Free the Animal

Organic Enterprise Sales Team

Steve Jobs doesn't need a sales force because he already has one: employees like the ones in my company.

So, you tell me: is Steve Jobs ever going to screw up?

Solar Electric

Here's the electric and solar powered vehicle I want. Electric to get you there, solar to keep you there. Be sure and catch the short video.

Delicious

From Warren Meyer an absolutely delicious admission. This is tantamount to the "'scientist' tries to prove Bible false; is converted" baloney that gets trotted out by unsophisticated religious people. The difference, of course, is that climate, at least, is a scientific topic. But still; religious zealots will always appeal to "science" for credibility (since they're not credible otherwise), as will man-made catastrophe zealots develop religious overtones to their approach.

As an aside, it looks like that post took a while to get noticed. It's an interesting juxtaposition, the first few dozen comments and the last few dozen. By the way, I think Warren's use of the word "comments" in his blog post refer to the statements by Mark Seal on the blog post referenced, and not the comments to the post (I tell you because I was initially confused by that).

STOP YELLOWSTONE NOW!

A humorous look at what would happen with the super volcano under Yellowstone if enterprising pseudo-scientists and their media and politician-whore bedfellows could only come up with a plausible man-made scenario.

Read it. After all, it's for the children.

Dead Ringer

I'm not going to get into the underlying ethics and political implications of this. The purpose is merely to understand what's going on.

This is essential reading by Warren Meyer on how the Y2K hysteria prefigures the AGW hysteria. Read it. Understand it. Integrate it.

That is all.

Unraveling and Tumbling Down

Of course, nobody is ever really going to cop to having been a sucker and a fool, but I'll be satisfied if we can simply move on to the next global hobgoblin destined to wipe us out, requiring the  steady guiding hand of those who seek dominion over us.

Miklós Zágoni isn't just a physicist and environmental researcher.  He is also a global warming activist and Hungary's most outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol. Or was.

Meteor strike, maybe? Supervolcano? What's next? Any ideas?

(via a commenter at Art's place.)

Later: I hadn't browsed this PDF Art linked to at the time of posting. Now I have, and it's worth a look. I just skimmed, basically, now and then stopping to study. Worth it.

Attention

Jay wrote "Khmer Vert."

Earth Hour 2008: Arnold, CA

Sucker Bait

Will you take it?

Automatic Liars

I've know it about both her and Bill from that 60-Minutes interview way back when that really launched them. I am astounded at the ignorance or plain dishonesty in anyone who still refuses to acknowledge it.

Pots, Kettles, and Split Hairs

The really funny thing about something like this is you could tell it at your average church picnic and people would laugh at what morons those people must be.

Business as Usual

I blogged about this "quackumentary" before, and, well, it's not like this ought to be any great surprise.

If he had known the film’s premise, Dr. Dawkins said in an e-mail message, he would never have appeared in it. “At no time was I given the slightest clue that these people were a creationist front,” he said.

Eugenie C. Scott, a physical anthropologist who heads the National Center for Science Education, said she agreed to be filmed after receiving what she described as a deceptive invitation.

“I have certainly been taped by people and appeared in productions where people’s views are different than mine, and that’s fine,” Dr. Scott said, adding that she would have appeared in the film anyway. “I just expect people to be honest with me, and they weren’t.”

It figures, and I know from what I've seen from Dawkins' own productions that he is very frank with those he interviews. Then there's shows like Bullshit!, where Penn has several times remarked that in spite of it appearing that some people who get ridiculed mustn't of had a clue of what they were in for, the producers are perfectly upfront about what they are doing and even provide video of past shows for prospective interviewees. Of course, this would be standard behavior for honest people not trying to con anyone. "They just think they're bulletproof," says Penn.

But when you boil it down, isn't religion, as such, just a big con job? Just like the State. Both need your sanction, support, reverence, and submission. The State can just take it by force, as religious institutions used to do before weakened by human knowledge of reality, not to mention its deal -- its bedfellow relationship -- with the State itself. Religious institutions are masters of the con. It's the only means of their survival now that they're foreclosed from running people through the torture chambers and publicly burning them at the stake in order to keep everyone else in line. Now, they just need to make fools of you and their success at doing that is as unsurprising as it is phenomenal.

That film is just business as usual for them.

(via Balko and Bailey)

Oh, Jesus

Here we go again. Another presumably smart person lashing out, getting together with a bunch of other presumably smart people, all who feel threatened because their primitive superstitious beliefs make them look increasingly like fucking morons rather than...well..."presumably smart people." So, they're going to try to poke a hole or two in Natural Selection, which is then somehow, magically, supposed to make your imaginary friend more real. Either they are fucking morons, or they surely think you are.

Just deal with it (reality) and stop the silly nonsense in dressing up non-science with a nice pink ribbon. Religion is a pig when seen as anything other than fantasy. As fantasy, go ahead and knock yourselves out.

Jesus.

Later: And just to make it clear, the premise of the film, that you can't question Darwinism is a load of bullshit, not to mention a big fat lie. Real scientists are out questioning Darwin's hypothesis every single day. That's how science is done: you form a hypothesis that's falsifiable in the sense that it's formed in a way that allows it to be tested, so that if false, you can actually prove it false, and if true, you can't; in spite of your best efforts. "God" doesn't even qualify as a scientific hypothesis because there is no possible scientific test that could count against it ("well, god just created the Universe that way..." -- see?).

I watch something on Discovery or Science or National Geographic virtually everyday that has real scientists questioning and testing Darwin's hypothesis, trying to prove it wrong. Nobody even comes close, and that is science. It is not the process of trying to confirm, which is precisely how science has gone so awry in fields like nutrition. It is the continual, never-ending process of trying to falsify, and either doing so and moving on, or coming up short, which is what lends more and more credence to the hypothesis, but never complete certainty in a scientific context, i.e., as a discipline of logical procedure.

"A Brilliant Insight"

Hey, Art said it, not me.

Normally I wouldn't call attention to something like that, but coming from someone like Art De Vany, it means something to me. He's referring to one of my comments on this thread concerning anthropogenic global warming.

"Where did global warming go?"

I'd say it has been replaced by global hysteria, global stupidity, global time-lagged ignorance, and an overblown global arrogance as to man's ability to change the weather.

My brother emails a decent op-ed on the subject.

In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

There's more. And...

Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO₂ is the cause of climate change.

And that's because as the data demonstrates, CO2 will likely keep increasing for the first 800-1000 years that temperatures decrease, because that's the proper cause/effect relationship. Temperature fluctuations cause (lagging) CO2 fluctuations. It shouldn't be but a few more years until you can start laughing openly at the fools who ever bought into this. I do already; but then again, I took Brussels sprouts as a side dish to a potluck dinner at friends' the other night. I'm just outta control.

Please, Indeed

Lew says "oh please," but this for me would constitute my largest problem with Paul (follow the links, if you like). I don't mind that he has faith in a deity, for it's not really a scientific proposition, and so much of it is wrapped in family tradition anyway -- I love Christmas time, even though I consider literal belief absurd. But denying the scientific fact of evolution and natural selection -- especially using that ignorant "just a theory" line -- tells me that in some measure he places his faith above his perception, cognition, conceptualization, and reason. I simply cannot take anyone completely seriously who denies evolution and natural selection -- either because they're ignorant (excusable, but why take ignorant people seriously?) or explicitly places some degree of limitation on reason in favor of faith, which is really inexcusable, and you must therefore place great suspicion on their ability to honestly deal in facts.

I could have taken it a little easier if he'd waffled on the issue, simply stating that he's not well enough versed in the theories to judge one way or the other, and he doesn't consider it important that he does. Misrepresenting the word "theory," however, is a pretty serious offense, in my view. Ever heard of the theory of relativity, or the the theory of quantum mechanics, or the theory of a host of other things? How about this one: the theory of gravitation, which ultimately described the motion of solar systems.

I suppose you can look back to the time where it was outrageously suggested (and how dare they teach out kids!) that the sun, planets and other galaxies of stars didn't revolve around Earth each day and understand that it literally took centuries for the theory of gravitation and other clearly observable aspects to be accepted. And the reason it took so long, of course, was because of religious doctrine that was wrong -- just like it's always eventually wrong when it seeks to explain complex scientific phenomena from the perspective of people who haven't even figured out running water, forced air heating, or refrigeration. So, understandable, because I guess that's just the way people are. But that doesn't make any of those people any less ignorant or obstinate, indeed inexcusably stupid, once facts with clear logical implications were established. So, the question is: how stupid do you want to be? You can be as stupid as you like, you know.

That said, the hopeful thing about Paul is that he doesn't want to force his silly religious views down your throat or mandate they be taught in schools. He wishes to eliminate the Dept of Education, which should be done: education should take place at home, or at the authority and expense of a small local community, however they may decide to do it.

Update: Well, look at this. Turns out the original video was doctored. I don't know that it makes a huge difference, but I suppose it's more along the lines of the waffling I wrote about.

Pope Calls Kettle Black

It's sumthin' when the world's storyteller-in-chief has to come out against the telling of stories he apparently finds even more far fetched than the ones he tells.

Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

The leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics suggested that fears over man-made emissions melting the ice caps and causing a wave of unprecedented disasters were nothing more than scare-mongering.

Of course, it could be seen as just coming out against a competing faith. They both have all the essential elements: original sin, certain damnation, and a path to salvation.

(link: rockwell)

The Consensus is That There's a Consensus

Via Art De Vany, this WSJ Opinion Journal piece by Holman Jenkins Jr. The title, above, contemplates what can be taken to summarize the whole article:

What if the heads being counted to certify an alleged "consensus" arrived at their positions by counting heads?

You should let that sink in, because, for better or worse, it's how the world operates; it's bad enough it does so in political philosophy and economics, but all the worse it's so too in science. Read the whole thing. Further attention is directed to Gustave Le Bon, The Crowd. This is a good summary of the work so admired by the likes of Hitler and Mussolini.

This is essentially my touchstone for finding the very few smart people in a massive sea of mindless, blind-following-blind morons that have been breading for millenia. I instantly dismiss anyone who ever utters the phrase "most people think" in support of some [purported] "idea" they are trying to advance.

Experts

First, the bafflement. You can file this under the "nobody could have predicted," category.

"Everyone -- the staffers in the other campaigns, the bigwig political observers in the state -- is scratching their heads. They don't know what to make of this Ron Paul phenomenon," Smith said.

Next, the irony.

These "experts" were lopsided: on the occasions when they were right, they attributed it to their depth of understanding and expertise; when wrong, it was either the situation that was to blame, since it was unusual, or, worse, they did not recognize that they were wrong and spun stories around it. They found it difficult to accept that their grasp was a little short. But this attribute is universal to all our activities: there is something in us designed to protect our self-esteem.

We humans are the victims of an asymmetry in the perception of random events. We attribute our success to our skills, and our failures to external events outside our control., namely to randomness. We feel responsible for the good stuff, but not for the bad.

-- Nassim Nicholas Taleb, The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable

Fundamental and Essential: Honesty

Ask yourself: whose counsel would you prefer, that of an honest man who was often proved wrong, or that of a dishonest man who virtually everyone thinks is right and a sage?

Back a week or so ago, Warren Meyer, in his new and excellent Climate Skeptic blog, alerted readers to what was not yet known to be a hoax, but which he nonetheless labeled as such -- in spite of the fact that the "study" came in on the side of anthropogenic global warming skeptics. Warren clearly saw that it was a hoax intended to expose skeptics as dishonest.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that this hoax is likely the work of global warming catastrophists.  My guess is that they wanted to make a point that skeptics were no such thing -- that skeptics would bite like a hungry bass at such a lure as long as it supported their position.  And certain folks in political circles did so, at least for a few hours.   My presumption is that if we had all trumpeted this fake study, then our judgment on other issues would get called into question.  My sense is that catastrophists have convinced themselves with their own propaganda that skeptics are all motivated by political and financial agendas.  But most skeptics are really interested in the science, and are motivated by the real fear that we are at the cusp of embarking on some really poor, near tragic, policy decisions.

More Gore

...and of such complexity that they would likely never get their due in history.

Billy Beck, commenting on something I read earlier today at Warren's other blog. What he's referring to, in my view, is the inherent conflict between truth and honesty. Complexity means: many facts. And many facts provides ample opportunity to tell a number of truths, all limited in context. But nobody is going to know the limitations of the context of the particular narrative they're exposed to unless they explicitly seek out additional knowledge on their own, think, and exercise their own honest judgment.

Honesty is a very high calling, and I daresay largely unpracticed by the majority of humanity.

Eleven Inconvenient Truths

Doubly so, seeing as how Gore managed to score his "Peace Prize" yesterday. Yea, well the Norwegians have become a parody of themselves for awhile, now.

Food for thought: Gore didn't call the film "Inconvenient Honesty." Can you imagine it being named that?

More food for thought: Why isn't the expression "the honest truth" considered redundant (and rightly so)?

Outrunning Socialism

Readers here know that while I don't hedge on matters of principle (theft is theft and murder is murder: notwithstanding fancy hats, titles, offices, uniforms, badges, flowing robes, marble columns or oak veneer), there' nonetheless a practical streak in me that acknowledges there's little option but to charge straight ahead and do one's very best to not be defeated by evil.

So in that vein, I'm happy to report that while not all it could have been, the body (human race) may perhaps be growing at a more rapid pace than the parasite (the state, worldwide) sucking away its life's blood.

I'm going to break down this article into two parts: predictions and actual observations.

The "Poverty" Swindle

Warren Meyer does his usual superb job in cataloging the mass of lies that always go into this sort of thing -- always. But be my guest; you're always welcome to keep being the leftists' fools. It's the only way they can possibly survive and operate. Without fools, both parties would cease to exist of course; by my bet is the democrats would collapse first.

To state it another way: that "99%" of politicians lie about "99%" of the time is not causal; not at all. It's not even necessarily harmful, taken alone. What's causal, and what makes it harmful is that you, dear American, believe it most of the time.

Are you one of their perfect fools; their very own useful idiot?

A Warm Note in Passing

This story has been around for a few days, but I've yet to see it in anything major. Perhaps not enough time has passed necessary to concoct the standard set of talking points, "explanations," equivocations, euphemisms, qualifications and so on that go hand-in-hand with maintaining propping up beliefs in illusions.

But let me ask you this, in light of all that you see, read, and hear surrounding global warming. What if you were suddenly told from a reliable scientific source (one you trust) that the hottest year on record in the U.S. was 1934? As in: nowhere near the time of your personal experience, where, now, every personal case of the prickly heat is confirmation of "global warming." Shit, even last weekend while standing on a hang-gliding launch north of Mt. Lassen, I was told that "global warming" was making for excellent flying this year. No, I didn't bother.

Maybe you're being fooled by randomness (see sidebar). I still say this is all part of a gigantic topping pattern, but we'll probably see some years of a "blowoff rally," where everyone goes even nuttier than they already are about this fantasy. They'll harbor all their silly illusions about how they "can help" by variously denying themselves things that people in 1934 could already take for granted. Then, either it starts getting colder on average (it tends to fluctuate, you know), people are affirmed in their delusion that they can forgo plastic water bottles and save the planet, or it'll get hotter and people will realize it's too hard and move on to the next hysteria. Either way, the insanity won't last; and anyway, all the major players will have gotten stinking rich off the con by then, so they'll be happy to get away with it, if they can.

Warren Meyer has up a good roundup with lots of updates. And here too.

A Skeptical Layman's Guide to Anthropogenic Global Warming

Warren Meyer has done an amazing service in compiling a wealth of data and information that calls into serious question the notion that observed global warming is caused by man-made activities.

You can get your free PDF or HTML copies here or here (or order hard copies at printing and shipping cost).

More I Told You So

OK, Houston: So this is going to be a rant.

I don't have time to look it up, but I'm on record as "calling a top" on the anthropogenic global warming theory fictional hysteria the very moment I saw Al "fuckface" Gore in an interview (in answer to a question about skepticism and dissenting views) completely dismiss the idea with a shit-eating, presumptuously condescending grin, stating, "No, the science is settled." That worthless mutherfucker of a shitbag needs to settle in the bottom of a six-foot hole in the ground; that's what needs settling.

Yea baby; and then everyone jumped on the "consensus" bandwagon and that was the beginning of the end. I've told you so; I'm telling you so; and I'm pretty sure it will be so -- though anything can happen.

Had by Hybrids

It's hard not to get a chuckle out of this.

The Toyota Prius has become the flagship car for those in our society so environmentally conscious that they are willing to spend a premium to show the world how much they care. Unfortunately for them, their ultimate ‘green car’ is the source of some of the worst pollution in North America; it takes more combined energy per Prius to produce than a Hummer.

I owned a Hummer H2. Fabulous vehicle. Expensive to run, but very dependable and truly very tough (unlike most owners, I actually used it in very adverse terrain). I used to run all Jeep Cherokees but they went to a unit body and ruined that vehicle as a serious 4x4. But I like change and so I ultimately got rid of it and got a BMW X5 SUV (4.4 liter V8), which, all around, is probably the best car I have ever owned ('86 'Vette was still the funnest, though). German engineering: now I get it.

Of course I have no problem with hybrids either, though the smug moral superiority of so many of their owners is a bit off-putting. I know plenty of hybrid owners and they all seem to like their vehicles, so I'm glad for them. My dad bought a Ford Escape hybrid a few months ago (his other vehicle is a long-bed, extended cab Ford F-250 diesel truck that tows a 40' fifth wheel travel trailer). I drove the Escape and I think it was really quite cool.

The problem is that the sophistication and efficiency are lost on most people. Hybrids perform in start / stop and hilly environments. When you coast down a hill, for example, the motor becomes a generator and charges the battery. This is cool. It's smart. But if you explained such principles of energy conservation to the average hybrid user, their eyes would gloss over.

As an example, my dad (and I) get a kick out of seeing just how good of mileage we can get by maximizing opportunities to charge the battery with energy that would normally be used wearing down your brake pads (and that gets converted to heat; uh oh, hybrids combat global warming!). This is all way cool to people like us. To my mom, however, it's a car and she could care less about paying attention to any of this. Not interested. She drives it like she drives any car (ehem) and gets 10 mpg less than my dad for the same driving.

(link: venlet)

Doomsday Called Off

This CBC Documentary has been around for a couple of years, but now thanks to YouTube, and perhaps other outlets, it's available on demand for anyone at any time.

Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

It's about an hour in length but conveniently broken into five pieces in case you can't watch the whole thing at once. Lots of well-respected and well-known climate and other scientists from prestigious schools and institutions all over the world who provide actual observational (imagine that!) data that contradicts both the "hockey-stick" graph, as well as the flawed computer projection (and that!) models that have been largely based upon it.

The Chicken Littles march on, of course, but I really think this is the beginning of the end. It looks so much like market movements to me (which reflect human crowd behavior). Right now, for example, the market is going up and up, setting record highs everywhere, yet there is tremendous bearish sentiment amongst the public and amongst many investment and trading newsletter outlets. At some future point your grocer or your barber or the valet at your favorite restaurant will start talking about how great the stock market is, and that's when it'll be time to sell. Then you can go short if you have the skill, or sit out the next year or two in cash or bonds. About the time that everyone thinks the market is doomed and going down forever; that there's no hope; that the government should step in and do something; then it'll be time to go long once again. The public always gets it wrong and there are plenty who profit from their knowledge of that phenomenon.

Global warming: in terms of it being unusual, unprecedented, a serious problem, or man made (anthropogenic) is, I believe, a swindle. But be my guest; be as big of a sucker and a fool as you want to be. Then, once it's over and quietly shuffled out the back door as though it never really happened, just like the "coming disaster" in the form of the Ice-Age scare of the 1970s, you can search about for the next doomsday scare to get up in arms about (or perhaps Jesus will have returned by then to usher in final judgment). Seriously: go take a look at that ice-age link and remember how it was based upon temperature observations from 1940 - 1970, how it was a global crisis, and how everyone was talking about it and believed it. I'm telling ya: bull & bear, baby; bull & bear.

(heads up: du Toit)

Confirming Signal

Yep; just when you think all is settled and everyone is on board is the most critical time in any trend. I saw this coming months ago. Here's a confirming signal (link: Meyer). Watch for more.

It was a combination of things. It was the ever-increasing number of Toyota Prius Hybrids I see (enormous, here in CA). It was compact florescent bulbs, which for most applications are not any improvement over what we've been using for the last 50 years and more in terms of purpose. It was the increasing hysteria over plastic grocery bags to the extent that some cities are banning them. It was pretentious calls to use less TP, for Christ's sake. It was Citigroup committing $1 billion to the global warming cause. It was all kinds of things that looked to me just like an exhaustion rally.

Maybe I'm wrong.  But I don't think so, and the reason I don't think I'm wrong is because I highly suspect that man-made global warming is bullshit, and I think that the warming that has been demonstrated isn't and won't be anywhere near as serious as has been predicted. It may even be beneficial, on balance, globally.

Look at it this way: the man-made global warming lobby has stuck their necks out big time. Oh, they'll never pay the price for that, but they've bet everything on the assertion that man-made Co2 emissions are the causal factor in warming, which means that when the sun's current 1000-year record activity peaks (it may have, already), it should have little effect on continued temperature rise if man-made Co2 emissions continue to rise, which is a sure bet considering development in China and India.

In essence, they've bet the farm that temperature will continue to rise if man-made Co2 continues to rise. If it doesn't rise year after year after year, it falsifies their entire thesis. Oh, they'll shuffle their feet and issue bullshit press releases for a few years, hoping for a spike back up, but should it never come, they're sunk. And then we'll be off for the next big global rip-off.

And everyone will forget what suckers they were. They'll be too busy trying to get suckered all over again.

Update: Yep yep yep. All the makings of a sucker rally. A fad.

Big Fucking Impact Man

I believe I've come across the perfect little character attribute that best serves to differentiate me from the eco-freaks and other assorted lefties. Just a couple of hours ago I was in the car listening to NPR and this guy, Colin Beavan, was on. I didn't link up any particular entry on that blog because I looked at a few and any one is about as insane as any other.

Sort of. I don't really begrudge him his crazy values. Hey, if he wants to fantasize about what a great guy he is because he takes his own cloth napkin to a restaurant and a host of other meaningless (to me) and empty (to me) acts, fine. In fact, there was a portion of the radio interview where I actually had some respect for the guy. He said that for years he had bitched and moaned about what all sorts of laws we need in order to compel people to do this and that (uphold his values) and at a point he realized that he just needed to go and worry about himself, about his own "impact on the planet." He learned to kind of mind his own business and put his own bullshit to the test. Good, as far as it goes. I think it's nuts and stupid, but the only impact of his that concerns me is his impact on me (and I noted I could turn off the radio any time it suited me).

No Impact Man. Indeed, if only it were so for the whole lot of 'em and extended as far as their commie politics. Puny. Insignificant. Of no import. Meaningless. All attributes that would apply to anyone sincerely wishing to make "no impact" with their lives. In essence, it's the perfect expression of a life with no point whatsoever -- which is, of course, the whole point. Unfortunately for the rest of us, making "no impact" is exactly the opposite of their intentions. They seek nothing short of the destruction of most of man's industrial prowess, so their true intention is to have an enormous impact and no number of millions of human lives ("polluting and impacting the planet") will be too great.

Man, I'm just fundamentally different. I'm actually a human being in the classic sense, which means: I want to make a big fucking impact. In fact, I'd like a planet all to myself just to see what I could do with it; ...just to see how I could mold and shape it precisely to my own interests. Hell, I'd like a galaxy --failing that, at least a solar system -- all to myself. Maybe I could figure out how to generate a Big Bang out of it, or something. I'm not talking nihilism here. Quite the contrary; what I'm really talking about is human control of existence for our own greater and greater wealth and benefit -- all of it, without artificial limitations.

By the way? I adore landfills. Aren't they cool? They just have the whole look and smell of human progress, wealth, plenty. Absolutely love 'em. More landfills. Big Fucking Huge Ones.

Global Warming Swindle Update

Since I first posted about it, I've been idly checking around to see what comes of it. My glancing around is by no means exhaustive, and yet, the apparent absence of a very strong scientific counter broadcast far and wide tells me a great deal. Why wouldn't they, if they had the goods? By broadcasting this far and wide, along with the obvious refutation, they could nail the coffin shut on dissenters far and wide. In its place, though, is a whole lot of attempts at various character assassination.

Character assassination, of course, is a pretty effective technique when you're talking about opinions, rather than whether the link between Co2 and global warming is cause and effect (in the case of Co2 causing warming -- never mind the even more dubious anthropogenic element), or effect of cause (the sun's increased activity over hundreds of years slowly heats the Earth -- imagine that -- and increased Co2 levels are one of the many measurable effects).

What I think is devastating about this revelation for the man-made global warming sycophants falls into two broad areas: (1) it acknowledges a relationship between heating and Co2, and (2), I cannot imagine a better illustration of Occam's razor.

The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible [there's your anthropogenic], eliminating, or "shaving off," those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

This, laddies and gentleman, is why I never for an instant bought into the global warming hysteria. Like many others, I was at first even unconvinced that there was any average temperature increase. But over the years, they convinced me that there is indeed warming. I'm not going to ignore plain facts, and this now seems to be the case. But Co2 is about 1/30th of one percent of the total atmosphere, and there are a number of natural phenomena that produce far more Co2 than man, like volcanic activity and biological respiration (of all organisms -- especially in the oceans, the largest Co2 producer). It just never added up, and now it all seems to, and very neatly.

And in my layman's eyes, it's a pretty damn elegant explanation, too.

Then again, I have only to rely on my own senses, sense of honesty and integrity to facts and reason, and the reputations of those producing data, hypotheses, and conclusions. The fact that this debate has been so politically charged and motivated made me smell a rat early on, and I was convinced that there are legions of scientists out there who have sold their very professional beings for grant money, i.e., money that's more often than not stolen from you. See how "legitimized" theft -- not money -- corrupts?

Brian Micklethwait has a pretty good roundup of the whole deal and who might be behind it, and why. Frankly, I don't care if they're commies or not (who isn't, these days?). If they think that scientific truth will somehow advance their cause, then that (novel) approach to politics ought to be the least of my fears.

If it turned out that knowing the truth resulted in the absolute annihilation of the Earth and everything in it, I would have but one reaction: bring on the truth. Living a lie is the worst form of annihilation.

Regular readers may note that I have recently seen signs that this man-made global warming debate is peaking. This revolutionary new development is right on schedule.

Update: Billy Beck renders insights.

"The Great Global Warming Swindle"

The greatest steer ever

That's what I wrote in an email to Billy last night, after I'd watched a good portion of the video embedded below.

I also sent off an email to an old friend along with the link to alert him to its existence. Because his book includes substantial portions that promote the global warming catechism hook, line & sinker (read the customer reviews of his book, and you'll get it), I really only had a one line intro of this film for him:

"Ignore this at your own risk."

If you think you know what global warming is, how it's caused, whether man has anything to do with it, or -- and get this, if nothing else -- the proper cause & effect relationship between warming and CO2, then I will say the same to you: ignore this film at your own risk.

Once you're done, you'll understand why global warming causes increased CO2 levels (CO2 is about 1/30th of 1% of our atmosphere, in case you didn't know), and not the other way around.

Figures. Cause & effect, reversed. It's like I always say: 180 degree errors are the easiest to make. Those who erred, of course, have that excuse. Those just perpetuating the swindle don't; and I dearly hope they are eventually exposed, discredited, and are never trusted in the real scientific community again.

Alright, all you global-warming ignoramuses: go. And if you end up feeling really fucking stupid, ask yourself honestly if that wouldn't just be fitting. This thing (anthropogenic global warming) never passed the smell test with me. Not for one single instant, ever.

Update: Here's a far higher resolution version.

Time Frames

I'm not very alarmist by nature. Not at all. While I'm often outraged by the injustice I catch wind of daily, I'm actually optimistic that there'll be ebb & flow. I really do think everything's gonna be alright. Oh, people are gonna die, and it may be me and it may be you, and I'll never be accepting of that, but I see glimmers of hope in many things. There are always going to be awful things happen that ought not happen, caused by the state or by individuals, and it's tough to reconcile that with an optimistic outlook, other than to simply recognize that all I can really do about any of it is to speak out, which I do.

If you look at history, the human race always seems to come up with a way to get past its messes, with better conditions for more people going forward. And there have been some huge messes. I remain optimistic in very nearly all things.

Trading the markets very actively the last year and a half has been a really good lesson in group behavior. It's remarkable how you find that just when everyone thinks something is fait accompli, just the opposite happens -- good and hard.

Hard to Keep Good Scientists Down

On the heels of a rare entry on global warming comes this (via Kurzweil):

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

While I agree that most politicians and journalists are certainly ignorant about how science works, I don't see that as causal. It's actually a tool. They strive to ignore honest inquiry (evade reality), because the "value" they are acting for is not honesty, integrity, or truth. And what better way to exploit the ignorance in others than to develop a keen insight into how such ignorance functions to generate rationalizations (dishonesties and evasions) within one's self?

You can apply this same line of analysis to whole hosts of things. There's nothing special about global warming. Generally, the value that's being acted for is some form of effortless, risk-free, and comfortable existence (unearned, unreal, illusory, and ultimately boring). Global warming is merely one of hundreds of social and political issues that afford those primarily seeking opportunities to retire from the reality of living a human life, a means of leverage -- and such leverage is always expressed in terms of "ethics," but in complete reality and context, is the exact opposite. Of course ironically -- but surely not surprisingly -- those with the real opportunity to retire from most or all of life's typical requirements -- because they acted for values that truly benefit others and were justly rewarded -- are the least likely to do so. The result? Bitter, spit-spewing envy and hatred toward those who refuse to settle down; who instead, continue to produce and to have values heaped upon them in abundance. Yes, dear reader: from where I sit, most of what you believe is ethical and moral in a political context (and strangely enough: probably hardly anyplace else), I judge as utterly evil. How can that be?

The world is awash in people who are very busy, but rather than being busy creating and producing values for which others will reward them bountifully, they occupy themselves in various forms of parasitism. The cleverest, of course, are able to mask their true destructiveness by means of plundering only enough to hamper growth (opportunity cost), but not enough to "seriously harm," or kill. In this way, whole classes of parasites in government, bureaucracy, regulatory agency, ivory-tower education, information media, legal profession, political activism, and elsewhere are able to exist by sucking their sustenance from the very things they attack. And, fundamentally, they only ever attack one single thing: they attack all forms of private, capitalist productivity, from a personal level right up to the largest mega-corporation.

It is a fantastically successful strategy. Think about it. Ten thousand years ago, when the invention and development of agriculture gave rise to plunder, thieving was probably a pretty meager existence, because those whom you could plunder must remain healthy enough to keep producing, so that you can continue to eat yourself. But could a village of 100 people sustain 100 thieves? Doubtful. They probably could not have come within a tenth of that while feeding themselves, livestock, and surviving what nature threw at them. But today, we approach levels where over half the population is supported by various means of plunder against the other half, and the whole classes of "brokers" in this operation (see laundry list above) make off with billions in "transaction fees." And all they had to do was create ignorance through illusion and exploit the envy, rationalization, and evasion that was sure to follow.

But there is something unique about environmentalism as a tool of plunder, as apart from, say, socialism. Unless we all go completely mad, then at the end of the day, people are going to expect to be presented with factual scientific data. Unlike socialism, where natural feelings of compassion for other human beings goes a long, long way toward being able to mask reality with clever illusion, you can rely only so far upon compassion for "the planet." It's just not quite the same. Those who read Michael Crichton's State of Fear may remember some humorous dialog amongst environmentalists, formerly activists of a different sort, lamenting about how much harder it is to get people to care.

I also tend to think that so long as the environmental movement appears relatively contained from the perspective of your average honest scientist, he's going to be perfectly happy leaving people to their fantasies and delusions. After all, he's been doing it all his life; he's used to ignorance about science and doesn't get worked up over it anymore, or that's all he'd ever do. But then things reach a critical mass, and I'm sure that nothing is more irritating for a good, honest scientist but to read and hear all over the news that he, as a scientist, is in consensus over "scientific conclusions" that cannot possibly be called "scientific."

So, if you look around, there might be a bit of a backlash brewing. If so, not a moment too soon. Perhaps Zamizdata will document the inquisition that's certain to rise up should all this heresy in denying The Received Truth continue unabated.

Consensus

I believe that in matters requiring a high degree of knowledge and specialization, it's not only proper, but essential and desirable -- think: division of labor -- to defer to the work and conclusions of experts.

This is why advocating and stressing the integrity of the scientific process, to include peer review, is so essential. In a real sense, we are at their mercy, just as you are at the mercy of a whole chain of engineering science performed by those qualified (not to mention the flight crew) every time you step on a plane. Ought the design of an airliner conform to physical aeronautical, metallurgical, and chemical principles, or ought it conform to the political and social views of the day?

I have never once in my life suspected that very much of what passes for environmental science is being conducted honestly. What's more, consensus is being claimed that simply does not exist, as a matter-of-fact that is undeniable by any honest person. Whoever claims that the debate is over, the results are in, and that consensus exists but for a small band of fringe kooks is simply lying, and ought never be regarded seriously in matters of science for evermore.

You, who think you know about the issue of global warming, don't. You are not qualified to know, one way or the other, and a few college courses doesn't cut it. That doesn't even rise to the level of apprentice. You first need to be honest with yourself and others about that, and frame your comments and views accordingly.  What you can know is the reputation and qualification of scientists in the field; not "environmental lawyers" -- scientists. The other thing you can know, if you really care to find out -- i.e., you are honest, instead of dishonest -- is the consensus among qualified, experienced scientists in the field with good reputations.

And the consensus simply does not exist. Moreover, for every tainted researcher held up as being in the pay of the oil companies, there are a dozen in the pay of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and countless other organizations that tend to fist establish a political agenda (and the legal strategy to generate billions in attorney fees, don't forget), then go manufacture "science" that can be twisted out of all shape to support it.

Here's a suggestion: ignore both. See what those without any obvious ties to either side of the political or economic lobby are saying -- if you can still find any. Here's another suggestion, directed at scientists: when hard scientific data (fact) becomes politically and socially controversial, get far, far away for the sake of self and species preservation.

There's one entity not yet listed on the endangered species list, but probably ought to be: objective and honest scientists.

Update: Warren Meyer always has very good and comprehensive posts on the global warming issue. Also, see here.

Update 2: As I was just saying. Here, too.

Environmentalism

People who know me know that I have nearly zero concern for environmentalist "issues." For instance, I'm fond of announcing to people that I do not go out of my way to recycle. I don't object if it costs me nothing extra in dollars, time, or trouble to recycle, but I absolutely will not go an inch out of my way to do it. At the same time, I love nature, the animal kingdom, and support rational conservation efforts. I also recognize that most real environmental issues, to include the risk of extinction of important species (not all are), are fundamentally known problems with known solutions.

I have never, ever seen the environmentalist movement as anything more than a slightly more sophisticated and organized version of the Luddite movement. Of course, they're all watermelons, now, so that's something to be concerned about.

I've been saying it for two decades, at least. Over and over. To get from 'A' to 'C,' one must go via 'B.' Here, here, and here is one tiny example of why I'm thoroughly and completely unconcerned with the environmentalist movement, and will remain so. You "environmentalists" would do well to invest your time and effort on real problems, beginning first of with your sense of perspective and ability to think.

Make Work

Well now; this is pretty funny. Hilarious even. I've seen most of their four seasons of episodes, but this one from season two on recycling got by me.

Good News; Only 30 Years Late

I hate to keep harping on it, but the next time you begin to have delusions that the upcoming election is going to make a real difference, for the first time in history, stop and consider that it only took about 100 million deaths from malaria over the past 30 years for the World Health Organization to finally change its tune on DDT, a mosquito eradication pesticide never shown to be harmful to humans.

I certainly hope that Rachel Carson is burning in a particularly hot spot in hell.

(Samizdata)

Global Warming

I can remember that just five years ago, the summers at my house used to be relatively cool and very wet.  Our summer temperatures never got much above 80 degrees, and it would rain every few days, at least.

The last couple of summers, temperatures have soared as high as 112 degrees at my house, and we have at times gone whole months without rain.

I am terrified at these effects of global warming.  Several of my "friends" have said they think this change has more to do with my move from Seattle to Phoenix, but they are clearly in the pay of the oil companies.

I have explained to them that ABC News and their climate reporting have educated me that small anecdotal blips in the local weather are scientifically valid proof of long-term global climate changes.

For example, my Exxon-butt-kissing friends tried to claim that for over a century, hurricane activity has followed a 20-40 year cycle, and that the recent upsurge in hurricane activity is due to the return of the "busy" end of the cycle.  I know from ABC that in fact our two-hundred years of burning fossil fuels have cause CO2 to build up and lurk in the atmosphere, ready to jump out and increase hurricane activity suddenly in 2005.

Its great to see that ABC has adopted the same lofty levels of scientific proof that are used by the rest of the environmental community.

Laf. Alright, so here's my contribution:

Dear ABC:

First, thank you so much for taking our fear and panic seriously -- for recognizing how we feel.

I just can't express in words how worried and upset I am about all this, and, you know, with Bush and all his rich oil-buddies dumping their toxins in the air for a buck. Where we used to worry about our grandchildren, now, thanks to Bush, we've got to worry about ourselves.

It's gotten where I can't even sleep, anymore, and the heat, the [global] warming -- increasing day-by-day -- is just making the whole thing worse; and close to home, I can tell you. My backyard? Hell, I'm talking about right in my own bedroom.

Thankfully, I spoke with our property manager this morning and the A/C repairman will be over at 8:30 a.m., tomorrow. My wife is also suggesting that I remove the down comforter. What do you think?

A Convenient Lie

During a visit to the cinema last evening, I was "treated" to the trailer for the upcoming Al Gore film: An Inconvenient Truth. Knock yourselves out. If you're unable to detect the difference between real science, and an agenda that cherry picks out-of-context material for use in post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, then what the hell? -- you're a moron, a scientific ignoramus, and there's really no point in you being anything different. Just be you, and keep entertaining the rest of us.

Just Googling around, I'm amazed at all the "most important film" hoopla from people who don't know a goddamned thing about "greenhouse" gasses, their effects, their possible causes, their possible benefits, the scale of the data, the scope of the data, the reliability of the data prior to the whole issue...and on and on.

For the 1% of you capable of getting through something that actually deals with the science scientifically, albeit completely inaccessible to sycophants like Micki Krimmel, then you could start with places like junkscience.com.

Finally, a Little Logic and Honesty

I've been sitting on the Doctor Doom story for about a week since I first came across it.

Recently citizen scientist Forrest Mims told me about a speech he heard at the Texas Academy of Science during which the speaker, a world-renowned ecologist, advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner. Apparently at the speaker's direction, the speech was not video taped by the Academy and so Forrest's may be the only record of what was said. Forrest's account of what he witnessed chilled my soul. Astonishingly, Forrest reports that many of the Academy members present gave the speaker a standing ovation. To date, the Academy has not moved to sanction the speaker or distance itself from the speaker's remarks.

Naturally, there's no shortage of outrage. I don't need to point it out, as Google will do a far more thorough job than I for those so inclined. Also, in fairness, it's probably appropriate to reference Dr. Eric R. Pianka directly--either his clarification or backtrack, depending on your point of view.

What I've yet to see, and anyone is welcome to point me to it, is some recognition that the man is simply logically and honesty drawing conclusions from his own premises--the same premises at the root of the entire 20th and 21st-century antagonism between individualism, on the one hand, and communism, socialism, fascism, environmentalism (there are no distinctions to make at root premises) on the other.

Most people will never go that far. For instance, I'm every bit the atheist, evolutionist, secularist, and materialist, which chief tenets no doubt make up the fundamental anthropological view of Dr. Pianka. Yet, most outrage you read will be based upon some notion of evil as derived from some religious text or belief: that we are all the children or purposeful creation of some sort of supreme being (Western). Or, that all life forms are somehow part of some great circle of life or being (Eastern).

But here's the rub, folks: given his premises--and for many of you, your premises--he's right. If, indeed, man is not the unequivocal, unchallenged, and rightful ruler of nature, then no one is; and some microbe destroying 5 billion people--whether by accident or purpose--is no more remarkable than a pride of lions taking out four-fifths of a herd of gazelles. It's all just nature, and after all, there are "balances" and "natural efficiencies" to be maintained. Even for you believers out there: God's will is his will. If microbes wiped out billions (they've wiped out millions in the past), your doctrines require you to accept it. Period.

You know what I'm tired of? I'm tired of explaining to people why, apart from their catechism (presumably because they have no better argument), human beings are indeed special. There's a lot to say on that subject, but it boils down to two words: free will. Animals don't have it, plain and simple. We--the rational animal--do; and it makes all the difference in the world. It makes the only fundamental difference. Without that, we are indeed meaningless and of no particular higher value, whatsoever.

But with that most important of attributes we literally possess the will and the means to ultimately control all of existence: to increasingly add purpose--human purpose--to existence. For, so far as we know, all existence operates by means of comprehensible and logical natural laws and is composed of various fundamental particles and elements having relationships that are ultimately definable and controllable. The key to all of that is knowledge, and all knowledge is contained within the free-will, conceptual consciousnesses of human beings; that which other animals do not possess. Non-human animals do not possess conceptual knowledge, and thus, will never control and quench a forest fire or construct a massive concrete dam to save or advance their their lives for their own self-reflective purposes.

No, there's no guarantee that some microbe won't wipe out 90% of Earth's human population at some point in the future. It's happened before. In the broadest sense, there is no such thing as a guarantee of anything at all. That's never stopped humanity from generally acting in accordance with its nature, which is to increasingly understand reality, existence, and to control it to productive, purposeful, and valuable use--all by human standards. It should not stop now just because some scientist decides to draw back the veil to reveal the endgame of Earth's dominant philosophy over the last hundred or so years. The self-fulfilling nature of the whole thing is quite plain to see. The best way to see to the destruction of 5 billion people from a super-virulent disease is to tie humanity's hands now--whether it be done by individuals themselves, through irrational fear, or by their chosen authorities they are foolish enough to believe in.

I don't know what's better or worse: the "good doctor," or shouting FREEDOM! one day, and then going down to vote in your slave-masters the next.

 

The First Annual Occam's Razor Game

Announcing the First Annual Occam's Razor Game.

To be in the Occam's Razor Game, you have to be somewhat familiar with friar William of Ockham  and his Razor. The object of the game is to see if you can get a comment  posted that both mocks the post you're commenting on and indirectly teaches Occam's Razor. The trick is, you have to get it past the moderator and it has to stay posted.

OK, here's the first target. Cosmic DNA. Oh, God. Anyway, here was my entry, just in case my comment doesn't show up:

The other day, we were at the top of the Palms Casino in Vegas having a fine meal at Alizé. One of the people in our dinner-party is dying of an inoperable cancer. We took photos at the end of the meal, right in front of the windows overlooking the Vegas strip. To everyone's stunned amazement, there it was, right over our sick friend's head: a cross in bright lights and a halo.

Of course, it could have also just been the reflection of the camera’s flash.

(Inspired by Billy "cabbage-cloud" Beck)

Useful Idiots

It's a bonus Useful Idiots entry because I have two examples for you today. This is going to be its own category from now on. The idea is that falsehoods, hysteria, injustice, pseudoscience and more are propagated in two ways: one is through state edict and force; the other is via the Useful Idiot Network of everyday people who continually seek out external authorities in every matter of their lives, believe virtually everything they are told by these external authorities, and become activists for "the cause" to varying degree. Nowadays, state force often comes on the scene after the Useful Idiot Network has paved the way by whipping up its series of "problems" where none previously existed or needed to exist.

When the state initiates force--from demanding a building permit to locking up peaceful people to stealing our incomes in taxation--it is always evil, all of the time, in any and all degree that it exists. When mysticism, lies, and hysteria are propagated--not by force, but by Useful Idiots--it's evidence that very nearly all of the world's population is utterly and completely stupid; i.e., they can and do believe virtually anything and everything and will perpetuate or acquiesce to virtually any evil in order to advance or protect themselves.

While human beings are capable of so much greatness, they're also capable of great evil. They are lazy, by nature, and thus live mostly mediocre, short, unhappy lives waiting to die; where they hope to subsequently "live" an unearned, effortless life in "paradise."  Most people believe some form of this. I know...

The first example is from Kyle Bennett. I too never believed that sun-causes-skin-cancer hysteria for a single minute. Turns out that not only does the sun not typically cause skin cancer, but the minuscule risk one avoids by staying out of the sun or by using UV blockers comes at a far higher price. Well, in my experience, 99.99999% of people are complete and total morons when it comes to cost vs. risk analysis.

You watch. Someday the second-hand-smoke-causes-lung-cancer hysteria will be equally exposed for the utter bullshit it has always been. Here's your chance to stop being a moron about that one right here and now (as an added bonus!).

My second example actually comes from an article that I quoted in an entry yesterday, but before I cite it, how abouts a little quiz. Now, read the following passage and see if you can guess what this awful, dangerous, genetically engineered substance is.

Strange is the word, for [...] is a genetic monster. A typical [...] is hexaploid—it has six copies of each gene, where most creatures have two. Its 21 chromosomes contain a massive 16 billion base pairs of DNA, 40 times as much as [...], six times as much as [...] and five times as much as [...]. It is derived from [...] in two separate mergers. The first took place in [...] years ago, the second [...] years later.

So, what is this monster, created by mad scientists? Pay attention, because I'm trying to cure you from henceforth being a fucking moron; easy prey for the Useful Idiot Network:

<