We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Tuesday, January 5. 2010
Getting on the Scott Brown bandwagon: Michelle, Riehl, Sissy, Fowler at NRO. It's a long shot in wacky MA. Photo is Brown. He has three weeks to make his case against the Dem machine candidate who is avoiding the press, off on vacation, and assumed to be a shoe-in as a Dem. Easy gig, big staff, dinner out every night, do as you are told.
Yes, they are saying that this frigid winter is due to global warming. As Legal Insurrection rightly asks, What would they say if it were a warm winter? Heads I win, tails you lose.
At Samiz on the C of E:
Call it what it is: Iran's revolution
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Thanks for the link! : )
I LOVE NRO's Jack Fowler's take:
"But, there’s a feel — from e-mails and calls from Bay State political pals (and even some Jim Geraghty musings) — that something’s afoot. That maybe, just maybe, he can pull this off. Imagine: Brown (who comes across as very impressive) becoming that one critical GOP vote that will give Harry Reid the permanent conniption he so sorely needs. So I’m in — just made my contribution to the Brown campaign here (hey, you can’t win without dough!)."
The global warming/climate change/climate instability meme is now officially "micro climates" and "micro climate change".
You really have to wonder if these people who write these things have any sort of science education at all.
RE Brooks: The educated class believes in global warming, so public skepticism about global warming is on the rise. The educated class supports abortion rights, so public opinion is shifting against them. The educated class supports gun control, so opposition to gun control is mounting.
Er...excuse me, but I'm a member of the "educated class" and I don't believe a word of global warming, I do not support abortion rights and I sure as heck don't support gun control.
Brooks might have been better off substituting "educated class" with "East/West Coast elite chattering class" instead.
Ah, the "public intellectual", no longer the lowly opinion writer.
As a a young boy I daily immersed myself in the editorial pages of the Paterson Evening News. But to this day I never think of Drew Pearson as a "public intellectual". As a teen I was fascinated by Mike Royko. The man could wield a rapier one day and a bludgeon the next. I thought he was brilliant, but not a "public intellectual".
Now Buckley, yes he was a "public intellectual". But he was also witty and entertaining. How could you not respect a man who could cross swords with Gore Vidal and publish light spy fiction. All the while laying down the foundation of modern conservative thought.
So, to the point. I think what we have witnessed is a manifestation of Gresham's Law as applied to "deep thought" opinion. The primary qualification for an opinion writer seems to be an Ivy league degree and a book that made it on the NY Times best seller list. Even those minimal qualifications set the bar pretty low. I'm reminded of what Russel Crowe said to the DA in LA Confidential, "The only difference between him (the victim) and the next lawyer lining up to take your job is that he won't come on a bus."
Maybe Brooks would be better off healing himself, before criticizing the dogs for not eating his dog food.
And of course there's the all-purpose mantra as a fallback position:
"Weather isn't climate."
To be fair, there is a difference between the terms weather and climate. Weather is what you experience everyday. Climate is the long term average of weather conditions usually over a period of 30 years.
To me, speaking strictly as a mathematician, 30 years is not sufficient to determine long term climate stability or instability. You cannot determine if longer term weather patterns are the result anthropogenic factors or longer term natural world cycles in a short span - you need to work with longer time periods measured in hundreds, thousands, millions of years.
Re the 46% Strongly Disapprove from the bad Wizbang link: that was from the December 22 Rasmussen Poll. Today, 40% Strongly Disapprove. Those numbers fluctuate, and given the trends of the last year, it is reasonable to expect that the Strongly Disapprove number will return to its December 22 peak of 46%, and go beyond.
OTOH, the Strongly Approve cohort of Obama supporters, which was as high as 42% in early March, and which has fluctuated between 24% and 28% since Christmas, will likely not change much anymore. Obama can generate that much among key constituencies of blacks, government employees, and moonbats not in the previous two categories.
Where Obama will lose support will be in the lukewarm Approve group, which has been around 20%. While the lukewarm Approves have constituted roughly 40 % of all Approves for Obama, lukewarm Disapproves have constituted only about 20% of Disapproves for Obama. Those who have stronger opinions are more likely to vote.
Tom Francis, RE climatechange/globalwarmingists. Most of these folks don't know how and don't bother to get really solid information about any scientific argument. I agree with your point about weather trends [a day-to-day-thing] and climate [a longish term thing] But I have trouble respecting any so-called scientist, like this Mann guy, who devised a computer program to predict climate change and "left out" the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.
That's a Big OOpsie.
Mann proved the addage that numbers don't lie - men do.
The backwards looking approach was, to be fair, a good way to approach the problem of long term AGW - it's a concept that is used in financial planning all the time to show longer term trends. High energy physicists use the technique to time stamp events accurately and provide a sample base for future experimens.
What Mann did was totally beyond the pale in terms of science. His entire thesis was based on one single tree core out of a 12 core set which was part of a larger 32 core sample. One tree core - arguably the most infamous tree in the history of man (no pun intended) and built his house of cards on that completely ignoring ice core, historical commentaries/evidence and other tree core sets that were available. That is the true crime here and if there is any justice, he will be spoken of as the most vilified "scientist" history.
"You cannot determine if longer term weather patterns are the result anthropogenic factors or longer term natural world cycles in a short span - you need to work with longer time periods measured in hundreds, thousands, millions of years."
For that, there's yet another mantra:
"There's no time! It's already too late!"
The educated class thinks thus and so? Hey! I have a B.S. in Biology from MIT and a M.S. in Biochemistry from a medical school. If I'm not part of the educated class who is? And I don't buy any of that BS.