Search the Community

[Edited January 2 2019 -- to remove or replace dead visual-links] Long ago Jonathan and I got some good traction out of a tangle of issues related to Global Warming slash Climate Change. I think we are slated to renew or refresh our earlier exchanges. I am going to poke in links to some he-said/he-saids from a few different threads at different times. One feature of the updated software is an automated 'sampling' of a link posted raw. See below. So this blog entry will be kind of administrative-technical while being built and edited. I haven't figured out if Jonathan and I should impose some 'rules' going in, so your comment may be subject to arbitrary deletion before the field is ready for play. Fan notes included. Adam, see what you think of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, especially the revealing map-based representations of opinion. You can drill and zoom down to state, county, district level to track data across a number of survey questions, where some of the answers are surprising. On some measures at least, the thing it is not found only in the UK, Quebec, Canada: Here's a snapshot of several maps which do not always show an expected Red State/Blue State pattern; [images updated January 2 2019; click and go images] [Deleted image-link] Edited 4 May 2015 by william.scherk Plug my How To Get Where I Got book of books, Spencer Weart's The Discovery of Global Warming. Insert link to Amazon, Library link, and to the intro chapter of Weart's companion website to the book. Make sure you include a link to Ellen's mention of a book review. Bob Kolker's June 3 comment is a good hinge. What do we (J and I) think we know about the mechanism Bob sketches? What can we 'stipulate' or what can we agree on, for the sake of argument?

Major Persuasion Fail on Climate Change The new thing for the Climate Change folks is the young girl Greta. The one who spoke at the UN and told everyone, "How dare you!" This is turning out to be a publicity debacle because most people are seeing it as an emotional blackmail manipulation. However, the fail runs even deeper because the people behind this took out a principle from Ayn Rand, of all things, and reality is going to kick their asses for it. But this mistake is understandable since the people behind this are crony corporatist globalists. And what was their mistake? They let Greta take out the individual. Rush Limbaugh explained this here and did an excellent job, to let me quote him. He thinks they made this mistake because they are not thinking right, and this is due to their failure to take out President Trump. After all, Trump is dismantling their dreams and plans and coups and power cliques and so on, one by one and replacing it with rational nationalism. And the elitists are getting psychotic about it. (My bold below.) That is quite astute. And to tie a bow around it from the perspective of Rand, it was not collectivists who took out the individual in this persuasion and propaganda blunder. It was elitists. Propaganda-wise, they were using collectivism as a religion for individual redemption, but decided to replace planet worship with worship of the government (meaning them in their mind) and to hell with the individual. What an odd vindication of a Randian principle of individualism as a metaphysical fact (with law of identity and so on)--that nature must be obeyed in order to be ruled, but there it is. If you think this sounds like a Randian fundament, but also doesn't, I get that. I extend "nature" to include "human nature," especially the underbelly of the mind part that Rand had impatience with. But the way the mind exists, people need some kind of religion, even if only a secular religion, to feel their lives have meaning. (Make no mistake about it, Objectivism is a kind of secular religion and Rand's novels provide the foundational myths of it.) That the elitists are flubbing it so badly is very good for the ones fighting the globalist takeover in the name of manmade climate change. May those idiots go even more nuts than they are and screw up the rest. Michael

Peer Reviewed -- Penises Cause Climate Change You can't make this up. A couple of hoaxers got a gobbledygook article published in a peer reviewed science publication called Cogent Social Sciences using the Postmodern Generator (a gibberish randomizer program) and editing to make sure they used pro-feminist anti-male academic jargon. ( Apropos, just keep refreshing the page of the Postmodern Generator and a new randomized BS article pops up each time. ) The name of the study is: “The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct.” Here's a Breitbart article by James Delingpole about the hoax (May 20, 2017). DELINGPOLE: ‘Penises Cause Climate Change’; Progressives Fooled by Peer-Reviewed Hoax Study From the article: Here is the original article Delingpole is reporting on: The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies by Peter Boghossian, Ed.D. (aka Peter Boyle, Ed.D.) and James Lindsay, Ph.D. (aka, Jamie Lindsay, Ph.D.). I swear, I'm holding back a belly-laugh... LOLOLOLOL... Michael

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/climate-change-what-do-scientists-say

Bill Nye the Silence Guy I thought of putting this in science, but being jailed for thought control is more about politics and propaganda. Bill Nye now wants to jail people he deems Climate Change deniers. Bill Nye, "Science Guy," Open to Jail Time for Climate Change Skeptics Nick Gillespie Apr. 15, 2016 Hit & Run Blog Reason He thinks intimidating scientific inquiry with jail time is good if it disagrees with his views. That's why he's now "The Silence Guy." He wants to silence his opponents not with reason and arguments, but with the police. I have to disagree with Sarah Palin on one point recently. Palin: Bill Nye ‘as much a scientist as I am’ By Timothy Cama 04/14/16 The Hill Well, according to Bill Nye's Wikipedia entry, he is more than a kid's show actor, at least to some extent. He's an actual scientist. He invented a sundial. Seriously... You can't make this shit up. Calling Bill Nye a scientist is more of a sinecure-like honor from the scientists and government climate cartel because of his propaganda. Calling his sundial a scientific discovery is like letting one of the Kardashians conduct a few bars of a Beethoven Symphony in Carnegie Hall and calling her a conductor... Michael

In case people haven't been paying attention, Michael Mann, the guy with the global warming hockey stick end-of-the-world graph has been suing all of his critics in order to try to shut them up. Anyway, there is an interesting and as always funny column by Mark Steyn about the lawsuits. There is also an interesting column by Robert Tracinski about how global warming is turning into a pseudo science. I also found it interesting that one of my favorite conservative authors was quoting one of my favorite Objectivist authors. It's probably happened before, but this is the first time I've seen it. Darrell

Is Dr. Robert Stadler alive and working, - no, shilling,- for NASA?? In a hurry to justify their grants and their resultant jobs, NASA "scientists" have issued the following report. (total ignoring their - or other global warming alarmists' - earlier near-hysterical reports that the "Antarctic Ice Shelf is thinning due to global warming, - and could break-off at any minute! ).featured on AOL and probably the Huffington Report (seeing that they are the same people): http://www.aol.com/article/2014/10/08/antarctic-sea-ice-hits-an-all-time-high-nasa-blames-global-warming/20974708/?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl7|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D542513 No, really!

From an MSNBC summary of Obama's second inaugural address: Earlier in the address he reiterated a theme from his 2009 inaugural address, urging Congress to take steps to remedy the effects of catastrophic weather events and global climate change. “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations,” he said. “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.” Applauding this part of the speech, Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, said, “This is a call to action against the climate chaos that is sweeping our nation and threatening our future. Now it's time to act. Power plants are our single largest source of carbon pollution. We must cut that pollution.” As I said, Get out your candles.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/19/professor-fired-after-expressing-climate-change-skepticism/ As I am opposed to government funded education and government funded science - with the possible exception of military related education and science - I can only express no surprise that someone might be fired over expressing Climate Change skepticism. We can't be sure what this was all about since the side that knows for sure isn't talking. There are lots of politics in academia. One thing we can sure of - had the topic been politically correct from the other side the hounds of the PC media would be all over it. Dennis

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/may/22/geoengineering-balloon-trial-cancelled "A key part of a UK-led project to investigate the feasibility of injecting particles into the stratosphere with the aim of cooling the Earth has been cancelled. In what would have been one of the first trials of geoengineering, the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project will now not undertake field tests. Instead, the project will be restricted to lab experiments and computer simulations." Like the Ozone Hole - no field experiments when doing the basic science. Here it is a whole generation later and the apparatus and infrastructure to even do such experiments does not yet exist - though politicians want regulatory schemes with trillion dollar impacts. Science 101 does not apply when politics is at stake. Dennis