The Catholic Cricket

I dislike the media. More accurately, I dislike the blatant biases in many news articles and TV reports. Some entities are worse than others, and they compound the offense by claiming to be unbiased. And sometimes those biases cause reporters to run away with things, making news instead of reporting it.

So, knowing about the biases, I read and listen to everything with a certain amount of distrust, thinking “Where’s the spin? Ah-ha! There it is.” It doesn’t matter if it’s the New York Times, NPR, FoxNews, whatever. There’s almost always a spin, something saying “this is what they mean, this is what you should believe, this is why you should be outraged, this is who to blame.”

That said, it was nice to read this article by Richard A. Oppel, Jr. Not that the content of the article is nice, it’s awful. But there was no “Ah-ha!” moment. This is what I ideally expect from news articles. Facts, not opinion. Quotes from investigators, not some guy who heard something and came out to look, or from anonymous sources making extreme accusations.

Mr. Oppel stuck to the facts and didn’t play psychoanalyst, guessing at the cause of the shootings. He doesn’t give a motive for the shooting, he doesn’t label actions as anything other than actions. There are no calls for a change to background checks or blaming rhetoric. The gunman did this, Judge Roll did that. Rep. Giffords is in this condition. Facts. The reader can decide to label actions as “insane” or “heroic”, the reader can decide what actions they think should be taken (if any) to prevent such a thing from happening again.

Report. The. Facts.

Kudos to Mr. Oppel, and may we see more reporting like this.

Tools I use regularly on Windows PCs (including my own), and other general software recommendations:

Antivirus: Avast!

Virus Removal: MalwareBytes Antimalware, Avast!, AVG Antivirus, HijackThis, ComboFix (not linking to that one, you really need a pro helping you. Go to BleepingComputer and get help).

Memory tester: Memtest86+

Internet: Google Chrome is my preferred browser right now.

Blogging: Scribefire plugin (available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari)

IT management: Spiceworks

Office productivity: OpenOffice

File sync/availability: Dropbox

Accounting: GnuCash

SSH: Putty

SFTP: WinSCP

I’ll probably update this with more suggestions, or just add another post.

Important note: I’m not affiliated with any of the above sites. I just like them.

I like to read all sorts of different things on the internet, and as I usually do I wandered back over to Watt’s Up With That after a couple of months of being away.  Which naturally led me elsewhere, I’m sure.  Somehow I ended up at a post (I don’t remember which one) discussing flaws/issues with some study or other ignoring ice core proxy data for temperature.  The actual article isn’t important, because I won’t be discussing the study or the analysis of it.

What I am interested in is this: why should we trust the ice cores or any of the other proxy data sets?

Now, I’m not saying the data is incorrect. I don’t have the data itself to analyze, nor the time nor skills to do any type of a robust analysis myself.  I have no basis for discounting the ice core temperature proxies, that go back something like 800,000 years.  On the contrary, I can relatively safely trust them since both skeptics and advocates of anthropogenic global climate change (I think that’s its current incarnation) seem to be willing to use them.

My real question lies in a slightly different direction.  We are frequently told that “weather” and “climate” are two different things, which they are.  Weather is localized…it can be snowing in Pontiac and clear and sunny in Detroit, but both are in the same climate.  And when looking at global averages as a “global climate”, localized variations are less important.  They average out, with outliers on both ends of the spectrum.

But why are ice cores not considered a result of localized weather?  They will show the temperature in one region, not global averages.  In other words, they record weather at a location and not climate on a global scale.

Yes, there are other factors involved, other proxies from other parts of the world using different proxies and different technologies, but it seems to me that they are measured against each other, and balanced to make them consistent over known data.  Without getting into the validity of which data sets are chosen, isn’t it the case that the Yuma tree ring proxy data is calibrated to recorded data, and then extrapolated back to cover times before recorded data?  Isn’t the ice core temperature data calibrated to known recorded data (real measurements) and then extrapolated back 800,000 years?  Basically a “best fit” of samples overlapping recorded data then used to determine conditions for earlier times. (Note to self: find out what exactly is measured in the ice cores and how they correlate to temperatures).  And those extrapolations may be completely accurate (we have no real way of knowing, but it makes sense to treat them as accurate), but they have a potential flaw.

It seems to me that there’s a problem with relying too heavily on the proxy data, and that problem is that the proxy data measures the local weather in a few locations, and then is applied as a global average.

In other words, the proxy data measures weather, not climate.  Thus, it is unwise to use them as determiners of historical climate.

I’ll give an example. Take the ice cores.  Assume all of the science is correct, all of the transformations and analyses are 100% perfect (even though we have no real way of knowing this to be the case, let’s treat it as such.)  Doesn’t that simply tell us what the weather was like in the area from which the ice cores were taken?  How is that different from using the average daily temperature at Detroit Metro Airport and extrapolating back (and forward), at least as far as dealing with the problem of using localized data?

Geological temperature record seems to be a good way to cover this, since it’s not as limited in location.  Ice cores require the use of polar regions, particularly the south pole.  Tree ring data requires long-living trees that aren’t found everywhere.  But geology encompasses the whole earth, regardless of location or what will grow where.  Is it sufficient, though, and has a wide enough sample been used?  Can it be used for comparison to short term (geologically speaking) data?

I’m sure you’ve heard the definition…poly: many,  tics: small blood-sucking creatures.

I find that I have a lot of opinions about politics, but I’m drained. It must be all of those blood-sucking insects. Actually, it’s that most people just don’t listen to opposing views, and I’m tired of talking to brick walls.

Anyhow, posting on politics will probably be light. Instead I’ll post more about being Catholic, and an idea I had about being a good spouse. For a sneak-peak, read what is probably the most hated-by-feminists and misunderstood-by-many part of Paul’s Epistles. Ephesians 5:21-33

Well, it’s been an interesting couple of years.  In April 2009 the automotive supplier I worked for, like many others in Detroit, shut down.  After a brief stint at a hotel management firm (Oct 09 – Nov 09), I started doing independent contract computer work (Dec 09).  That sustained us for most of 2010, due primarily to the generosity of a friend from Church sending business my way. Then, in Oct 2010 I started a job at BNP Media.  A wonderful company to work for, with a friendly staff and a great boss. Check out their publications.

Unlooked for, I got a call from a guy I had done contract work for. “Come out and meet the CEO”, he said, so I did. I didn’t know if it was a job interview, but treated it as if it were. Their IT person was leaving, and they offered me the position on the spot. 20% more money, but a longer drive.  We were *this* close to turning it down (due to distance from the house and time the driving difference would take away from the family) when they sweetened the deal. A bit more money to make up for the drive, and early hours so I can be home with the family in the evening.  It’s about a 45 minute drive, so leaving at 3:30 would be really nice, and I’d get home around the same time.

Done.

I felt bad leaving my job after only 7 weeks. I really enjoyed the people and the work…and the drive. But I have a family to support, and I couldn’t justify staying at a lower position. So, after a week off between Christmas and New Year, I started working at Total Door. It’s been interesting, to say the least. There’s a big difference between going to a company that has an IT staff and going to a company where you are the IT staff. Even with documentation, there’s a lot I have to figure out on my own, and there’s nobody to point me in the right direction. So it’s been an interesting two weeks.

But it gets even more interesting.  After 19 months of being mostly unemployed (1 month employed, 10 months contracting), and I have started my second job in 3 months. Sounds great, right? Well, on my very first day at Total Door, I got a call from a recruiter I had been talking to in Aug 10. The position was heating back up, was I still interested? My first day wasn’t even over and I already got a call about another position? Then, on Thursday, I got an email from another recruiter about another position (again, original contact was in Aug 10) that was also heating up. Insane.

Well, I’ll stay open to the possibility of leaving this position.

The family is doing well. Heather, in addition to negotiating me better pay and hours at this current job, is a fantastic wife and mother, and has been knitting scarves for the family. The kids are all getting bigger, and both Peter and Evelyn are reading chapter books…Peter is reading The Hobbit (that’s my boy!) and Evelyn loves the Little House on the Prairie books. Mya reads, too, but seems to be much more interested in making things.  That girl goes through rolls of tape like you wouldn’t believe.  Lily is finally potty training (no small feat for her…discomfort with heights, along with small size, makes it difficult), and we’re so proud of her. Margaret is extremely helpful and cheerful, and Anna Maria is talking up a storm. Heather is finally admitting that her baby isn’t a baby anymore.

Peter is in Cub Scouts (I’m the assistant Den leader for his den), and Evelyn and Mya are in American Heritage Girls (Heather is Mya’s den/group leader, whatever it is they call the groups in AHG). The three of them also attend an art class once a week (Macomb Academy of Fine Arts, I think is its name) and are learning about music, sculpting, painting, and so forth. Heather has continued to do a great job teaching them, and is getting back into the swing of things after the Christmas break.  Oh, and Peter and Evelyn are in basketball again at Church this year. Unfortunately they’re in different age groups this year, so they practice and play at different times and on different days.  Fun fun.

Once we get finances under control, we’ll be doing some house updates. New floor in the kitchen (the current one is from 92, and showing its age…the tiles are breaking and lifting up), paint and redecorate the Living Room and School Room, finally get curtains and blinds or something for the doorwall.  Fun stuff like that.  Oh, and maybe some updates to the bathrooms.  At the very least, there’ll be some decorating going on (pictures on the walls, touching up paint, that kind of thing).  One thing I’m interested in is a ceiling fan with an indirect lighting source…there’s no ceiling light in the Living Room at this time, and it gets a bit stifling in there at times, so if I put something up I want it to also have lights.  But I think indirect would look nicer.

Well, now that you’re all caught up on us, what’s new with you?

Going to try and actually make use of the blog this year. I know, I know, I say that every time I post. But it might happen this time.

What’s wrong with education? I can give you a one word answer: Parents.

Yes, parents.

Oh, one could make an argument about bad teachers, unions, excessive administrative overhead, wastefulness, and all the rest, and some of the blame does lie there.  But the major fault lies with parents.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it well (imagine that), in the very first statement under the heading “The duties of parents”:

The fecundity of conjugal love cannot be reduced solely to the procreation of children, but must extend to their moral education and their spiritual formation. “The role of parents in education is of such importance that it is almost impossible to provide an adequate substitute.” The right and the duty of parents to educate their children are primordial and inalienable. (CCC2221)

The part in quotes comes from the Vatican II document Gravissimum educationis, which makes it even clearer:

Since parents have given children their life, they are bound by the most serious obligation to educate their offspring and therefore must be recognized as the primary and principal educators

As parents, we must educate our children. And whether we intend it or not, our children learn from us…their primary educators.

But what does it really mean, and how does this tie in with schools?

Before I get back to that, a side note.  Heather and I teach a class for engaged couples about Conjugal Love and Natural Family Planning.  In the first half of the class we go over what the couple is promising by getting married in the Church (the Church’s expectations of their behavior).  One of the three questions asked of the couple during the Rite of Marriage is “Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?”  We make sure in our class to point out that, in order to “bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church”, we as parents need to know the law and we need to live the law.

Any child psychologist will tell you that a big way children learn is through modeled behavior. What they see in front of them greatly influences how they behave.  If dad is rude to mom and shows her no respect, most likely so will their children.  That also comes up in our class, when we discuss Family of Origin.

Now, back to the main topic.  Children can see the level of importance parents place on the education they are receiving.  If a parent is involved (clearly showing a high level of importance for education), the child will see it.  If a parent is disdainful of the education (or any aspect of it…it transfers from one thing to the other), the child will see that.  And what the child sees, he will model.

Why do private schools and charter schools do a better job than public schools?  It’s clearly not money.  Many failing public schools get as much per pupil as private schools.  It’s not quality of teachers, as there are many great teachers in public schools, and private schools have their share of bad teachers.  It’s not even the “exclusivity” that private schools get to practice, pick and choosing the cream-of-the-crop students from wealthy families that can afford the school, no matter what teachers’ unions want you to believe.  Do you really think that a private school is going to turn down someone willing to pay the cost of tuition?  Or that children of people able to afford said tuition are somehow smarter?

No, the answer is parental involvement, and how they’re involved.  Private and charter schools can, and usually do, expect/demand/require parental participation in the school.  Homeschooling is, of course, all on the parent (Heather can’t be more involved with the kids’ education…she’s the primary educator, even in the general and not Catechetical understanding of the phrase).

I don’t envy public school teachers.  They deal with a mixture of involved parents, antagonistic parents, and completely indifferent parents.  The involved parents are a blessing.  The indifferent parents just don’t care…they basically abdicate the responsibility of educating the children to the teachers.

The worst are the antagonistic parents.  Because of them, teacher get their hands tied by administrators who are listening to lawyers who are trying to protect the schools from stupid lawsuits like “Mr. Smith flunked my precious daughter and now she hasn’t eaten in weeks because of the emotional trauma”.  Some parents will call and dispute their kids’ grades.  Or curse out a teacher and issue a formal complaint.

And now this is happening in colleges.  Parents calling the dean to complain?  What the…?

This kind of behavior is observed by the child (or young adult, or adult-who-hasn’t-grown-up-yet).  What does Sally learn in 1st grade if mommy or daddy gets her grade changed, while yelling at the principal that Mrs. Johnson is a horrible teacher?  She certainly doesn’t learn to respect her teacher.

Wow, I started this almost a year ago (mid-March), and never posted it.  I think I intended to go back and edit it. I’m going to post it now, without change, because on rereading it I’m happy with what it says.

Apparently it’s now allowed.  That’s what I consider Obamacare to be.

Not for me, because I, unfortunately, am represented in the US House by Gary Peters.  But what about those people who are represented by Republicans?  Oh, sure, they got to vote on the Healthcare Reform Bill.  But they were locked out of all discussions leading up to that vote.  They were unable to participate in putting the bill together.  And the Senate Bill didn’t come to the floor of the House until Nancy Pelosi knew she had enough votes to get it passed.

That is not representative government, it’s a facade.  The House Republicans had absolutely no voice in this decision.  Heck, neither did the Senate Republicans.  It was entirely written and passed by Democrats, without any input at all from Republicans.  The vote was a sham, since Pelosi already knew she had enough votes…and extra in her “pocket” to spare.

So…those people represented in the House or Senate by Republicans were effectively without representation in this matter.  They had no voice, because their representatives could do nothing to change the course of things.  No access, no input, no nothing.  Not even a real vote.

So we have tyranny by the majority, but at the same time tyranny by the minority – an oligarchy – where the elites get to ignore what the people they are supposed to represent really want.

Ugh.

I heard some politician (I believe it was a House Democrat, but I could be mistaken) talking on some talk radio show (I think it was Michael Medved) as I was driving to or from some contract job or other.  As you can tell, the details are really sharp in my mind.

What is really sharp was his complaint that people who want to see some type of tax incentive for businesses to hire more people are clueless about the impact any such tax rebate (or however it would be handled) would really have.  His chief complaint: no business would hire a new employee, paying them $50,000 (including benefits) for a $10 tax break.  He went on to say something along the lines of ”it would have to be something like $1000, and that’s a lot of money” (very much paraphrased).

On another show at a different time (go figure….still no recollection of who or what show), an “expert” suggested a secondary problem to tax breaks for new employees: unfair competition.  If restaurant A is fully staffed, and brand new restaurant B opens up across the street, hiring an entirely new staff, B would get a huge tax break that A wouldn’t have access to.

So I thought “why not put the ideas together”.  Instead of giving a tax break for every new job, give a tax break for EVERY job.  Every single job gets a $2000 tax break.  Hows that for an incentive?

But wait, you say.  That’s a lot of money.  Is it?  The population of the US is roughly 308,841,458, give or take a little.  If every single man, woman, and child were employed…100% full employment and beyond, the tax incentive would cost $617.6 billion dollars.  That’s significantly less than the $787 billion stimulus plan from 2009.

That would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars, keeping money in the hands of the businesses and giving them an incentive to unfreeze hiring.

I’ve been a bit busy, and thus haven’t had an opportunity to comment on things, but there’s one main thought I had after the underwear bomber inspired those charged with ensuring safety on airplanes to start using those ridiculous full-body scanners.

What a waste.

I don’t know how much those things cost, but they surely aren’t cheap.  And plenty of people will not want to go through them.  On top of that, I read recently that some people are trying to use religious reasons for not submitting to such a scan (“Thou shalt not undergo a full body scan”?), and if that’s enough to avoid such scrutiny, then even the false sense of safety that comes from such technology is elminated.

Wait…”false sense of safety”?  Of course.  The thought I had upon hearing that those scanners were going to be installed at various airports was: “Then terrorists will simply go deeper.  Implant a double-bladder inside the abdomen of the suicide bomber that contains the chemicals to be mixed.”  Think of those chemical glow-sticks that are everywhere around Halloween for the kids to carry.

And, of course, what did I see recently in the news?  Female suicide bombers with explosive “augmentations“.  How will the TSA respond to these things?  Mandatory x-rays and MRIs?

I don’t know what the right response is, but I do know that these full-body scanners won’t do much to improve safety.  The cost/effectiveness of them is negligible, and the work-arounds are plentiful and simple.

I like science.  I’ve always liked science.  I have great respect for the scientific process.  Which is why I find the “stolen” CRU documents to be so disturbing.  It’s not just the fact that scientists appear to have cooked the data to fit their preconceived notions, as bad as that is.  It’s not just that those same scientists appear to have put pressure on scientific journals to not publish opposing work.  Nor that they used the lack of published work to detract from the weight of anti-AGW arguments.  All of that is bad, and I think it hurts all of science.

What bothers me the most is the lack of outrage among other scientists.  There should be all sorts of complaints out there about how the scientific process has been undermined.  There should be people calling for the resignation or suspension of involved scientists pending review.  Scientists, corrupting science to drive a policy agenda?  It strikes at the very heart of what’s supposed to make science such a good tool: objective evaluation of collected data to explain what is observed and predict, again objectively, what will happen.

Good science relies on quite a few important legs.  One is objectivity.  Others include openness and repeatability.  The processes involved in adjusting the raw data to account for various factors (urban heat islands, movement of surface stations, etc.) should be clear and understandable.  It must be repeatable and reasonable.  Quality controls need to exist for any algorithms used to make those adjustments.  All of these things seem to be lacking in the case of AGW.

Without those things in place, it’s not science.  It’s just a bunch of self-proclaimed experts saying “trust us”.  Why should we trust them?  They’re not acting as scientists, they’re acting like magicians.  Their incantations are secret, not meant for the ears of mere mortals.  We are supposed to just accept their declarations without question.

And while I’m upset with the media’s poor coverage of this, and with the scientists involved, I’m even more upset with other scientists who should be raising integrity issues instead of defending this as “normal”.  They should be defending science, not scientists.  They should expect and demand that all scientists who put forth hypotheses give full disclosure of all relevant data needed to reproduce the results.

Where is the integrity in science?