Training Conservatives To Avoid Junk Science

Many conservatives are as clueless about climate history as are their liberal counterparts.

ScreenHunter_3120 Sep. 18 14.49

Last September was also the snowiest on record in the US.

ScreenHunter_3112 Sep. 18 13.04

ScreenHunter_3119 Sep. 18 14.47

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to Training Conservatives To Avoid Junk Science

  1. willys36 says:

    the scale got cut off on the first graph.

  2. gator69 says:

    Friends don’t let friends quote junk.

  3. Dave1billion says:

    But it is pretty damned hot. At least where I live in Louisiana and in Birmingham where I’m taking my daughter to see the World Cup Champion USA Women’s Soccer team in a friendly match against Haiti.

    But that’s just weather. Crappy weather, but only weather, nonetheless.

  4. I don’t think Jonah’s endorsing junk science. He’s asking for Goldilocks weather. We are Americans and we have the right to complain about weather we don’t like.

    He also tweets:

    “The G-File is out. It has an abnormally high amount of hooker talk.”

    Same thing. He’d like to have a moderate amount of hooker talk. I am with him on both counts.

    • Dave1billion says:

      I reserve the right to bitch about:

      My government, my job, traffic, the weather, my sports teams, my wife (she’s also allowed to bitch behind my back), my mother in law, and the fact that everybody nowadays seems to be “tweeting”, “social networking” , or playing games on their IPads rather than going outside and experiencing the sometimes crappy (and occasionally wonderful) weather.

      But not in any particular order except that the first one always remains on top. Even when the guy I vote for wins (sometimes that’s when I bitch the most).

      • rah says:

        I don’t imagine that the first one would be on top in the event a tornado or hurricane came your way! That is until FEMA showed up!

    • rah says:

      I like what Joe Bastardi says. “Enjoy your weather because it’s the only weather you’ve got!” or something like that.

  5. Gee!

    Just experienced lots of rain and heavy downpours, yesterday – THREE separate times – in the middle of September – in the “high desert”!

    Nah!

    Just my imagination.

  6. Kent Clizbe says:

    Jonah Goldberg is not a “conservative.”

    He is a died-in-the-wool Neo-Conservative.
    They care not one whit about the things that Normal-America care about.

    They are big government, permanent war, academic, big city, smart-set “intellectual” blabbermouths whose secret desire is to be accepted by the Politically Correct Progressives.

    Many of the current gaggle of Neo-Con babblers are second-generation babblers who inherited their places in the Neo-Con hierarchy from their more famous parents.

    Jonah is an excellent example of the Neo-Con aristocracy. He’s a wannabe kid of a former NYC high-power literary agent (she represented Monica Lewinsky’s friend, Linda Tripp, and others), Lucianne Goldberg.

    So, trenchant observation that the Neo-Cons are “climate change” believers, but misplaced confidence that they can be trained.

    • gregole says:

      Kent,

      +1 on all counts. As an American conservative, I resent getting lumped in with the neo-cons. They have sucked the air out of the room and done a lot to destroy the conservative political position. Doesn’t surprise me neocons are closet warmunists.

    • Jason Calley says:

      Yes, neo-conservatives are to actual conservatives, as progressives are to actual liberals.

  7. Junk science is when they use the words “may” and “could” and “might” in the abstract.

    Marijuana could free us from oil, cure the common cold, and solve global hunger, or whatever:

    http://truththeory.com/2013/05/17/hemp-could-free-us-from-oil-prevent-deforestation-cure-cancer-and-its-environmentally-friendly-so-why-is-it-illegal/

  8. amirlach says:

    If you want to educate conservatives. Start with a little history, like where our freedoms originated.

    • Gail Combs says:

      In 1066, William the Conquerer invaded but well before that Ireland at least had a very long history of individual freedom.

      Going back thousands of years in Ireland you find the tradition of the rights of the individual. (Note Anarchy is not Chaos but a type of governing system. SEE Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. It is no wonder the State hates the idea of Anarchy and does its best to sweep it under the rug. )

      9,000 years of anarchy in Ireland?

      The Christian clergy over a long period of time assembled a book called the “Book of Invasions” to document in written fashion the Irish oral traditions.

      The oral traditions and any written histories showed no shift in the Irish culture in any way, no wars or conquests: so we would have to believe that that anarchy that met the Christians immigrants (and confused them) in 600 AD was not new at all but had a long history even at that point. We can say with certainty that it ended with the English invasions of the 1640’s. We can find no archaeological site that indicates any central state other than just one slight possibility that goes back 5,500 years or the few hill fortresses built in Southern Ireland to repel the invading Swiss Celts of 100 BC. There is much evidence of farming, prosperous trading communities, centers of art, and religious areas going back 9,000 years but no evidence of any State. All we can find is evidence that the Irish lived peaceably for an extended period of time and were trading goods and services with their neighbors.

      There is no reason or any evidence to believe anything other than the Irish anarchy lasted at least 9,000 years and maybe even much more than that. The history of a state is the record of that State conducting wars, and we find the Irish history records peaceful, voluntary cooperation until the barbarous English invaded in the 1640’s AD.
      http://eng.anarchopedia.org/celtic_anarchism

      1,000 years of Irish Anarchy

      Celtic Ireland (650-1650)

      In Celtic Irish society of the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period, courts and the law were largely anarchist, and operated in a purely stateless manner. This society persisted in this manner for roughly a thousand years until its conquest by England in the seventeenth century.

      In contrast to many similarly functioning tribal societies (such as the lbos in West Africa), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense “primitive”: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe. A leading authority on ancient Irish law wrote, “There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice… There was no trace of State-administered justice.

      All “freemen” who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath’s members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their “kings.” In contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Professor Peden states, “the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension.

      The “king” had no political power; he could not decree or administer justice or declare war. Basically he was a priest and militia leader, and presided over the tuath assemblies.

      Celtic Ireland survived many invasions, but was finally vanquished by Oliver Cromwell’s reconquest in 1649-50.

      This most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts first came to my attention while reading Murray Rothbard’s For a New Liberty.

      >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
      The Enlightenment — isms, ocracies and ologies

      • Snowleopard says:

        Thanks Gail.

        Since my ancestry is mostly Irish, with a bit of Scotch, perhaps this explains my inherent distrust of large governments.

        • Gail Combs says:

          You can see the remnants of Irish anarchy in the New England town meeting. All registered voters can directly vote on issues if they go to the meetings. Unlike the area I am in which has a representative government. You vote for the county commissioners and hope for the best.

          I finally remembered the difference between the Napoleonic Code vs English Common law. In the English system everything is allowed unless specifically forbidden where as in the Napoleonic Code everything is forbidden unless specifically permitted. A BIG difference.

          Note it was a French Socialist, Jean Monet who ‘shaped’ the EU

          Global Governance: Lessons from Europe by Pascal Lamy, another French socialist active in the EU and past Director General of the World Trade Organization.

          It was more than half a century ago that the Frenchman Jean Monet, one of the shapers of post-war Europe, said, “The sovereign nations of the past can no longer provide a framework for the resolution of our present problems. And the European Community itself is no more than a step towards the organizational forms of tomorrow’s world.” His assessment was as valid then as it is now.

          What is global governance? For me, global governance describes the system we set up to assist human society to achieve its common purpose in a sustainable manner — that is, with equity and justice.

          Growing interdependence requires that our laws, our social norms and values, our mechanisms for framing human behavior be examined, debated, understood and operated together as coherently as possible. This is what would provide the basis for effective sustainable development in its economic, social and environmental dimensions.

          Whether public or private, governance needs to provide leadership, the incarnation of vision, of political energy, of drive….

          For what it is worth Bush, the Shrub was all for merging the USA with the EU

          In a sweeping move that has garnered surprisingly little attention this week the United States and the European Union have signed up to a new transatlantic economic partnership that will see regulatory standards “harmonized” and will lay the basis for a merging of the US and EU into one single market, a huge step on the path to a new globalized world order.” The BBC reported (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6607757.stm) from the Summit in Washington on Monday.

          An old untrue piece of propaganda from the FDA under the Bush admin.

          International Harmonization
          http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~comm/int-laws.html

          The harmonization of laws, regulations and standards between and among trading partners requires intense, complex, time-consuming negotiations by CFSAN officials. Harmonization must simultaneously facilitate international trade and promote mutual understanding, while protecting national interests and establish a basis to resolve food issues on sound scientific evidence in an objective atmosphere. Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.
          Participation in Codex Alimentarius
          Cosmetics International Activities
          International Organizations and Standard-Setting Bodies
          International Office of Epizootics
          International Plant Protection Convention
          World Health Organization
          Food and Agricultural Organization
          Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
          Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
          Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Microbiological Risk Assessments
          Pan American Health Organization
          Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

          The above is total hog wash because to get Congress to ratify WTO Clinton put “U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection.”

          During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:
          United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: “No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.” Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to “amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety”, or to “limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974.” http://www.eastlaw.net/research/wto/wto2b.htm

          So the FDA lied through their teeth under baby Bush. The original push for ratification of WTO came from Bush Sr. He couldn’t get it through Congress so it was handed to smooth talking Clinton to get it ratified. Actually the WTO Agreement on Agriculture was written by Cargill VP, Dan Amstutz under Reagan. Amstutz under Reagan also wrote the Freedom To Fail Farm Act that was finally implemented under Clinton.

          It is like a G.D. game of table tennis! The elite write the agenda and the democrats and republicans see that it is implemented whether American citizens want it or not.

    • Gail Combs says:

      It is important to note the distinction between French law, there are no individual rights only privileges granted by the government (can’t find the reference), vs English Law based on individual rights and individuals granting certain individuals a limited right to rule.

      Louisiana laws are different than all the other 49 states because the state law is based on the Napoleonic Code.

      Of course the Napoleonic Code is the code the socialist love because it denies individual rights. (Which is probably why I can no longer find reference a to individual rights vs privileges.)

  9. ren says:

    Slowly starting to shape up winter polar vortex. For now blocking it begins on the eastern Siberia. We can already see there in the stratosphere, ozone area of elevated temperature. I conclude from this that cold air from the north will now reach out to the west of North America. Let’s see how the situation develops.

  10. ren says:

    The ice in the Arctic has increased very quickly.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s