February 17, 2014

The Climate Change hoax, continued

Human exhalation is not a pollutant. Neither is water vapor.  If both were so, then we would be cancers on a host planet, and as such, be in need of eradication.  The only moral measure to be taken, if you anthropomorphize the planet — or worse yet, turn it into a vulnerable God troubled by its creations (and how can this not be what you’re doing, given your strict adherence to all manner of evolutionary theory, even that which incorrectly addresses first causes, where it has no business venturing) — is that humanity, and animals, and those things giving aid and life to animals (vegetation, which perversely turns our pollutants back into oxygen, so that we can continue to destroy the earth’s atmosphere and climate), should be terminated, not merely mitigated.  And even if you believe is a sliding scale, and accept that mitigation is a moral compromise you can live with — you’ll keep the planet forever sick and warming/cooling, etc., in exchange for life, just so long as the life we get to keep is yours, and you can use it to tell others how they must live — that sliding scale should at least include things like quotas on the number of new lives produced on the planet, which leads to population control, forced sterilization, forced abortion, natural disaster allowance, etc., in order that it isn’t entirely passive and entirely self-serving.

You are, in effect, Malthusians, only you need to be punishing plant life as well for aiding and abetting the destruction of our atmosphere.  Meaning, you worship certain rocks, I suppose.  And one of your priests has a comical, made-for-TV name.

But then, that’s a description of the true believers.  Who are not the same as the politicians, a breed of cynical creature who will work with the useful idiots to secure power, transfer wealth, and tyrannize the rest of us.   Al Gore being foremost among these, with John Kerry, John Holdren, and Prince Charles now also serving such a function.  Though they don’t believe even for a second their own lunatic assertions — now, climate change is the world’s greatest weapon of mass destruction (I’d go into how the left usurps and refigures language, but who cares, right?  Pseudo-intellectual and fundamentally unserious are such dissertations, unless they are delivered years later by those who earlier dismissed them) — they press on with them nonetheless.

And though the wrap themselves in the mantle of science — having perverted that signifier as well (but I’ll be quiet now; don’t want to be even more marginalized than I already am) — they are only interested in “science” such that it has become an arm of political and public policy, much in the same way they believe in legitimate “news media” only inasmuch as it parrots the official government line.

This is all very Soviet, but then, there I go again, being all Visigothy and so likely in line for a good tongue lashing from one of my more nuanced betters.

Look:  anthropomorphic global climate change is absolute horse shit, and every real scientist knows it.  That we have enough of a groundswell of activists willing to insist otherwise and will a false narrative into a “settled truth” only suggests that the postmodernists were in a sense right when they argued that the very concept of truth, being a man-made construct, is value-neutral, and so belongs to those most able to assert their version of it.

Fortunately, “truth” and “things as they really are,” to borrow a distinction from Rorty, aren’t both controlled by man or his collective will to power and perception.  And things as they are is where actual science is located as an investigatory apparatus.   Too, it has a way of really punching truth based on phony, concocted, propagandistic narratives right in the face, leaving it sprawled out naked and spread eagle in the dirt for all to see.

Like many of the left’s paradigmatic frames, these lies they repurpose as their “truths” disappear the moment we refuse to accept them — and to accept the policies they implement to keep their falsehoods entrenched in positions of policy power.  So resist we much.  And we must.  Even if it’s racist to do so.

The way to show a lie to be a lie is to attack it head on and put it on the defensive.

And you can tell the real scientists from the partisan hacks living off the industry of government funding for world-wide wealth redistribution plans — camouflaged as science — based around just such an observation.  Selling your soul for a pittance and a byline.  How utterly sad.

(h/t Geoff B)

 

 

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 1:00pm
72 comments | Trackback

Comments (72)

  1. And though the wrap themselves in the mantle of science

    This mantle is the same one that the corrupt in the Medieval Church used, only instead of “science” they said “scripture,” and who was going to dispute scripture, especially when most of the peeps being oppressed were illiterate and scripture was in Latin if they weren’t?

    Authoritarianism just keeps attaching itself to whatever ought to be trustworthy in any era, doesn’t it?

  2. As we all know, their goals are not the ones they state. They are not interested in “clean energy” or “alternative energy” or “sustainable energy.” They are interested in control.

    Case in point: there is a power plant in the Mojave that uses mirrors to point sunlight and focus it on water towers to heat the water to drive turbines. That technology actually works pretty well, though it costs a bit more than using coal or gas or nuclear energy as a heat source. They want to shut it down because a few birds are dying. These are not even endangered species (and, if a species is endangered, isn’t that evolution taking its course?), just birds that are always flying around.

    They will always find a reason to be against any source of energy, because they don’t want cheap energy because that leads to prosperity and we cannot have that. We need a lousy economy that preservers a permanent dependent class that relies on the government for its survival, so they can maintain their control.

    Because fascism.

  3. “Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe mega-droughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”

    Drought of 850? Who knew the Mayan collapse was due to their dastardly invention of the internal combustion engine?

  4. In a contest of preferences, birds vs. climate hoaxers, I’m for saving the birds and throwing (or suspending, if we’d rather a more showy end) the climate hoaxers into the beam of burning reflected mirror-light. Birds at least have pretty and wondrous going for them.

  5. DENIER!

    TERRORIST!

  6. Those “climate scientists” at the UK Meth [sic] Office promised that snow would be just a memory.
    Well, the tendonitis in my right arm says otherwise.

  7. Found via Pinterest:

    Google “askew”

    and

    Google “where is Chuck Norris” and click on the first entry

    They may be evil, but they’re also twisted.

  8. - The Progressives, and all their sub-cults, are at war with all of creation and the god that created it.

    - That does not usually end well for those that go to war with their creator. But you know what, fuck ‘em. I’m not going to follow the christian tenet of trying to teach them the errors of their ways.

    - In that sense I will live up to at least one of the egotistical reasons of why people turn away from the word; “well I preyed and god did not answer my prayer.”

    - Of course he did. He said no. But you think he should always say yes because you’re so wonderful and deserving, or that theres not a million other reasons for things in creation, so we’ll do what you Atheists want, let ‘em burn. That way you should be estatic, what more could you ask for morons?

  9. And though the wrap themselves in the mantle of science…

    Indeed, wrapping, as in covering to conceal, in this case, (in fact all cases) their abject ignorance of the science behind the issue.

    For those who have not already seen it, this paper, summarized here has some interesting charts about who believes what about astrology. Interestingly enough, being young and liberal tends to be associated with believing that astrology is “scientific”.

    Extrapolating this to the rest of the sciences, it is not surprising they follow a guru who got a D in “Rocks for Jocks”.

  10. - Olympics lesson:

    - Yesterday in Sochi some of the Ice dance coaches from other countries were again bitching about the judging and scores.

    - It seems that Euro’s simply cannot get it through their thick skulls that what you will get if you trash talk an American is a sore ass. They just don’t seem capable of learning that after all these years.

    * spoiler alert *

  11. this paper, summarized here

    Second link is bustid.

    Did they just say “astrology” or did they make it clear that “astrology” is not “astronomy”?

  12. Extrapolating this to the rest of the sciences, it is not surprising they follow a guru who got a D in “Rocks for Jocks”.

    - Being Progressive does not involve intelligence, just fawning and ankle licking obedience, and reverence for the Cult personality. All of which faithfully mimics extreme zealousness and religiosity.

  13. Oops. Try again for second link.

    Di – the link to the paper does not specify, but if anyone is confusing astronomy with astrology, there is already a problem. From the paper:

    For over 60 years, most political psychologists have assumed that conservatives are more
    likely than other members of the US population to believe in astrology.1 Indeed, a belief in
    astrology has been frequently used as a measure of how conservative you are, as if a belief in rule
    by the stars was a major tenet of conservatism…Indeed, when there are significant
    differences in adherence to astrology between political groups, usually conservatives and
    Republicans are less likely than the general public to believe in this form of pseudo-science.

  14. the planet has a fever and I’m worried sick about it

  15. Debunking the 97% consensus claim

    The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a “consensus” exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe. But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 – 3% of respondents “explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming,” and that there was “no agreement with a catastrophic view.”

  16. Debunking the 97% consensus claim

    I’ve often wondered how many data sets there are, and how many of the so-called 97% have had access to the raw climate data before expressing agreement with the scientific conclusions of Mann et al.? If they’re all just uncritically taking the word of a few “climate scientists” and their data – “climate scientists” heavily invested in their theory – that sure doesn’t sound very scientific to me.

  17. Aw, do we have to, Eingang?

  18. - I dissagree with Krauthammer. Climate change, in all its variants, is the fundemental faith of the Left. There is nothing “almost” about it with them. Its their religion.

    - At this point they are so heavily invested in the hoax I doubt anything short of threat of hanging could move them off thier position.

  19. “almost” be dc weasel word. dude there’s invites involved.

  20. Steve McIntyre sets out the latest phase of the Mann/Steyn debacle, emphases mine:

    Integral to Mann’s litigation are representations that he was “investigated” by 6-9 investigations, all of which supposedly gave him “exonerations” on wide-ranging counts, including “scientific misconduct”, “fraud”, “academic fraud”, “data falsification”, “statistical manipulation”, “manipulation of data” and even supposed findings that his work was “properly conducted an fairly presented”. Mann also represented that these investigations were widely covered in international and national media and thus known to Steyn and the other defendants.

    In today’s post, I’ll look closely at the Oxburgh panel, one of the investigations cited in Mann’s pleadings. However, contrary to the claims in Mann’s litigation, not only did the Oxburgh panel not exonerate Mann, at their press conference, Oxburgh panelist David Hand, then President of the Royal Statistical Society, made very disparaging and critical comments about Mann’s work, describing it as based on “inappropriate” statistics that led to “exaggerated” results. These comments were widely reported in international media, later covered in a CEI article that, in turn, was reported by National Review. Moreover, information obtained from FOI in the UK a couple of years ago shows that Mann objected vehemently to criticism from Oxburgh panelist, which he characterized as a “rogue opinion” and unsuccessfully sought a public apology.

    Anyone doubt that Mann is a raging narcissist and pathological liar?

    One of the “tells” for narcissists is that if they’re ever subjected to evaluation and criticism, they never internalize the criticism and in fact will have cherry-picked the proceedings so egregiously that they honestly believe they came out smelling like a rose.

    Any narcissist who is forced to go into therapy, for example, will report to all and sundry that he was given a clean bill of health, regardless of what the therapist actually said. All it takes is one concession from the therapist — “you’re obviously an intelligent guy” — and that’s what the narcissist takes away. The rest was like water off a duck’s back.

    Unless the therapist never said anything nice, in which case the therapist was a total quack.

    One of the two. There’s absolutely no getting through to them.

  21. One of the “tells” for narcissists is that if they’re ever subjected to evaluation and criticism, they never internalize the criticism and in fact will have cherry-picked the proceedings so egregiously that they honestly believe they came out smelling like a rose.

    This is a characteristic of sociopaths, as well.

  22. >Anyone doubt that Mann is a raging narcissist and pathological liar<

    leave the "nobel winner" alone! go back to the birds.

  23. /sarc off

  24. What is the word for someone who has a solid ego but is almost paranoidly suspicious of flattery?

  25. This is a characteristic of sociopaths, as well.

    All sociopaths are narcissists but not vice-versa. My dad was a narcissist but he had a conscience. He didn’t try to con people into doing what he wanted because he wasn’t socially sophisticated enough to be manipulative. (Prolly scored somewhere on the Asperger—Autism spectrum.)

    I don’t know the tells for sociopathy where they diverge from narcissism, at least not at a distance.

    What is the word for someone who has a solid ego but is almost paranoidly suspicious of flattery?

    Well-adjusted.

  26. >What is the word for someone who has a solid ego but is almost paranoidly suspicious of flattery? <

    pervert works. ask glaad?

  27. Some time ago I commented on one of the NRO threads where they were talking about Mann suing them and Steyn.

    There was another commenter there who had no avatar. I mentioned that McIntyre’s math had made a fool of Mann but the commenter said something like, “well, his math couldn’t have been that good because nobody else was impressed by it.”

    I sparred with him a bit and it was the same stuff. The poo-pooing was predicated on “everybody says so” and “if they’re wrong, how come none of the authorities recognize it.”

    Looking back, I think that commenter may have been Mann himself. Sock-puppeting his critics’ posts sounds exactly like his style.

    Then reading the McIntyre linked above I run into this:

    Even the Guardian reported Hand’s broadside against Mann’s work, reporting Hand as saying that Mann’s study gave him an “uneasy feeling” because it used “inappropriate statistical tools”. Mann fought back, describing Hand as only a “rogue opinion” that “should not be given much attention or credence”, while claiming that his study had been “approved” by the US National Academy

    Appeal to authority, dismissal of credibility, refusal to take the criticism into account.

    Yup. I think I may have been sparring with the little pissant himself.

  28. One of the “tells” for narcissists is that if they’re ever subjected to evaluation and criticism, they never internalize the criticism and in fact will have cherry-picked the proceedings so egregiously that they honestly believe they came out smelling like a rose.

    I think the Left is almost entirely comprised of narcissists. I cannot find one that will actually debate on issues without them either 1) completely dismissing everything I say cuz TEATARD or 2) “I got this pic of a Confederate flag displayed at the edge of a TEATARD rally so EVIDENCE that all Republicans are teh RAAAAACIST. QED everything you say is LimbaughFauxNews LIES.

  29. And oh. Even after I tore up my last beg letter from the RNC and hung up on the RNC guy who called me, I got TWO letters from ‘em … another beg one plus a Republican Strategy Survey. That one really frosts me. Rather than tossing it in the round file or filling it out. I will attach a nasty letter outlining MY points and send it back.

    Now. I’m still trying to decide whether to ignore the Census Bureau which just sent us an invasive “Community Survey” that has to be filled out BY LAW or just make up answers to it.

    I’m really steamed.

  30. I think the Left is almost entirely comprised of narcissists.

    From the sorely missed Dr. Sanity, The Political Left and the Seven Deadly Sins of Leftism:

    This will be a multi-part post that discusses how postmodern progressive leftism encourages and rewards malignant narcissism and sociopathic behavior. I have discussed elsewhere both the sociopathic selfishness and the sociopathic selflessness that characterizes the malignant variant of narcissism.

    You don’t have to be a genuine clinical narcissist to be a Leftist, but you sure get to act like one.

  31. or just make up answers to it.

    What would Andrew Breitbart do?

    Either be hilarious or belligerent or both. And be ready to become an internet verb should the census bureau make a stink.

  32. @page 127 potpl

    But those present at the
    meetings were not read the text of the Charter, so they did not know
    precisely what it was they were protesting against. By this time they
    were the laughing stock of the entire nation and the campaign disappeared
    into thin air with a wave of the hand, in an act of sheer.
    absurdity. The upshot of it was that the members of the country’s
    cultural community were henceforth divided, by name, into those
    who had signed the Charter and those who, in the field of Czech
    ‘culture’ 0), were prepared, in response to a call from above for
    extra-special obedience, to condemn something without giving it a
    hearing. Each of those who condemned the Charter will no doubt
    find, individually and collectively, suitable ways of describing themselves
    and their actions. They include those who immediately sought
    some excuse or other. After all, the Czechs are past masters of the
    art of finding excuses. Judged merely in general terms, one can say
    that Czech national culture and its sense of morality had never
    before suffered the sort of outrage theydid from the organizers of
    the ‘protest’ against the Charter and what was intended as a mass
    disavowal of it. The fact that the establishment gave the task of
    defending its positions to the usual political and journalistic hacks
    was probably a case of Hobson’s choice in an emergency, but it
    gained it nothing and was just one further error, since those gentlemen’s
    standards are notorious. As could be expected, they immediately
    brought into play against the Charter a whole set of slanders,
    distortions, abuse, half-truths and absolute falsehoods which all
    represent the dismal range of their capacity. Ispeak from experience
    as one who has been a favourite target for their sort of behaviour for
    the past thirty years, and who could well lay claim to the laurels of
    seniority and worthy service. Though the powers that be may not
    know it, or rather, would sooner not know it, nay, cannot afford to
    know it (for where else would they find more obedient, unscrupulous
    and servile creatures), the media are the principal, albeit
    unintentional, creators and encouragers of opposition, since they
    are totaJIy suspect and nobody believes them. People almost automatically
    take for gospel the opposite of what the papers say. Once
    all-powerful, the media were capable of pointing the finger that
    condemned people to death. As they lost all credibility they also lost
    some of their power, and at the very least were obliged to change
    their methods, if not their ends. Nowadays, they do not directly fix
    the noose around people’s necks, but they do endeavour to destroy
    their honour and slay them with a hail of repeated slanders and lies,

  33. In general, Republicans and conservatives believe they have better ideas. But Democrats and leftists believe they are better people.

    oh god yes

  34. The left is looking more and more like scientologists every day.

    They spend their time and money chasing the rabbit,

    they shout each other down when someone wants out,

    they constantly evaluate people for signs of needing to be reprogrammed or intimitdated

    they think that the world outside their bubble is a conspiracy,

    Obstacles to their plans are fake things that only impede them because they don’t wish them away hard enough

    they want to save people from their bogeyman yet hold the people in contempt,

    People can only be saved from the bogeyman by being subjected to what they have to go through

    They yell at an ashtray drill sergeant style and make it obey them with their own hands thinking this gives them the mental ability to command people the way that they commanded the ashtray. You are just that ashtray when they yell at you.

    They speak in jargon gibberish to stay away from sensitive topics, and bind them together so they don’t stray off and tlak to normal people and think bad things.

    they get in people’s faces doing anything they can think of when turned loose and then try to hide behind whoever unleashed them, confused about their own responsibility regarding any consequences…

  35. Suggestions:

    Do you have any dependents?

    12 million illegal immigrants; 3 million crack heads; 42 million unemployable people, 2 million people in over 243 prisons; and 535 more in the U.S. House and Senate.

    Race?

    Klingon, Kardashian, “no, thanks; bad knees,” American

    But only if you’re up for fighting them off after you fail to comply.

  36. Race? “Quarter-mile on a closed course. For pinks.”

  37. Moreover, the machinery of
    violence is continually expanding because, among other things, the
    group in power feels no reliable support from the population. The
    movement from which the ideology of the present regime derived
    originally has been marked from the outset by a traumatic awareness
    of an incongruity between its ‘historical mission’ and the
    possibility of ever gaining a sufficiently broad and spontaneous
    support to carry that mission out. Various forms of police activity,
    therefore, have always appeared in utter secrecy even before power
    was seized, and subsequently, the police apparatus has expanded to
    such an unprecedented degree, partly because the official ideology
    contains nothing to inhibit such a development. The material, and
    ultimately the moral, burden that this places on society has no precedent
    in history. To make this burden bearable, the totalitarian state
    has had to raise the policing function to one of the greatest virtues.
    In television films and propaganda programmes, it is no longer a
    worker or a party secretary who embodies all the finest human
    qualities, but a cop. The vast amounts of energy spent on maintaining
    ‘order’, however, contribute nothing to the development of
    society because its sole purpose is to prevent change.

    @page 199

  38. Oh goodness, di, just read your suggestions outloud and hubby and I are having the best laugh!!

    He wants to hug you. :-)

  39. I Googled “census funny answers” but couldn’t come up with very many, except that dependents one.

    Apparently, people are reporting “Jedi” as a religion and sci-fi races.

    Plus this: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/18627/harassed-by-the-u-s-census-a-friend-tells-her-frightening-story-plus-important-video/

    They could make your life a living hell, but it might be a good object lesson for the ages were it all videotaped.

    Just sayin’

  40. Another narcissist, with magic hat in portfolio.

    In a speech before largely college students in Jakarta, Kerry talked about greenhouse gases warming the Earth and said, “And because the earth is getting hotter at such an alarming speed, glaciers in places like the Arctic are melting into the sea faster than we expected. And the sea is rising – slowly, but rising – and will rise to dangerous levels”

    “Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter,” said Kerry. “Now, I know that to some people a meter may not sound like a lot, but I’ll tell you this: it’s enough to put half of Jakarta underwater.”

  41. “Kerry talked about greenhouse gases”

    up against the wall motherfucker, oh “do you have the hat?” – baambi

  42. dicentra says February 17, 2014 at 9:55 pm:
    Apparently, people are reporting “Jedi” as a religion and sci-fi races.

    Well, if they do send someone to ask you about your choices, if you picked “Jedi” for religion you are required to do the Jedi Mind Trick on them.

    *waves hand*
    “You don’t need to see my identification…”

    Alas, no connection to the Force exists so it won’t work.

    (I normally put “Human” for Race, but if I want to be a smartass I can always pick “Cylon” instead.)

  43. I think I’ll put New Type.

  44. Do you get a Mobile Suit?

  45. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter…

    Kerry, MSU; actually scientists SWAG that sea level rise is a whopping 3mm/year, which would be an equally whopping 10.28 inches by the end of the century. Interestingly enough, Jakarta is something like 40% below sea level even as we speak and averages more rainfall than 3mm/year, so I am guessing they will cope with the putative 10.28 inches.

    Regarding the Census, here is how to deal with them.

  46. “Do you get a Mobile Suit?”

    It’s probably cheaper to exile men into space.

  47. Jakarta is something like 40% below sea level even as we speak and averages more rainfall than 3mm/year, so I am guessing they will cope with the putative 10.28 inches.

    Built by the Dutch, yes?

  48. Drove my Chevy to the levy but the levy was dry-y-y…

  49. Maybe I’ll put “tissue mass and product of rape because all penetration is rape”.

  50. Something to remember: the “scientist” Bill Nye has a BS degree in Mechanical Engineering.

    Making him an authorative spokesman regarding all things AGW, because . . .

    Sorry, but no one has explained that last missing bit to me yet.

  51. Obama’s speech today at Safeway is about new truck standards.

    Unfortunately, his last batch of truck standard improvements have made trucks 1) more expensive and 2) less reliable. They can perhaps truthfully say that companies save fuel costs, but that is by far overshadowed by the increase cost in purchasing and repairing the beasts.

    Everyone is buying up old trucks.

    We had ONE of those newer trucks (heavy – duty, not a pick up type). POS. ALways breaking down. But clean enough you could run it in your warehouse w/o gases building up.

  52. I think the Left is almost entirely comprised of narcissists. I cannot find one that will actually debate on issues without them either 1) completely dismissing everything I say cuz TEATARD or 2) “I got this pic of a Confederate flag displayed at the edge of a TEATARD rally so EVIDENCE that all Republicans are teh RAAAAACIST. QED everything you say is LimbaughFauxNews LIES. –

    I keep repeating this little bit from David Horowitz’s latest book.

    What makes an outlook “conservative” is that it is rooted in an attitude about the past rather than in expectations of the future. The first principles of conservatism are propositions about human nature and the way human beings behave in social context; about limits, and what limits make possible. This practicality,this attention to experience, to workable arrangements, explains why the conservative community can be liberal and tolerant toward its members in ways that the progressive left cannot.
    In contrast to the conservative outlook, liberal and radical ideologies are about the future, about desired outcomes. The first priciples of the left are the priciples of politically constructing a “better world.” Throughout the modern era, the progressive future has been premised on a social contract that would make all of society’s members equal – or at least provide them with equal starting points.

    Since ideologies of the left are commitments to an imagine future, to question them is to provoke a moral rather than an empirical response: Are you for or against the equality of human beings? To dissent from the progressive viewpoint is not a failure to assess relevant facts but an unwillingness to embraxe a liberated future. It is, therefore, to will the imperfections and injustices of the present order. In the current cant of the left, it is to be “racist, sexist, classist,” a defender of the status quo.

    That is why not only radicals, but even thos who call themselves liberals, are instinctively intolerant toward the conservative position.

    They cannot debate, because their are arguing from a moral position, while you (or I) are not. Thus, even if you have a better grasp of the facts, that does not make you right.

  53. Darleen, I refused to answer the survey, told them “No” when they followed up by phone, and kicked the in-person drone off my front step. So far, I am still a free man.

  54. I had a coworker who did the same, Red.

  55. If my trailer registration renewal notice can get lost in the mail, and if the check I finally was able to write and mail back to the county tag office — after I got the state DOR to re-send the notice — still hasn’t cleared, there’s no telling where my copy of that community survey ended up.

  56. This practicality,this attention to experience, to workable arrangements, explains why the conservative community can be liberal and tolerant toward its members in ways that the progressive left cannot.

    - Well that, and experience becomes noticably of minimal importance when your chief demographic support is so young they have none.

  57. - Concerning the survey, I simply wrote NA in all the entries, and a note in the signiture box stating that I was not interested in the Martian exploration expedition.

  58. Steyne online has this bit:

    I contend the issue of climate change is not like any other issue that we may normally debate or discuss on Grounds, such as foreign policy, the national debt, gay marriage or income inequality. Climate change is not a subjective issue; it is proven science, backed by hundreds of studies and research full of empirical data. Climate change has been proven by researchers such as Prof. Mann, government agencies such as the EPA and many private universities and institutions. Hard science is not something that should be debated the same way we debate other topics, such as those found in political science. Subjects such as politics or philosophy have no clear definite answer; either side can make a compelling case as to why its beliefs are correct. However, the same cannot be said for climate change. There is one proven answer, and it is protected by scientific fact.

    Linky.

  59. - More signs that the Left has blown the “all clear” dog whistle for dumping Bumblefuck:

    The poll asked those who voted for Obama’s reelection a simple question: “Do you regret voting for Barack Obama?”

    * Overall, 71 percent said yes, 26 percent no.

    * 80 percent of whites said yes, 61 percent of blacks said no and 100 percent of Hispanics said yes.

    * 84 percent of women said yes, and just 61 percent of men agreed.

    * 55 percent of Democrats said yes, as did 71 percent of independents.

    - Among the disillusioned, Women, Hispanics and Independents, which should really fuck with the Proggies minds.

    - Yet, for all of that, were the election restaged today Romney still gets creamed, because so many voted against him rather than for Jug ears.

    - All of which will be exactly the same in ’16 if the GOP gets to run another RINO/Wimp, and it will be an even more selfish loss because Hildebeast is not that popular with the younger Left.

  60. This just in: The daughter of one of my cow-orkers is on American Idol:

    Hey everyone and thanks for your support. Scott here, reporting live from Hollywood and time to gloat a bit. We’re certainly proud and excited about Austin’s opportunity and hope they give her the chance to sing tonight (rumor is, some will be cut before singing). We’d appreciate any votes for Austin. And watch the show as it should be a good one this week…7pm MT tonight for gals, 7pm for tomorrow for guys and then Thursday for final 13. Here’s some additional info:
    • You can vote 50 times each on a number of devices: computer, cell phone, home phone, etc.
    o Rules: http://www.americanidol.com/faq.
    o Please share with your friends, tune in and vote!
    • Get to know Austin:
    o http://www.americanidol.com/videos/season_xiii_meet_the_semi_finalists/thisisreal-austin-wolfe
    o http://fox13now.com/2014/01/29/utahn-austin-wolfe-advances-to-hollywood-on-american-idol/
    • In case you’re interested in a viewing in Park City tonight: http://basinrecreation.org/events_calendar.html?post=5091

  61. Darleen, let me suggest you read this:

    Post about answering Census Bureau

  62. It’s disappointing that the typically sensible John Derbyshire has punted on “climate change,” believing in anthropological warming but not the lefty political response to warmist hysteria. For such a dogged empiricist he ought to consider this graph of climate projections plotted against real temperatures.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png

  63. I keep repeating this little bit from David Horowitz’s latest book.

    What makes an outlook “conservative” is that it is rooted in an attitude about the past rather than in expectations of the future. The first principles of conservatism are propositions about human nature and the way human beings behave in social context; about limits, and what limits make possible. This practicality,this attention to experience, to workable arrangements, explains why the conservative community can be liberal and tolerant toward its members in ways that the progressive left cannot.
    In contrast to the conservative outlook, liberal and radical ideologies are about the future, about desired outcomes. The first priciples of the left are the priciples of politically constructing a “better world.” Throughout the modern era, the progressive future has been premised on a social contract that would make all of society’s members equal – or at least provide them with equal starting points.

    See also Sowell’s argument about constrained vs. unconstrained visions.

    [W]ere the election restaged today Romney still gets creamed, because so many voted against him rather than for Jug ears.

    No way can that be true. Romney’s electablity was a settled as science. Top men said so.

    Top. Men.

  64. Hillary is inevitable. Inevitable!, I tells ya.

  65. car I see that one quite often, how dumb an argument can an educated person like Mr. Forman make? Even if you accept the AGW theory as fact, it still needs a policy response that is open to debate.

  66. ….it still needs a policy response that is open to debate.

    - No, no, no, its settled science. Just ask the imminent physicist John “I can find climate change in a soda cracker but I can’t find my form DDS180 with 10 years and the entire US governments help” sKerry. Deniers!

  67. Scientists now predict that by the end of the century, the sea could rise by a full meter

    Indeed. Why, back in 1989 or so, Phil Hansen predicted that the West Side Highway in NYC would be underwater by now.

    So much for predictions. Anyone can predict. What matters is repeated, successful prediction. Which is something the global alarmism community has yet to dabble in.

    The 97% folks are holed up at Skeptical Science, which is a website run by a guy with (IIRC) a physics undergrad degree and a whole lot of firm conviction.

  68. When I filled out my 2010 census I put 2 in the how many people in this house box.

    Several weeks later a drone came to the house to follow up on my census. I was told that I had to fill out all the questions. After refusing several times I got her to go away by adding that the 2 consisted of 1 guy and 1 gal and our initials were A and H.

Leave a Reply