My Photo

June 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29

« How Deictic is Your Ontology? | Main | Scattershots - 25apr17 (updated) »

21 April 2017


Peter Van Zant

I agree on the questions for a forum....set one up, would love to attend.

Jeff Pelline

#13 should be Why do rightwing people think they are the only true scientists? lol.


Jeff Pelline 332, the empty rhetoric major, at work. His actual meaning is that he'll denounce as a right winger anyone who disagrees with the IPCC political summaries, whether that is true or not.

An adjunct to #7 might be ... why should a lack of progress in a key question be allowed to go unchallenged by allies? The range of estimates by IPCC-brand researchers for climate sensitivity to CO2 has ranged from 1.5C to 4.5C, nearly unchanged from 1979 to the present, with a jog up of the lower bound to 2.0C in AR4 only to have reality bring that back to 1.5C because there were too many papers they just couldn't ignore.

Freeman Dyson, perhaps the greatest physicist of the 20th century still living, breathing, and thinking, has a number of nice things to say about Shaviv's work. They apparently spoke during Shaviv's sabbatical year at Dyson's turf, Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study.

Account Deleted

Jeff at 3:32 - Hilarious - go ahead Jeff, name two.

Don Bessee

Uh Oh, the Dark Lord of Liberal Lament Land has changed the balance in the force again. ;-)


So the AGW gang chimes in. Doing some digging a while back (I'm pretty good at that)
I came across some info from the science folk. For anything to be considered "sound",
It MUST be repeatable Yet NO ONE has been able to REPEAT the findings in the AGW "binder of
proof". Not even the famed "hockey stick".
The AGW crew will now need to find a new cow to milk, since FED grant money tit is about to go dry, if it hasn't already.
I will have to visit the White House web site where they are taking suggestions.
Giving money to those so-called nonprofits of ECO should no longer be a tax right off.
The IRS would love that idea.

Jeff Pelline

After reading this let me offer an apology and revise my statement:
I should have written #13 should be Why do rightwing/nutty people think they are the only true scientists? lol.

Account Deleted

Uh, Jeff? Who are these folk? If you can't name any, it would seem they don't exist. Well, maybe inside your head, but I'm talking about the reality most of us live in.


Jeff Pelline, why do you think your statements are funny?

It has never been about "true" science, it has been about open and on topic debate in the classic senses of the word but then you are the one who chose to learn how to win arguments without actually having to know what you are talking about.

Don Bessee

Gregory, its more like that nervous laugh when the Dark Lord sees a couple of bros in hoodies coming his way in an urban setting. ;-)

Account Deleted

George - I'm pretty sure Jeff Pelline won't be showing up at your table talk re science. He'll be with his imaginary friends. You know, they're so cute at that age.
And George, go easy on the lefties that do show up. They still think Bill Nye is a scientist. Although his credentials have been challenged lately
Science just isn't what it used to be.

Jeff Pelline

What are your scientific credentials other than a big mouth? Where did you go to college? Or did you?


I recommend the following for #13

If the science cannot be replicated, continues promotion of the failed science is religion.

Replication is the foundation of all valid science. Computer models are not replication or validation, especially when they do not agree with real world data collection over two decades.

Jeff Pelline

We'll at least it's more intelligent that what Gregory, Scott, and Don have posted.


OK, children stop attacking each other and address the ideas expressed in this post. These childish attacks are just boring, a waste of the readers time.

George Rebane

It must be desperation time for our FUE, he is lonely and wants to snark with someone. I'm prepared to remove the entire Pelline thread above, or leave it as another record of his droppings. I just want the Pelline Pollution to stop. FYI, the man now has six IP addresses that I've blocked. He keeps getting new ones. Maybe he's on travel. Let's cut that thread now.


The March for Science and the Scientific Method

Over 15,000 people are expected to march for science in Sacramento, and I suspect some of our local global warmers are planning to attend the march. According to the Sacramento organizer, they are marching to protest official disregard for climate change research and the defunding of other questionable science.

Keller and other marchers say they’re protesting official disregard for scientific research on issues such as climate change and the proposed federal defunding of a swath of research programs.

Read more HERE.

In San Francisco, Science March organizers claim they will be emphasizing the scientific method and President Trump's disregard for the real science of anthropogenic climate change. They apparently do not understand that when the "scientific method" is correctly applied it does not prove that human CO2 emissions have a significant impact on the earth's global temperature.

I endorse the use of the scientific method in all science and promote the replication of any science that is used to shape public policy, and that includes climate science. Many of the key studies used to develop the Obama climate change policies have failed the replication process and therefore those policies should be repealed by President Trump.


Another Point of View

“I am truly sorry to see a ‘March for Science’ mixed up with all this. It is likely to hurt science and scientists by painting them as purely partisan and political.

“It will be portrayed as self-serving and money-grubbing. Any more noble motives will be buried and extremist views will be amplified, so I worry about adverse public reactions and their consequences.”

S. Fred Singer
Senior Fellow, Environment
The Heartland Institute
Director/Founder Science and Environmental Policy Project
[email protected]

Don Bessee

Since you correctly reference the Dark Lord of Liberal Lament Lands droppings @803 Dr. R and it aint no sandbox it would seem a pooper scooper would be appropriate. ;-)


Russ, no. You seem to be confusing "replication" with "falsification"... replication is an issue when basic errors are made but falsification is the heart of the scientific method and a possible dividing line between religion and science may be the ability of the theory to generate falsifiable predictions.

Climate predictions that can never be pinned down... it gets warmer, it gets colder, rainy, drought, cold, hot... the current climate mess always has warmists suggesting it's perfectly congruous with AGW predictions.

I'd be interested in what former supervisor Van Zant thinks about Pelline's antics and what he thinks about what Nir Shaviv has to say about climate sensitivity, assuming he can make sense of it.



Wikipedia: Reproducibility

Reproducibility is the ability of an entire analysis of an experiment or study to be duplicated, either by the same researcher or by someone else working independently, whereas reproducing an experiment is called replicating it.[1] Reproducibility and replicability together are among the main principles of the scientific method.


A particular experimentally obtained value is said to be reproducible if there is a high degree of agreement between measurements or observations conducted on replicate specimens in different locations by different people—that is, if the experimental value is found to have a high precision.[2] However, in science, a very well reproduced result is one that can be confirmed using as many different experimental setups as possible and as many lines of evidence as possible (consilience).

If the results cannot be replicated, is the hypothesis still valid? Would that be considered falsification of the experiment? If not school be on the nuances.

Account Deleted

Of course the march is political. One sure sign of that is the involvement of the SEIU. The money spigot from the govt to the left wing is being cut off. What to do? Scare mongering to start. It's always the same mantra. "If you don't support us, you are anti-science".
We know AGW is a hoax because its adherents are constantly trying to hide their data. Only the true believers are allowed to see the raw data. Then the data is massaged and modified to fit what ever narrative the true believers need for the moment. Not to mention the 'settled science' of one claim after another that never came to pass.
Any one worried about true anti science need look no further:


Russ, you seem to be unclear on the concept.

Jeff Pelline, the author of that screed was a life sciences eco grad from UC Berkeley, and does not inhabit an academic post at Mudd. He also helps the students in the dorms to recycle, isn't that special?

Pruitt's statement on CO2 and the climate was analyzed thoroughly by Judith Curry and I found her take to be credible, her summary: "If I am interpreting Pruitt’s statements correctly, I do not find anything to disagree with in what he said: we don’t know how much of recent warming can be attributed to humans. In my opinion, this is correct and is a healthy position for both the science and policy debates."

A sober reflection on Pruitt might be that he will force journalists into their historic and expected role... actually reporting on what a government agency is doing, rather than just running interference for the home team.

Regarding any pariah status, dream on Jeff. Perhaps Russ recalls an old Mudd friend I just happened to run into on Russ' old climate blog... I hadn't seen or heard from S--- since I attended his wedding in '75. He's now a PhD Chemistry, also a climate realist. We're everywhere and while many current students have learned not to make waves, I'm quite sure there is more debate among the math, science and engineering hard core than you want to imagine.

Nullius in verba.

Account Deleted

re Gregory at 11:30 - Reading through the J Curry post, I found this comment to be the most relevant. It speaks to the 'great divide' as it intersects with the realm of science.
"David Robert at Vox: Scott Pruitt denies basic climate science. But most of the outrage is missing the point. Subtitle: It’s not about Pruitt and it’s not about facts. Excerpt: The right’s refusal to accept the authority of climate science is of a piece with its rejection of mainstream media, academia, and government, the shared institutions and norms that bind us together and contain our political disputes."
It certainly completes the circle of left wing thought. Since questioning ever increasing taxation automatically makes you against all taxation and questioning the ever increasing socialistic tilt of govt makes you 'anti govt', then it certainly follows that everyone questioning the 'settled science' of AGW makes you 'anti science'.
Science, of course, is never settled. History is replete with foolish people thinking that way.
Always beware of some one refuting a point of science by simply being derisive of the person making the point. There must be a refutation of the actual point with facts and citations that directly speak to the point being made.

Ben Emery

Listen and read this piece. Really think about it and how it applies to the modern day world. Climate Change isn't an isolated phenomena, it is a symptom of all the destruction, pollution, and waste of "civilized" society. A society where humans have dominion upon everything else. We are separate of the web instead of just a single strand within it.

Capitalism fuels this destruction, pollution, and waste that poisons the air, water, and soil.

Chief Seattle's Letter

"The President in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land. But how can you buy or sell the sky? the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people.

We know the sap which courses through the trees as we know the blood that courses through our veins. We are part of the earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters. The bear, the deer, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the dew in the meadow, the body heat of the pony, and man all belong to the same family.

The shining water that moves in the streams and rivers is not just water, but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you our land, you must remember that it is sacred. Each glossy reflection in the clear waters of the lakes tells of events and memories in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father.

The rivers are our brothers. They quench our thirst. They carry our canoes and feed our children. So you must give the rivers the kindness that you would give any brother.

If we sell you our land, remember that the air is precious to us, that the air shares its spirit with all the life that it supports. The wind that gave our grandfather his first breath also received his last sigh. The wind also gives our children the spirit of life. So if we sell our land, you must keep it apart and sacred, as a place where man can go to taste the wind that is sweetened by the meadow flowers.

Will you teach your children what we have taught our children? That the earth is our mother? What befalls the earth befalls all the sons of the earth.

This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator.

Your destiny is a mystery to us. What will happen when the buffalo are all slaughtered? The wild horses tamed? What will happen when the secret corners of the forest are heavy with the scent of many men and the view of the ripe hills is blotted with talking wires? Where will the thicket be? Gone! Where will the eagle be? Gone! And what is to say goodbye to the swift pony and then hunt? The end of living and the beginning of survival.

When the last red man has vanished with this wilderness, and his memory is only the shadow of a cloud moving across the prairie, will these shores and forests still be here? Will there be any of the spirit of my people left?

We love this earth as a newborn loves its mother's heartbeat. So, if we sell you our land, love it as we have loved it. Care for it, as we have cared for it. Hold in your mind the memory of the land as it is when you receive it. Preserve the land for all children, and love it, as God loves us.

As we are part of the land, you too are part of the land. This earth is precious to us. It is also precious to you.

One thing we know - there is only one God. No man, be he Red man or White man, can be apart. We ARE all brothers after all."


The March for ... What?

Joe Bastardi, Chief Forecaster at Weather Bell, Formerly the Chief Long Range Forecaster at Accuweather.

The March for Science is [today] and no one in their right mind would say they are against it because of its name. First of all, you are standing against the right of people to march for whatever cause they wish. Second, you would be portrayed as someone who is against science.

I am all for science. I think the climate changes. It always has and always will. Yet I have been portrayed as anti-science and a climate change “denier” by many who will be marching for things I certainly believe in.

Just who does not believe in science? It’s a straw man the marchers are marching against.

What is questionable is the way science is being portrayed and used. Here is an example. You have seen this a kajillion times; now it’s a kajillion and one.

This shows no apparent linkage between CO2 and temperature in a time scale that goes back millions of years. So as someone who is acquainted with the scientific method, I am instantly skeptical of the idea that after all this time, there is now a linkage. That does not mean there can’t be, and I am open to that argument and understand it. But as I asked in my last blog, how much linkage is there?

What I am trying to figure out is why there is a march when many of the people in that march have no tolerance for the questioning of their position. While I think it’s noble to be inclusive and diverse, are any “skeptics” included as speakers? Is there diversity of thought? Of course not. Because in spite of what you see in the graphs above and below, they ignore the obvious. The planet has always had temperature swings — larger than this and independent of CO2 — that should make any person searching for the truth skeptical as to how much CO2 contributes.

Questioning of dogma need not apply. That sounds more like religion than science. Being for science means being for discussion. So who is anti-science here? A classic case of “blame your opposition for what you are actually doing.” It is not the skeptic side shutting down debate.

Read the rest, inclding graphics HERE


re: BenEmery @ 7:41AM

Nice try, though.

re: ScottO @ 10:35

"The money spigot from the govt to the left wing is being cut off. What to do? Scare mongering to start. "

No doubt there's some truth to that. You'd think that if human-caused climate change was a slam dunk, there'd be more of a push for designing pollution (of all types) amelioration and instead of moar and moar for climate scientists. For that matter, if the first world is so busy generating greenhouse gas, why the huge political horsepower behind mass immigration from the third world? The Hansens of the world would be well advised to not mix their political belief systems with their own studies, but I guess the temptation to make public policy is just too strong for most.

Account Deleted

Ben at 7:41 - Ding ding ding! We have a winner! Perfect!
"Capitalism fuels this destruction, pollution, and waste that poisons the air, water, and soil."
Science, schmience. let's admit what this is really all about.
It's the Left's religious beliefs.
"Every part of the earth is sacred to my people."
And lord knows what is sacred to you must be made sacred to everyone at the point of a gun.
Do humans ever learn anything?
And Russ - thanks. I was just about to post that link.


Posted by: Scott Obermuller | 22 April 2017 at 07:58 AM

"Capitalism fuels this destruction, pollution, and waste that poisons the air, water, and soil."

Yes....and capitalism, even the co-opted and adulterated version that we live under produces enough surplus to remediate it's errors....sometimes to the point of stupidity. Bens alternative (The happy faced socialism seen only in theoretical tracts and textbooks) is both unwilling and unable to implement any corrective feature.

The Magnitogorsks, Chernobyls, and Chelyabinsk 70's only provide laboratories for what happens when things have to be left undone.

Bill Tozer

When 850 dumpsters are not quite enough.


Some of the lemmings.
It's all about the almighty dollar. No matter which currency of the world.
" WE need that free money". Name your excuse. I'm sure you can find a scientist with his or her hand outstretched. From AGW, to the latest "must have" gadget.

Paul Emery

My favorite quoteof the day

"Without science Trump would be bald"

Account Deleted

Walt at 10:05 - Thanks for link. Confirms my earlier thought. Go straight to scare mongering:
Shah worries about the boys' futures if money is cut for the sciences.
"I fear that we're not going to have the planet that you and I grew up on unless we find new ways to make this earth as livable as possible for as long as we can," Shah said. "And we're not going to have as intellectual a society as we should. We need as many people as possible to be educated in the sciences."
The only thing I worry about is having to inhabit the same country with folks like Shah. A true lemming.
Maybe some one should ask Shah how much less 'science' will have in actual dollars and how much is being cut as a percentage of the total amount we spend on science. And ask her what Trump has done to actually cause our society to be 'less intellectual'?
She'll have no clue.


On the subject of lemmings, I wounder how the "back to earth"ers enjoyed the blackout in Frisco? How many businesses do you think actually managed to stay open? Traffic was utter pandemonium. Then "Trump turned off the windmills"
Welcome to the world you want.

Account Deleted

Walt - the panhandlers probably did OK. They are 'green' and don't use electricity or fossil fuels for their income. Come to think - isn't what the 'March For Science' is all about? Gimme gimme gimme. Or else you're against science!

Bill Tozer

Well, at least the new 3rd Party is consistent. Living the dream.

Bill Tozer

The first Earth Day was heavy on recycling and organic gardening, if memory serves me correctly. Oh yeah, planting trees was big as well.

Update: :Propaganda?

George Rebane

Fitting end to Earth Day. Jo Ann and I attended the annual GOP Spring Dinner and fundraiser tonight, and came away with a shareable moment. There a mother reported that her teen-age daughter was part of a youth service group that was asked to volunteer to clean up the mess left over from a local Earth Day demonstration which included a lively 'defense of science' element. Perfect.

Paul Emery

Where was that "Demonstration" George?

Bill Tozer

Don Bessee

Shouldn't the fakenewsman @ 1158 know were it was? ;-)


If it were truly a March for Science and not a Trump Protest March these are the boring signs we would have seen:

§1 A scientific argument consists of clearly stated premises, inferences and conclusions.

§2 A scientific premise is verifiable. Premises and their sources are identified and readily available for independent verification.

§3 A scientific inference is logically valid.

§4 A scientific conclusion is deduced by application of axioms, definitions and theorems or measured properties and scientific concepts that have already been verified or validated.

§5 A scientific concept consists of statements that are logically valid conclusions deduced from premises that are themselves logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.

§6 A scientific concept is well-defined and has a well-defined capability of prediction within a well-defined context.

§7 A scientific concept can only be validated by comparison of predictions deduced from that concept with measurement results. Whenever predictions differ from measurement results, by more than the combined uncertainty of the measurement results and the claimed capability of the concept, there must be something wrong with the concept – or the test of it.

§8 A scientific concept can only be referred to as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.

§9 A scientific statement is based on verifiable data. Data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, both uncorrected and corrected data are provided together with a scientific argument for the correction.

§10 A scientific measurement report contains traceable values, units and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

§11 A scientific prediction report contains values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.

Robert Cross

Instead of "lemmings march for science" the focus should be on why those people are marching and re-titled "idiots and morons dispute climate science."

George Rebane

RobertC 817am - So far the "idiots and morons" (including yours truly) have disputed the politicized "climate science" with facts and science-based arguments, to which the disciples of climate hysteria have only been able to respond with calling them "idiots and morons".


Posted by: Robert Cross | 23 April 2017 at 08:17 AM

Shouldn't you be out sniffing tailpipes bobby.....just like the good old days?


RobertC 817am:
We "idiots and morons" have made our case for climate science in these pages and have opened the door for the supporters of anthropogenic global warming to make their case, so we can discuss the differences. However, we are still waiting for the warmers, which I assume you are one, to make a scientific case for human CO2 emissions to be the climate control knob for the planet. I suspect one of the reasons, is the anthropogenic signatures are missing from the data, or so small to be unmeasurable. Perhaps the "idiots and morons" here could be persuaded to change our views with some detailed facts to support your case. We welcome your input and then let's discuss the results.

George Rebane

FYI - I commented on RL Crabb's obligatory Earth Day bashing of Trump, although this was an admittedly soft bash. I said - By all means, if cleaning up the planet costs nothing, then let’s do it! But if there’s a cost to the cleaning, shouldn’t we balance how much of what kind of cleaning we (or they or we all?) should do when with what possible (unknowable?) kinds of results that would leave us poorer by how much.

This elicited one more revealing comment thread that corroborates the premises I propagandize on RR. Hard to tell from that thread if those commenters understood any of what I said - e.g. the first worthy immediately calls me "asinine on so many levels", and then goes on to demonstrate his own version of it. Still searching for the middle.

Todd Juvinall

There is no middle. We must maintain fifty percent plus one vote at all times. Crabb and his commenters (except fish and Greg) are morons.


Hay Cross. If the AGW chicken littles are right, care to explain why Hawaii is STILL inhabitable? It was to be a charcoal cinder by now, and "way too hot to live".
Memory loss setting in? That was the prediction when this lie got started. Uh,, those glaciers are still there as well. The polar ice caps are not gone as predicted either.

So DO TELL.. Explain away the piss poor outcomes of those (haaa)"predictions"..
(not enough grant money?)

Account Deleted

Going back over Ben's post I had a new thought that I would ask Ben to please think about.
"One thing we know: our God is also your God. The earth is precious to him and to harm the earth is to heap contempt on its creator."
If a conservative started off a post talking about God, everyone on the left would heap ridicule and complain about theocracy.
Question for Ben: Why is it bad for conservatives to bring up their deeply held religious beliefs but not liberals?
Isn't that total hypocrisy?
Can you, Ben, define 'harming the earth'?
No examples, please - I'm asking for a definition. Because you are going to have to explain why left wing folk can trash public land and fly all over the world in their private jets and that never seems to be 'harming the earth'.


Same boat here Scott, pin a "true believer" down, to what their "preachers" said would happen,, (oh.. excuse me... Uh,, "might") and they run and hide never to be heard of until the subject changes.
Funny, Hawaiian temps haven't varied one iota. Cross is like every other "true believer" I ask that question of. Crickets....

Bill Tozer

You idiots and morons! You knuckleheads and nincompoops!

Bill Tozer

"On Saturday, the March for Science was held in Washington, DC, where demonstrators lambasted conservatives for ostensibly ignoring facts and science. Yet everywhere you look it’s increasingly obvious that leftists conjure up narratives where no proof exists and ignore overwhelming evidence when it’s an inconvenient stumbling block to their crusade. Case in point: The 2016 election. Whatever their goal is, it’s based on twisting facts and evidence."

I hear the cry of those marching. Oh my, what shall we ever do with the little beyotches?

Bill Tozer

Lefty logic science does present some interesting challenges.

Other times, lefty solutions are


Who Knew? Obama Administration Manipulated Climate Data

A former member of the Obama administration claims Washington, D.C., often uses “misleading” news releases about climate data to influence public opinion.


Future Anti-Trump Marches


Invalidating the EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding
Press Release and Research Report “On the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot” & The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding: April 24, 2017

As a prelude to the Press release and Research Report, I have chosen to post the introduction on the press release and significance of this research report by Dr. Alan Carlin, a report reviewer and Retired Senior Analyst and manager EPA from his web site.

Second Edition of path breaking Research Report Further Shows the Scientific Invalidity of Climate Alarmism

Despite Saturday’s so-called “March for Science,” the almost simultaneous release of a second edition of a Research Report showing the exact opposite of what some of the marchers claim to be the conclusions of climate science has brought home the Orwellian reality that the marchers have gotten their claims concerning what the science says exactly backwards. The Climate March website says their forces of “The Resistance” won’t tolerate “institutions that try to “skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science.” If the marchers really support science, they should be supporting climate skeptics, not the climate alarmists. How Orwellian can you get? The science is clear.

The authors of a path breaking August 2016 research report released today a Second Edition of their Research Report. The conclusions disproving the validity of USEPA’s three lines of evidence for their 2009 Endangerment Finding for Greenhouse Gases and very clearly demonstrating the lack of a statistically significant impact of increasing atmospheric levels of CO2 on global and tropical temperatures remain the same. However, the analysis process utilized is both more elegant and easier to understand. It demonstrates that Natural Factors involving solar, volcanic and oceanic activity fully explain the Earth’s tropospheric and surface temperatures. And, that CO2 plays no significant role.

Read the rest HERE incuding the report abstract.

Ben Emery

I find the responses to my comment odd, for those who claim to be conservatives and libertarians. Companies and others do not have the right to pollute my air, water, and soil without my permission. It is a violation of my natural rights, isn't it?

If you want to pollute your water go right ahead.
Natural Rights

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

George Rebane

BenE 1215am - Where are you going with that "permission" to violate your natural rights? And what right do you have to interfere with a third party whose overall contribution to society I applaud? (Please don't read anything more into these words than what is explicitly expressed.)

Todd Juvinall

Property is also "money". And you get to take mine through laws and regulations. My "money", my property is no longer mine asd you use it for your purposes..

Account Deleted

So Ben finds that my asking him to explain himself is 'odd' and some how conflicts with my claim to be a conservative.
Of course, the fact that he refuses to do so is not odd at all. Seems to be par for the course for the left.
Then Ben lays claim to having the right to decide on his own that which will constitute 'pollution' of 'his' air, water and soil.
Very good, sir. Your problem seems to lie in your inability to extend those rights to others as well as your idea of what constitutes 'pollution' in regards to science. Carbon Dioxide is a natural part of 'your' air and has been so in varying concentrations for millennia.
That's called science. I would advise you to study it some time.

Bill Tizer

@ 11:40 am

Ah, Ben'ole "your rights end where my feelings begin." Glad you not fall for it. That is why we have a Constitution and are a nation of laws, not men. It prevents the passing passions of man to change the rule of law.

Bill Tozer

This says it all. Science has been berry berry good to the Science Guy.

Account Deleted

Since Ben won't (can't) reply, I'll have to point out a few items of science.
All human activity involves some sort of 'pollution'.
If you don't want to pollute, don't exist. Not being sarcastic or sinister, just a fact of life.
We can pollute more or less and often times the pollution is hidden.
Cleaning up costs a lot of money and money has a carbon footprint.
The poorer and more left wing countries have proven to be ecological hell holes. Electric cars pollute, but not where white lefties have to look at it or experience it. And as a last bit, I offer my tip of the hat to Internal Combustion.
and as just a sampling:
Electric cars are extremely filthy, but not where white Democrats live, so who cares?

Bill Tozer

Science is unethical?

"Or perhaps this is just another example of how the progressive obsession with gender and sexuality has permeated all fields of academic study."


The People's Climate March — in 26 Zany Photos

Bill Tozer

George Rebane

The evidence of the widespread insanity of the Left is beyond measure, yet none of this is visible to them. And the Right is helpless to stop the spread of this intellectual epidemic since the Left has established firm control of the educational, entertainment, and news media institutions. All we can do at this stage is watch aghast and search for feasible ways to separate our fates from theirs. President Trump could possibly be the leader to break the Left's headlong rush to autocracy, but does he have the temperament to unify us enough to accomplish that task?


Anthropogenic Climate Change Buffoons

Anthony Watts: From the PEW RESEARCH CENTER and the department of unintended consequences, comes this study that suggests the “March for Science” and the “People’s Climate March” didn’t really have any impact when it comes to public opinion. Personally, I think it hurt more than it helped, because as I demonstrated with pictures of the marchers and their signs, a lot of them came off looking like total buffoons.

I agree with Anthony's assessment. The signs gave the marchers for both events away, it was not about science it was about politics and political hate.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad