Predictably Barack Hussein Obama voiced his conclusions and exhortations for gun control before the Roseburg bodies had cooled, the wounded were out of surgery, and any relevant information about the shooter and the shootings had been released by the police – anything to take people’s minds off his debacles in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Our national demagogue again addressed the gruberized in an attempt to make them believe that these rare shootings are a national problem that far outweighs those that happen in gun controlled cities day in and day out. Nowhere did he rise to address the 50 Chicago shootings two weekends in a row – to that sumbich black lives don’t matter, but Agenda21 does.
According to the Rebane Doctrine all gun control laws in legislative debate should address their impact on the Founders’ intent for including the Second Amendment in our Constitution. Will the new law make it more difficult for citizens to successfully oppose a future rogue government as anticipated by the Founders and echoed by patriot Americans over the last two centuries? The progressives promoting world socialism always want to divert us from the hundreds of millions of their own citizens that collectivist tyrants have murdered during the last century. And they do it with the ever popular, ‘It can’t happen in America.’ In the mid-1930s ‘It can’t happen in Germany’ was used to keep the very educated and cultured masses quiet and compliant, even while Stalin was slaughtering kulaks by the tens of millions a few hundred miles away.
Anyone want to make book on what part religion, specifically Islam, played in the mind of the Roseburg shooter? And all that as Team Obama does its best to disarm law abiding America. (For those interested, I’m prepared to go through some probabilistic calcs on the number of such people still loose in our population who will not be affected one whit by the Left’s proposed new gun laws. As long as the perp knows he’s the only one with a gun, these killings will continue. There are just too many of us, and enough of them.)
[2oct15 update] Well, the comment stream below has grown enough to attract and include the obligatory leftwing arguments for functionally, if not absolutely, disarming America. From those commenters we hear nothing about our president rushing to be the first to call for new gun laws, and the first to politicize the event. The Left, of course, with Alinsky-style retorts, flips that event and accuses those reporting and countering the president’s remarks as instead being the first to politicize this tragedy.
What is important to note is that the Left again 1) says nothing about the non-enforcement of existing gun control laws, continuing their litany of ‘forget enforcement, just pass more restrictive laws’; 2) spells out no specific laws that could have had any effect on the latest shootings; and 3) totally ignores the horrendous history of state killings of citizens in countries that denied them guns (the Second Amendment’s raison d’etre). As we see from the comment stream, the Left’s educated elites practice cynicism of the highest order in arguing that our ongoing social breakdown is due to factors such as legal gun ownership, western religiosity, capitalistic greed, market-based income inequality (anti-unionism), intrinsic distrust of government, … . To them society should be organized around an all-encompassing government guided by collectivist elites under whom work legions of altruistic technocrats striving to implement a comprehensively-regulated social order, all for the “greater good”, that is uniquely visible in their lights.
Again, I invite the attentive reader, in these first decades of the last great century of Man, to identify any common ground between our polarized and gruberized body politic that would just support functional communication, let alone that may contain a path to reunion as a citizenry of a sustainable sovereign nation-state.
[6oct15 update] Rumor has it that President Obama will take his gun control politicizing to Roseburg. Folks up there don't cotton to Obama, and most certainly his use of this tragic event to grandstand his 2nd Amendment agenda. The man does not have a sense of decorum or knows that not everyone is a progressive eager to hear the pap he spews. That, of course, may come as a surprise to some of our locals who think that only a remote group of knuckle dragging old farts in these hills don't take kindly to his politics. For those progressives, here's an illuminating video of an O'Reilly segment.
[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 1 October 2015, not 30 September as previously noted.]
For over two centuries America has had the reputation as being exceptional in the freedoms granted its citizens and guaranteed by its constitution. However things have changed over the last 50 years or so, and few Americans are aware of it. Our personal and economic freedoms have taken a dive which has gone unreported by the left-leaning lamestream media, and therefore unknown to those who limit their news to such outlets. You are fortunate that KVMR is not among them.
Recently some thought provoking studies have been published which put the United States into perspective with other developed countries, and the resulting picture is not pretty. But the findings do go a long way to explain the economic and social degradation we experience in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.”
This little update is primarily to continue the record of recent columns, commentraries, comments, and other contributions to the bubbling pot of preventable global warming (PGW). As documented in these pages, I wrote a response to a Union piece by a couple of physicians making the usual outlandish claims for the existence of PGW, which they, as is common these days, confounded under the label ‘climate change’. Other pro and con columns followed the initial piece, the most notable con pieces by skeptics Bob Hren and Norm Sauer (here, here, and here).
However, for some reason my 8sep15 counter – ‘Bad time for making draconian public policy’ - to the Drs Newsom has drawn particular and ongoing ire from true believers, of which I am unabashedly proud. The most recent in this sequence was from the Klistoff couple in Grass Valley. I present it italized below as it appears on The Union’s blog (here)
A hoax? Really?
George Rebane’s acrimonious commentary regarding Bill and Christine Newsome’s open letter to Congressman LaMalfa is a sad example of many right-winged opinion pieces and letters published in The Union.
There seems to be an undercurrent of anger mixed with presumptuous and pedantic platitudes that do nothing to foster mutual understanding of the issues being discussed.
But now apparently, these articles suggest the existence of an international conspiracy among climate scientists claiming their research is falsified in order to obtain grant money. Wow!
Is this what Congressman LaMalfa is suggesting when he claims there is political manipulation of climate science? What is the evidence for this? Some even claim there is “global cooling” and that climate change is a hoax. Really?
Take a look at the world’s glaciers and ice caps. Is their rapid rate of melting consistent with global “cooling”? Where is the data to back up this claim?
The scientific evidence for climate change, influenced by human activity, is overwhelming. American and International scientific organizations unanimously agree. So what is the political agenda of those who claim it is a hoax?
Alex and Ronda Klistoff, Grass Valley
I responded to the above with a letter-to-the-editor that was emailed on 26 September 2015. It has yet to appear. (Presumably The Union editor will supply it with a title.)
True believers in preventable global warming (PGW) denigrate the science and data that counters public policy nostrums designed to sacrifice economies on the altar of human salvation from a promised heat catastrophe in the making. As commentaries in these pages record, skeptics continue to cite detailed and compelling science to contradict that the PGW ‘debate is over’.
In their 26sep15 letter Mr & Mrs Klistoff cite my 8sep15 “acrimonious commentary” responding to the 29aug15 OV column by the Drs Newsom, and summarily dismiss major contributors to the ongoing PGW debate. All true believers live with the comfortable knowledge that government funded research is unbiased, untainted by money, with findings true and pure as the fresh driven snow. However, research and researchers that have ever had even a smidgeon of industry funding are forever tainted beyond redemption. And doubly so if these counter any ‘science’ which for them is already beyond debate.
Those of us who have spent many years doing R&D with the government know that faith to be misplaced. Government agencies also have agendas, and dispense their monies to advance those agendas. Therefore for those who consume research, it is ever ‘Caveat Emptor’.
[This commentary by Norm Sauer is destined for The Union in the ongoing exchange with Michael Mann on ‘climate change’. Mr Sauer, who sits on The Union’s editorial board, has given permission for RR to post it in the interval until things get sorted out with the newspaper. It appears below as received. 3oct15 update: The Union did finally publish this piece in today's edition. gjr]
My Other Voices article of September 22, 2015, entitled “If you control carbon, you control life,” questioned the scientific validity of Michael Mann’s “hockey stick.” Dr. Mann published an OV article in The Union the next day complaining my statements that his contrived hockey stick ignored the Medieval Warm Period are a “falsehood,” and “a distortion, half-truth, or plain untruth.”
I take this opportunity to buttress the documented truth of what I wrote.
The search for truth starts with understanding that if the Medieval Warm Period existed before the industrial revolution then the man-made global warming (MMGW) theory of CO2 forcing sudden warming in the twentieth century is baseless because our recent warming is not unusual, unique, unnatural, nor green house gas related.
In the 1990s many scientific articles referred to the Medieval Warm Period lasting from about AD 800-1300. This was followed by the Little Ice Age from about 1300 to 1900. These were scientifically undisputed facts.
The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) was created to officially work on the global warming issue. Its first progress report in 1990 on Page 202 showed a graph (see below) in which the Medieval Warm Period was portrayed as clearly warmer than the present.
By 1995, seeking to include CO2 as a cause of warming, the IPCC report started with the Little Ice Age to show a long slow period of increasing temperatures. Chapter 8 of the scientific report stated: “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to anthropogenic causes.” Politics prevailed. This statement was removed from the final report. The non-scientific Summary for Policymakers read: “The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
By 2001 the IPCC Summary for Policymakers had what it wanted: Mann’s “hockey stick” claiming that temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere remained relatively stable over nine hundred years, spiked upward in the twentieth century, and the 1990s was the warmest decade in at least one thousand years. (See chart below.)
The problems with Mann’s study were many. First, the hockey stick focused only on temperature trends in the Northern Hemisphere. Second, the widely recognized Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were completely dismissed. Third, the hockey stick was formed by crudely grafting the surface temperature record of the twentieth century onto a pre-1900 tree-ring record which grafting was innately scientifically flawed.
As mentioned, McIntyre and McKitrick’s assiduous studies concluded Mann’s argument for CO2-caused MMGW was “a carefully worked artificial creation”.
In 1999, a study of tree rings by Keith Briffa of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University produced a sharp and steady decline in temperature after 1960.
In 2003, Drs. Baliunas and Soon, researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, contested the hockey stick conclusion in a publication in Climate Research. After reviewing more than 200 climate studies, they confirmed the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were worldwide phenomena not limited to the European and North American continents. Moreover, they found many parts of the world showed the medieval warmth to be greater than that of the 20th century!
In 2006, the National Academy of Science (NAS) released a study concluding little confidence can be placed in Mann’s concluding the 1990’s was likely the warmest decade in the last 1000 years. (NAS, Temperature Reconstruction for the Last 2000 Years, June 2006.)
Then, in 2009, “Climategate” revealed leaked emails of East Anglia University’s CRU. ( For actual emails see Sen. James Inhofe, The Greatest Hoax, 2012, Appendix C.)
An email from Phil Jones, a CRU climatologist, to Dr. Mann and others dated November 16, 1999, mentions Dr. Mann’s “trick” to hide Briffa’s 1960s’ temperature decline.
Emails of March 11, 2003 between Dr. Mann and Jones, show their displeasure about Baliunas and Soon’s publication in Climate Review. Jones’ email threatened to shun Climate Research until “they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.” Echoing Jones, Dr. Mann responded to punish Climate Research by encouraging “our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”
Documentary evidence indicates Dr. Mann is not a disinterested scientist. He views substantive challenges to his work as heresy. Unlike Dr. Mann, true scientists welcome criticism and debate as an essential to scientific progress.
Dr. Mann launched a petty and invective OV article calling me a liar. He’s wrong. His “hockey stick” is a documented hoax.
Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous. Quran 9:123
Republican candidate Dr Ben Carson set off the most recent political dust-devil predictable with his response to whether he would support a Muslim becoming President of the United States. However, the question of devout Muslims serving in governments is an important issue today when radical Islam and Islam colonizing the west have become the world’s most destabilizing socio-political forces against which secular humanism and collectivist ideologies are not only helpless but actually abetting.
To examine this issue we must first look at man’s belief systems regarding his cosmology and ideology. By cosmology we mean the entirety of his picture of existence ranging from the structure of the universe(s) to the humongous Planck scale ocean of quantum events in which we all swim and derive our being. Cosmology also subsumes or is subsumed by a person’s religion.
By ideology we mean a person’s set of structured tenets that describe his vision or preference of a particular socio-political order that guides, controls, and informs human activity on earth. Here we divide such ideologies into loose categories of collectivism – e.g. communism and socialism of the international or national kind – and classical liberalism as bequeathed by our Founders and clarified by, say, Frederic Bastiat’s The Law.
Over the years RR has been fortunate to be a forum for the arguments from heartfelt adherents of a wide range of ideologies and cosmologies/religions embraced by its readers and commenters. And as such, these debates again underline that a devout person’s religion trumps his ideology – God’s plan and druthers supersede that of Man. In all nations with a religious citizenry allegiance is paid to ‘God and country’ in that order.
Was just thinking about today's more than interesting, long, and expensive election season we all are suffering through. And the money part kind of stuck with me. We know that money drives politics. What drives politicians may be up for debate, but you can’t go too far off base assuming that power, fame, and fortune come in close to the top of the motivation heap.
Today campaigns cost way too much and last too long, especially given the attention span of the typical voter. Two plausible reasons for this are 1) voter dumbth, and 2) constant need for content by the media. The more contentious, controversial, and confusing they can make the candidates’ messages, the more there is to report, analyze, dissect, and goad to keep the election pot boiling, and the more ads can then be sold.
[Brian Hamilton, editor of The Union, emailed me that this piece was bit too long for their Other Voices columns, and invited me to shorten it. I felt that a better alternative to abbreviation was to write them a letter-to-editor that cited Mr Paul Berger's dismissal of my previous OV column, and which also pointed to this post - look for it in The Union. Thanks for your interest.]
The Preventable Global Warming (PGW) season is here again with another spate of conferences, new laws and regulations, media events, and VIP visits, all happening in short order to reignite public apprehension that man’s neglect will soon cause a worldwide catastrophe. To prevent the calamity, timely intervention in human activities on a massive scale is now required. However, some considerable number of people remains skeptical of the PGW arguments and its prescribed remedies. The public debate about PGW today reaches from the highest levels of government down the lowest grassroots as witnessed here in our little community.
PGW is an extremely complex issue both in the technical and political sense, and made more so by the several confusing interchangeable names we use and don’t differentiate – climate change, global warming, anthropogenic global warming (AGW), … . In this limited space I’ll try to shine a little light on some of the particulars. First, every reputable skeptic acknowledges that climate change is always going on, and during the last couple of centuries the earth has again warmed. Over longer timespans the earth has been much warmer (think Greenland) and much colder.
[This is the transcript of my regular KVMR commentary broadcast on 16 September 2015.]
Those who pay attention know that today we are a divided and divisive nation. And we can’t blame it all on the usual partisanship that makes its appearance during election seasons, which always serve to pour salt into already open wounds. Over the last week I was struck by California’s standardized test scores, and the efforts parents have to mount to get their children an education from our public schools.
The results are in from elementary, middle, and high school grade levels, telling parents and teachers how well the kids learned in the new Common Core curriculum environment. And the results are not pretty. Statewide over 55% of our students don’t meet grade level literacy standards, and two out of three don’t meet the math standards. Worse yet, almost three out of four 11th graders fail to meet the math standards – these are the same young people who want to enter college or the workforce. Nevada County’s performance pretty much mirrors statewide scores; we are hugging the lowest quartile when compared to other counties. (more here)
A more rigorous condemnation of our public schools’ failures is hard to imagine, but the efforts of Mr Alfonso Flores of Anaheim, a parent, teacher, and decorated war veteran, illuminate how firmly are the mechanisms of failure baked into our public schools. The problem, of course, starts and ends with teachers unions which have fought tooth and nail every effort to improve our kids’ education. Mr Flores has been a leader in using the state’s ‘parent trigger’ law, passed in 2010, to replace incompetent teachers and school administrators. The nationally reported experiences he relates about how teachers unions hobble the proper functioning of schools would curl your toes the wrong way.
It is clear the Left’s “climate scientists” can be anyone with the politically correct attitude toward AGW. It is a different matter for the AGW skeptics, their bona fides must include a degree in climatology for openers, else they are dismissed as not qualified to speak on the issue of anthropogenic global warming. This aspect of the global warming debate comes into focus this Saturday at the GV Peace Lutheran Church as reported by The Union and the Auburn Journal. There the leftwing League of Women Voters will assemble a couple of worthies to discuss, “How can the actions of our leaders impact our climate?”
Heading the marquee is Dr Tom Suchanek (pictured), he has a BS in zoology, MA in ecology and evolution, and a PhD in biology. He has been on the government tit all his life studying “coastal marine ecology”. Joining him will be geologist Dr Diz Smith advertised as a "former energy industry leader”. (H/T to Russ Steele for digging out Dr Smith's bio.)
It boggles the professional mind that the Left continues to assume the public to be so gruberized as to accept these people as some kind of domain experts in ANY relevant aspect of AGW involving physics, chemistry, data management, estimation theory, stochastics, complex dynamic systems, algorithmics, computational error propagation, finite element modeling, feedback systems design, …, the list goes on. Such events should clarify the kind of ‘climate scientists’ that the AGW alarmists count in the UN’s IPCC "scientific consensus" that gives rise to ‘the debate is over’ hysteria which demands we immediately start doing very stupid things on a massive scale and worldwide.
So when it comes right down to it, if you are a skeptic with degrees and decades of professional experience in the climatology related physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, complex dynamics systems, probabilistics and stochastics, large scale computer models, data handling, algorithmics, decision theory, financial engineering, … with the ability to understand the seminal climatology literature, your skeptical assessments re AGW are not accepted. However, if you’re a biologist or geologist or, God knows, maybe even a labor lawyer or piano tuner with a history of global warming activism, you are automatically qualified to be presented to the public as having sufficient expertise “to discuss (the) several aspects of climate change.” Such is the state of the national debate, so go figger.
[11sep15 update] A reader sent me this graphic from the Heartland Institute. It correctly summarizes the current global sweep of politically driven 'science' and compares it to real science which is forever skeptical and has been vigorously suppressed wherever it dared raise its head.