Wednesday, December 02, 2009
What's Marilyn doing?
This video clip, based on an old home movie, is making the rounds. It shows Marilyn Monroe in some unglamorous home party, casually smoking an ordinary cigarette.
The clip is being headlined as "Monroe Smoking Pot!"
Why? Has smoking gone so far out of publicly permissible normalcy that it can't even be perceived when it happens? The taboo against tobacco is so strong that we have to imagine she's using (currently non-taboo) marijuana?
It's a mystery.
Aside from that, MM looks just as sexy in this ordinary candid situation as she does in any movie or pose.
What is somewhat interesting: the standard story about MM is that she was not a habitual smoker, and had to be trained to mimic a few puffs for one movie role. This video tends to counter that story: she appears to be an experienced and competent smoker. ¶ 6:01 PM
The clip is being headlined as "Monroe Smoking Pot!"
Why? Has smoking gone so far out of publicly permissible normalcy that it can't even be perceived when it happens? The taboo against tobacco is so strong that we have to imagine she's using (currently non-taboo) marijuana?
It's a mystery.
Aside from that, MM looks just as sexy in this ordinary candid situation as she does in any movie or pose.
What is somewhat interesting: the standard story about MM is that she was not a habitual smoker, and had to be trained to mimic a few puffs for one movie role. This video tends to counter that story: she appears to be an experienced and competent smoker. ¶ 6:01 PM
An hour worth watching
A video clip of a speech by Egil Krogh, one of the few surviving Nixon insiders. Krogh is a good story-teller, gives inside dope on some puzzling events, makes excellent moral points without any of John Dean's self-righteous screechy arrogance. His anecdote about Elvis rummaging through Nixon's desk is worth the time all by itself.
¶ 1:02 PM
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Swiss government hates its own people
More on the Swiss vote to symbolically oppose Allah:
Noteworthy: Opposing the enemy is a "shock result" to the elites and the media.
Switzerland avoided destruction in WW2 by surrendering, quietly aiding Hitler while pretending to be neutral. Looks like the Swiss government is trying to pull the same collaboration in the current war, but this time the Swiss people are mounting an active Resistance. Good for them, and good for the legitimate parties in other Euro countries who aim to emulate the People's Party. ¶ 7:49 AM
A decision by voters in Switzerland to ban the construction of new mosque minarets will endanger security, Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey said on Tuesday.
"In any event, we are concerned by this vote," she told a meeting of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). "The reality of our societies, in Europe and in the world (is that) every blow to the co-existence of different cultures and religions also endangers our security."
In a shock result, more than 57 percent of voters approved a referendum motion to ban minarets brought by right-wing groups, including the Swiss People's Party, the country's biggest.
The outcome triggered widespread accusations of intolerance, especially in Muslim countries and among Switzerland's European neighbours as well as the UN's human rights chief.
However, it was also hailed by leaders of other populist anti-immigrant parties in Europe who suggested they might do the same at home.
Noteworthy: Opposing the enemy is a "shock result" to the elites and the media.
Switzerland avoided destruction in WW2 by surrendering, quietly aiding Hitler while pretending to be neutral. Looks like the Swiss government is trying to pull the same collaboration in the current war, but this time the Swiss people are mounting an active Resistance. Good for them, and good for the legitimate parties in other Euro countries who aim to emulate the People's Party. ¶ 7:49 AM
Weasely Derb
I'd been wondering why Derbyshire was so consistently silent on the Gaia scam, since he so often presents himself as an exponent of good science and good logic.
Apparently many others had been wondering the same thing, because Derb finally felt impelled to write on the subject.
And he shows his true colors by weaseling and waffling.
Sorry, Derb, anyone who loves science and logic, anyone who likes to observe and analyze data, has seen through this hoax for at least a decade. The CO2 correlation has been blazingly wrong from the first moment it was proposed, and all efforts to support it have been criminally dishonest. Alternate hypotheses haven't been proved yet, but we can be 100.00% sure that the carbon connection is false.
Now I know for 100.00% certain what I had previously suspected: Derb is not a scientist but a member of the Scientific Elite. Like Dawkins, like Lawrence Krauss, like every science journalist, his base motivation is violent anti-Christian bigotry. He follows science because science offers a way to poke Christians in the eye and hear them scream. ¶ 6:42 AM
Apparently many others had been wondering the same thing, because Derb finally felt impelled to write on the subject.
And he shows his true colors by weaseling and waffling.
Sorry, Derb, anyone who loves science and logic, anyone who likes to observe and analyze data, has seen through this hoax for at least a decade. The CO2 correlation has been blazingly wrong from the first moment it was proposed, and all efforts to support it have been criminally dishonest. Alternate hypotheses haven't been proved yet, but we can be 100.00% sure that the carbon connection is false.
Now I know for 100.00% certain what I had previously suspected: Derb is not a scientist but a member of the Scientific Elite. Like Dawkins, like Lawrence Krauss, like every science journalist, his base motivation is violent anti-Christian bigotry. He follows science because science offers a way to poke Christians in the eye and hear them scream. ¶ 6:42 AM
Monday, November 30, 2009
Surely they can do better
I really wonder why CNN keeps Wolf Blitzer on, and gives him what seems to be 9 hours each day. He's old, unattractive, has an annoying voice, and worsta ofa alla, he talksa likea Lawrencea Welka. Alla of thata could be forgivena if he had some unique insighta ora knowledge, buta he doesn't. He's uninformed and unintelligent.
Compare to Rick Sanchez, who is easy on the eyes and ears, intelligent, and speaks Spanish fluently.
Surely CNN could pick the cream of the crop from any major-market TV station. Or they could pull in some of the attractive and intelligent anchors on their own International branch, like Octavia Nasr. ¶ 3:35 PM
Compare to Rick Sanchez, who is easy on the eyes and ears, intelligent, and speaks Spanish fluently.
Surely CNN could pick the cream of the crop from any major-market TV station. Or they could pull in some of the attractive and intelligent anchors on their own International branch, like Octavia Nasr. ¶ 3:35 PM
Another example of the anti-feedback orthodoxy
Via the Voice of Russia, a new study at Univ of Calif Davis.
Since every single layer and bit of our bodies uses negative feedback to maintain homeostasis, this really shouldn't be 'controversial'.
I'm pretty sure it's not controversial among biologists; only controversial for advocates like CSPI, which is reliably following the good old Lysenko / Skinner line: Nothing is innate, nothing is automatic, nothing is self-controlling. Everything depends on our "choices", thus we must "choose" to follow orders from authorities who "know" best. Humans are passive machines. ¶ 9:49 AM
In an article published in the latest issue of the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology a team of University of California-Davis nutrition researchers maintain that humans naturally regulate their sodium intake. In the article David McCarron, an adjunct UC-Davis nutrition professor, says that the controversial conclusion is backed by sound data.
The study finds that the human body makes sure sodium levels remain within a certain range at all times, similar to bodily functions that are homeostatically maintained, such as body temperature.
"Our sodium intake is regulated by the brain, and your brain won't let you go very far outside of that boundary," McCarron said. "You may eat that whole bag of chips, but it just means that as you sit down you'll unconsciously go toward foods that are lower in sodium."
...
The study has angered nutrition policy advocates, with Michael Jacobson with the Center for Science in the Public Interest warning that to follow the report’s conclusions would be a disservice to the people.
Since every single layer and bit of our bodies uses negative feedback to maintain homeostasis, this really shouldn't be 'controversial'.
I'm pretty sure it's not controversial among biologists; only controversial for advocates like CSPI, which is reliably following the good old Lysenko / Skinner line: Nothing is innate, nothing is automatic, nothing is self-controlling. Everything depends on our "choices", thus we must "choose" to follow orders from authorities who "know" best. Humans are passive machines. ¶ 9:49 AM
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Good news from the Rational World
Switzerland has passed a referendum banning new construction of minarets, the towers where primitive Mohammedan creatures howl their simian ululations.
The referendum is obviously more symbolic than concrete, but the news that really caught my attention is farther down in the article.
The referendum is sponsored by the Swiss People's Party, which is the largest party in Parliament. I hadn't even heard of the People's Party. Apparently it's an old minor party that grew quickly in the '90s, gaining majority in 2007. Though it's firmly nationalistic and anti-immigration, its platform sounds more Reaganite than populist.
When the cautious and multicultural Swiss get riled up, you can be sure a healthy immune response is developing in Europe. ¶ 6:16 AM
The referendum is obviously more symbolic than concrete, but the news that really caught my attention is farther down in the article.
The referendum is sponsored by the Swiss People's Party, which is the largest party in Parliament. I hadn't even heard of the People's Party. Apparently it's an old minor party that grew quickly in the '90s, gaining majority in 2007. Though it's firmly nationalistic and anti-immigration, its platform sounds more Reaganite than populist.
"Forced marriages and other things like cemeteries separating the pure and impure — we don't have that in Switzerland, and we do not want to introduce it" said Ulrich Schlueer, co-president of the Initiative Committee to ban minarets.
When the cautious and multicultural Swiss get riled up, you can be sure a healthy immune response is developing in Europe. ¶ 6:16 AM
Best article
This article by David Evans is the best and most straightforward article on the Carbon myth I've seen.
Most of the facts and logic have been well-known by rational people (i.e. not crimatologists or politicians or journalists) for a good 30 years. Evans starts from those facts and adds the newly verified intentional deception in the crimatology syndicate. Result is a clear readable package that totally destroys the basic CO2 fraud.
= = = = =
Evans hits the most important point for ordinary people: You don't need a degree in any sort of science, let alone a PhD in Crimatology, to understand why this is completely false. You do, however, need a basic scientific mindset: a grasp of arithmetic and logic and an ability to look at information objectively. This prerequisite unfortunately disqualifies all modern journalists from participating in the question.
A reformation of science has been proceeding quietly for a while, with net-based forums gradually displacing corrupt and incestuous peer-review in many fields. But freshening within disciplines isn't nearly as important as the basic Protestant idea:
You don't need to rely on the Apostolic authority of mysterious Latin-speaking priests. You can read nature for yourself and reach your own conclusions, provided you follow the rules of honesty, logic and transparency.
And this idea has taken center stage in the CRU scandal, with people like Steve McIntyre and David Evans doing the job of a Luther or a Hus.
= = = = =
Later thought: the analogy isn't quite right. When medieval Rome hid the data, it wasn't disobeying basic principles of Christianity. I suppose the ideal of direct personal revelation is sort of implicit in the New Testament, but nothing in Scripture orders the priest to make Scripture available to the people. By contrast, the priests of modern science are directly disobeying a basic and explicit law of Science: if you want anyone to listen to your findings, you must supply the data and methods in full so any reader with sufficient skill and equipment can replicate the analysis or the experiment. And this applies especially to an unfriendly or "skeptical" reader, because he's more likely to find your errors and thus advance knowledge. ¶ 5:39 AM
Most of the facts and logic have been well-known by rational people (i.e. not crimatologists or politicians or journalists) for a good 30 years. Evans starts from those facts and adds the newly verified intentional deception in the crimatology syndicate. Result is a clear readable package that totally destroys the basic CO2 fraud.
= = = = =
Evans hits the most important point for ordinary people: You don't need a degree in any sort of science, let alone a PhD in Crimatology, to understand why this is completely false. You do, however, need a basic scientific mindset: a grasp of arithmetic and logic and an ability to look at information objectively. This prerequisite unfortunately disqualifies all modern journalists from participating in the question.
A reformation of science has been proceeding quietly for a while, with net-based forums gradually displacing corrupt and incestuous peer-review in many fields. But freshening within disciplines isn't nearly as important as the basic Protestant idea:
You don't need to rely on the Apostolic authority of mysterious Latin-speaking priests. You can read nature for yourself and reach your own conclusions, provided you follow the rules of honesty, logic and transparency.
And this idea has taken center stage in the CRU scandal, with people like Steve McIntyre and David Evans doing the job of a Luther or a Hus.
= = = = =
Later thought: the analogy isn't quite right. When medieval Rome hid the data, it wasn't disobeying basic principles of Christianity. I suppose the ideal of direct personal revelation is sort of implicit in the New Testament, but nothing in Scripture orders the priest to make Scripture available to the people. By contrast, the priests of modern science are directly disobeying a basic and explicit law of Science: if you want anyone to listen to your findings, you must supply the data and methods in full so any reader with sufficient skill and equipment can replicate the analysis or the experiment. And this applies especially to an unfriendly or "skeptical" reader, because he's more likely to find your errors and thus advance knowledge. ¶ 5:39 AM
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Perfect Alinsky move
The EU Parliament has decided to send Nick Griffin, one of Britain's representatives to EU, as its official delegate to the Copenhagen Meeting of Gaia's High Priests.
Why is this noteworthy? Griffin is the head of Britain's Nationalist Party (BNP) which is the only legitimate political party in England. (Unfortunately, America doesn't have a legitimate party. Both of ours are strictly enemy-owned.) And Griffin is firmly and loudly against the Carbon Cult ... at least for political reasons; not clear if he's thought about the science.
On the surface this appointment seems mighty strange, since the EU is the absolute heart of Gaia and the absolute heart of transnational progressivism.
Not strange. Alinsky.
The best way to squash an anti-Communist movement is to make it feel dirty. The Brit Commie elites have already prepared the way for this move by continuous mocking of nationalism and especially the BNP, drearily and predictably Hitlerizing it. Now that anti-Gaia sentiment is suddenly and surprisingly growing, the elites hope to break it down by tying it to the already muddied-up BNP.
Classic Alinsky. Link the opponent to something filthy or kinky, trapping him in a cognitive dissonance warp, repeating to himself "I hate this. I am this. I hate this. I am this. I hate this. I am this." ¶ 7:00 PM
Why is this noteworthy? Griffin is the head of Britain's Nationalist Party (BNP) which is the only legitimate political party in England. (Unfortunately, America doesn't have a legitimate party. Both of ours are strictly enemy-owned.) And Griffin is firmly and loudly against the Carbon Cult ... at least for political reasons; not clear if he's thought about the science.
On the surface this appointment seems mighty strange, since the EU is the absolute heart of Gaia and the absolute heart of transnational progressivism.
Not strange. Alinsky.
The best way to squash an anti-Communist movement is to make it feel dirty. The Brit Commie elites have already prepared the way for this move by continuous mocking of nationalism and especially the BNP, drearily and predictably Hitlerizing it. Now that anti-Gaia sentiment is suddenly and surprisingly growing, the elites hope to break it down by tying it to the already muddied-up BNP.
Classic Alinsky. Link the opponent to something filthy or kinky, trapping him in a cognitive dissonance warp, repeating to himself "I hate this. I am this. I hate this. I am this. I hate this. I am this." ¶ 7:00 PM
Darwin vs Darwin, Gaia vs Gaia
Polistra and Happystar set up the point for us. On the left is the typical 'sigmoid' graph of a system with negative (good) feedback. An externally imposed change triggers a counterforce by internal error-correcting loops, leading to a smooth plateau at a new equilibrium, and (usually) a later return to the baseline. On the right is the typical 'hockey stick' graph of a system with positive (bad) feedback. An externally imposed change is amplified by internal effects, leading to runaway growth or runaway heat, and (usually) disaster or death.
= = = = =
Well-known truism: A Big Thinker creates a handful of important and valid Big Ideas. His followers then degrade the Big Ideas into a movement that is either trivial or deadly.
Polistra has often noted this tendency with Darwin. Old Charles was a Christian who viewed his observations and discoveries as evidence of the beauty of God's creation. He was the founder of Intelligent Design. Now his followers have turned his name into a weapon against Christianity and against civilization. The Endangered Species Act is the sharpened edge of this weapon.
Here's the critical difference: Darwin was a Steam Age man who understood feedback. His theory says that life continues to exist on earth because of innumerable error-correcting loops. When local conditions change beyond the point where a species can adjust internally, the species dies (locally) and another species moves in. When one species grows too numerous, its predators will move in and eat it down to normal.
The Endangered Species Act is designed to break up those loops by arbitrarily preventing the natural die-off of some species, thus preventing the natural invasion by others. And the feds have taken it one step farther into reverse (positive) feedback, by re-introducing species into places where they naturally disappeared.
= = = = =
We can see a parallel abuse of an original idea with James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis. Lovelock wasn't really proposing anything new; he was simply observing the same thing Darwin observed on a larger scale. The earth has an incalculable number of feedback loops. Every cell, every tissue, every organ, every complete animal and plant, runs on negative feedback. When a loop breaks or turns bad (positive) the result is fever, disease, cancer, insanity, death. The oceans and atmosphere also run on negative feedback, always maintaining homeostasis of chemistry and homeostasis of temperature within narrow bands. External events perturb the equilibrium at times: volcanos, meteorites, earthquakes, oil spills, bombs. After a time Nature almost always manages to heal the damage, often in ways that remarkably resemble the healing of an injury to an animal.
Lovelock's treatment of Nature as a sort of single animal was thus appealing and metaphorically valid if not strictly accurate.
The neo-Gaians, such as the carbon cultists and their allies the genocidal Deep Ecology fanatics, have adopted the words but reversed the point. The neo-Gaians believe in positive feedback above all. They see every change as leading to a catastrophic hockey stick, with effects piling on effects. Error-correcting feedback is specifically excluded from all of their calculations, even though ALL FACTS AND EVIDENCE, repeat ALL FACTS AND EVIDENCE, repeat ALL FUCKING FACTS AND ALL FUCKING EVIDENCE, show that Earth's temperature and chemistry are strictly regulated and strictly homeostatic.
Unlike Darwin, James Lovelock is still alive and active, and his authorized website tries to claw back some territory for rationality. Though he buys the AGW theory wholeheartedly, he is a ferocious advocate for nuclear power. No hippie shit for Lovelock. ¶ 10:29 AM
Polistra and Happystar set up the point for us. On the left is the typical 'sigmoid' graph of a system with negative (good) feedback. An externally imposed change triggers a counterforce by internal error-correcting loops, leading to a smooth plateau at a new equilibrium, and (usually) a later return to the baseline. On the right is the typical 'hockey stick' graph of a system with positive (bad) feedback. An externally imposed change is amplified by internal effects, leading to runaway growth or runaway heat, and (usually) disaster or death.
= = = = =
Well-known truism: A Big Thinker creates a handful of important and valid Big Ideas. His followers then degrade the Big Ideas into a movement that is either trivial or deadly.
Polistra has often noted this tendency with Darwin. Old Charles was a Christian who viewed his observations and discoveries as evidence of the beauty of God's creation. He was the founder of Intelligent Design. Now his followers have turned his name into a weapon against Christianity and against civilization. The Endangered Species Act is the sharpened edge of this weapon.
Here's the critical difference: Darwin was a Steam Age man who understood feedback. His theory says that life continues to exist on earth because of innumerable error-correcting loops. When local conditions change beyond the point where a species can adjust internally, the species dies (locally) and another species moves in. When one species grows too numerous, its predators will move in and eat it down to normal.
The Endangered Species Act is designed to break up those loops by arbitrarily preventing the natural die-off of some species, thus preventing the natural invasion by others. And the feds have taken it one step farther into reverse (positive) feedback, by re-introducing species into places where they naturally disappeared.
= = = = =
We can see a parallel abuse of an original idea with James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis. Lovelock wasn't really proposing anything new; he was simply observing the same thing Darwin observed on a larger scale. The earth has an incalculable number of feedback loops. Every cell, every tissue, every organ, every complete animal and plant, runs on negative feedback. When a loop breaks or turns bad (positive) the result is fever, disease, cancer, insanity, death. The oceans and atmosphere also run on negative feedback, always maintaining homeostasis of chemistry and homeostasis of temperature within narrow bands. External events perturb the equilibrium at times: volcanos, meteorites, earthquakes, oil spills, bombs. After a time Nature almost always manages to heal the damage, often in ways that remarkably resemble the healing of an injury to an animal.
Lovelock's treatment of Nature as a sort of single animal was thus appealing and metaphorically valid if not strictly accurate.
The neo-Gaians, such as the carbon cultists and their allies the genocidal Deep Ecology fanatics, have adopted the words but reversed the point. The neo-Gaians believe in positive feedback above all. They see every change as leading to a catastrophic hockey stick, with effects piling on effects. Error-correcting feedback is specifically excluded from all of their calculations, even though ALL FACTS AND EVIDENCE, repeat ALL FACTS AND EVIDENCE, repeat ALL FUCKING FACTS AND ALL FUCKING EVIDENCE, show that Earth's temperature and chemistry are strictly regulated and strictly homeostatic.
Unlike Darwin, James Lovelock is still alive and active, and his authorized website tries to claw back some territory for rationality. Though he buys the AGW theory wholeheartedly, he is a ferocious advocate for nuclear power. No hippie shit for Lovelock. ¶ 10:29 AM
Friday, November 27, 2009
Interesting idea
From Voice of Russia.
Vyacheslav Kantor, head of an international Jewish org, makes this proposal:
Vyacheslav Kantor, head of an international Jewish org, makes this proposal:
Iran, North Korea and Pakistan should come to realize that there is a certain centre of good will, a decision-making centre that would react at once to a deterioration of the situation, without getting bogged down into protracted debates or innumerable coordination moves. So, we have suggested to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Russia should set up this kind of centre of rapid reaction to any development that sparks concern. But generally this would prove precisely a deterrence centre, a centre of rapid reaction to nuclear threats. We believe it would prove the best if such centre were headed by the US and Russian Presidents. The centre would take care not only of nuclear arms sales, but of any transaction involving nuclear technology, nuclear fission materials etc, says Vyacheslav Kantor.¶ 8:33 PM
Giving thanks
Chris Horner at NRO says it best. Wish I'd come up with that perfect Conquest analogy!
Chris Horner at NRO says it best. Wish I'd come up with that perfect Conquest analogy!
On this day of thanks I am grateful for, among many blessings, the unfolding affirmation of what we have been warning policymakers about ...¶ 10:23 AM
In short, just as after the Soviet collapse and a trove of documents revealed that system to be precisely as historian Robert Conquest had detailed to terrific opprobrium from academics worldwide, Conquest supposedly suggested calling his re-released works "I told you so, you fucking fools."
Scientists lied, Kyoto died. Hallelujah.
Palestinians first; Americans need not apply
Now we know the name of those pretty party-crashers at the White House dinner. Tareq Salahi is the man; his trophy wife is Michaele, which sounds like an Italian name.
Aaaaand here we go again. Americans have to endure complete and absolute security checks in all official buildings and airports, and get tased if they dare to complain or look discontented.
Our enemies don't have the same problem. A Palestinian Arab infiltrator declares openly, brazenly and frequently that he is an enthusiastic supporter of our specific enemy, and the Army takes his side. A Palestinian Arab who looks rich and important is waved through all the gates into the presence of the President.
Well, obviously the term "our enemies" is inaccurate. Arabs are the enemies of the American nation, but they are not the enemies of the government. In other words, we are objectively under Arab occupation.
Note: from what we're hearing today it seems that Salahi (unlike Hasan) is not an ideological supporter of the enemy, though his financial problems could make him a perfect candidate for a paid agent. I'm not assuming malevolence on his part; the trouble is that the supposed protectors of the White House failed to assume malevolence when faced with an unknown and uninvited Arab. A party-crasher named Travis McCowan would have been frogmarched straight to a life sentence in Supermax. ¶ 8:43 AM
Aaaaand here we go again. Americans have to endure complete and absolute security checks in all official buildings and airports, and get tased if they dare to complain or look discontented.
Our enemies don't have the same problem. A Palestinian Arab infiltrator declares openly, brazenly and frequently that he is an enthusiastic supporter of our specific enemy, and the Army takes his side. A Palestinian Arab who looks rich and important is waved through all the gates into the presence of the President.
Well, obviously the term "our enemies" is inaccurate. Arabs are the enemies of the American nation, but they are not the enemies of the government. In other words, we are objectively under Arab occupation.
Note: from what we're hearing today it seems that Salahi (unlike Hasan) is not an ideological supporter of the enemy, though his financial problems could make him a perfect candidate for a paid agent. I'm not assuming malevolence on his part; the trouble is that the supposed protectors of the White House failed to assume malevolence when faced with an unknown and uninvited Arab. A party-crasher named Travis McCowan would have been frogmarched straight to a life sentence in Supermax. ¶ 8:43 AM
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The Lancet article
This morning Rush made a passionate plea for honest scientists to clean out the Augean stable of the crimatologists.
I passionately concur.
I'm not a professional scientist, but I've worked most of my life in academic research as a programmer and electronic tech. I've participated in the hard work of good honest science, watched the conscientious and the not-so-conscientious. In engineering and medical fields, the latter don't last long. Lives are at stake and everyone knows it. (There is plenty of 'passive' corruption, with peer review serving to shut out heterodox ideas, but at least outright falsehoods are unwelcome.)
When I look at the 20-year record of total and universal corruption in crimate, it breaks my little science-loving heart. Lives are also at stake there, and it appears that everyone's goal is to extinguish lives. Perhaps the lower-level workers don't understand the lethality of the project, but the commanding generals unquestionably know what they're doing. Everything is shaped to agree with the predetermined conclusions of the Mighty EPA, whose goal is to eradicate Western Civilization from the face of The Planet Goddess while siphoning the assets into the pockets of Soros and Paulson.
= = = = =
This Lancet article released today would have been an excellent place to start peeling real science away from crimate fraud.
Every point in the article is true and life-saving, and absolutely none of the points have the slightest tiniest micro-connection with "global warming", even if you idiotically assume the CO2 theory to be real. By tying these suggestions to the largest fraud in history, the Lancet thinks it's elevating the suggestions, adding drama. But in fact the connection now delegitimates the whole article. As the fraud continues to deflate, these suggestions will fall with it. And they shouldn't!
Point 1:
Amen and double amen. Exercise is good, and we're finding that many medical conditions can be helped or cured by moderate exercise. Less driving means less REAL pollution and less use of finite fuels. (And a special personal amen to the bit about pedestrian priority, speaking from near-death experience.)
Point 2:
Now see, you could have stopped before "millions of tonnes" and you'd have another wonderfulle suggestionne. Cooking with buffalo dung is not healthy.
Point 3:
Yes. Go nuclear, eliminate coal. We've known for hundreds of years that coal is dirty, and its dirtiness has nothing to do with CO2. But the carbon cultists hate nuclear for religious reasons. Worse, the carbon cultists want to increase coal-burning in some areas to give baseline power for hippie-dippie shit like windmills. ¶ 8:08 PM
I passionately concur.
I'm not a professional scientist, but I've worked most of my life in academic research as a programmer and electronic tech. I've participated in the hard work of good honest science, watched the conscientious and the not-so-conscientious. In engineering and medical fields, the latter don't last long. Lives are at stake and everyone knows it. (There is plenty of 'passive' corruption, with peer review serving to shut out heterodox ideas, but at least outright falsehoods are unwelcome.)
When I look at the 20-year record of total and universal corruption in crimate, it breaks my little science-loving heart. Lives are also at stake there, and it appears that everyone's goal is to extinguish lives. Perhaps the lower-level workers don't understand the lethality of the project, but the commanding generals unquestionably know what they're doing. Everything is shaped to agree with the predetermined conclusions of the Mighty EPA, whose goal is to eradicate Western Civilization from the face of The Planet Goddess while siphoning the assets into the pockets of Soros and Paulson.
= = = = =
This Lancet article released today would have been an excellent place to start peeling real science away from crimate fraud.
Every point in the article is true and life-saving, and absolutely none of the points have the slightest tiniest micro-connection with "global warming", even if you idiotically assume the CO2 theory to be real. By tying these suggestions to the largest fraud in history, the Lancet thinks it's elevating the suggestions, adding drama. But in fact the connection now delegitimates the whole article. As the fraud continues to deflate, these suggestions will fall with it. And they shouldn't!
Point 1:
Money should be diverted away from roads to make walking and cycling "the most direct, convenient, and pleasant options for most urban trips." Pedestrians and bikers should also get priority over cars and trucks at intersections.
Amen and double amen. Exercise is good, and we're finding that many medical conditions can be helped or cured by moderate exercise. Less driving means less REAL pollution and less use of finite fuels. (And a special personal amen to the bit about pedestrian priority, speaking from near-death experience.)
Point 2:
Simple measures to improve household energy efficiency could have huge benefits, according to one study that looked at polluting indoor cook stoves widely used in low-income countries.
Replacing the stoves with low-emissions stove technology that costs $50 US per household has the potential to "avert millions of premature deaths and hundreds of millions of tonnes of CO2-equivalent greenhouse pollutants," says the study led by Dr. Paul Wilkinson at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
Now see, you could have stopped before "millions of tonnes" and you'd have another wonderfulle suggestionne. Cooking with buffalo dung is not healthy.
Point 3:
Reducing the use of coal to produce electricity would also have "co-benefits," a second study reports. Carbon emissions wafting into the atmosphere would be reduced along with particulate air pollutants linked to lung cancer, and acute respiratory and cardio-respiratory illnesses. The researchers say that by 2030 "decarbonizing" electricity production could prevent an estimated 93,000 premature deaths in India, another 57,000 in China and 5,000 in the European Union.
Yes. Go nuclear, eliminate coal. We've known for hundreds of years that coal is dirty, and its dirtiness has nothing to do with CO2. But the carbon cultists hate nuclear for religious reasons. Worse, the carbon cultists want to increase coal-burning in some areas to give baseline power for hippie-dippie shit like windmills. ¶ 8:08 PM
Thanks, Prudential!
Thanks, Prudential!
It's nice to be part of a little victory every now and then.
See here for more details. ¶ 1:20 PM
Thanks, Prudential!
It's nice to be part of a little victory every now and then.
See here for more details. ¶ 1:20 PM
How come the Aussies get truth and we don't?
Here is a "global warming" feature today on Australia's main TV network.
Watch!
It features three experts, all of whom are unabashedly on the side of real science. Best is David Bellamy, a well-known Aussie environmentalist who led protests against a hydropower dam 25 years ago. Now Bellamy is trying to get a point across to other greenies. "I can't believe how the whole world has been duped in this way. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's one of the most important gases that keep the whole world in kilter. ... If the temperature does go up a bit more, then we could grow crops all over Siberia and northern Canada."
All of this is familiar to those of us who have been in touch with reality for the last 20 years, but it's so damn refreshing to see it presented professionally and straightforwardly on a major media outlet.
We'll never get this from the American poison-mongers. They will continue to give the good old Orwellian Two Minutes Hate treatment to real scientists, allowing them to speak for about 5 milliseconds before screeching them into the ground.
(Fox has some exceptions among their commentators, but their "news" staff is just as loyal to Algore as CNN.)
As the rest of the world finally and painfully clicks over into reality, American media, American schools and universities, American "scientists", American corporations, will continue to bend over forward for the Planet Goddess.
Yes, we are exceptional. Exceptional as in profoundly retarded, exceptional as in the short-bus country.
= = = = =
No, I'm sorry. I take it back. That's an insult to retarded folks, who may not grasp abstractions but understand plain old reality quite well. Simple-minded people don't mistake hot for cold, don't mistake up for down. No, we are not retarded, we are psychotic. We are highly intelligent and we steadily and consistently believe the most self-destructive falsehoods and lies on every possible subject. ¶ 8:43 AM
Watch!
It features three experts, all of whom are unabashedly on the side of real science. Best is David Bellamy, a well-known Aussie environmentalist who led protests against a hydropower dam 25 years ago. Now Bellamy is trying to get a point across to other greenies. "I can't believe how the whole world has been duped in this way. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It's one of the most important gases that keep the whole world in kilter. ... If the temperature does go up a bit more, then we could grow crops all over Siberia and northern Canada."
All of this is familiar to those of us who have been in touch with reality for the last 20 years, but it's so damn refreshing to see it presented professionally and straightforwardly on a major media outlet.
We'll never get this from the American poison-mongers. They will continue to give the good old Orwellian Two Minutes Hate treatment to real scientists, allowing them to speak for about 5 milliseconds before screeching them into the ground.
(Fox has some exceptions among their commentators, but their "news" staff is just as loyal to Algore as CNN.)
As the rest of the world finally and painfully clicks over into reality, American media, American schools and universities, American "scientists", American corporations, will continue to bend over forward for the Planet Goddess.
Yes, we are exceptional. Exceptional as in profoundly retarded, exceptional as in the short-bus country.
= = = = =
No, I'm sorry. I take it back. That's an insult to retarded folks, who may not grasp abstractions but understand plain old reality quite well. Simple-minded people don't mistake hot for cold, don't mistake up for down. No, we are not retarded, we are psychotic. We are highly intelligent and we steadily and consistently believe the most self-destructive falsehoods and lies on every possible subject. ¶ 8:43 AM
Exceptionalism 2
Listening to Joe Scarborough and his homosexual buddies on MSNBC, trying to have a thoughtful discussion about what this decade meant. Some valid points, but as usual the standard agreed-on lies. Both parties agree that the election of "The First African-American President" marks a turning point in history, for some reason that I can't begin to fathom. Brand-D says this turning point is wonderful, brand-R says it's awful. Both are goddamn liars. In fact "The First African-American President" has continued all the bad policies of the previous "Evil Caucasian President."
More subtly, another agreed-on lie:
"This decade probably marks the end of American exceptionalism, and the beginning of a more connected approach, more linked with the world." Both parties agree that exceptionalism means the Bush/Cheney "cowboy" approach, means "going it alone". Brand-D says this is bad, that we should pay more attention to the rest of the world. Brand-R says we should continue the "cowboy" approach.
Wrong from start to finish. Obama isn't changing the Bush policy in practice, though his words are more humble, which is a start. Most of all, exceptionalism does not mean "going it alone". Exceptionalism means attempting to be the world's Child Protective Services, telling the world that we know what's good for everyone, peeping into everyone's house, making war against them if they spank their kids, bombing them if they allow men to be men and women to be women.
This is the deepest and nastiest form of connection and linking, and it emphatically does not protect America's interests. We have been spending unthinkable amounts of money and lives to enrage, justify and arm our enemies, to build infrastructure and nuclear plants in hostile countries.
The opposite of exceptionalism is not deeper connections. The opposite of exceptionalism is detachment. Isolationism. Humility. Protectionism.
Detachment means that we would treat other countries like adults. Let them choose their own cultures and forms of government, let them spank or spoil their kids, let them act like human beings or New Yorkers, let them pay high wages or keep slaves, whichever they want. None of our fucking business. Instead, we would use our military to guard our own borders and ports, and use our money to rebuild our own railroads and nuclear power plants.
Who knows, maybe we could even impose tariffs so the countries that use slave labor would lose their advantage, and our own businesses would then grudgingly find it necessary to hire and pay American workers, no matter how much they hated this weird radical science-fiction concept. Then we would finally be similar to other advanced nations. Protectionism would truly mark the end of Exceptionalism. ¶ 4:42 AM
More subtly, another agreed-on lie:
"This decade probably marks the end of American exceptionalism, and the beginning of a more connected approach, more linked with the world." Both parties agree that exceptionalism means the Bush/Cheney "cowboy" approach, means "going it alone". Brand-D says this is bad, that we should pay more attention to the rest of the world. Brand-R says we should continue the "cowboy" approach.
Wrong from start to finish. Obama isn't changing the Bush policy in practice, though his words are more humble, which is a start. Most of all, exceptionalism does not mean "going it alone". Exceptionalism means attempting to be the world's Child Protective Services, telling the world that we know what's good for everyone, peeping into everyone's house, making war against them if they spank their kids, bombing them if they allow men to be men and women to be women.
This is the deepest and nastiest form of connection and linking, and it emphatically does not protect America's interests. We have been spending unthinkable amounts of money and lives to enrage, justify and arm our enemies, to build infrastructure and nuclear plants in hostile countries.
The opposite of exceptionalism is not deeper connections. The opposite of exceptionalism is detachment. Isolationism. Humility. Protectionism.
Detachment means that we would treat other countries like adults. Let them choose their own cultures and forms of government, let them spank or spoil their kids, let them act like human beings or New Yorkers, let them pay high wages or keep slaves, whichever they want. None of our fucking business. Instead, we would use our military to guard our own borders and ports, and use our money to rebuild our own railroads and nuclear power plants.
Who knows, maybe we could even impose tariffs so the countries that use slave labor would lose their advantage, and our own businesses would then grudgingly find it necessary to hire and pay American workers, no matter how much they hated this weird radical science-fiction concept. Then we would finally be similar to other advanced nations. Protectionism would truly mark the end of Exceptionalism. ¶ 4:42 AM
