Some light on the debt ceiling

With President Obama's speech on the debt ceiling tonight, I thought I'd round up some the best information. I also want to shed light on an issue that was confusing me, in case others had the same problem.

Who's to blame for deep debt?
A while ago, Politifact reviewed a Mitt Romney claim that Obama's first term added more debt than the first 43 presidents. They rated it "Mostly True" because the calculations relied on where you started his term. So depending on where you start and stop counting, Obama has increased the debt to between 170 and 205 percent of what it was when he took office.*

But then, I saw this New York Times infographic on the right (accompanying editoral), which lays the blame at Bush's feet.

The chart's numbers largely check out, although the number for the Bush tax cuts are high because they represent the total impact, including years in which he's not in office. Even if you cut away those years, Bush's added expenditures outnumber Obama's.

But how can Bush be responsible for more new spending and Obama be responsible for more debt? The reason: continuation. Look at the programs Bush started at the left. Which of the ongoing ones (i.e., not TARP or 2008 stimulus) did Obama cut?

As far as I know, not one. The Iraq war may be on the wane**, but the Afghanistan war is basically as costly as ever and the Bush tax cuts have been left untouched.

So while Obama is responsible for starting new ongoing expenditures, he hasn't stopped many, hence his budget's responsibility for a good chunk of our debt.***

Debt Ceiling Crisis 101
The United States has never yet defaulted on its debt. (Edit: see bottom for details) The government shutdowns you may recall from the past were results of failing to pass a budget and debt payments continued on even if other things didn't. Mostly because of this, America enjoys a AAA rating, meaning investors can trust they will be highly likely to be repaid. But if the federal government were to stop repaying investors they would lose their trust in the government's ability to do so.

The effects would likely ripple out beyond U.S. treasury bond investors, and hurt the global economy, especially the United States's.

At this point I turn it over to more capable hands. (I do not want to describe the messy politics behind the debt ceiling negotiations.) So here are some helpful links:

• The Washington Post's excellent take, all the way back from April. (Ignore the part about hitting the limit in May.)
• PBS Newshour's video and transcript on the subject, from May. (This explains why we haven't hit the limit yet, among other things.)
• Ratings agencies considering downgrading U.S. credit. 
• The Washington Post again, but more recently. (Not exactly the same info as April article.)
• The New York Times on why negotiations failed. 

The links are in chronological order. You can probably skip the top two, but I'd read the bottom three if possible. If you can only read one, though, read the second-to-last Washington Post article. That'll bring you up to speed the quickest.

I'd like to do a post like this again; it really helps me get to figure out what's going on myself. Feedback as always is welcome!

*I calculated the percentages from the numbers given in the Politifact article (linked to above), which in turn come from the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

**This does not seem to account for the tiny black box in the upper corner representing $126 billion in cuts. That mostly came through miscellaneous savings.

***Since the president cannot, constitutionally speaking, set a budget without congressional approval, it technically is not entirely his responsibility. However, it is something of a bipartisan convention to assign all the blame/praise to the president and quicker to write.

Edit(7/29/11): Phil Rosenthal recently wrote in the Chicago Tribune that the default is not unprecedented, in contrast to what many articles and commentators are saying. In 1979, the United States defaulted on a small number of payments because of an unexpected surge in demand. The dates given for default are always approximate and in that case caused a small but significant problem. His column has more details.


The '79 mini-default notwithstanding, the United States has never had a full-scale default, which could still happen if congress doesn't raise the ceiling.

Summer Slump

I have been busy with other projects and so I haven't done any writing for here, let alone publishing or debunking* anything. I can't say how long this will last, but I do feel that my enthusiasm for debunking has been rekindled recently and I have a few new post ideas in the works. (In addition to all my no-longer-new post ideas that are in progress...) I also have a book review or two to post. When will these come? I cannot say. Before the end of June would be nice, but I can't see my projects lightening much so I can't promise anything.

*Debunking, it must be said, can be a draining activity, certainly more so than spouting bunk.

$50 Lightbulbs?

This is actually something I meant to post much, much earlier but only got to doing now.

Wesley J. Smith, as part of his coverage of environmental news he calls "Global Warming Hysteria" recently discussed a $ 50 LED light bulb. I commented on the article, saying that he didn't mention that CFLs were much cheaper than the one he described and that that the improved energy efficiency made up for much of the cost. The article and some of the comments made me want to see for myself how much savings CFL bulbs represent.

Sources for Starting Numbers

From an October 2010 Consumer Reports article*, I discovered a 60-watt incandescent bulb is equivalent to a 16-watt CFL or 12-watt LED. Incadescents have an average life expectancy of 1,000 hours and CFL's 8,000.

From the Department of Energy's statistics, I found the average cost per kilowatt hour is 9.62 cents.

By skimming various online sites, I chose 60 cents as a reasonable average cost for an incandescent and 5 dollars for the CFL.

I estimated that an average bulb is probably lit for about 5 hours daily. I didn't try to find specific statistics because a) this affects all the bulbs equally and b) it would probably be difficult to find.

Results

From this data,  I determined the average cost to power a single incandescent bulb to be $11.62 over a year, compared with $ 3.94 for a CFL.

For the sake of argument, I also compared the best-case scenario for incandescents with the worst-case for fluorescent bulbs. To do this, I basically cherry-picked the numbers most favorable to incandescents and those least favorable to CFLs. Even still, the CFLs won, $ 5.90 beating out $ 9.63.

People interested in looking at my math can examine the spreadsheet I used, complete with the formulas. You will note I ran the numbers for LEDs, but since I was less confident of the numbers I plugged in, I didn't put the results in this post.

Cross-checking

How accurate was my estimate? I found three other cost comparisons. The first is a U.S. News and World Report article.  It claims changing 30 fixtures results in savings of $ 440 to 1,500 over 5 years. I show an $ 8.05 savings over one year for one bulb. Multiplying that by 150 gives $1207.50, meaning my result was perhaps a bit on the high end.

Next, I found GE Lighting's savings calculator. It too suggested my estimate was high: it gave a one-year savings of $ 5.91.

According to Energystar.gov, CFLs save $ 40 over the bulb's lifetime. If they last five years, that puts savings at $ 8, close to my estimate.

From all this, I think we can be reasonably confident fluorescents save money.

More Information

As it happens, both Factcheck.org and Politifact looked at closely related claims. Factcheck responded to the question: "Will energy efficient light bulbs cost $ 50 each next year?" with the following:

Some light emitting diode bulbs may cost that much, but some halogen incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent bulbs go for about $1.50 to $3 each.

Politifact did a slew of articles on the subject. Here they are:

• Whether or not fluorescents are safe & environmentally friendly
• On the cost of non-incandescent bulbs—alegedly six times more expensive
• What exactly the government is mandating.
• And more...

 *Full, official citation:

Lightbulbs. (2010). Consumer Reports, 75(10), 26.

First Two Reviews

As I mentioned before, I have several reviews to share with you. I actually read and reviewed these a while ago, but only just got around to polishing them.

A Short Course in Intellectual Self-Defense
Normand Baillargeon takes the whole "self-defense" metaphor pretty seriously. Take this for example: "Your brain is territory that an enemy wants to occupy by persuading you of certain things." The writing has a tendency to go to such extremes occasionally, but it is a very good book.

In particular, his chapter "Thirty-one Strategies for Fostering a Critical Approach to the Media," near the end has an excellent list of tips. They are very practical, which is something I like in books on this subject. They are rather involved--one suggests reading the past fifty articles by a given author when analyzing a given op-ed.

Another bias that shows through clearly is his love of Noam Chomsky: the front cover even says "release your inner Chomsky." He quotes Chomsky once or twice within, but generally it doesn't seem to unbalance the work unduly. The exception is in the aforementioned chapter of 31 strategies which includes, as number 25, "Read Chomsky." A list of recommended authors wouldn't have been remiss, but giving Chomsky his own point? A bit much.

I don't know very much of Chomsky; indeed, what I do know mostly comes from cursory research after reading this very book and some unrelated research I did on his work on mass media*. Since he seems an advocate of critical thinking, I suppose his inclusion is somewhat appropriate. I still think it's a bit extreme—perhaps the book ought to have been titled "A Chomskean Approach to Critical Thinking."

Anyway, don't let the author's politics dissuade you from reading this useful text. It is a practical introduction to critical thinking and recommended to any student of critical thinking.


The Demon Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark
This book is more of a case for science and against psuedoscience, rather than a "how-to" book on critical thinking. Nonetheless, it has excellent parts and can be read as a manifesto in favor of rigorous checking of claims. Carl Sagan is an engaging writer and comes across as very human and sincere, important in a book on a subject that could easily be cold and dull.

This book does belabor points. Lee Dambert, in his Los Angles Times review, writes that eight chapters of UFOs "seems a bit excessive."Since the points are made well and illustrated with copious examples the book is saved from becoming a rant; Dambert himself considers this issue "a minor quibble."

Some people have found this book to be anti-religion or partisan. The book ends with two chapters Sagan wrote with a co-author that deal with politics. However, the main thrust of the book is basically non-political and as a whole can't be described as partisan. (Sagan himself considered the last two chapters non-critical.) The anti-religion claim is a bit harder to shake. Certain religious practices and beliefs would easily fall under Sagan's definition of "baloney." Examples would include faith healing, astrology, and probably miracles in general.

While Sagan was an agnostic, it's harder to make a case that this book is an attack on religion generally. He doesn't group religious belief explicitly with belief in psuedoscience or try to replace it with science. Certainly the skepticism he discusses in The Demon Haunted World is popular among atheists, but certainly critical thinking is compatible with religious faith, even if "skepticism" is.

Probably the closest he gets to condemning religion is the chapter "The Dragon in my Garage." Sagan informs us that he has a bona fide dragon in his garage. However, he tells us that the dragon has the power of invisibility and so we'll just have to take his word for it. He argues that such is the nature of many allegedly true supernatural phenomena: any non-appearance of the supposed effect is explained away, so it can never be disproved. This is a similar to popular lines of reasoning employed against the existence of a god, and so it could be taken as a justification of agnosticism. That may be the case, but I think Sagan was more concerned with psuedoscience than religion and I think most religious readers will get plenty out of it anyway.

One of the best-known parts is the baloney detection kit. (In fact, Normand Baillargeon includes a summary of it in his book.) Even if you find the main text tedious, before returning it (or selling it) skip to chapter 12, where the kit is. It consists of nine warning signs that something is, well, baloney.

So there you have it: two good starting texts on critical thinking. Look for more in the coming weeks: I just finished two books and am writing up reviews now.

* Specifically, his work with Edward Herman on "Manufacturing Consent." In it, they lay out a theory of mass media called the Propaganda Model.

The Partisan Fact-checkers

This is a follow-up to my earlier piece, Enter the Fact-checkers and Debunkers.

If, when reading the title, you thought it was a contradiction in terms, you'll see why I am uneasy relying on sites like Media Matters and News Busters. To me, they walk a thin line between reporting for the sake of truth and reporting for the sake of making 'the other guy' look bad.

Their focus on the mistakes means they start painting their opponent as lacking credibility when people on their own side are just as inaccurate. They seldom verify true claims, just the false ones.

I think there is some value in these sites. I've noticed their take downs can be very extensive, and I would not hesitate to link to one I found well done—as long as it is correct. I wouldn't advise subscribing to one without subscribing to an equivalent site that's politically opposite.

There is a group of agencies that work similarly. Organizations like GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) that advocate fairer representation for their members I consider separate from the partisan groups. They differ in that they report insensitive treatment rather than inaccurate information and they focus on entertainment more than news.

My view is that with reputable and high-quality sites like the ones in the original post, why bother with partisan fact-checkers? Even if the ones I recommended don't carry it, you can always, you know, do the research yourself. It's good practice and the kind citizens of a democracy need.

Here It Goes Again: Wesley J. Smith and Climate Change

This is mainly a response to Wesley J. Smith's article, Global Warming Hysteria: Means Never Having to Say You’re Sorry and the article he quotes.

Wesley Smith in his blog Secondhand Smoke wrote that we have no reason to trust "global warming alarmists" because they have been wrong so often in the past. His argument comes from a Forbes op-ed written by a senior from the Heartland Institute, a libertarian think-tank.

There are five claims from the Forbes article Mr. Smith quotes and those will be the ones I focus on. My focus will be on the validity of these claims and to a lesser extent, his larger thesis. I won't be arguing against it per se, rather seeing whether his argument is valid. (That is, confirming that the premises are true and the conclusion follows logically.)

Heavy Snowfall: expected or not?

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report was…straightforward… “Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” IPCC reported.  That was in 2001. Now, however, with an unprecedented number of major winter snowstorms hitting the northeastern U.S. during the past two winters, the alarmists are clamming up and changing their tune…

Mr. Taylor's claim is a relatively popular one and requires a trip to the Third Assessment Report in order to verify the context; you will note no timescale is reported.

The section is from the second part of the report, the one that focuses on the impacts of climate change. It was hard to find more information to say over what time period they've expected snow. Keep in mind that many of the predictions are averages and pertain to the long-term global trend rather than a short-term regional trend.

Kilimanjaro and Himalayan Glaciers

The alarmists used to claim global warming was causing the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s mountain snowcap, but scientists now understand that local deforestation is the culprit. IPCC claimed in its 2007 assessment that global warming would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, but IPCC now admits there is no scientific basis for such an assertion. 

The glacier incident Mr. Taylor reports is true. We should be careful to avoid assuming the entire report is as errant as the chapter or section the error appeared in, but certainly this is a red flag that the entire report needs more scrutiny.

On the other hand, there is actually a debate on the cause of Kilimanjaro's melting, with some scientists arguing it is at least partially caused by global warming and others saying its caused by something peculiar to the region. So it isn't a resolved area. Also, I haven't found anyone claiming it was due to global warming prior to when research suggested that was actually a reasonable idea—just a number of articles reassuring people it wasn't due to global warming.

Increased Temperatures

IPCC claimed in its 1990 assessment that global temperatures should rise 0.6 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2010, yet NASA satellite data show global temperatures warmed by merely half that amount, at most.

Mr. Taylor says this is an example of claimed "settled science" but the report doesn't report it too confidently, because it cites a margin of error for per decade warming, 0.2-0.5 and notes other scenarios which show more modest warming. It is true the IPCC claimed that and were wrong, but their claim was not given in complete confidence, and indeed the organization writes that a number of factors are "partially understood." So it is correct to say the IPCC's projection is wrong, but incorrect to say they considered it 'settled science.'

The Score

In a sense, the premises are mostly right: Himalyan Glaciers are really not going to melt that quickly and the IPCC projections were too high. Let's give him the Kilimanjaro one too, since scientists are on the fence. The problem is that Mr. Taylor is not only claiming scientists were wrong, but that these were claimed by 'alarmists' to be areas of 'settled science.'

There is a certain ambiguity here: who exactly is a 'global warming alarmist'? Are all scientists who support human-caused global warming alarmists? The people at the IPCC? Environmentalists? Politicians who favor stricter carbon emissions controls? Science journalists?

The ambiguity leaves Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor in danger of equivocation (changing the meaning of a word as you argue) and makes it hard to figure out who they're claiming once made assurances that the science was settled in the cases where turned out to not be settled at all. Looking at the scientists who originated the research, few (if any) seem to be as confident as Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor say they were. Also, the Himalayan mistake came from the IPCC and not the scientists the report typically draws from.

The Argument's Logic

It seems as though there's dubious logic here regardless of how the argument is interpreted. I see there being two cases how it could be interpreted:

1. Scientists were the ones claiming these facts were 'settled.' This follows logically, but isn't true.
2. Non-scientists were the ones claiming these facts were 'settled.' This is true, but logically invalid: wrong statements from non-scientists don't invalidate science. 

(The 'settled' point is important because it doesn't make sense to criticize a wrong prediction when it's labeled 'uncertain'.)

There is another interpretation. Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor are merely saying popular advocates for the theory of climate change are wrong in the extent of some of their predictions. This is logical, but their quotes from scientists themselves suggest Mr. Smith and Mr. Taylor feel the scientists are wrong as well (or want to make that implication). Also, it seems like they feel they've weakened theories of climate change implicating humans, a rather dubious proposition.

Unless I'm missing something significant, the argument fails to deliver. It is good to note here that when you post someone else's op-ed, make sure it's a good argument and not just one you agree with. I have no intent of proving it either way, only advancing the argument by eliminating weak arguments.

Oh, feel free to submit other claims for me to verify—I want to look at claims you find dubious.

Useful Extensions

Now, your web browser can't think, write, or research for you, so none of these extensions can help you with those things. At least not directly. I consider these useful extensions for the "frequent commenter"–some one who posts frequently and maybe does some research (imagine that!). I've limited these to extensions I use personally so browser rss readers or blogging extensions are out because I don't use those (I use a standalone program for feeds and Blogger's built-in post composer). Enough of all that. Here are the utilities:

Lazarus
I just found out about this, and it's definitely promising. I'm sure we've all hit 'back' by mistake when we were composing  a post and have lost what they were writing. Lazarus solves this problem by saving everything* entered into textboxes and allows you to recover them later. Available for Firefox, Chrome, and Safari.

*With certain limitations on Chrome (see their FAQ).

Resurrect Pages (aka Arantius)
Gives you the option, when faced with a "this page cannot be displayed" message, to 'resurrect' a page. That is, grab a page from a cache. Lets you select from seven caching or mirroring services, but I find Google and the Internet Archive are the only ones you need. If they don't have it, then, typically, none of them will. Available for Firefox only, unfortunately.

Readability
Distracted by ads, sidebars, and other peripheral 'content'? Readability is the solution. A click turns the page you're viewing into a reading-centric experience. The creators turned to turn their simple extension into a fuller experience that allows readers to compensate content creators, but it requires a subscription fee. The basic extension is still available for free here. Safari users have the 'reader' function built-in that does much the same thing.

These extensions are all polished and functional, so I suggest checking out their creator's other offerings. And if you find them particularly useful—donate!