The Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming.

On May 16th of this year, President Obama tweeted this to his (then) 30,000,000+ followers, citing a newly released study on the scientific community's views on global warming:

Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous. Read more: http://t.co/4lEEBYtVqf
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) May 16, 2013

To no surprise, it received some pretty generous attention in the Twitter-sphere, accumulating over 2,500 retweets and a solid amount of favorites. But, of course, the tweet was just a small glimpse into the widespread media coverage surrounding the research. And in the months following its release, this particular study, including the "97%" statistic, has quickly become somewhat of a poster child for the environmentalist cause.

Now, personally, I don't have a strong, defined stance on global warming. I lean right and hold more skepticism than anything else, but in large part, I never took the time to confirm anything. That might be part of the reason I'm writing this several months after the research was presented. 

Nevertheless, I happened to stumble across some seriously misleading information regarding this statistic -- information that almost completely shoots its credibility -- and I couldn't resist laying it out via blog post.

Before going further, take note of this: I realize this is not the only research to supposedly conclude a strong consensus on global warming (we can deconstruct that probably faulty methodology another day). But because of its recent Justin Bieber-esque status among environmentalists, that's gonna be the scope of this post.

The study in question was the one published this year by Australian global warming activist John Cook. Cook analyzed nearly 12,000 abstracts from peer reviewed climate change literature spanning from 1991-2011, selected by a simple keyword search. To be completely fair, Cook did find a 97% consensus... among the scientists that actually expressed an opinion. 

Here's the actual text from the actual abstract of the actual study. By the way, AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming, or human-caused climate change.

We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis my own.]

So, there you have it! 97% believe climate change is being caused by humans. But just if you count the 4,000 that actually said something about it, and ignore the other 8,000.

Now, it's totally fine & dandy if researchers just want to search for a consensus only among those who offer an opinion.

But that's not what we're hearing. From a consumer perspective, 97% is almost always painted to represent the whole of climate change research. 

Obama's tweet was a great example, but it goes far beyond that. Media outlets had a heyday throwing around this number, while giving no indication of the original sample size, let alone any significant revelation on the methodology used. In fact, the link President Obama cited in his tweet is a prime example straight from Reuters.

Experts in Australia, the United States, Britain and Canada studied 4,000 summaries of peer-reviewed papers in journals giving a view about climate change since the early 1990s and found that 97 percent said it was mainly caused by humans.

Did they lie? Technically, no. But were they misleading? With no mention of the original 12,000 abstracts... you betcha. 

And from there on out, it's largely been assumed to be true, with the number taking on a cemented, unquestioned role in media culture, as demonstrated by venues like the blog, "Climate Consensus - the 97%," hosted by the Guardian.

And so, Obama's touted it, the media's touted it, and a lot of passionate environmentalists have touted it. But in reality, the number doesn't represent the entirety of the scientific community at all -- it selectively accounts for only a third of it.

Why the other 66% expressed no opinion one way or the other, I don't know. Perhaps they found the data to be inconclusive, or maybe they wanted to avoid immersing themselves in any political fuss. Regardless, if you do want to represent the work of all scientists, HERE is a far more accurate, honest way to explain the data: 

Based on an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, less than a THIRD of all climate change scientists expressed the belief that global warming is man-made. 

Why not phrase it that way? Probable possibility: It would set back an important, widespread agenda that's been rapidly accelerating the past several years. It's far easier, less damaging to reputations, and cheaper to pay attention to a select 4,000, and come to a more convenient conclusion because of it.

It's dishonest not only to the scientific community, but to us. 

And we're not even done yet.

If you dig further into some of this methodology, you'll be even more enlightened.

The language President Obama used in that go-to tweet was pretty strong: "#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." In reading it, you kind of get the vibe that these scientists didn't nonchalantly mention their opinion to Barack at a White House tea party. Rather, it's a stronger, more confident, urgent claim that has serious implications for you & me. 

... But that's not exactly what the research indicated either.

As a means for measuring the opinions represented in the research, Cook designated a seven-level system for evaluating the abstracts' views on global warming. As you can see, the top three were classified as "endorsements," while the bottom three were "rejections." (Screenshot of the table found in the actual study.)

And below is a breakdown of where the abstracts fell into place. (Note: You can manually find the number of abstracts in each respective category here, but I took the word of Door Marcel Crok's own number crunching to save time.) 

Category 1: 65
Category 2: 934
Category 3: 2933
Category 4: 8261
Category 5: 53
Category 6: 15
Category 7: 10
Total: 12271

No, that's not a typo. There actually were only 65 abstracts assigned to the top, most confident (quantified) level. Out of the 4,000 that expressed an opinion (which would exclude category 4), that's about 1.6%. Out of the original sample of 12,000, it's about .5%.

Read that again: one half of one percent of the entire 12,000 abstract sample confidently and quantitatively said, "Global warming is definitely caused by humans."

And even if you group together the explicitly endorsed abstracts (categories 1 & 2), you still get a weak 25% of expressed opinions, and just 8% out of the entire sample.

... doesn't sound so hands-down to me.

Today's lesson: Don't blindly swallow over-sensationalized statistics. Especially when you hear them from Barack Obama.

In other, totally unrelated news: There's a new book on my reading list. It's called How to Lie with Statistics by Darrel Huff and Irving Geis. If you were as appalled by this as I was, I recommend it to you as well.

Complementarianism Shouldn't Be Offensive.

On November 22nd, Fox News published a piece by Suzanne Venker entitled "Why Women Still Need Husbands." 

If you think it sounds controversial, you'd be right. Because shortly after its release, Venker became the target of some pretty serious social media backlash -- with many outraged that she would hold a perspective straight from the 1950's.

Her claim was straightforward: In order to live balanced lives, it's in most women's best interest for them to rely on their husbands. In short, women "need" their husbands.

But the outrage over this article is just a symptom of a much wider rejection of male/female complementarianism as a whole -- the basic idea that men & women tend to have different capacities that complement one another. And it's more than just a rejection. As demonstrated by the reaction to Venker's article, it's often nothing short of offensive to say men & women "need" each other.

Which begs the question: What is so offensive about complementarianism?

I have my guesses. The concept has been largely spoiled by chauvinistic men who believe their "role" is to be the authoritative and omnipotent ruler over women, rather than a leader for and with them. By these and several other factors, women have been drained of any worth in the social marketplace, the family unit, and elsewhere. And I know that's not even the whole story -- it's barely even scratched the surface.

But even if it has been skewed and used as a tool to hurt women, does compementarianism need to be offensive? And in its pure, accurate form, should it be?

Before I go further, I'd like to point out that I'm a man -- a white heterosexual one with a wife and an all-around conservative background, and I haven't read every ounce of Judith Butler, which means I'm probably already discredited in the eyes of several people who read this. If you're in that camp, there's no obligation for you to stay (but you're always welcome!). Regardless, I'm gonna give this a go. 

First, a wee bit of etymological clarification. Even by a quick search on the Google, the term "complementarianism" almost has a complete religious connotation to it. That is, men & women were created to have complementary roles, duties, abilities within marriage, family life, other social facets, but with the essential assumption that God ordained it to be that way. I subscribe to that, but I don't think the faith umbrella is even needed to understand and use the word in a more secular context. By using any variation of the word "complementarianism" here, I'm not referring to that traditionally conceived version of the concept. Rather, I'm writing strictly within these rough boundaries: men & women have faculties that complement each other. That benefit each other. That make each other more 'whole.'

That said, even though the concept has been used to manipulate & oppress, complementarianism should (and can) do the opposite: unite and strengthen. And with that, here are a few reasons why complementarianism (the non-spoiled kind) doesn't have to be offensive. 

1. Complementarianism acknowledges & values the strengths of women.
One of the fundamental premises of complementarianism is that sexual differentiation leaves particular sexes often 'better' than each other at certain tasks. Let me boil that down: Women are better at things than men. This places them at the social, cultural, and practical advantages in several arenas -- by far transcending the home.

I feel like this should be fairly prima facie, but for the "source or it didn't happen" type of crowd, there's plenty to be found.

• Key areas of emotional intelligence, such as emotional empathy, have been found to be higher in women than in men. 

• Research has supported the notion that women multitask better than men.

• Women have been found to learn more effectively due to a better overall "approach to learning."

• When it comes to coping with stress, women do it better.

And for the truly male chauvinistic bums out there, these strengths represent some very real competitive threats within the job market, typically perceived to be "man" territory.

• Women handle interviews better than men. 

• Women have been found to generally work harder than men.

• Some research indicates that women are more engaged in their work than men.

Safe conclusion: In general, women have strengths I and most other men just can't touch. The true complementarian realizes this, and gives full credit to where it's due.

Sure, one could easily argue that this imbalance in types of skill sets results from the prejudice of a sexist society -- not innate differences in the sexes themselves. I'd quickly deny that, and follow up with this: Within the framework of this discussion, what does it matter? Generally speaking, women are still inclined to do some things better than men -- regardless of how it became that way.

2. Complementarianism values men without compromising the dignity of women.
When most skewed or anti-complementarians approach this subject, they seem to assume the existence of a single, collective pot of abilities available to both men & women. A fixed amount of credit exists for both sexes. If you give to one, you can't give to the other. If you take from one, he/she is left with less while the other benefits. And because society is overly favorable toward men, most of the contents are given to them, while women are left with little to nothing. In effect, to recognize the strengths of men is to compromise the dignity of women.

But this is a mistaken view.

A more accurate (but also imperfect) analogy may be that there are two pots -- one for men, and one for women. The issue then becomes how well each sex will come to adopt the abilities at which, in general, they typically succeed. Sure, the pots may overflow, mix with each other, and may become bigger. But the existence of the distinct pots still can't be ignored.

The implication of this should be fairly obvious. Men don't need to succeed at the expense of women.

Just as women have a variety of skills men don't, men have their gifts likewise -- gifts that deserved to be recognized, utilized, and valued. What's great is that when this credit is given, women get to keep every bit of their own.

3. Anti-complementarianism demoralizes men.
Yeah, it really does. Even if one were to fully recognize a man for the skills & abilities he has, providing no need, no calling, no essential purpose for those skills sends a very clear, and often hurtful message: You're not needed. 

A good perspective might be my own. Within the realm of marriage, if I'm not a useful and needed component of my wife's life, then what am I? Some sort of accessory that's fun to have around but not worth more than the added convenience and hopefully a good gamete that I bring?

As a husband, yes, I want to be wanted. But what I want more is to be needed. And I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only man who thinks this way.

Do the Google, and you'll find a good amount of evidence to suggest that men need women for their own well being. The obviously important, but surface-level, example may be "having a family," but the need transcends pure biology, and also permeates men's actual character, such as the presence of women leading men to be more generous (something I would definitely classify as a need). 

Almost always, the critical response to this research is positive, most often because it bolsters the value of women. That is, women feel more valued when they feel more needed. In summary, a man's "need" for a woman is found to be socially acceptable (and often encouraged), and yet, when anyone suggests that a woman might "need" a man, it rains sexism.

4. Complementarianism promotes gender freedom.
I know I'll get resistance with this one, but I do think it's true. If the differences between men & women are recognized, only then can they freely choose to pursue those differences -- rather than be forced into an "equal" but restrictive notion of what they "should" be. Sure, that concept can swing both ways (such as forcing men & women into traditional roles & expectations), but that extreme isn't what this post is about. Let me explain.

Fairly typical in the discussion over women's rights is a concern over career inequality -- most often revolving around a bias in pay and hiring trends against women. And in all honesty, many of those biases exist. 

Unsurprisingly, people have been driven by their sentiments to figure out some way to get more female representation in traditionally male-occupied fields like technology & engineering. Just a couple include: 

• GoldieBlox, a startup company selling media to encourage girls to enter engineering careers. (By the way, the commercial they made is amazing.)
• Girls Who Code - a nonprofit organization giving girls computer science education and encouragement to become involved in computing & engineering programs.

Excitingly, the efforts seem to be working... slightly. In the NY Times, Claire Cain Miller reports that out of the 60,000 person net change in the tech industry in the last year (approximately), 60% of that change consisted of women. But Miller also admits that this doesn't necessarily mean more women were hired than men: 

The bureau’s figure is a net change, meaning the numbers reflect new employees and those who left. More men than women probably left their jobs — because there are so many more men working in the tech industry. 

And as strong as the efforts may be, "women still appear to make up far less than half of all new hires in the industry," and hold less than 25% of all computer & technical jobs. 

Many have (often accurately) attributed this resistance to that deep-seated bias. No matter how many women become involved in the fields, some employers simply have a firm, immovable stance against hiring them -- even if many exceed the skill set of their male counterparts.

But others, working on the inside of many of these efforts, are beginning to reach an additional conclusion, just as Harvey Mudd College President, Maria Klawe did: “We’ve done lots of research on why young women don’t choose tech careers and number one is they think it’s not interesting" (emphasis my own).

In essence, the biases may still exist, but it's also very likely that, in general, women simply don't prefer these career fields. 

The takeaway is this: Maybe, at some level, it's best to just let women pursue their own interests, and not those of the surrounding culture. The way I see it, freedom of choice should trump career gender imbalance any day. 

Within the complementarianism framework, there's plenty of room for women and men to pursue the career fields that interest them most -- with no coercion to enter a field based on a few statistics. The complementarian doesn't expect women and men to have the same interests and strengths, and enforcing otherwise is oppressive. (And for the record, forcing people to pursue any interest or strength is bad, in my book). 

If both sexes are allowed to pursue their interests & strengths, my hunch is three-fold: men will be happy, women will be happy, society will be happy. 

Thankfully, my hunch isn't the only support this prediction has. Author Christina Hoff Sommers (a woman), explores research presented in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology back in 2008, that compared data on gender and personality. While differences existed between men and women with respect to risk aversion, emotional expression, etc., there was something else interesting in the data. Nations with more wealth, better health, and more gender equity actually displayed greater differences in personality. 

Meaning: Differences between the sexes may be an indicator of a healthy society -- not an oppressive one. Why? Men and women are allowed to choose their own paths, based on their own differences in their own interests. In one word: freedom.

And if that's true (as it seems to be), it's probably in our best interest not to try to control, level out, and manipulate the differences between men and women. Instead, let's celebrate them. 

------------------------------------------------------

I realize that while we talk so much in generalizations, we live in a world of particulars. That is, the discussion here affects real, individual persons -- no two of which are alike. I know there are exceptions to virtually everything said here. Even so, there's an obvious pattern that exists in this world with respect to men, women, and gender as a whole. 

It's unbelievably disappointing that, far too often, this pattern is used to men & women's disadvantage, rather than as the empowering unifier it has the potential to be.

There should be no shame in men and women "needing" each other, from either end of the spectrum.

Indeed, from a man's perspective, one of the most valuable, "manly" characteristics of a man is to admit his need for a woman. It doesn't cripple my ego, compromise my dignity, or hurt my feelings. Rather, it gives me hope that someone exists to fill the missing pieces that are my weaknesses, and a confidence that together, we might be unstoppable.

Hopefully, eventually, this privilege won't be limited just to men.

Seven Knockdown Reasons to Get a Puppy.

The minute I knew I was gonna marry Hannah, my mind was struck with amazing images of little kiddies in sundresses running through tall grass, family eggnog around Christmas time, and Hannah & I getting old together.

But I'm an impatient guy. Kids cook like a Crock-Pot, Hannah hates eggnog, and we both still look pre-puberty. So, I'll need something to hold me over.

A puppy.

I don't care about the breed, I don't care about the nothing.

Of course, the reasons for getting a puppy are inherently obvious... but I'm still here. Lap is puppy-free. Facebook has no selfies of me & Tasha (her would-be name.)

Hannah, I'm going to say this nicely but firmly.

WE'RE GETTING A PUPPY. 

Please.

Think about it?

(Love you.)

Just consider a few of the many knockdown reasons. (This list is not exhaustive.)

1. The most awesome stress relief tool. 
Those pet medication commercials have been saying for YEARS that pets help you LIVE longer because they reduce STRESS.  I'm stressed! You're stressed! We're juggling some dangerously stressful things right now -- working, breathing, living with me, all at the same time.

It's basically a totally justified preventative care measure. There's GOTTA be a clause in Obamacare for it. Who knows? (Seriously, probably nobody knows.)

2. We'd be on the social map. 
Pet owners are cooler than boring people. EVERYBODY KNOWS THIS.

Exhibit A: http://magazine.foxnews.com/celebrity/celebrities-and-their-exotic-pets

And I'm not even ASKING for a kinkajou like Paris Hilton. (What is that thing anyway?)

There's even a well-known slogan for this phenomenon: Want cool? Get drool!

3. The perfect baby warmup. 
I'd love our little puppy like one of our own, but I'd also be willing to experiment on it as preparation for a baby someday.

Dream with me for a moment.

Think of all the organic, MSG-free, high-fructose-corn-syrup-lacking, non-gluten meals you could feed this dog, all without (much) fear of a lawsuit coming our way if something goes horribly wrong.

Admit it. You'd love it. I'd love it. The dog would probably hate it but that hate would be vastly overpowered by our love.

4. Our families would love it. 
In a recent survey of my sister, 100% of the respondents were totally on board with us getting a puppy. In addition, she was quoted as saying this:

"I'd like it because then I would have another friend."

The simple question is this: Do we love our families, or do we not? Completely up to you...

5. They're cheap cuteness. 
Let me be clear. I really think babies are better than dogs.

But dogs are cheaper. And I'm willing to bet I could scrounge one up for a grand total of free.

6. Develop an immunity for your pet allergies. 
I know there's that one allergy you have that might hold us back with this. But I once read on Yahoo! Answers that you can develop a cat allergy immunity if you hang around cats.

Must work with dogs too? Right?

7. I'd smile more. 
Don't you like it when I smile?

Let me know when you decide! Love you!

Obama's Doing Business Backwards.

If you're on the Twitter, it's hard not to notice the Obama administration trying SO hard to sell its newest faulty product.

President Obama has one more campaign in him, and he's asking you to be a part of it: http://t.co/3gfRGCvFc0 #Obamacare
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 12, 2013

FACT: Thanks to #Obamacare, 73,000 more Floridians will gain access to care through community health centers —> http://t.co/WAcF02SMk8
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) November 7, 2013

“This marketplace is open now … The deal is good. The prices are low.” —President Obama on #Obamacare
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 30, 2013

"Nearly 50% of young adults will be eligible for a plan under $50/month…that's an amazing rate" —@Simas44: http://t.co/byS8JaB1KN #Obamacare
— The White House (@WhiteHouse) October 29, 2013

This cancer survivor supports #Obamacare because it helps people with pre-existing conditions #GetCovered. http://t.co/JB7fXmYizM
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) November 10, 2013

Scroll through the White House or Obama's Twitter feeds, and you'll see it never ends. 

My first reaction to all of this was pretty cynical-conservative-typical: Wow, must be a pretty screwed up deal if he's trying so hard to sell it.

But I should to be fair. Whenever something's messed up with government, we're quick to compare it to how a business should operate, like some sort of political plumb line. Whatever a good private business does, so should government. We say things like:

If Obama worked for me, I'd fire him for launching a product before it was ready. 

Or...

The government should balance its stinkin' budget just like my business does. 

Why should this be any different? Even the best business needs to sell its product -- no matter how great it is, right? Right!

So, why am I having a fit when the government tries to sell its own?

Here's why: Obama's trying sell us a product after we've been forced to buy it. 

And that's not good business. That's coercion. Even worse: the product doesn't work and there's no return policy.

Obama's doing business backwards, and we have no choice but to sit and suffer from it.