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
Saturday, January 28. 2012
Saving the Whales (And Eating Them Too?)
Controversial Book Asks ‘Is Marriage for White People?’
When Will Housing Hit Bottom?
Scientists: Chill on global warming
"One of the more insidiously deceptive lines of the socialist-liberal agenda is the banal phrase: "Violence doesn’t solve anything.""
Let's Be Fair about Taxation
The economic chart that may doom the Obama presidency
Alternative Certification and 'Colorblind Racism' - The sooner the higher-education bubble bursts, the better.
How the CDC is overstating sexual violence in the U.S.
"Note to some of my fellow progressives: If we can’t argue about Israel without using anti-Semitic tropes, then the debate is lost before it even begins"
What Obama Won't Mention Today in Michigan: Campus Has 53% More Administrators Than Faculty
The U.S. military needs to invest in troops, not technology
Morning Bell: A Slashed and Burned Military
Good Grief… Obama: People Don’t Get Rich Without Government Investment
Reuters Acknowledges Rubio Hit Piece is a 'Fiasco' and a 'Disgrace'
Multimillionaire Elizabeth Warren: I’m not wealthy.
$14 million isn't wealthy? How does an academic accumulate that? Even on her $400,000 Harvard salary?
Tracked: Jan 28, 08:15
Thoughts On A Sunday
The winter weather pattern continues, with snowfalls ranging between 2 and 6 inches followed by sleet, freezing rain, and/or rain. It makes for one heck of a mess on the streets, and particularly driveways. Here at The Manse this mixture...
Weblog: Weekend Pundit
Tracked: Jan 29, 23:11
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Elizabeth Warren: This is the liberal mantra. I say I'm not rich therefore I'm not rich - even though I am rich - which I'm not.
$14,000,000 in assets is fairly rich in my book. And I wonder how much of that is parked in tax sheltered mutual funds?
needs to invest in troops: Every military at some point needs to learn this lesson - you don't hold territory gained without having boots on the ground - its impossible to keep gains won in combat from the air - can't be done. It can't be done with quick reaction forces - see Vietnam. You gotta have boots on the ground to hold it, police it, convince the natives that resistance is futile so you might as well go along to get along.
The problem with our social system is that we have to relearn this lesson every ten years or so.
Good Grief… Obama: At one point at the start of his Presidency, I was willing to give Obama a pass if only because maybe, just maybe, he was onto something with this whole post-partisan thing - that somehow he just might pull it off and make it work. It quickly became apparent that he is a useful socialist idiot for those with a big government agenda - like unions and high finance donors. For somebody who is supposed to be this deliberate and calm "intellectual", he sure acts like somebody who is so far in over his head that he can't see the top of the hole he fell into.
Saving the Whales: I've had whale meat. It ain't that good - has a gamey sort of oily texture and taste to it - think venison laced with dark duck meat about the closest I could come to an explanation.
Obama is a socialist even by this very narrow definition that concedes many people support socialist ideas now and again even as they can't really be considered socialist. However, Obama meets this definition, especially the third criteria:
The Socialist, under this definition, would be the man who, in general, distrusts the effects of individual initiative and individual enterprise ; who is easily convinced of the utility of an assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims ; and who, in fact, supports and advocates many and large schemes of this character.
JKB, in your comment on the National Review piece by Kurtz, you say you found this definition in "article on socialism from 1887". Do you recall the name of the article?
It's in the first volume of Scribner's Magazine Jan-Jun 1887
'Socialism' by Francis A. Walker
Check out 'Ethics of Democracy' in that same volume
JKB & Jephnol,
Another good read would be "How Democracies Perish" (Jean-Francois Revel) 1984 and "The Totalitarian Temptation" (same author).
I plan to follow up with 'Socialism' by Francis A. Walker. Thank you.
Bird Dog: Scientists: Chill on global warming
Not climate scientists:
J. Scott Armstrong,
Harrison H. Schmitt,
Nir Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service;
William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology;
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT;
None of this is news, as these three scientists have already made their views known.
While appeals to authority can't be considered definitive, as the appeal was made, then this should be relevant.
Meanwhile, these scientific organizations have said that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."
The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:
African Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Two other Academies of Sciences that endorse the consensus:
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.
You highlight the real problem with the "scientific" community. So many organizations and Ph.Ds have staked their reputations on this funding boondoggle. Now that the scam is unravelling they are trapped and will most likely unravel.
In any case, science, real science, doesn't rest on authority or opinion polls. It rests on data, on skeptical questioning and rebuttal. Only they lost the data and actively seek to prevent skeptical challenge much less rebut it. That signifies ineptness, fraud or deceit. But it can easily be sorted out by producing the data and explaining the manipulations as well as the baffling lack of error tracking and management.
Otherwise, I would submit to you, "fomites". Once the darling of the scientific community to explain the spread of smallpox. It was quite the rage, until one doctor offered a competing theory. His theory languished until it was taken up by Walter Reed's team who verified that mosquitoes in fact were the disease vector not unseen particles conceived in the fevered brains of earlier researchers.
Did you note the inclusion of the Nigerian Academy of Sciences? The AGW FRAUD is nothing more than a transfer of wealth (THEFT) of taxpayer dollars. Simply put, another "Nigerian e-mail SCAM", that we are all already aware of.
My research indicates:
- carbon plays a VERY VERY small role in climate change
- the Sun and H2O vapour (clouds) are KEY components in
temperature change which happens naturally
- H2O is not a pollutant
Unfortunately there are still a few who sip "the pink koolaid" of the now dying AGW movement. Only when the fraudsters are convicted by the courts (algore, "moe" strong and the whole IPCC to name a few) and the billions clawed back to public accounts, will this movement be truly dead and buried.
JKB: Otherwise, I would submit to you, "fomites". Once the darling of the scientific community to explain the spread of smallpox.
Smallpox can be transmitted by fomites. You're probably thinking of yellow fever.
JKB: In any case, science, real science, doesn't rest on authority or opinion polls. It rests on data, on skeptical questioning and rebuttal.
That's right. And there are virtually no data or studies that contradict theories of anthropogenic climate change. The minimalist skeptic arguments concern either tangential issues, or are simply not supported by the evidence.
Zachriel ... You say that there are virtually no data or studies that contradict theories of anthropogenic Climate Change. Yes there are, a very healthy number of contradictions of AGW are already on record, some of them by actual climate scientists, like S. Fred Singer. You must have been hiding your head in the sand, my friend. Besides, the acceptability of scientific theory, depends on scientific evidence. That's why real scientists, like Albert Einstein, dub their investigations as theories, not "settled science." They know better, and they welcome the chance that perhaps in several decades some scientist will be able to disprove their "theories of relativity."
As far as AGW is concerned, the original computer projections of data were flawed. The original computer program left out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in its computations. Tut-tut. What I find distressing is that the "scientists" who made the original errors tried to deny and cover up their mistakes, rather than admit they made them. This muddies the waters, to say the least, and makes it harder to accept their conclusions and more humiliating for them to admit their mistakes now.
I've known many scientists in my life, and the best, most distinguished ones are always open to new evidence, alternate and better theories. I'm thinking of a medical symposium several years ago, where one doctor stood up and said, "Gentlemen, I've been investigating the fact that we have attributed stomach ulcers to the patient's stress quotient. Now I have found that ulcers are caused by a bacterium, rather than the patient's stressful condition."
The doctors present greeted this statement with loud disbelief, feeling that they couldn't have made such a mistake for so many years. A year or two later, after further research, the medical community had to admit that they had been mistaken, and ulcers were indeed caused by a bacterium.
Good for them. They refused to be boxed in by their own mistakes. They admitted that they were wrong, and could therefore proceed to develop alternate theories which would prove to be more accurate.
Too bad the AGW folks didn't take the same course, instead of massaging the data, and covering up that which did not support their "settled science." They are now getting deeper into the weeds with every skewed "report."
It's now AGC. lol "Hide the decline"!!
Zachriel: here are virtually no data or studies that contradict theories of anthropogenic climate change. The minimalist skeptic arguments concern either tangential issues, or are simply not supported by the evidence.
Marianne Matthews: Yes there are, a very healthy number of contradictions of AGW are already on record, some of them by actual climate scientists, like S. Fred Singer.
We didn't say there were no studies. If you want to point to a particular paper from a major scientific journal, please do.
That's why real scientists, like Albert Einstein, dub their investigations as theories, not "settled science." That's why real scientists, like Albert Einstein, dub their investigations as theories, not "settled science." [/i]
Um, no. It's not called a theory because it is not "settled science". Theories are analytical models that explain and predict observations.
Marianne Matthews: As far as AGW is concerned, the original computer projections of data were flawed. The original computer program left out both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age in its computations.
There are many models of climate change, and they are used to crosscheck one another. Some models deal with paleoclimatic events, others concentrate on modern climate. As with all such models, they have to be reasonably consistent with one another and with observation.
Marianne Matthews: A year or two later, after further research, the medical community had to admit that they had been mistaken, and ulcers were indeed caused by a bacterium.
Notice how the skeptics collected data, and then used the data to convince their colleagues. Yes, scientific theories bend to the evidence. The only outstanding debate about climate change is political and social. There are virtually no current studies that call into question the basics of anthropogenic climate change, though certainly it is possible such information will become available with further study.
Marianne Matthews: Too bad the AGW folks didn't take the same course, instead of massaging the data, and covering up that which did not support their "settled science."
The problem with such a position is that the evidence crosses multiple fields of study, not just climatology, but paleoclimatology, geology, Earth sciences, even physics.