anywhere near that level:

"Can you have too much of it [carbon dioxide]? In theory, yes. That's what climate alarmists say is happening now: CO2 levels are getting too high. Are they right? Well, if we look at the big picture, we find something surprising: For most of the history of life on earth, carbon dioxide has been present in the atmosphere at much higher levels than it is today. During the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular life first came on the scene, CO2 levels were as much as 10x higher than they are today. From a big-picture perspective, we're actually living in a low carbon-dioxide era."

Yes, CO2 levels have been higher in the past, but the organisms that lived back then were adapted to these higher levels. And as we can see in this graph produced by Alpine Analytics, when the levels fluctuated over time, for the most part, this happened relatively gradually—at least over a period of several thousand years, if not much longer.

Compare CO2 fluctuations from the recent past with what's happening today: as we can see in this graph provided by NASA, contemporary CO2 increases are depicted as a virtually straight, upward line—and this isn't just because they ran out of horizontal space on their graph.

On a geological timescale, what's happening today is happening almost instantaneously, and it's therefore going to be very difficult for much of life on Earth to adapt rapidly enough to withstand the accompanying environmental and temperature changes.
—
Moore then goes on to make that same argument we saw earlier: that increased CO2 levels will boost plant growth. As I already noted, it's not reasonable to just cherrypick one potential benefit of climate change and conclude that therefore there's nothing to worry about. Plant growth is not the only barometer of environmental health, and global warming is going to negatively impact the environment in a variety of different ways. In fact, this isn't just something that's going to happen in the distant future; many of these things are already happening as we speak.
Let's start off by taking a look at the impact global warming will have—and is having—on the oceans. As we read in the 2014 National Climate Assessment report,

"As human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) build up in the atmosphere, excess CO2 is dissolving into the oceans where it reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, lowering ocean pH levels ('acidification') and threatening a number of marine ecosystems.
The acidification of the oceans has already caused a suppression of carbonate ion concentrations that are critical for marine calcifying animals such as corals, zooplankton, and shellfish. Many of these animals form the foundation of the marine food web. Today, more than a billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Ocean acidification puts this important resource at risk."

And here we see photos from the report which compare a healthy shell in normal waters to an unhealthy shell in acidic waters, and the contrast is startling.

In addition to carbon dioxide–induced ocean acidification, there's also the impact of oceanic temperature increases. As we read in The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, Evolution, and Ecology,

"Reef-building (hermatypic) corals generally exist in water close to their upper thermal limits. Increases of only a few degrees cause coral bleaching (loss of symbiotic algae) and death. Strong El-Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events in 1982–83 and 1998 killed 50–100% of the corals in many areas, often as a result of average temperature rises of no more than a degree. As the corals died, algae spread and covered all surfaces, followed by erosion and physical collapse of the limestone. These alterations to the basic, underlying biological and physical structure of the reef have had far-reaching impacts on the fish assemblages. Where coral death exceeded 10%, more than 60% of fish species declined in abundance, with losses strongest among species that relied on live coral for food and shelter."
Source: p. 616, The Diversity of Fishes: Biology, Evolution and Ecology, by Gene S. Helfman et al. 2009.

And here we see an example of some bleached corals.

Here's another, even more disturbing example. Notice the stark absence of the vibrant marine life that we're used to seeing around coral reefs.

Coral bleaching is not something that's just going to happen in one or two little unlucky locations around the globe. As we read in Global Climate Change,

"Coral bleaching in conjunction with other factors, including the decrease in seawater pH . . . may cause irreparable damage to 40% of the reefs during the next few decades."
Source: p. 146, Global Climate Change, by Arnold J. Bloom. 2010.

Take a look at this map which shows the projected frequency of coral reef bleaching events in the 2030s and 2050s.

Anton Dybal — Tue, 29 May 2018 15:49:11 +0000

Thumbnail photos: C-SPAN/C-SPAN; cwizner/Pixabay

The idea that a few exceptionally cold or snowy days disprove or count as evidence against global warming seems like such a painfully idiotic argument that even a developing fetus could explain what's wrong with it. Yet every time there's some sort of unseasonal snow-storm or record-breaking cold day, climate-change deniers invariably crawl out of the woodwork to make this argument, whether they're just random people on the internet or some of the highest elected officials in the United States.
In addition to explaining here what's wrong with these kinds of arguments, I'm also going to point out how global warming can actually exacerbate certain cold-weather events. And, finally, I'm going to break down and refute some arguments made by a climate change denier on subjects like Arctic sea ice, Al Gore, and so forth.
—
Let's start off by looking at some examples of this argument being made. The renowned non-climatologist Donald Trump, who unfortunately is our current president, wrote the following on Twitter in February of 2014:

"A big part of the country, even the southern states, is under massive attack from snow and freezing cold. Global warming anyone?"

My goodness: Snow and freezing weather in February? That is just completely unheard of!
In December 2013, he wrote that:

"Denver, Minnesota and others are bracing for some of the coldest weather on record. What are the global warming geniuses saying about this?"

And, as a final example, in July of 2014 he wrote:

"Record cold temperatures in July - 20 to 30 degrees colder than normal. What the hell happened to GLOBAL WARMING?"

And he's not the only member of the government to make these kinds of arguments; as another example, Sen. James Inhofe (Republican of Oklahoma) notoriously brought a snowball into the Senate as if this is evidence of anything:

"In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair, do you know what this is? It's a snowball, just from outside here. So it's very, very cold out. Very unseasonal. [throws snowball to chairman]"

Take that, climate scientists! Maybe next time he'll astonish his captive onlookers by sticking his tongue to a frozen metal pole or something? That would really get the point across.
Could you imagine someone trying to publish such ludicrous fallacies in a reputable climatology journal?
By Donald J. Trump & James Inhofe et al, published in Climate Dynamics, 2018: "Why The Ice On My Windshield Disproves The FAKE NEWS Global Warming CON," subtitled "Climate Change HOAXSTERS Have Nothing To Say Now After I Showed Them My Snowball! #MakeScienceGreatAgain."
I bet something as brilliant as this would just sail through the peer-review process and make it to the front page of Nature in no time; in fact, it might even warrant a Nobel Prize or two!
Here's the problem with this line of reasoning: When we talk about global warming, we're talking about a long-term trend here. Within this long-term trend of increasing temperatures, there could be record-setting cold temperatures on certain days of the year. Even if it's 20 degrees colder on Cinco de Mayo than it's been in the past 100 years, the recorded temperature on 1 day out of the 365 in a year just isn't going to have that much of an impact on the yearly average temperature. "This year it was the coldest Cinco de Mayo on record" is not mutually exclusive with "it was the hottest year on record"—because the big-picture trend depends upon what happened on every day of the year considered collectively.
By analogy, imagine that I'm a financially responsible person who carefully tracks his spending. On one particular day of this year, I spent more money than I have on any other day of my entire life (chances are, in this country, that means I was paying for either college textbooks or some kind of minor medical visit.) What does this extravagant spending on one day of the year tell us about my overall income and general saving habits? What does it tell us about how much I've managed to save up this year, and how this compares to the previous years? Absolutely nothing, because this is just one data point viewed in isolation.
—
This argument becomes even more absurd when you consider that many of these record-setting cold weather events are taking place in restricted geographical areas. For example, it was a major news story that New Year's Eve of 2017 was one of the coldest in the Eastern US in recorded history. And not surprisingly, these headlines prompted Donald Trump to pick up his phone with his grubby fingers to Tweet that:

"In the East, it could be the COLDEST New Year’s Eve on record. Perhaps we could use a little bit of that good old Global Warming that our Country, but not other countries, was going to pay TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS to protect against."

Ok, it's one of the coldest New Year's Eves on record in the Eastern United States. What about the Western United States? What about South America? Africa? Europe? Asia—and the rest of the world? This is pure laziness on Donald Trump's part: He could've just called some of his buddies in Russia to learn first-hand what temperatures were like over there!

Here we see global temperature data from January 1, 2018, and while yes, the Eastern United States is noticeably colder than the baseline temperatures, much of the globe is clearly warmer than these baseline temperatures.
This is why it's important to ask: What are the temperature measurements like, globally? There could be record-setting cold in one region of the globe, yet the global average could be normal or even above normal. In fact, I see no reason why there couldn't be record-setting cold in, say, the Eastern United States, yet at the exact same time, there's record-setting heat in sub-Saharan Africa and Western Australia. Looking at just one region of one country doesn't tell us anything about what's happening globally—similar to how just looking at one day doesn't tell us anything about what's happening long-term.
—
And sometimes it's not even record-setting cold weather that prompts arguments of this sort; recall that Trump Tweeted in February 2014 that:

"A big part of the country, even the southern states, is under massive attack from snow and freezing cold. Global warming anyone?"

He's basically just saying here: It's very cold and snowy outside, even down south. Ok? So what? What, exactly, do these people think that global warming means? That the second the temperature starts increasing, we should never experience a cold or snowy day again? Apparently the entire world must become a barren, dusty, sun-baked wasteland before people like this will concede that global warming is taking place.
How about stepping out of the realm of personal experience and short-term weather events, and just taking a look at the global temperature measurements over time?

NASA temperature recordings since 1880 demonstrate a very clear upward trend over time. "Oh yeah? Well did you know that on one particular day in 2002, it was very cold in the Southwestern United States?" To discount this clear long-term data because of isolated cold weather events is to abandon rationality.
And why do we never hear the reverse argument from these people? Why does Donald Trump never argue that, since it's 105 degrees in April, that must prove global warming to be true? Why do they never shine a spotlight on record-setting hot weather events—which there are plenty of? Of course, if we were just looking at one particular weather event, the reverse logic would be equally as junky, but at least they'd be being consistent. People like Trump are selectively focusing on only the data that they mistakenly think supports their case and ignoring anything that contradicts it.
There is a way to look at record-setting highs and lows rationally, and that's to look at the totality of the data—as opposed to just cherrypicking a few points in a self-serving manner. As we read on ClimateRealityProject.org,

"While we have seen some daily all-time lows for a smattering of locations in the US, these pale in comparison with the number of all-time highs we’ve seen over the past year. In fact, the record highs have outpaced the record lows 61 to seven, i.e. nine times more often . . . consistent with what we expect to see as the globe continues to warm."

—
And it may seem paradoxical, but an increase in certain cold-weather events can actually be linked to global warming. This is an idea that climate change deniers love to mock from their standard position of extreme ignorance, but if you actually understand the underlying science, it makes perfect sense.
As one example, we read the following on InsideClimateNews.org,

"The northern polar jet stream . . . is driven partly by the temperature contrast between masses of icy air over the North Pole and warmer air near the equator. Climate change, true to the predictions of the past half century, has led to faster warming in the Arctic than in the temperate zones. So the temperature difference between the two regions has been lessening.
Research suggests that this reduction in the temperature difference is robbing the jet stream of some of its strength, making it wobblier and contributing to more temperature extremes."

There's also a great article on this subject at ClimateRealityProject.org. As Michael Mann writes,

"Let’s start with the record five-plus feet of snowfall accumulation in Erie, Pennsylvania, in late December. Does this disprove global warming? 'Exactly the opposite,' explains my colleague, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe of Texas Tech University.
Global warming is leading to later freeze-up of the Great Lakes and warmer lake temperatures. It is the collision of cold Arctic air with relatively warm unfrozen lake water in early winter that causes lake effect snows in the first place. The warmer those lake temperatures, the more moisture in the air, and the greater potential for lake effect snows. Not surprisingly, we see a long-term increase in lake effect snowfalls as temperatures have warmed during the last century."

And here we see a graph demonstrating this trend.

A similar phenomenon takes place on the East Coast of the United States. As Mann also writes,

"East Coast winter storms, known as 'nor’easters' . . . are unusual in that they derive their energy not just from large contrasts in temperature that drive most extratropical storm systems, but also from the energy released when water evaporates from the (relatively warm) ocean surface into the atmosphere.
This is a characteristic that these storms share with tropical storms and hurricanes. The warmer the ocean surface, the more energy that is available to intensify these storms. And the warmer the ocean surface, the more moisture there is in the atmosphere – moisture that is available to form precipitation. As the winds wrap around in a counter-clockwise manner, they bring all of that moisture northwest, where it is chilled and ultimately falls not as rain but snow."

—
Joseph Curl, of the Daily Wire, encourages his readers to have at a laugh at this idea in his article entitled: "AL GORE SAYS DUMBEST THING EVER: Global Warming Means Bitter Cold." Here he's referring to that previously quoted Michael Mann article, and while he feels confident enough to describe this idea as the "DUMBEST THING EVER" (in all caps), he makes absolutely zero effort to contend with the scientific claims made within the article.
He starts out by showing a Tweet posted by Al Gore where he shared that Climate Reality Project article. Then Curl writes the following:

"That's right, Gore is saying this 'weather' we're having proves that the 'climate' is changing."

This is, of course, a reference to the idea that individual weather events can't be described as directly, necessarily caused by climate change. Yes, while we can't say that one particular snow storm was caused by global warming, we can say that—as a result of these mechanisms—the overall incidence and severity of these types of snowstorms will increase over time. There's no contradiction or problem here, and you'll have to excuse Al Gore for not making that careful, nuanced distinction in his 140 character Tweet.
Curl then points out that Al Gore has been wrong about one particular global-warming related claim in the past.

"Gore, you'll remember, famously said 'the entire North Polarized cap will disappear in 5 years.' That was in 2008. We haven't been there ourselves to check, but we're pretty sure the polar ice cap is still there."

Ok, so the consequences of global warming haven't materialized as rapidly as some expected them to. This doesn't prove that global warming isn't happening. "Ha-ha! Arctic ice isn't melting as fast as this guy said it would"—even though it's still totally melting, as the scientific data makes absolutely clear to anybody who takes five fucking seconds to Google this and check!
According to data from NASA and the National Snow & Ice Data Center, as of 1980, the average September extent of Arctic sea ice was about 7.5 million sq. km; as of 2017—not even 40 years later—it's down to about 4.5 million sq. km. This is almost a reduction in half—in just 40 years. "We're pretty sure the polar ice cap is still there"—yeah, it's there, and it's melting—rapidly—as the data makes clear to anybody who cares to examine it.

To his credit, Joseph Curl did muster the energy to Google something, however. As he continues,

"We did find this on the Interwebs: 'Ice growth during November 2017 averaged 30,900 square miles per day,' according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center."

And here he showcases how truly, embarrasingly ignorant he is about the subject—assuming he's not being intentionally deceptive. Anybody who knows anything about Arctic ice will tell you that there is an annual, seasonal pattern of much of the ice melting during the Arctic summer and then re-freezing during the Arctic winter. This is fact #3 that you should know about Arctic ice—#1 being that it's ice, #2 that it's in the Arctic.
The way he presents this quote makes it seem like Arctic ice is actually increasing in extent overall: "It's not melting; it's growing! Just look at the data!" I have no doubt that many in his audience interpreted the quote in this way and added this idea to the library of falsehoods that they have downloaded into their minds. This quote, however, is simply referring to the seasonal trend that always takes place during the Arctic winter. As we read on the National Snow & Ice Data Center—the same organization that he's quoting from:

"The Arctic sea ice maximum marks the day of the year when Arctic sea ice reaches its largest extent. The sea ice maximum occurs at the end of the winter cold season. The Arctic cold season usually begins in September and ends in March."

Given that November is squarely within the Arctic cold season, ice growth during this part of the year is to be expected—and seasonal ice growth does not refute the idea of overall, year-round ice shrinkage. As this same organization also writes—the organization whose data he's trying to use to refute the idea of ice melting:

"According to scientific measurements, both the thickness and extent of summer sea ice in the Arctic have shown a dramatic decline over the past thirty years."

What is the average yearly extent of Arctic ice?—That is the informative question to ask, and the measurements unequivocally demonstrate that Arctic ice is shrinking over time.
But the more basic point Joseph Curl makes is a foolish one: Al Gore was wrong about something once; therefore, what, he must be wrong about this other thing, too? This is not how truth works: Each claim needs to be independently evaluated. If I mistakenly tell you that Frank is wearing a hat today when he's actually not wearing one, that doesn't automatically make me incorrect when I say the sky is blue—or when I say that the stupidity of this article makes me want to hang myself from a ceiling fan.
And Al Gore isn't even the author of that article; he's just sharing it on Twitter, so what does him being incorrect about one particular prediction have to do with the conclusions reached in an article that wasn't even written by him?
The only quotes from that Climate Reality Project article that Curl cares to present are quotes that simply state the conclusions reached; he doesn't share

Debunking The Paranormal – The Existence of Ghosts: Sightings, Photos & Videos

Anton Dybal — Thu, 17 May 2018 17:48:33 +0000

Thumbnail photos: Rachel Titiriga/Flickr; Waldkunst/Pixabay; tombud/Pixabay

Many people firmly believe in the existence of ghosts. According to Gallup, as of 2005, 32% of Americans believe in ghosts, or believe that "spirits of dead people can come back in certain places [or] situations."
So this is not at all a fringe belief; these are ideas that are widely subscribed to. Whether they're convinced by stories, photographs or videos of purported ghosts, or whether they've had ghostly encounters of their own, I'm going to argue here that this particular paranormal belief is unjustified because the evidence provided is unconvincing and ample alternative explanations exist. I'm also going to take a look at some ghost stories to see if they're impressive enough to warrant belief, and finally, I'll point out the flaws in arguments made in defense of this position by people who believe in the existence of ghosts.
We're going to start out with what seems like everybody's favorite reason to believe in ghosts: some sort of spooky encounter they've had with what they believe to be otherworldy spirits. According to Pew Research, as of 2009,

"almost one-in-five [Americans] say they have seen or been in the presence of ghosts"

and this is not a surprising statistic when you consider how many people have a story that they're eager to tell when the topic comes up. Now I obviously can't say for certain that all of these stories are inaccurate for one reason or another, because I wasn't there, so what do I know? But what I can do is present a number of alternative explanations and reasons that we should doubt that these accounts are convincing evidence.
One such reason is that people can simply lie; there's no law of the universe that forces everybody to tell accurate stories. Maybe they're lying because they think it's funny, maybe they're a sociopath who gets off on deceiving people, or maybe they're doing it for attention or financial gain.
Another possibility is that people have unintentionally exaggerated the details of the story. There has actually been research done which shows that the longer the period of time since an unusual event occurred, the more exaggerated and inaccurate will be our recounting of this event. The particular research that I'm referencing examined accounts of the Indian rope trick. As Wiseman and Lamont write in their 1996 Nature publication,

"We hypothesized that if eyewitnesses were exaggerating their accounts [of the Indian rope trick] over time, one might expect a positive correlation between the impressiveness of the account and the length of time between performance and report."

And here we see a scatter plot which confirms their hypothesis, plainly showing that the longer the period of time since they witnessed the trick, the more extraordinary and impressive their account of it.

As Wiseman and Lamont conclude,

"this analysis strongly suggests that witnesses' testimony had become significantly more elaborate over time."

I would imagine that the same trend could take place with ghost stories, and it's no surprise considering the fallibility of human memory—although it is interesting that the fidelity of the story consistently degenerates in the direction of making it seem more impressive. We could speculate about why this would be the case, but it's important to note that nothing about this seems to indicate deliberate deception by the people telling the story; instead, it seems that this is just the way that our memories get distorted over time through no fault of our own. So if I tell a person that I doubt their ghost story is completely accurate, and they say, "Oh, you callin' me a liar?", the answer doesn't have to be yes; your memory of the event could simply have become exaggerated over time.
Not only that, but even if the events as they describe them took place exactly as they claim, the person could simply be mistaken about what explains the events. What one person interprets as a ghostly encounter might be viewed by another as perfectly explicable without invoking the supernatural.
To see this principle in action, let's take a look at a ghost story that somebody once presented me with:

When she was much younger, her and her friend had snuck out of their parents' homes at night in order to just sort of roam around in aimless, youthful rebellion. As they were crossing this bridge, they saw a man who was sitting near the edge while fishing. When they looked back after crossing the bridge, he was nowhere to be seen; therefore, he was a ghost, she concluded.

When I first heard this story, I was so dumbfounded by her gullibility that I was the one who looked like I'd seen a ghost. What kind of a conclusion is this for such a mundane event? There was a guy sitting somewhere, and when I looked back later, he wasn't there anymore?
Maybe he got up and moved? Or maybe he fell into the river and drowned—ironically only then returning to haunt us as a ghost? Or maybe he wasn't a ghost, but instead, he was just a regular man who—in a quixotic twist—was quickly abducted by aliens when your back was turned? Nothing about this account screams out to me "He was a ghost!", and leaping to this conclusion on such flimsy evidence strikes me as embarrassingly irrational.
If we can explain something without resorting to the supernatural or paranormal, why invoke these things? "Huh, looks like one of my T-shirts is missing. Maybe I misplaced it?—or maybe Satan stole it when I was sleeping?"
And even if we can't explain something, why not just say that? Why say: "I can't explain what happened; therefore ghosts?" This does not strike me as a logical conclusion. And when you say: "I can't explain what happened; therefore ghosts," aren't you really saying: "I can't explain what happened; therefore, I can explain what happened?" What kind of irrational thinking is this?
—
Another explanation for how people could be genuinely mistaken in thinking that they vividly saw a ghost is hallucinations. This is one explanation that people sometimes laugh off, but it's worth remembering that about 1% of the population is schizophrenic, with one of the symptoms being either auditory or visual hallucinations.
And even if you're of sound mind, you can hallucinate for other reasons: As Carl Sagan points out in The Demon Haunted World, these can include sleep deprivation, alcohol withdrawal, drug usage, sleep paralysis, emotional stress or sensory deprivation. Considering all of these potential causes, it's a wonder we don't all hallucinate much more often!
I distinctly remember, when I was about 6 or 7 years old, waking up in the middle of night and vividly seeing several blue, ghostly decapitated heads hovering at the foot of my bed and circling around one another. Was this an encounter with the paranormal, did a gaggle of ghosts decide to pay me a visit on that one particular occasion for just a few seconds, or was my brain simply misfiring and continuing to briefly produce some of the visual images that it does while we sleep and dream? I know what my conclusion is, and even at that young age, I was never tempted to think that those were ghosts that I saw; I was just like "that was fuckin' weird" and I went back to bed.
I think it's a telling observation that alleged ghost encounters almost always happen at night. I can't remember who it was that made this observation, but I think it might have been a comedian or somebody giving a lecture on the subject who pointed out that you never hear a ghost story where a person's like "Well, I was at the park in the middle of the afternoon, I was eating some ice cream and there were people all around, then suddenly, bam!, a ghost appeared right in front of me and said 'Boo!'" No, it's almost always a person who's at home or in some spooky location in the dark when it's quiet.
I don't think this is a big surprise, because we're more prone to being in a fearful state at night-time. And considering all of the dangerous predators that are out there in the world, especially on the African savanna that our ancestors evolved on, it makes sense to be more on your guard and alert at night, in a state where you consider that the sound you just heard, the movement you just saw, just might have been caused by something that could do you harm.
Since we don't really have to worry about being mauled to death by lions in our second-floor bedrooms, could it be that some of us apply this same mindset to other perceived foes like ghosts rather than vicious predators? Considering their prevalence in popular culture, considering that many of us watch terrifying movies about people being tormented by these ghosts in the dark, I think this is very likely.
—
It's also very telling that ghost stories are usually told by exactly the kind of people who are already inclined to believe that sort of thing. Some people are just wired differently; some people are more inclined to rashly conclude that they've encountered a ghost, and nowhere does this become more clear than when reading or listening to some first-hand ghost stories.
Let's look at another example, this one featured in an article on ghost stories from Cosmopolitan.

"I was living with my sister and she went away on holiday for a week so I had the house to myself. I was heading to bed and turned out all of the lights. I was laying in bed then I heard what I thought was a guitar being played so I head downstairs to see what the noise was.
I found my guitar laying on the ground and picked it up and put it back on my stand. I go to head back to bed and again I heard the guitar being played. Head back downstairs to find again the guitar lying on the ground.
Why was this spooky? It was the 11th anniversary that my dad has been deceased, he loved playing the acoustic as much as I do. Could. Not. Sleep. We also do not own any animals so I don't know how the guitar could have ended up on the ground twice."

Perhaps the mere thought of this has you gaping in astonishment, but I'm just not that impressed by this story. I heard my guitar being played and it was moved? So maybe somebody played your guitar and moved it? Could somebody not have been playing a prank on you? He claims that he had the house to himself, but maybe his sister gave a friend a key or something so that they could screw with him while he's alone? Just one search on YouTube reveals an endless supply of ghost-related pranks—and these are just the ones that people cared enough to record and upload to YouTube.
Notice that he doesn't even claim that he saw a ghost; he just heard the guitar being played and it was moved. It would be one thing if walked downstairs and right there in front of him, plain as day, was this ghostly figure levitating in the air while strumming his guitar; but the fact that he didn't see who or what was responsible means that alternative explanations clearly exist.
Maybe it's something much simpler like he has a shitty guitar stand or he did a half-ass job of putting it back up there? Have you ever set something down or had it leaned up against something and it looked like it was stable but then it ended up falling over a few minutes later? Maybe something like that happened here?
He says "I don't know how the guitar could have ended up on the ground twice." So why are we concluding that a ghost is responsible, then? We're told that the event coincided with the anniversary of his father's death, and this is supposed to be the icing on the cake that seals the deal and makes clear that a ghost was responsible. Could that possibly be a coincidence? Could the people playing a prank on you not have taken note of the upcoming anniversary? And why the 11th anniversary? If anything, you think his ghost father would've done it at the one-year or ten-year anniversary, but nope, he's like "11 years, perfect, let's go play the guitar for a few seconds and then set it down and run away when my son comes to investigate."
What kind of a weird communicative approach is this? Why not keep it simple andd just hang around to have a conversation? "What's up, son? I'm a fuckin' ghost now." If your ghostly speech is somehow restricted, why not try sign language, or just grab a pen and paper? Or if, for some strange reason, you're not visible, you can't speak, and all you can do is play a guitar, why not at least try to communicate using Morse code through the guitar? "I'm just gonna strum a few notes and then get the fuck out of here?" What kind of a deadbeat dad is this?
And what an interesting role reversal this is: This appears to be the first recorded instance of a ghost being terrified of a person. "Oh shit! Here he comes! Run away!"
—
Let's take a look at another story from that same article:

"About 20 years ago, my sister, her husband and I had were driving back to her house, going just past a truck stop when an old man stepped out in front of us. Her husband, who was driving, slammed on the brakes and we all started freaking out because the old man had disappeared.
My sister and her husband jump out, thinking they'd just killed the man, but there's nothing there. Cop comes along and a few truckers wander over and tell us that it's an almost weekly occurrence. Apparently there'd been an old man who'd lived and later died in the house across the road who used to go over to check his chickens every night before bed."

There's one element to this story that makes me think it's bullshit: Some truckers wander over to tell you that it's an almost weekly occurrence? If these are truckers who travel all across the country, and if they're stationed at a truck stop, presumably because they're just resting before they continue driving, how would they know that it's a weekly occurrence? It's not like they live at the truck stop: It's a truck stop—not a truck live-here-for-a-fucking-year.
But setting that aside, here's the problem with ghost stories: When they cross the line from banality and enter the land of the unbelievable, we find that they literally are unbelievable. If true, yes, this would be an impressive account, but all we have to go off of is her word that this is an accurate recounting of the events. Given that this allegedly took place 20 years ago, and given what we know about the fallibility and mutability of human memory, I'm extremely skeptical that things took place as described—and that's assuming that she's being honest in the first place. This is just some random person on Reddit telling their story; maybe they just fabricated the entire thing out of whole cloth for upvotes? As Carl Sagan once put it, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
—
So if more is required for others to believe than first-hand testimony, what kind of evidence would satisfy me? Presumably I'd just nit-pick photographic and video evidence as well? You're damn right I would. But if you think about it, it wouldn't be that hard to prove the existence of ghosts. All that would be required is their cooperation.
Based upon the stories that we hear, presumably ghosts are aware of their surroundings, they know which people are nearby, and they can communicate with these people, at least in certain ways. So why not hover on down to the nearest scientific laboratory, reveal yourself, and willingly subject yourself to all kinds of scientific testing and scrutiny? Why not have just a small handful of ghosts permanently stationed at a location like this so that anybody who is skeptical can travel on down there and have their doubts eliminated?
Wouldn't there be some ghosts who are frustrated at the idea that people like me deny their existence? Wouldn't it take just one of them to prove me and all other skeptics wrong? If they can pop in front of cars on the highway, why not pop in front of the car of a scientist and say "What's up, bitch? I'm a ghost?"
Why do ghosts apparently never hang around? Why is it such a recurring theme that the ghost pops up out of nowhere and them vanishes almost immediately? Why do we never hear a story where a person's like: "Yeah, so there I was when this ghost appeared, and he just stayed there and hung around for like seven hours while I videotaped him, interviewed him, invited some friends over to take a look, and even called down the local news crew to confirm his apperance."
No, it's almost always some fleeting image that disappears in an instant, which I think lends credence to the idea that these could be hallucinations or that something else occurred and because it was such an ephemeral blur, these people are misinterpreting the event as a ghost sighting.
—
Now I'm not closed off to photographic or video evidence; the problem for me is the endless fakery combined with all of the naturalistic ways that we can record or photograph what appears to be, but isn't actually, a ghost.
When it comes to outright fakery, we know that people have admitted to doing this or been exposed as doing this for reasons that can include fun or financial gain. There are all kinds of different ways that people can fake a picture or video of a ghost, and these include programs like Photoshop or imaging techniques like double exposures.
And even when there's no fakery involved, oftentimes there's some sort of mistake or aberration with the photography or video recording that makes it look like a ghost has been recorded when really there's a much more prosaic explanation. Sometimes there's a complicated error with the recording software, sometimes there's a lens flare or reflection, or sometimes there's simply an insect or piece of dust or pollen on or near the lens of the camera.
Now this doesn't mean that every photo or video of a ghost is inauthentic; just because some are doesn't mean that all are. It could very well be the case that genuine photos and videos of ghosts exist. But to my knowledge, no genuine footage has been presented which is so utterly clear and convincing that the only possible explanation is a ghost.
—
I also see no sound theoretical basis to believe that ghosts exist, and that's because I see no reason to believe in an afterlife. We have a pretty solid understanding of what regions of the brain are responsible for which aspects of cognition, and damage to these brain regions produces the expected cognitive defects. So it seems to follow from this that if the entire brain dies, then our cognition will die with it, and thus, there's no reason to believe that our consciousness or personalities will survive the deaths of our brain and travel the earth as some sort of amorphous being.
With all of that said, I am not fundamentally closed off to the idea that ghosts could exist. If ghosts could be subjected to scientific scrutiny, if we could discover where certain ghosts hang their hats, and we could reliably send independent teams of researchers to study them and confirm their existence (almost as if we're studying a newly discovered organism), I would be open to changing my mind.
And when I say teams of researchers, I don't mean conmen filming a TV show and engaging in endless fraudulence in order to capture something exciting; I don't mean groups of people who are already devout believers in ghosts who interpret every trivial sound or event as caused by ghosts; I don't mean charlatan mediums who come in and just make bald, unsupported assertions like "I can feel his presence"; I mean actual, objective scientists conducting actual scientific inquiries.
—
Something else worth noting about ghost stories is the extremely varied nature of their appearance. In some cases, it's just a spooky mist. Other times it's a vaguely human-like silhouette. Then in other cases, you see the apparition viv

A Skeptical Human | Anton Dybal

Debunking Creationism: "The Fossil Record Supports The Biblical Flood!"

Debunking Creationism: "The Biblical Flood Is Supported By Geological Evidence!"

Debunking 9/11 Truthers: "Thermite Was Found In The Dust!"

Why The Mainstream Media Is So Biased [EXPLAINED]

How The Media Propagandizes You With Biased Debate Questions

Dem Debate: Debunking Anti-Bernie Arguments ("Sexist", Medicare-For-All) & More!

Is Chiropractic Care Pseudoscience?

Is CBD Oil Just Snake Oil? | Pt 1: Anxiety

Debunking: "Public Option > Medicare-For-All!"

Debunking: "Medicare-For-All Is Unaffordable!" & Refuting The Mercatus Study

Debunking "Ghost Hunters": Their Equipment, Tactics & "Haunted Houses"

Debunking Republicans: "Guns Don't Kill People!" & "Criminals Will Switch To Knives!"

Debunking Republicans: Gun-Free Zones & "Good Guys With Guns"

Debunking Myths About CO2, Global Warming & Greenhouse Gases

Debunking: "Humans Are NOT Causing Global Warming!"

Debunking William Lane Craig: "Objective Morality Comes From God!"

Debunking Conservatives: "U.S. Gun Control Doesn't Work!"

Debunking Republican Gun Control Myths: "More Guns = Fewer Deaths!"

Debunking David Pakman: "Male Circumcision Is Beneficial!"

Debunking: "Climate Change Model Predictions Are Unreliable!"

Debunking Creationism: "Life Can't Come From Non-Life!"

Debunking 9/11 Truthers: "Explosive Squibs & Lateral Debris Ejection!"

Debunking: "The Left Is A Violent Mob!"

Debunking Creationism: "Evolution & Speciation Has Never Been Observed!"

Debunking Libertarianism: "Taxation Is Theft! Abolish The Income Tax!"

Debunking: "Drug Decriminalization In Portugal Is A Failure!"

Debunking: "The 97% Global Warming Consensus Is A Lie! It's Actually 52%!"

Debunking Charlie Kirk's Arguments At Politicon 2018 In Debate vs Hasan Piker

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: "People Come To U.S. For Care!"

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: U.S. Quality & Outcomes

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: U.S. Innovation & Subsidizing Others

Debunking Republican Healthcare Myths: Wait Times & Rationing

Debunking Creationism: "Radiometric Dating Is Unreliable!"

Debunking The "Mysterious" Bermuda Triangle: Disappearances & Paranormal Events

Debunking Creationism: "Dinosaurs and Humans Coexisted 6,000 Years Ago!"

Debunking: "Chemtrails Are A Sinister Government Plot!"

Debunking Creationism: "Evolution & Mutation Can't Increase Information!"

Debunking Christian Nonsense: Presuppositional Apologetics (Sye Ten Bruggencate)

Debunking: "Global Warming Is GOOD For Us & The Environment!"

Debunking The Paranormal – The Existence of Ghosts: Sightings, Photos & Videos