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
Thursday, October 29. 2015
Energy Department smashes pumpkins for causing climate change
Modern Art Exhibit Tossed in Garbage after Mistaken for Trash
This keeps happening
NY Times: Greenland Is Melting!
Further on the Ninth Amendment
9th has been ignored for many years
The rise of negative bond yields in Europe
It's still called Red Vienna
Germans Panic As Muslims March Through City ‘THIS IS OUR FUTURE
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Most of the 1.3 billion pounds of pumpkins produced in the U.S. end up in the trash, says the Energy Department’s website,"
So ban it. Ban pumpkin growing. Ban smoked meats while you're at it, since it causes "cancer". Go ahead. For our own good. For the good of Gaia.
Start going door to door to round up the pumpkin seeds and Halloween costumes that cause microaggressions and foods that are going to kill us..
Let's get it on already. I can't take the insanity anymore.
"Pope says denying Israel’s right to exist is anti-Semitism"
Because it is.
"Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research"
Maybe someone could just air-gap the docs via the Clinton server.
"Further on the Ninth Amendment"
Another one of those ingenious amendments in your constitution that can often cause such noise and hot air in any discussion.
Not because - as those engaged in constitutional sophistry will always argue - we cannot gauge the intent of those who framed them 200 years ago. But rather that their intent was so obvious that arguing against it demands such sophistry.
I give you the First and Second Amendments, designed from the very outset to annoy the hell out of all proponents of statism.
"Modern Art Exhibit Tossed in Garbage after Mistaken for Trash"
It wasn't a mistake.
NY Times: Greenland Is Melting!
That is correct.
Agency won’t give GOP internal docs on climate research
Internal communications between scientists are generally protected in order to encourage the open exchange of ideas.
What language are you speaking and what does "open" mean in it?
B Moe: what does "open" mean in it?
Open exchange means that scientists can talk to one another openly without fear of eavesdroppers.
B Moe: Government-funded science is belong to all of us
The research does, but to encourage the free exchange of ideas, communications between scientists are generally considered private.
Re: 9th has been ignored for many years
The whole Bill of Rights has been ignored for many years.
mudbug: Greenland was green long before global warming started.
Yes. Greenland's coastal areas were relatively warm during the Medieval Warm Period.
Keep in mind that current warming isn't the problem, but projected warming.
Thank you B Moe. I nearly blew my sip of morning coffee across the computer screen. The irony that someone would say the reason we keep scientific opinions secret is so that scientists will feel encouraged to give their ideas openly.
I have to say I'm not really angry with the officials at NOAA because fascists cannot help themselves from being fascists. I'm angry with the Republicans at the ongoing and open treason and criminal activity by our government while they control congress. Where are their balls? I have one word for congress; IMPEACH! It's time for some special prosecutors and some perp walks. It's past time for it now it's time for pitchforks and tar and feathers.
Why rich people in Austria want to live in housing projects
These are the same types of people that vote for Nanny Bloombergs, in order to have someone regulate their salt intake, their every problem and whim, keep them safe from dangerous weapons and being pushed onto subway tracks, because freedom and responsibility are hard.
And somehow those of us who want to be left alone still end up paying for their mistakes and being persecuted by fascists because once that ball starts rolling downhill, there's nothing stopping it. Peacefully anyway.
If this is the realm of science, than it shouldn't matter what a researcher's opinions are. The methods, theories, data, etc. are what matter. It's the Warmists who are suggesting retribution for people who don't agree with them, not the other way around.
You do know what the most topical narrative on science is these days, right Zach? That it's reached peak cronyism.
"Science" is under enormous attack as an institution - it's grant culture is corrupt. It's under enormous attack as a dogma - it's trajectory is highly politicized.
And it should be under attack as the cheap linguistic tool you've co-opted it into being: "Science" is a word that means almost completely the opposite of how you use it.
At any rate, there is no AGW. That is a fact gathered from the science, Zach..
Right now, it seems to have been a good idea to let the lefties self-identify themselves so clearly.
GoneWithTheWind: The irony that someone would say the reason we keep scientific opinions secret is so that scientists will feel encouraged to give their ideas openly.
That's right. Scientists may not be open with their criticism and speculations if it is considered public record. The public record is the data and research papers. In any case, while still contentious, the policy in the U.S. has generally been held that such correspondence is private. You might want to press for a change in the law to remove the ambiguity.
GoneWithTheWind: ongoing and open treason
Oh gee whiz.
mudbug: If this is the realm of science, than it shouldn't matter what a researcher's opinions are.
Scientists often speculate or criticize privately among close colleagues. It's the equivalent of talking around the water cooler. If every email has to be a document to be held for possible litigation, or could embarrass either the sender or a subject of an email, then scientists will simply communicate less.
mudbug: The methods, theories, data, etc. are what matter.
Methods, theories, and data are published in journals. That's your public record, not that Ameen's first thought is that Pierre's results are hogwash.
It's pretty clear that they are not looking for idle chatter - though the emails from East Anglia were pretty revealing about the unscientific nature and petty resentfulness the "scientists" there had. The topic of interest is what was the rationale for "adjusting" the data. Given the political atmosphere at East Anglia, it would reasonable to be concerned that NOAA might be similarly infected.
Ten: "Science" is under enormous attack as an institution
The death of science has been greatly exaggerated.
mudbug: the emails from East Anglia were pretty revealing about the unscientific nature and petty resentfulness the "scientists" there had.
Scientists are sometimes short-tempered, competitive, hard-headed, arrogant, and often just plain wrong. Science doesn't depend on the perfection of scientists.
You left out political.
Science is merely a way of approaching an issue. It is a process. Scientists are the same self serving bunch of mopes as any other occupation. It isn't a priesthood.
You don't think there is treason?
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal
The President of the United States is funding and aiding the sworn enemies of the United States.
President Obama has neglected his oath of office, if not violated it outright.
I could make a long list including a number of congress people, the IRS and the DOJ. But I will instead take back the word "treason" and restate it in a different manner:
"I'm angry with the Republicans at the ongoing and open traitorous acts and criminal activity by our government while they control congress and could put a stop to it.
Right (and as B Moe says, you need to add political). As I said, they are not looking for idle email chatter but rationalization, reasoning, methods, etc. so your previous comment is moot.
Neither does reality, which puts your vague contentions about science in some serious doubt.
If you cannot know reality you cannot know scientifically what reality is, whether in part or in the whole. So what do you know, and by what measure, Zach?
Or are you just citing "science" as a linguistic tool, hoping to ward off folks who know you got nothing? Because I assure you, science - the factual exploration and documentation of that portion of reality - shows no such thing as AGW.
B Moe: You left out political.
B Moe: Science is merely a way of approaching an issue. It is a process. Scientists are the same self serving bunch of mopes as any other occupation. It isn't a priesthood.
mudbug: Right (and as B Moe says, you need to add political). As I said, they are not looking for idle email chatter but rationalization, reasoning, methods, etc. so your previous comment is moot.
Scientific reasoning and methods are published in scientific papers. The rest is idle chatter.
Ten: So what do you know, and by what measure
There are many ways to know, but this discussion concerns what can be objectively established.
What's been objectively established is that what can be purported* to be objectively established in favoring AGW is frequently corrupted. What's objectively established is evident fact disproving AGW.
Your assertion is therefore circular. Neither are objectively established.
*projected, demanded, camouflaged, asserted, lied, et al.
Ten: What's been objectively established is that what can be purported* to be objectively established in favoring AGW is frequently corrupted.
It has? If you mean scientists have biases, that's just human nature.
In any case, even if the individual scientists are "corrupted", that doesn't constitute a scientific argument. Or are you claiming that thousands of scientists, in many different countries, political systems, and cultures, are in a conspiracy? If it is group-think, then that simply takes us back to the scientific evidence.
Back up: Are you claiming AGW is scientifically valid - is proved reality - or are you making claims that AGW is real because you can establish the theory that it should be real? Because I hope you can see the difference.
I theorize that comets are made from primordial ice, this based on observations early in the cosmological sciences. I establish an elaborate theory that supports my claim, publish the work, and gain peer acceptance. After all, it's the best we have.
Now, are comets made from primordial ice? It's a valid question because the very most recent direct observations of comets - observations unprecedented anywhere in the associated previous science - says they are not made from dirty ice, but from rock, and rock is neither water or primordial.
The same question applies to relativity: If relativity replaces the prior Newtonian view, and if relativity proves mathematically sound in a particular field, is the Universe actually relativitistic? This is another legitimate question because relativity and quantum mechanics have not merged, and findings suggest they never shall, leaving the "science" open-ended. The better translation is that the field is left open-ended because the science is incomplete. If it's erroneous it's not scientific.
By the way, neither of these examples - and scores and scores like them - are shrouded in controversy and known corruption, however they are cloaked in establishmentarianism until such time as new and mounting evidence becomes undeniable and another path is found. But AGW is fraught with corruption and a very visible trail of money.
The question remains, is AGW valid when the science has not and apparently cannot prove it and - despite its issues - only theory supports it, as if against some unknown future contingency where it could be conflated with, say, solar activity, the only driver of terrestrial thermodynamics?
How you use "science" more than alludes to an AGW agenda, which is not scientific. Science is as B Moe defined it: A process that when it fits its real definition has no inherent interchangeability with its practicioners. You can no more say that AGW is scientific than you can that Emeril Lagasse is a physical strawberry. Lagasse has views on food and practices his art, which is more than you can say for some AGW hysterics wielding "science".
Ten: Are you claiming AGW is scientifically valid - is proved reality - or are you making claims that AGW is real because you can establish the theory that it should be real?
Science doesn't 'prove', but supports. Anthropogenic climate change is strongly supported.
Ten: Now, are comets made from primordial ice?
Comets are made of rock, water ice, methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and organic compounds. Water isotopes vary depending on distance from Sun, consistent with theories concerning the formation of the Solar System.
Ten: relativity and quantum mechanics have not merged, and findings suggest they never shall
What finding suggests no unification is possible?
Ten: The question remains, is AGW valid when the science has not and apparently cannot prove it and - despite its issues - only theory supports it, as if against some unknown future contingency where it could be conflated with, say, solar activity, the only driver of terrestrial thermodynamics?
Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth's surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is. Clearly something other than solar activity determines the climate at the Earth's surface.