The GOP vs. a Climate Scientist

You can pretty much guess the outcome of this contest:

So, this last guy says he won't believe what climate scientists have to say about climate science because they are professional climate scientists. Can anyone explain to me why that makes sense? And who exactly does he think he can trust on these issues, the oil companies financing his campaigns?

Funding Climate Change Deniers

The Bible "Proves" Climate Change is a Hoax

The Role of Genes in Sexual Orientation

The Science & Sense Against Conversion Therapy

The "Older Brother Effect" on Homosexuality

The Science, & Myths, of Homosexuality

Science Textbook Publishers Defeat Texas Conservatives

From Texas Freedom Network:

...Some reviewers had criticized the proposed biology textbooks for failing to include a variety of discredited arguments attacking evolution. For example, reviewers lowered the rating of one textbook because it didn’t include the inaccurate claim that scientists have found no transitional fossils and that “the fossil record can be interpreted in other ways than evolutionary with equal justification.” Another reviewer insisted that all of the textbooks teach “creation science based on Biblical principles” alongside evolution.

Editorial changes from all 14 publishers that submitted high school biology textbooks for adoption this year do not reflect those arguments and beliefs, TFN’s examination shows.

The anti-evolution arguments promoted by the textbook reviewers are based on claims that scientists have shown to be false or simply have no place in a science textbook, said Arturo De Lozanne, associate professor in molecular cell and developmental biology at the University of Texas at Austin.

“From what I can see so far, publishers are resisting pressure to do things that would leave high school graduates in Texas ill-prepared to succeed in a college science classroom,” De Lozanne said. “If we want Texas kids to be competitive nationally, we have to ensure that what they learn in their high school classrooms is based on facts, not ideology. Having said that, it’s remarkable and distressing that some folks are still arguing over what really is established, mainstream science...”

Catholic Bishop Calls Homophobia "Mental Illness"

Fox Attacks Science. Is Anyone Surprised?

Tweet of the Day; August 2, 2013

Study: Sexual Orientation Isn't A Parenting Detriment

From the Williams Institute: 

Key findings include:

• Child age at placement— or the duration of time in the pre-adoptive context— did not emerge as a significant predictor of child adjustment (likely because all children in the sample were placed under 18 months).

• Parents’ level of preparation for the adoption was related to both externalizing and internalizing symptoms, such that parents who were less prepared reported more symptoms in their children.

• Parents’ depressive symptoms were also related to externalizing and internalizing symptoms in adopted children, such that more depressed parents reported more symptoms in their children. Depressive symptoms may compromise parents’ emotional availability and ability to parent effectively, which can contribute to child adjustment problems.

• Parents who reported more relationship conflict during the early transition phase reported that their children had more internalizing behaviors 2 years later.

• Family type (i.e., parent sexual orientation) was unrelated to children’s adjustment.

I'm guessing that this study is far more reliable than the Regnerus study (although that's an incredibly low bar). You can read the full report HERE.

Anti-Gay Regnerus Study Dismissed By Reviewers

From the New Civil Rights Movement:

In a lengthy interview with the Southern Poverty Law Center, Darren Sherkat, a professor of sociology at Southern Illinois University, and a member of the editorial board of Social Science Research — the publisher of the Regnerus “study,” officially the “New Family Structures Study” (NFSS) – once again decimates the Regnerus paper. 

“When we talk about Regnerus, I completely dismiss the study,” Sherkat tells the Southern Poverty Law Center:

It’s over. He has been disgraced. All of the prominent people in the field know what he did and why he did it. And most of them know that he knew better. Some of them think that he’s also stupid and an ideologue. I know better. I know that he’s a smart guy and that he did this on purpose, and that it was bad, and that it was substandard.

Regular readers will note that The New Civil Rights Movement was at the forefront of investigating the background and methodology of the Regnerus work, which falsely claimed that adult children raised by gay and lesbian parents by far more likely to perform poorly in life. The Regnerus study claimed that these adults of gay parents had far great chances of using drugs, being on welfare and food stamps, have behavioral problems, and exhibit self-destructive behaviors. The list of negative outcomes was lengthy — and false...

This is a study that, since its publication, has been cited repeatedly by social conservatives, notably Bryan Fischer (American Family Association) and Tony Perkins (Family Research Council). The study was immediately called to question, especially in terms of the methodology. Yet again, the facts are not on the side of those who are looking for excuses to discriminate. Of course the main reason for this is that there are NO excuses to discriminate. From here on out, any time someone cites this study in their anti-gay crusade, they will be shooting their own credibility in the foot...just like Regnerus did to himself in carrying out such a flawed study.

Tweet of the Day: April 1, 2013

Religious Organizations to SCOTUS: Ignore Science

From Think Progress:

A group of religious organizations, including the Mormon Church, Southern Baptist Convention, and National Association of Evangelicals, have submitted amicus briefs to the Supreme Court arguing it should uphold both the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. The briefs, written by Mormon Church lawyer Von Keetch, make similar points to other anti-gay briefs about the inferiority of same-sex couples, but notably tries to brush aside the research that suggests otherwise (HT: Kathleen Perrin):

DOMA BRIEF: Whether the Nation retains the traditional definition of marriage or redefines marriage to include same-sex couples is a social issue with potentially wide-ranging consequences. By their nature, such policy questions cannot be definitively answered by science, professional opinion, or legal reasoning alone. Although we are certainly persuaded by scholarly opinion supporting traditional marriage, the truth is that social science scholars, for instance, disagree about the effects of gay parenting on children. Whatever the ultimate conclusions may be, “nothing in the Constitution requires [government] to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.”

PROP 8 BRIEF: Admittedly, there is an active debate within the social sciences over whether some of these common sense judgments are empirically sound. But “nothing in the Constitution requires California to accept as truth the most advanced and sophisticated [scientific] opinion.” Lawmakers – including the people of California – are entitled to “act on various unprovable assumptions,” including those that in “the sum of [their] experience” lead them to conclude that traditional marriage and the family structure it supports deserve distinctive legal protection.

Why People Might Be Gay

From U.S. News:

Scientists may have finally solved the puzzle of what makes a person gay, and how it is passed from parents to their children.

A group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuals get that trait from their opposite-sex parents: A lesbian will almost always get the trait from her father, while a gay man will get the trait from his mother.

The hereditary link of homosexuality has long been established, but scientists knew it was not a strictly genetic link, because there are many pairs of identical twins who have differing sexualities. Scientists from the National Institute for Mathematical and Biological Synthesis say homosexuality seems to have an epigenetic, not a genetic link.

Long thought to have some sort of hereditary link, a group of scientists suggested Tuesday that homosexuality is linked to epi-marks — extra layers of information that control how certain genes are expressed. These epi-marks are usually, but not always, "erased" between generations. In homosexuals, these epi-marks aren't erased — they're passed from father-to-daughter or mother-to-son, explains William Rice, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California Santa Barbara and lead author of the study.

~

Rice and his team created a mathematical model that explains why homosexuality is passed through epi-marks, not genetics. Evolutionarily speaking, if homosexuality was solely a genetic trait, scientists would expect the trait to eventually disappear because homosexuals wouldn't be expected to reproduce. But because these epi-marks provide an evolutionary advantage for the parents of homosexuals: They protect fathers of homosexuals from underexposure to testosterone and mothers of homosexuals from overexposure to testosterone while they are in gestation.

~

"We've found a story that looks really good," he says. "There's more verification needed, but we point out how we can easily do epigenetic profiles genome-wide. We predict where the epi-marks occur, we just need other studies to look at it empirically. This can be tested and proven within six months. It's easy to test. If it's a bad idea, we can throw it away in short order."

How Old Is The Earth?