George Rebane
‘Climate change’ is one of the unfortunate labels that a nation dominated by dumbth uses to simplify and therefore profoundly misunderstand a very complex process that is made even more confusing through the injection and overarch of political ideologies. The hoi polloi are salved and saved from all this confounding by being taught that science is a singular absolute, and that ‘science is settled’ on climate change. There is nothing that will change such minds outside the opinions of their chosen political betters who insist all credible scientists warn us that earth is headed for a thermal catastrophe unless we quickly adopt a set of draconian public policies, enforced by a bigger government, that must needs change our fundamental lifestyles. Assessments and evidence that contradict such consensus science are loudly sourced to flat-earthers, creationists, and others categorized as intellectual troglodytes.
When the semantic onion is peeled back, climate change is really the short label for preventable man-made global warming (PMGW), about which you shouldn’t bother your little head as long as you concur with the new laws, regulations, taxes, and fees required to ‘prevent climate change’. Climate change is also the perfect and only storm that must not be wasted on our road to a global Agenda21 (q.v.). However, the rest of us know that –
1) earth’s climate change is perennial and ongoing;
2) the greenhouse effect is real and greenhouse gases (especially CO2) in earth’s atmosphere are constantly varying, and have done so over broad ranges for eons;
3) earth’s carbon cycle is poorly understood at best;
4) humans do contribute an unknown proportion to atmospheric CO2;
5) the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and ‘earth’s temperature’ is an unknown dynamic process;
6) the temperature of the earth is a number produced by any of many algorithms, and then politically selected for public consumption;
7) our understanding of the dynamics of weather and climate are poor and a work in process, definitely not ready to support public policy making;
8) general circulation models (GCMs), cobbled together to generate and support weather and climate predictions, are many in a field of ongoing research, and are intensely politically mediated for use in public policy making;
9) today’s GCMs barely work for predicting near-term weather, and are useless for predicting long-term climate changes;
10) earth’s weather and climate are large-scale, complex chaotic processes, the long-term predictions of which today are not possible to any degree of usable reliability, and for several technical reasons having to do with physics and computability, such usable reliability may never be possible;
11) the presented evidence for PMGW has been demonstrated to be fraught with fraudulent manipulations and interpretations of historical and topical measurements along with ad hoc estimates, and there is no evidence that the claimed climate change is preventable;
12) the overwhelming ‘thousands’ of the UN’s IPCC scientists, who have neither the expertise nor understanding of things outside their own narrow disciplines correctly, make no such claims, especially when it comes to the workings of any of the GCMs du jour that incorporate their particular inputs for making predictions in the large;
13) all of the above has also been communicated by a body of competent scientists and engineers who are both beholden and not beholden to politically correct government grants.
For some time now the climate change debate has been politically polluted beyond any reason-based redemption or resolution. Instead, it meticulously mangled by the media before being resolved in the public square through the vicissitudes of an ephemeral and mostly fluid public comprehension, one that expresses itself variously in the nation’s ballot boxes. Democracy at work indeed.
For these reasons I remain a skeptic about PMGW, and treat all new information as a Bayesian. To characterize people like me as 'not believing' in climate change immediately extinguishes further discussion and debate. Such accusations are invariably either agenda driven or simply ignorant.
(The portents are more compelling for a near-term episode of global cooling. Perhaps the politicians will respond when we witness, say, a couple of years of a crop-killing June frost on the Great Plains.)
Scattershots – 29oct18 (updated 31oct18)
George Rebane
Growing numbers of liberals now embrace the notion that voting for a living can be more lucrative than working for a living.
Hallelujah! Our distinguished liberal columnist and RR reader George Boardman comes out strong for the educated voter. In today’s (29oct18) Union he writes, “If you haven't yet taken the time to familiarize yourself with the issues and candidates, if your vote is based on emotion, or prejudice, or party affiliation, what your neighbor says, or that you had a fight with one of the candidates in the third grade, do your country a favor and throw out that mail-in ballot. An uninformed vote is much more dangerous than not voting at all.” (emphasis mine) That, of course, has been a major conservetarian tenet of these pages for years (most recently here), and I welcome him as a fellow promoter of the educated vote. However, now Mr Boardman should prepare himself to be pilloried by the local panel of progressive pinheads who believe and preach that encouraging voter education is akin to proposing the return to the Jim Crow voter policies of the post-bellum South.
The Pittsburg massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue is the latest installment of the ongoing tragedy of our times that should remind us of the nature of these kind of deranged and lunatic killers. They should not be confused with the several flavors of organized terror such as sponsored by the various Islamist groups. These desperate lone wolves seek to put meaning into their pitifully empty lives, and are terminally ignorant to boot. They have no idea that their killings promote exactly the opposite effect than that which their fevered little minds conceived. Today the killer’s “All Jews must die!” has redoubled the pride that Jews have in their faith and the strength they draw from it. And it has also brought the rest of us closer to the Jewish community, and more determined than ever to fight the age-old scourge of antisemitism as the poster child of faith-targeted persecution.
[Later] While the Democrats and their lamestream lackeys are busy tying the massacre to our president, even the rabbi of The Tree of Life and the Israeli ambassador join in praising President Trump in his strong condemnation of the massacre and its antisemitic character. Neither of them blame the the president for contributing to this tragedy. Any bets on how this exculpatory news is covered in the lamestream which has already fulminated about the 'Trump connection'? (more here and here)
A reliable sign of a corrupt and/or out of control government is when it increases taxes for 1) no other reason (benefit to the public) than that it can, and/or 2) because it must do so in order to pay for under-budgeted existing but politically critical promised programs that no longer are sustainable (if they ever were from the start). Of the first, the latest is Britain’s planned ‘digital tax’ – an additional tax on technology companies that deliver online services (e.g. social media, ecommerce, …) and yet another on the consumers using such services. These are taxes that do nothing to improve or make such services more facile – it is just the next taking, because it can take. (more here) For an example of the second type we have Lawrence W. Reed, professor of economics and president of the Foundation for Economic Education, who draws a startling parallel in ‘Are We Rome?’ of today's America with the downfall of Rome, a nation which first declined from a republic to an autocracy that then bought its degenerating survival through public welfare programs which first destroyed its economy and then its means to defend itself.
[31oct18 update] I took to task Susan Rogers, liberal editorial board member of The Union, in my 18oct18 post. In there I highlighted one of her more regrettable ‘Hits’ in which she opined that “any patriotic citizen should not have a problem with the concept of urging all eligible voters to vote.” (emphasis mine). Today, after an apparent mini-epiphany, the lady shows us one of her (probably many) redeeming sides by a penning a course-reversal column – ‘Vote Smart or Vote Stupid’ - that advocates for the educated voter. While she has yet to draw the proper conclusion about what an uneducated voter should do – as long proposed by your commentator and now joined by Union’s George Boardman (see above) – Ms Rogers does provide the reader with ample specific citations where the responsible and concerned voter may get needed information before marking hiser (my own contribution to gender-free pronouns) ballot.
Posted at 09:29 AM in Culture Comments, Happenings, Our Country, We the iSheeple | Permalink | Comments (35)
Reblog (0) | |