Harvard University’s admissions policy is proof that one can remember negative history, write about it in great and vivid detail, and still be doomed to repeat it. In the name of “affirmative action” and “diversity,” Harvard is doing to Asian-American applicants exactly what it once did to Jewish applicants: discriminate. Lee Cheng explains.
Elizabeth Warren is bent on using the race card, even if it means falsely claiming Native American heritage. Dennis Prager explains why race doesn’t matter.
…In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.
The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”
B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….
In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:
“Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (Savage; Schlafly; Schlafly; CNS-News; More)
She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.
Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)
Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)
Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)
An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)
The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
Affirmative action for homosexuals.
The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.
1972 “Homosexual” Platform
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.
Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…
And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:
Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?
Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.
“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition. We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.
“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”
Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations. It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society. That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”…
But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.
Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.
“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.
B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”
In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”
Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.
Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”
Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.
Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”
He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”
When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”
Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”
In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.” Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”
Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”
Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.
The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”…
FOX NEWS ends up being the most “Fair and Balanced,” as usual. Now, some of it may be explained away by this analogy: “The Lions [NFL] get bad press because they do poorely.” Okay, I cannot argue against nor defend Trump’s insane Tweets and foot-n-mouth disease. But many of the major networks and papers show their bias towards the issues thus:
…immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)
In a previous NEWSBUSTERS study, they pointed out the same biased media coverage (see graphic to the right).
I WILL INCLUDE some similar graphics I have collected over the years, at the end of this post.
Here is the
How negative was press coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.
The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.
The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.
Accusations of bias aside, it’s simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump’s opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.
That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.
Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.
Ninety-three percent negative — that’s a lot by anybody’s standards. “CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study noted. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity.”……
A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.
The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time “gig” jobs in a variety of fields.
Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.
The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.
Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.
I used to believe that open discourse was a value all Americans hold dear. I presumed that when asked about what makes America so unique, many Americans would respond that our pluralistic society is the foundation of so much of our success. That it was understood that without a marketplace of ideas, our society simply could not flourish.
But then I started college.
Since the beginning of my freshman year, I have come to believe that a more fitting way to describe the current culture on college campuses is a culture defined not by open expression—but by sensitivity. This undue focus on feelings has caused the college campus to often feel like a place where one has to monitor every syllable that is uttered to ensure that it could not under any circumstance offend anyone to the slightest degree. It sometimes feels as though pluralism has become an antiquated concept. Facts and history have been discarded, and instead feelings have been deemed to be the criteria that determine whether words and actions are acceptable.
It is important to have organizations and movements on college campuses that work toward protecting individuals’ identities. The past few decades have witnessed an explosion of new identities, and students should become aware of and respect the plethora of new identities that have recently emerged. But many of these movements have gone too far.
Take the University of New Hampshire’s “Bias-Free Language Guide.” The list was compiled to inform students of words that are considered offensive in conversation. According to the guide, which was removed from the school’s website a few months ago after it incited controversy, the word “American” is unacceptable, for it fails to recognize people of South American origin. “American,” it argues, should be replaced with “resident of the U.S.” The words “senior citizens,” “older people,” and “elders” should also be eliminated, and instead replaced with “people of advanced age” and “old people.” If we’re at a point where it is offensive to say that your 90-year-old grandparent is a senior citizen, it seems that pretty soon, there may not be any neutral words left.
In a class I attended earlier this semester, a large portion of the first meeting was devoted to compiling a list of rules for class discussion. A student contended that as a woman, she would be unable to sit across from a student who declared that he was strongly against abortion, and the other students in the seminar vigorously defended this declaration. The professor remained silent. In a recent conversation with peers, I posed a question about a verse from the Bible. A Harvard employee in the room immediately interjected, informing me that we were in a safe space and I was thus not permitted to discuss the controversial biblical passage. And these are just stories from the past three months.
The assaults on free expression have dire consequences. The rise of the microagression movement has been reported to be detrimental to mental health on campus. Students’ emotional distress is increasing as educators presume that fragile undergraduates need to be protected from any form of dissent. Administrators must recognize that the current restrictions are incompatible with the very premise and goal of an education.
It is time to stop focusing on feelings as the criteria for speech and actions on the college campus.
This is meant mainly as a supplement to a Christmas Eve-Eve gathering/discussion I was at. I will make this post a little different than other posts, as, it will be “minimalist.” This is the second installment of the topics covered, which are polar bears, rising sea levels, CO2, Inconvenient Truth (the movie), nuclear power, warmest year, electric vehicles (EVs)/hybrid cars, and bullet trains.
Tarzan couldn’t take this kind of hot!
The question becomes this:
WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO MEASURE TEMPERATURE,
WHICH ONE ARE MANY MEDIA SOURCES USING,
AND WHICH ARE THE MOST RELIABLE.
These are the questions any serious person who tells people 2014 is the hottest year as if they are the final arbiter of truth. I have dealt with this in the past, but will again deal with it here.
The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:
A third surge of cold air pushed into the Northern Plains, Upper Midwest and East Coast. This third surge reinforced the cold temperatures for millions of Americans who have already endured at least a week of January-like chill.
There have been more than 400 record lows and record cool highs set, covering 43 states, since Sunday. That leaves only five states in the contiguous U.S., all in New England, that have not experienced record cold temperatures this week.
On Wednesday morning record lows were broken or tied from New York to Houston. Thursday morning brought more record cold to parts of the Southeast.
– First arctic surge: Spread into the East last week (November 11-15).
– Second arctic surge: Blasted through the East, Midwest, and South through early Thursday (November 16-20). For parts of the mid-Mississippi Valley, Ohio Valley, Tennessee Valley and the Middle Atlantic States, this was the coldest of the surges, with numerous daily record lows broken.
– Third arctic surge: Reached the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest Thursday, then slid east across the Great Lakes and parts of the Northeast on Friday. It did not press nearly as far south as the first and second surges did.
– Cold relief: Relief began in the Rockies, then expanded into the southern Plains and Southeast Wednesday and Thursday. Midwest and Northeast relief arrives this weekend.…
Okay, what we have already seen is that the satellite temperatures say 2014 will NOT BE the hottest year. One should ask what the hottest year was: 1934:
(L.A. Times) A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in the country’s history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA.
That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler.
This is where I transition to the NOAA temperature, but I wanted to take this transition with help from Dr. Willie Soon (NM), who is an Astrophysicist and Geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (I will embolden the point made below.) More and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and Dr. Soon is one of them. He says in fact that if his community continues “to keep silent and do not express outrage like the one I now feel, the notion of science as a philosophy and way of life will soon be reduced to computer games and animation for the mind-controllers and beauty-contest institutions….” Dr. Soon continues:
2014 hottest year a manipulation
Is this a joke or simply my BAD dream? Prostituting science like this is now consider a virtue. It is no wonder that science writer Lord Ridley said that he has lost his faith on science as an institution.
Why would anyone even bother with claims and insistence of the globe in 2014 being the hottest to a relative colder years all within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius? Poor Anders Celsius should be dancing in his grave.
The claim is based on just one (from a half dozen or so) thermometer-based products whose measurement quality is fraught with uncertainty and with actual error bars at least ten times larger than those claimed “effects”.WMO and others simply pick and choose the “data” that produces the press news they want in time for the Lima, Peru political pow-wow.
In truth the datasets taken as a whole clearly show that the global temperature has been flat-trending for nearly two decades now and that the theory of rising CO2 leading to global warming is sorrowfully exaggerated.
This kind of manipulative science, exemplified by IPCC, WMO, NOAA and what have you, is serving its master in the realm of politics and policy, and is indeed very sickening.
All of them are essentially behaving in ways we would never want any of our school children to behave: cheating and manipulating that are accompanied by careful wording and clever rhetoric….
This sets us up for HOW the NOAA gets their temperatures, and why they are inaccurate. The below is posted elsewhere on my blog and is semi-technical for the layman. But the key is PLACEMENT, and you can see that in the photo’s below Dr. Mueller’s presentation on how the numbers are skewed/manipulated.
(Dr. Mueller is part of the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where he is also associated with the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics.)
There seems to be a misunderstanding by the general public of the NOAA and other organizations and how they misuse data points (or average them wrongly).
So, for instance, professor Mueller at Berkeley mentions how climate “scientists” were hiding the decline in the past:
They were skewing the numbers in other words. This is an example of fraud. But numbers can be skewed by faulty or outdated methods/equipment. For instance,
…A STUDYby meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.
To develop reliable data, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed 114 state-of-the-art weather stations relatively evenly spaced about the lower 48 states. They were carefully sited to be away from urban areas, which are heat islands, airports, which can be affected by jet exhaust, etc.
The system became operative in 2005. Now, realclearenergy.com is reporting that there has been no increase in average temperatures in the continental United States over the last 14 years, as measured by these new stations. If anything, overall temperatures are slightly cooler than they were….
Here are some examples of fudged data because of sub-standard equipment:
You’d think the answer would be obvious, but here we have a NOAA operated USHCN climate station of record providing a live experiment. It always helps to illustrate with photos. Today I surveyed a sewage treatment plant, one of 4 stations surveyed today (though I tried for 5) and found that for convenience, they had made a nice concrete walkway to allow servicing the Fisher-Porter rain gauge, which needs a paper punch tape replaced one a month.
Here is what you see in visible light:
Here is what the infrared camera sees:
Note that the concrete surface is around 22-24°C, while the grassy areas are between 12-19°C
Class 5 (error >~= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”
More than half of the stations the NOAA use are tainted or wrongly placed equipment.
Another example of changing averages was noted by Steve Goddard and others — even the NOAA have acknowledge it — have been discussing recently is exemplified in Dr. Judith Carry’s post on the matter (from a larger post of mine):
Even the Wall Street Journal chose the higher temperature reading to say that July of 2012 was July was the “hottest month in the contiguous U.S. since records began in 1895.” WUWT found this on accident and it has led to quite a few other revelations as we will see. Here is description in part of what we looking at:
Glaring inconsistencies found between State of the Climate (SOTC) reports sent to the press and public and the “official” climate database record for the United States. Using NCDC’s own data, July 2012 can no longer be claimed to be the “hottest month on record”.
I initially thought this was just some simple arithmetic error or reporting error, a one-off event, but then I began to find it in other months when I compared the output from the NCDC climate database plotter. Here is a table of the differences I found for the last two years between claims made in the SOTC report and the NCDC database output.
In almost every instance dating back to the inception of the CONUS Tavg value being reported in the SOTC report, there’s a difference. Some are quite significant. In most cases, the database value is cooler than the claim made in the SOTC report. Clearly, it is a systemic issue that spans over two years of reporting to the press and to the public.
It suggests that claims made by NCDC when they send out these SOTC reports aren’t credible because there are such differences between the data. Clearly, NCDC means for the plotter output they link to, to be an official representation to the public, so there cannot be a claim of me using some “not fit for purpose” method to get that data….
The WALL STREET JOURNAL made a graph showing this record setting month (below-left). The more accurate temperature for July likewise is shown in the same graph (below-right):
This looking at the data sets chosen and what is used and isn’t used to support an idea that fails in every way. Combine this obvious cherry-picking with the bias, collusion, and charges against the report that the President used to route Congress, all show we have a problem Houston! But this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It seems the NOAA has been skewing these temps for some time. Why? Because the left uses this as a way to promote an ever growing government and the scientists get more-and-more funding. This data fudging story is newer, and it is evolving quickley, including this newest post via Real Science where Steve Goddard notes that More Than 40% Of USHCN Station Data Is Fabricated. Here is Dr. Judith carry’s synopsis (excerpted), in which she critiques a bit Goddard’s post… but then bows to the evidence:
OK, acknowledging that Goddard made some analysis errors, I am still left with some uneasiness about the actual data, and why it keeps changing. For example, Jennifer Marohasy has been writing about Corrupting Australian’s temperature record.
In the midst of preparing this blog post, I received an email from Anthony Watts, suggesting that I hold off on my post since there is some breaking news. Watts pointed me to a post by Paul Homewood entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Excerpt:
So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.
From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.
Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated. It is understandable that a station might be a month, or even two, late in reporting, but it is not conceivable that readings from last year are late. (The other two months, Jan/Feb are marked “a”, indicating missing days).
But, the mystery thickens. Each state produces a monthly and annual State Climatological Report, which among other things includes a list of monthly mean temperatures by station. If we look at the 2013 annual report for Texas, we can see these monthly temperatures for Luling.
Where an “M” appears after the temperature, this indicates some days are missing, i.e Jan, Feb, Oct and Nov. (Detailed daily data shows just one missing day’s minimum temperature for each of these months).
Yet, according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?
But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.
In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.
Note as well, that the largest adjustments are for the estimated months of March – December. This is something that Steve Goddard has been emphasising.
It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.
Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.
Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated’). I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond….
And this has — within the past few months — turned into a very large debate.
EQUIPMENT FAIL II
Here is another example of older/faulty equipment:
A Quick Note about the Difference between RSS and UAH TLT data
There is a noticeable difference between the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Dr. Roy Spencer discussed this in his July 2011 blog post On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records. In summary, John Christy and Roy Spencer believe the divergence is caused by the use of data from different satellites. UAH has used the NASA Aqua AMSU satellite in recent years, while as Dr. Spencer writes:
…RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.
While the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are different in recent years, UAH believes their data are correct, and, likewise, RSS believes their TLT data are correct. Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias? Until the two suppliers can account for and agree on the differences, both are available for presentation.
ROSE COLORED GLASSES
Another example of competing ideas is this example from two major UK papers, the first being from the Guardian:
This next one from the Daily Mail:
(DAILY MAIL) ….The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.
This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.
Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.
Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.
‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’
Same data used, one says BEWARE, the END IS NEAR, the other says making gains, as the graph shows below:
(So are Polar Bears, BTW) And the Antarctic has made BIG GAINS. But if the left — yes, the left — says we should renter the little ice-age to be at a normal point of “climate disruption,” then they are living a pipe-dream. As the earth gets warmer life flourishes, as warmer periods in history have exemplified:
June was ranked one of the coldest months in a while. According to the NOAA, July 2014 ranked 29th coldest out of 120using the Maximum temperature. And so we enter the discussion about if the pause is real… which is now being acknowledged by almost all (except the IPCC).
Here is Dr. Judith Curry posting ion the subject before getting into two papers that talk about it from two points of view:
With 39 explanations and counting, and some climate scientists now arguing that it might last yet another decade, the IPCC has sidelined itself in irrelevance until it has something serious to say about the pause and has reflected on whether its alarmism is justified, given its reliance on computer models that predicted temperature rises that have not occurred. – Rupert Darwall
The statement by Rupert Darwall concisely states what is at stake with regards to the ‘pause.’ This seriously needs to be sorted out….
For a running — updated — list of these excuses mentioned above, see here.What HAS been clearly shown is that while some wish to make CO2 illegal, CO2 is in fact not driving the climate:
What is being shown as of late is that more-and-more scientists are becoming concerned with the group-think in the climate-sciences. Again, Dr. Judith Curry was the biggest pro-AGW proponent, but has — like many others leaders in their respective field — changed or softened her/their positions on what the science is actually showing:
The implications of dogmatic groupthink and intimidation for the pursuit of sound science — and sound policy — are chilling. – Christopher Snowden
A collection of articles from the health science community on the fate of papers and scientists that challenge the consensus.
SUN & OCEAN
Gross Scientific Negligence – IPCC Ignored Huge Body Of Peer-Reviewed Literature Showing Sun’s Clear Impact – See more at: http://tinyurl.com/kw47zcf (NASA is changing on this as well)
NASA is saying the sun — thanks to the Goddard Institute studying this, is the driver of warming and cooling: http://tinyurl.com/m29yo99 (Via Hockey Shtick)
And yet another study is showing the sun as the major player… NOT greenhouse gases.
So what’s the bottom line? NOAA temps change over time. Many in this respective field are seeing group-think. Ideology is driving this group-think, not science.
Why should you be interested? Sea surface temperature records indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not man-made greenhouse gases. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years and ocean heat content records for more than 3 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal in either dataset. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.
After laying out a detailed case of what by Julia Pollak experienced in the military as a woman, she goes on to compare this experinece to her experience at Harvard. A MUST read, great article! I pick up as she enters the comparison:
…Compare all this to the model for sexual assault prevention and response at the institution I belonged to before the military—Harvard College. There, complaints of sexual assault are filed with the Administrative Board, or “Ad Board,” comprised of deans and faculty members. The written policies regarding sexual assault are far less favorable to victims, requiring non-consent to be expressed “verbally or physically” and requiring the Ad Board members to be “sufficiently persuaded” that an assault occurred.
In stark contrast to the stories I’ve heard about military perpetrators landing up in Leavenworth Prison, Harvard’s history of dealing with sexual assault cases might easily give more encouragement to perpetrators than victims.
During my time at Harvard College, between 2005 and 2009, I had one friend who was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, another who was beaten by her boyfriend (a fellow student), and another who was involved in a highly improper and abusive relationship with a professor. Not one of these incidents was ever reported.
In the five years from 2005 to 2010, according to the Harvard Crimson, eight cases of sexual misconduct were brought before Harvard’s Ad Board. Only three perpetrators were required to withdraw from Harvard College for at least six months, and none received a permanent expulsion.
So perhaps, instead of being a punching bag on Capitol Hill, the military should be studied as a model for sexual assault awareness, prevention, and response policy, especially among young people aged 18 to 24.
To place the military’s sexual assault problem in a wider context, here are some illustrative numbers. According to an anonymous survey, service members may have experienced as many as 26,000 instances of “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012. In other words, about 6.1% of female service members and 1.2% of male service members experienced unwanted sexual contact that year. Note that this number includes a substantial number of cases that occurred before the victim entered the military, as well as cases involving civilian perpetrators.
Although it is difficult to make direct comparisons due to differences in the way survey questions are asked, rates of sexual assault outside the military appear to be similar—if not higher. A 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that 6.7% of all women had experienced sexual violence, rape, or attempted rape in the 12-month period preceding the study. Since sexual assault rates are highest among the young, the CDC finding implies that the incidence of sexual assault is even higher than 6.7% among military-aged women. The CDC also found that between 20 and 25 percent of women, and approximately 6.1 percent of men, are victims of an attempted or completed sexual assault while they are in college.
And perhaps that model should be exported to the nation’s college campuses, where sexual assault is equally prevalent but far more hidden; where sexual assault policies and practices are outdated; and where the fear of litigation or falling rankings makes university administrations reluctant to expel offenders and eager to brush the problem under the carpet.
Really the idea of “progressive, democratic evolutionary ethics” is meaningless if true (see here). Dennis Prager discusses a recent defense of Bloomberg’s “soda-ban” by an evolutionary professor from Harvard. He [Dennis] even wrote about this in a recent article:
Control of Language (1984'ish)
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.
And he did so using, of all things, evolution.
Now, we all know that humans have always needed — or evolved to need — carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugar, a pure carbohydrate?
“We have evolved,” the professor concluded his piece, “to need coercion.”
Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence. Indeed, it explains everything but music. For some reason, the evolutionists have not come up with an evolution-based explanation for why human beings react so powerfully to music. But surely they will.
Now, along comes Professor Lieberman, not merely to use evolution to explain human behavior but to justify coercive left-wing social policy.
In other words, the left is not only progressive when it coerces citizens to act in ways the left deems appropriate but also science itself — through evolution — inexorably leads to government coercion on behalf of such policies.
Whereas until now, the democratic left has attempted to persuade humanity that left-wing policies are inherently progressive, this Harvard professor has gone a huge step further. Left-wing policies are scientifically based. This is exactly how the Soviet Communists defended their totalitarian system. Everything they advocated was “naoochni,” “scientific.”
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
It is worth mentioning that this supposed truth for evolutionary theory is further along the wrong prediction mark than the proof of “Junk DNA” was along this path when I was debating in 97′ with people over at the Discover site. (In fact, this “proof” is connected to the “junk DNA” position.) In 1997 people — in debate situation — said that evolution predicts junk DNA and that they have known of junk DNA for quite some time, thus proving evolutionary explanatory power. IN 2003, one of the first articles to hit the mainstream scientific press that this long held assumption was in jeopardy hit Discover and Scientific American magazines, two subscriptions I receive out of the many mags I get. Pictured is the first Discover magazine (yes, I have kept them) ruminations that this “proof” was disintegrating, like the vestigial organs “proof” did, cytochrome C differences, bacterial evolution, etc.
So debating a topic like this supposed proof is funny because it is much further along the scientific path than it was when I first debated the issue. Not to mention all the “evolutionary tree” models that are supposed to be factual when in fact their order is a topic of much debate. For instance, I posted a bit earlier a layman’s article on the argument within the evolutionary camp about mankind coming from orangutans rather than a chimpanzee split in the family tree… (this earlier post mentions the belief within the evolutionary camp that man came from some aquatic ancestor rather than orangutans). A few people likewise believe that apes (Gorillas) are descended from mankind in some way. For instance, Dr. Aaron G. Filler:
Dr. Aaron G. Filler, M.D., Ph.D. studied evolutionary theory under some of the leading biologists and anthropologists of our time: Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, David Pilbeam, and Irven DeVore. A neurosurgeon at the Institute for Spinal Disorders at Cedars Sinai Medical Center and past associate director of the Comprehensive Spine Center at UCLA, Dr. Filler has been a leading innovator in medical imaging and neuroscience. He is the author of Do You Really Need Back Surgery? (Oxford University Press), as well as numerous scientific articles and patents.
He was Director of Yerkes Regional Primate Research Center at Emory University, England. Dr. Bourne is Oxford educated, and is an American cell biologist/anatomist who was considered by most to be the worlds leading primatologist.
He said that apes are descended from man. Why would men of science believe such a thing? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism, e.g., “scientism”). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science [not “scientism”] proves his theory due to observable facts. (SEE APPENDIX) All this though, junk DNA being disproved and a differing order of our family tree are other impediments to the Vitamin C Pseudogene argument. In order for this argument to work (and the subsequent predictions made to be coherent), he [the evolutionist] has to have all his ducks in order, this is something he does not have the luxury of (see image at top). One of the papers linked above (GULO pseudogenes have been intensively investigated) and its in-depth research led it two authors to say the following:
When examined in detail, the full pseudogene dataset we collected does not lend itself to a reasonable neo-Darwinian interpretation. Using standard bioinformatics tools and principles, we present alternative designs for at least the exon X portion of the GULO gene. These may be plausible due to nucleotide patterns being relevant as regulatory signals or the favouring of some codons for various possible reasons. We do accept that some mutations have occurred in this exon. But these novel proposals imply that the ancestors of the organisms studied may well never have had the exact same GULO sequence.
That last sentence really shows the assumptions made in this “proof” that steps away from true science and into the realm of historical science. And the historical sciences are fraught with bickering, changing branches of human lineage, and naturalistic philosophies that make the vitamin C pseudogene argument pretty vacuous.
The following is a good round-up of the problems seen in this line of argument, by Sean D. Pitman MD:
…in 2003, the same Japanese group published the complete sequence of the guinea pig GLO pseudogene, which is thought to have evolved independently, and compared it to that of humans [Inai et al, 2003]. 21 Surprisingly, they reported many shared mutations (deletions and substitutions) present in both humans and guinea pigs. Remember now that humans and guinea pigs are thought to have diverged at the time of the common ancestor with rodents. Therefore, a mutational difference between a guinea pig and a rat should not be shared by humans with better than random odds. But, this was not what was observed. Many mutational differences were shared by humans, including the one at position 97. According to Inai et al, this indicated some form of non-random bias that was independent of common descent or evolutionary ancestry. The probability of the same substitutions in both humans and guinea pigs occurring at the observed number of positions was calculated, by Inai et al, to be 1.84×10-12 – consistent with mutational hotspots.
What is interesting here is that the mutational hot spots found in guinea pigs and humans exactly match the mutations that set humans and primates apart from the rat (see figure below). 21,22 This particular feature has given rise to the obvious argument that Inai et al got it wrong. Reed Cartwright, a population geneticist, has noted a methodological flaw in the Inai paper:
“However, the sections quoted from Inai et al. (2003) suffer from a major methodological error; they failed to consider that substitutions could have occurred in the rat lineage after the splits from the other two. The researchers actually clustered substitutions that are specific to the rat lineage with separate substitutions shared by guinea pigs and humans. . .
If I performed the same analysis as Inai et al. (2003), I would conclude that there are ten positions where humans and guinea pigs experienced separate substitutions of the same nucleotide, otherwise known as shared, derived traits. These positions are 1, 22, 31, 58, 79, 81, 97, 100, 109, 157. However, most of these are shown to be substitutions in the rat lineage when we look at larger samples of species.
When we look at this larger data table, only one position of the ten, 81, stands out as a possible case of a shared derived trait, one position, 97, is inconclusive, and the other eight positions are more than likely shared ancestral sites. With this additional phylogenetic information, I have shown that the “hot spots” Inai et al. (2003) found are not well supported.” (see Link)
It does indeed seems like a number of the sequence differences noted by Cartwright are fairly unique to the rat – especially when one includes several other species in the comparison. However, I do have a question regarding this point. It seems to me that there simply are too many loci where the rat is the only odd sequence out in Exon X (i.e., there are seven and arguably eight of these loci). Given the published estimate on mutation rates (Drake) of about 2 x 10-10 per loci per generation, one should expect to see only 1 or 2 mutations in the 164 nucleotide exon in question (Exon X) over the course of the assumed time of some 30 Ma (million years). Therefore, the argument of the mutational differences being due to mutations in the rat lineage pre-supposes a much greater mutation rate in the rat than in the guinea pig. The same thing is true if one compares the rat with the mouse (i.e., the rat’s evident mutation rate is much higher than that of the mouse).
This is especially interesting since many of the DNA mutations are synonymous. Why should essentially neutral mutations become fixed to a much greater extent in the rat gene pool as compared to the other gene pools? Wouldn’t this significant mutation rate difference, by itself, seem to suggest a mutationally “hot” region – at least in the rat?
Beyond this, several loci differences are not exclusive to the rat/mouse gene pools and therefore suggest mutational hotspots beyond the general overall “hotness” or propensity for mutations in this particular genetic sequence.
Some have noted that although the shared mutations may be the result of hotspots, there are many more mutational differences between humans and rats/guinea pigs as compared to apes. Therefore, regardless of hotspots, humans and apes are clearly more closely related than are humans and rats/guinea pigs.
The problem with this argument is that the rate at which mutations occur is related to the average generation time. Those creatures that have a shorter generation time have a correspondingly higher mutation rate over the same absolute period of time – like 100 years. Therefore, it is only to be expected that those creatures with relatively long generation times, like humans and apes, would have fewer mutational differences relative to each other over the same period of time relative to those creatures with much shorter generation times, like rats and guinea pigs.
What is interesting about many of these mutational losses is that they often share the same mutational changes. It is at least reasonably plausible then that the GULO mutation could also be the result of a similar genetic instability that is shared by similar creatures (such as humans and the great apes).
This same sort of thing is seen to a fairly significant degree in the GULO region. Many of the same regional mutations are shared between humans and guinea pigs. Consider the following illustration yet again:
Why would both humans and guinea pigs share major deletions of exons I, V and VI as well as four stop codons if these mutations were truly random? In addition to this, a mutant group of Danish pigs have also been found to show a loss of GULO functionality. And, guess what, the key mutation in these pigs was a loss of a sizable portion of exon VIII. This loss also matches the loss of primate exon VIII. In addition, there is a frame shift in intron 8 which results in a loss of correct coding for exons 9-12. This also reflects a very similar loss in this region in primates (see Link). That’s quite a few key similarities that were clearly not the result of common ancestry for the GULO region. This seems to be very good evidence that many if not all of the mutations of the GULO region are indeed the result of similar genetic instabilities and that are prone to similar mutations – especially in similar animals.
As an aside, many other genetic mutations that result in functional losses are known to commonly affect the same genetic loci in the same or similar manner outside of common descent. For example, achondroplasia is a spontaneous mutation in humans in about 85% of the cases. In humans achondroplasia is due to mutations in the FGFR2 gene. A remarkable observation on the FGFR2 gene is that the major part of the mutations are introduced at the same two spots (755 C->G and 755-757 CGC->TCT) independent of common descent. The short legs of the Dachshund are also due to the same mutation(s). The same allelic mutation has occurred in sheep as well.
By definition, pseudogenes lack a function. However, the classification of pseudogenes generally relies on computational analysis of genomic sequences using complex algorithms.This has led to the incorrect identification of pseudogenes. For example the functional, chimeric gene jingwei in Drosophila was once thought to be a processed pseudogene. 
It has been established that quite a few pseudogenes can go through the process of transcription, either if their own promoter is still intact or in some cases using the promoter of a nearby gene; this expression of pseudogenes also appears to be tissue-specific. In 2003, Hirotsune et al. identified a retrotransposed pseudogene whose transcript purportedly plays a trans-regulatory role in the expression of its homologous gene, Makorin1 (MKRN1) (see also RING finger domainubiquitin ligases), and suggested this as a general model under which pseudogenes may play an important biological role.Other researchers have since hypothesized similar roles for other pseudogenes.A bioinformatics analysis has shown that processed pseudogenes can be inserted into introns of annotated genes and be incorporated into alternatively spliced transcripts. Hirotsune’s report prompted two molecular biologists to carefully review scientific literature on the subject of pseudogenes. To the surprise of many, they found a number of examples in which pseudogenes play a role in gene regulation and expression, forcing Hirotsune’s group to rescind their claim that they were the first to identify pseudogene function.Furthermore, the original findings of Hirotsune et al. concerning Makorin1 have recently been strongly contested;thus, the possibility that some pseudogenes could have important biological functions was disputed. Additionally, University of Chicago and University of Cincinnati scientists reported in 2002 that a processed pseudogene called phosphoglycerate mutase 3 (PGAM3P) actually produces a functional protein. and Two 2008 publications in Nature discusses that some endogenous siRNAs are derived from pseudogenes, and thus some pseudogenes play a role in regulating protein-coding transcripts.
….Many of those mammals found unable to synthesize ascorbic acid have regions of their genome that are believed to correspond to parts of the functional GULO gene that is found in those mammals found capable to synthesizing GULO, and thus vitamin C. Evolutionists have cited these apparently vestigial remnants of GULO to make dysteleological arguments against an Intelligent Designer. In addition, they have argued that lesions found in common between the orthologous GULO pseudogenes of simian primates (‘shared mistakes’) argue strongly for their origins from a common ancestor, and all but rule out an independent inactivation of the GULO gene among different simian primates (including humans).
Previous studies of the orthologous primate GULO gene and pseudogene have focused on those parts of a few exons that appear to correspond between humans and rats. A more recent study1 is much more comprehensive. It is now believed that, relative to the 12 exons that comprise the functional rat GULO gene, the human GULO pseudogene is limited to counterparts of exons 4, 7, 9, 10, and 12. Owing to the fact that the guinea pig and the simian primates are obviously not sister groups [see figure near top], it is impossible for the guinea pig GULO pseudogene and the human GULO pseudogene to have both originated from the same ancestral pseudogene. Furthermore, not only are the inactivations of GULO in the guinea pig and primates clearly independent events based on phylogenetic analysis [see figure near top], but also on inferred evolutionistically believed times of inactivation….
Inai, Y., Ohta, Y. and Nishikimi, M., The whole structure of the human non-functional L-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase gene—the gene responsible for scurvy—and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon, J. Nutritional Science and Vitaminology (Tokyo)49(5):315–319, 2003.
The “pseudogene” argument (of which Vitamin C Pseudogene is part of) is being shown to not be a “vestige” as claimed and “predicted” by Darwinian theory. Much like the Haeckel’s list of over 100 vestigial organs, science shows that predictions made like this fail. If the predictions of design were assumed, more lives would have been saved and true science would have flourished. JBS Haldane however, said (predicted) that “natural selection cannot possibly select for millions of new mutations over the course of human evolution, Kimura developed the idea of “Neutral Evolution.” If “Haldane’s Dilemma” was correct, the majority of DNA must be non-functional. Hence, the pseudogene argument. This is an argument that has failed due to recent science, no predictive power left in it. Which is no small issue, since, it is this “predictive value” that makes this argument valid.
Faulkner (in 2009) worked with mice and humans and showed clearly that this RNA/Retrotranposons relationship were not random, and thus transcription is shown to be influenced wholly or partly by this “junk DNA.” — “Therefore, more than one third of the mouse and human genomes, previously thought to be non-functional, may play some role in the regulation of gene expression” (scientists from Jackson Maine, USA laboratories). Creationists have long figured this “junk DNA” to be functional… making design predictions more accurate.
Thankfully, not everyone bought this idea. In the late 1980s, New Zealand–born Australian immunologist Malcolm Simons recognized patterns, or order, in the non-coding DNA that indicated to him that the code must have a function, but others ridiculed the idea. In the mid-1990s, he patented the non-coding DNA (95%) of all organisms on Earth. The company he founded, Genetic Technologies, now reaps license fees from all technologies being developed to cure disease that involve the non-coding DNA. It’s quite controversial, of course, paying such license fees. And since factors involved in all sorts of diseases, such as breast cancer, Crohn’s disease, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, ovarian and skin cancer, are being found in the ‘junk’, Genetic Technologies is doing quite well.
The “vitamin C gene” in question here (L-gulano-g-lactone oxidase gene) is only a valid argument if:
a) a non-functional version of the gene was shown to be functional at some point in our human lineage, it says nothing about ancestors (kinds, or species) who could have been created with an active gene.
b) If the lineage of man can truly be traced through evolutionary ancestors, which it cannot.
c) The same gene could have been inactivated by the same mutation occurring independently is said to be too improbable by strict neo-Darwinists. (Ironic) However, if there is, or was, a mechanism of mutation that favors certain locations in the gene (a hot spot), the odds against an independent occurrence of the mutation drop according to the strength of that bias. This, by-the-way, is more probable considering the fall of the pseudogene argument. In other words, this prediction would now be of a higher order and is an example of loss of function and a disordering of optimum ability. Something the creation model predicts, it is the opposite of what Darwinism requires.
d) Likewise, in order for this line of reasoning to work, a human genome must be compared to an organism with a functioning gene for synthesizing vitamin C. Of course we know they found it in rats (Nishikimi, 1994). Four of the 12 exons (Science Dictionary: A segment of a gene that contains information used in coding for protein synthesis; exons are the modular coding regions of the gene). Here is the downfall, two-thirds of the homologous rat gene is completely missing. Which is to say: “This DNA sequence, labeled as a pseudogene, might have an entirely different function than the rat gene.” This would be — with recent peer reviewed articles in Discover, Scientific American, Nature, Science Weekly, and other pubvlications — be of a higher order than merely saying it is a pseudogene. In other words, the previous predictions are mute and shows that the argument is from silence, or non-science.
Stating that only the last enzyme is missing for the pathway to convert glucose to vitamin C might imply to the untrained individual that there is a biochemical pathway that leads to a dead end. Actually, the biochemical pathway that leads to the synthesis of vitamin C in rats also leads to the formation of five-carbon sugars in the pentose phosphate pathway present in virtually all animals (Linster and Van Schaftingen 2007). There are several metabolic intermediates in this pathway illustrating that these substances can be used as precursors for many compounds in the cell. In the pentose phosphate pathway, five-carbon sugars are made from glucose (a six-carbon sugar) to be used in the synthesis of DNA, RNA, and many energy producing substances such as ATP and NADPH (Garrett 1999). Animals that synthesize vitamin C can use both pathways illustrated in the simplified diagram below. Humans and the other animals “less fortunate” than rats only use the pentose phosphate pathway.
There is no dead end or wasted metabolic intermediates, and there is no need to have the enzyme to make vitamin C since humans are able to get all of the vitamin C they need from food substances. Thousands of human pseudogenes have been catalogued, but in spite of the similarities to functional genes, the exact role of pseudogene sequences in the genome are not known by any scientist. It is not necessary to assume that pseudogenes are remnants of once functioning genes that have been lost and now clutter the genome like junk in a rubbish heap.
Criswell, D. 2007. Adam and Eve, Vitamin C, and Pseudogenes. Acts & Facts. 36 (5).
As was said before the known factors of the pentose phosphate pathways:
The failure to recognize the full implications of [non-protein–coding DNA] may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology. (cited in: Gibbs, W.W., The unseen genome: gems among the junk, Scientific American 289:26–33, November 2003.)
…even the staunchest critics of creation theory recognize that “[i]t is impossible to prove absence of function for any region of DNA.” (Edward E. Max, “Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics,” Sec. 5.4 . From: A Critique of “29 Evidences for Macroevolution”)
So, to sum up, at best this could be viewed as a theological argument: “what should have God done if he did create ‘A’.” At worst it is an argument that has not evolved with science correcting itself and is stuck in the 90’s science and not the mid-to-late part of the first decade of the beginning of the 21st century — science. Science has evolved, have the evolutionists?
Here is the continuation of the devolving of primates:
1. It takes 6 million years for one mutation to arise in a DNA binding site. 2. 6 million years is how long, historically, one has to get from primates to humans. 3. Humans differ from primates in hundreds of ways, requiring probably thousands of different gene mutations. 4. What’s more, many of the differences between primates and humans would require coordinated mutations. For example, the correct legs, feet, pelvis, spine, and neck to walk upright are differences which individually are useless by themselves. 5. Experiments with bacteria (i.e. with population sizes and mutation rates much higher than primates and humans) suggest that a single protein cannot mutate six or more times in a coordinated fashion in a timespan less than the known age of the universe. 6. Given these numbers, it is impossible for humans to have evolved from primates.