shopify analytics tool

Monday roundup

14-Year-Old Girl Sends Explicit Photo of Herself; Cops Charge Her with Distributing Child Porn

So she's a victim of herself

The Government Shutdown Is an Artifact of a Broken Budget Process

Do you know the last time there was actually a budget passed?

Employee Lawsuit Reveals Google as Intolerant Race Cult

Yes, Google is intolerant. But they lecture the rest of us on morality

Protecting consumers for zero dollars

The agency should be abolished, but this is a good sign

What College's Fear Most - Corporate Training Programs

More of this, please.

Senator says FBI lost crucial texts tied to Clinton probe

Is there anyone who doesn't believe that the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton wasn't a massive government coverup?

NSA deleted surveillance data it pledged to preserve

What are they hiding?

California Democrats want businesses to give half their tax-cut savings to state

When taxes are another word for extortion

The Private Equity Firms at the Core of Brick & Mortar Retail Bankruptcies

The commercial real estate bubble isn't just because of internet shopping

Growth, Not Equality

The free market delivers freedom

Flashback to when Obama weaponized 2013 government shutdown

It's not just the Republican's fault

“Hate Speech” Does Not Incite Hatred

A necessary truth

Newly released texts between ex-Mueller team members suggest they knew outcome of Clinton email probe in advance

The fix was in

Comments

from crux № 12 — climate change

One of the best things that anyone can do to "fight CO2" is planting a few trees.

Growing a garden on your balcony or in your backyard works too.



Speaking as someone who does have an Earth-centered religion, one thing that makes me angriest at the climate change alarmists is that they insist all other problems like pollution, water shortages, and cookie-cutter mass produced architecture must take a back seat to dealing with climate change.

Or maybe even the next car



I know I'm painting a target on myself.

I have two major issues with climate change activists.

First, the models haven't successfully predicted anything. If they were accurate, I should be able to take weather readings from the last ten or twenty years, feed them into the models and successfully predict climate trends for the next year. That hasn't happened.

Second, the climate change "movement" has co-opted and subverted the environmental movement to the point where "dealing" with climate change takes ultimate priority over any environmental concern you can name. Overuse of water in the Western US? Climate change. Dangerous industrial emissions in Mississippi? Deal with the greenhouse gases first. Urban raccoon population explosion worldwide? Those poor polar bears and the shrinking ice!

There's another issue that I don't talk about much, but which we should think about. "Climate change" is losing it's credibility with the public, and it's dragging the environmental movement down with it.



If the volcanos were a new event yes. Since volcanos have been erupting nearly since the Earth began, they should already be part of the models.

The decade of data is only marginally worse than the century or so of human influence that is usually cited. And it's much better than the predictions of human activity that are usually fed in to show that we have only x number of years left before it's "too late."

I'd still like to see a baseline of 10,000 years or so.



I'm not disputing that there are serious environmental issues. My second point was that "climate change" activists have taken control of all efforts against ALL environmental problems. That has happened so much that we're not even allowed to discuss those other issues unless we first acknowledge climate change and give our efforts there first.

What's more, there are young adults today who literally do not know anything else.

That is scary.



Now we get into the politics. I would encourage people to look for themselves. One of the touchstones of the political side of the "climate change" activist groups has been "thou shalt not dissent."

Granted, I'm not a scientist, but I've never seen any science where people aren't allowed to question the "consensus." And I have to admit that the first thing that ran through my head when I read about that "consensus" is the old advert line "4 out of 5 dentists recommend Dentene for their patients who chew gum."

I am not questioning climatology. I am questioning the models that climate change activists use to justify their agenda. Those are two very different things, and trusting one should not mean trusting the other, even if they use the same language.



I did not mention the data on purpose, although there is a lot to dispute. I'd rather not get into that sticky mess here just because much of the data can't be independently verified.

I specifically mentioned the models which have been (incorrectly) used to predict what will happen in ten, twenty, or thirty years.

If the models were accurate, they could predict trends with just a decade or so of data. Just like some of the gloomsayers do. But the models aren't accurate, and neither are the predictions. The problem is not the temperature, it's in the carbon dioxide "cascade" effect.

I could have a spreadsheet that says if I deposit 23 cents today, I could have $73,000 dollars by the end of next week. The math could be perfectly valid, but unless the assumptions reflect reality, I won't have anything more than 23 cents.



Pardon, but what we have is selected baseline data with massive interpretations and extrapolations. We are reasonably sure it's accurate. And I'll agree with that as long as it is the raw data we're talking about, and not the heavily "edited" versions put out by certain scientists.

But data does not equal models, Somebody has to make the spreadsheet.

We don't have accurate models.



Absolutely you shouldn't trust what I say just because I say it. To you I'm just words on a webpage. But you shouldn't trust the scientists just because they are scientists. If they stand to profit with money, power, or prestige, they may not be telling the truth.



Offhand, I can't think of one conversation on environmental problems I've had in the last ten years or so where we didn't have to acknowledge climate change as THE paramount problem. If you'll excuse the religious reference, one GOD above all others. And no effort or money could be spent on a singular effort without a cut going to "climate change."

And if you dared to speak out, why, you were the Heretic.



And if we can't question the science, then will we be allowed to question the new regulations, taxes, and fees?



If it weren't for the obvious political power grab, I'd keep my mouth shut and let the scientists bicker among themselves. But this is a very familiar pattern about ruling people, even if it is cloaked in the trappings of science.

"Thou shalt not dissent."



Up until now, I've not touched on this.

There is a huge difference between the climate models and almost every other model you can name.

There are people who are using the climate models to justify seizing insane amounts of power funded by an ever increasing revenue stream. And they demand that the models be treated as if "the science is settled." That doesn't usually happen in science.

I'd rather not throw out accusations, but this stinks of a political coup.

The models don't work well, BUT we're not supposed to question them, and by the way, we're supposed to give up freedom and cash to solve a problem which may or may not exist, may or may not be a problem, may or may not be self-correcting, and which we may or may not actually be able to do anything about. That's a lot of may or may nots for something that is "definitive."

Meanwhile, there are people who have made a lot of money capitalizing on the climate scare, all while claiming to act in the "greater good."



If it were only about the science, I wouldn't be saying anything. But the shoddy science is being used to justify the politics, and the politics are enormous.

And since the rule is "thou shalt not dissent," there's an active movement to discredit any scientist who disagrees from the nutcases to the highly respected ones.

Like all political movements (and some religions), a standard tactic is to point at the most extreme nutcases and claim that they are the norm.

How many times have neopagans been subject to the exact same tactics?



And if it weren't for the power and money at stake, it could play out exactly as most other science does.

I know I'm asking a lot. But just for a moment, assume that there is something to my rants here.

Who profits from a global climate scare? And how much?



1. You mean other than the UNFCCC itself? I would also at minimum add the EPA to that.

2. There is of course the "climate gap." It's up to what, 17 years now? I agree, climate models shouldn't be held to a year-by-year standard. Except that is exactly what most climate change activists did before the "gap." There's also the bit about increasing temperature on Mars.

3. There is not an action we can take that will not have consequences and especially unintended consequences. Before we intervene in the climate, it would be nice if we knew what was the "right" temperature and humidity range. Can you tell me? I don't know it, and I'd be very suspicious of anyone who said they did know it.

A. Before you are so willing to give up freedom, remember the EPA now regulates carbon dioxide emissions. As in the stuff you breathe out. There's also the bit about how the Copenhagen treaty tried to do away with free markets, which is probably a big reason why it failed.

B. I'm not a big supporter of an active foreign policy. I'd argue that Iraq was a special case before they screwed it up along about Year 3, but that is a completely different argument.

On the whole, I do not think government can be trusted to do the "right thing" and I think massive amounts of cash and power exaggerate that problem. One of the big reasons is the Somebody's Else's Problem Effect (named in honor of the late Douglas Adams). If it's government's "job," then most people will not only ignore the issue but will expect government to bail them out no matter what happens. They won't take responsibility, even if it's in their back yard.

C. Can you tell me what the temperature "should" be? The fact that we don't know, and don't know if it's a bad or good change, or even how big the change might or might not be, and if it is self-regulating or not should give people pause. We don't understand the climate or the weather. And yet we want to mess with the settings, assuming we could figure out how and what the settings were.

D. I'll tell you what I tell some of the more enthusiastic Christians I encounter who want to put prayer in public schools (or twenty other hot points). If you can't convince someone without the force of law backing you up, you're doing it wrong. Regulating someone for "their own good" hardly ever works.



Ah, there lies a tale. Again, the question is why must the scientists who dissent be discredited?

Freedom is always at risk when you talk taxes, law, and regulation. Especially if it's "for your own good."



*sigh*

Pardon, but it did happen. And it's still happening. I think the most important question here is why?



Please don't assume that I support big oil or even small oil.

One of the ideas I like toying with is refrigerator sized self-contained sealed nuclear reactors. Now hear me out for just a moment. Imagine one of these reactors linked to a flywheel and put on a semi-truck. The reactor would put out a constant output, most of the excess would be stored in the flywheel. At night, they'd pull into a truck stop that would pay them for the extra electricity. The truck stop would turn around and sell the electricity back to the power grid.

Now imagine an emergency, flood, earthquake, whatever. You park a few of these semi-trucks around and you have a constant stable source of power.

Just something I like to think about sometimes.



There's a line I love to tell Christians about Julian. By their own standards, Julian was literally a saint, just not for Christianity. Politics strikes again.

I know you've written about libertarianism. I've read some of your essays. I disagree with them, but yes, I've read them. Your name is one reason why I decided to come back to this thread.

I'm not a saint, I never claimed to be. But certain of the most active of the climate change scientists are not doing it for the greater good of humanity even as they cash in on the good feelings. All through this thread I've never praised the climate dissenters, I've just disagreed with the prevailing model and asked why dissenting scientists must be discredited. I never mentioned the Tea Party, Fox News, or the more conservative critics here. I've never used that as a justification. Aside from some bits about freedom, I haven't cited libertarianism on this thread.

If the sole reason not to consider dissent because it is dissent, well, that says more about the prevailing dogma than the dissenters.

I see it as another manifestation of Power With versus Power Over. As I said above, if you can't convince someone without the force of law backing you up, you're doing it wrong.



Technically the first Earth Day was March 21, 1970. The day got co-opted and there was another a month later.

As a genuine tree hugging pagan, I prefer the equinox. But my idea of what Earth Day should be does not match the current "progressive" version.

Planting trees is A GOOD THING. And it does more to make carbon dioxide useful than any six committee meetings discussing how to save the planet.

http://www.arborday.org

I started keeping my crux files because I noticed I kept getting into the same discussions in comment threads on other people’s web sites. After a while it just made sense for me to organize my thoughts by topic. These are snippets. It’s not in any particular order, it’s just discussions I have again and again.
Comments

Drone rescues teens

“2 Teens Were Rescued By A Drone While Lifeguards Were Still Learning How To Use It”

Read More...
Comments

Friday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Secrets

…when politicos keep secrets, something is screwy.
     — from the private journal of NeoWayland, 19Jan2013
Comments

Thursday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

“Stossel: The Southern Poverty Law Center Scam”

“There are dangerous hate groups in America. So a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center promises to warn us about them. They release an annual list of hate groups in America.

The media cover it, but John Stossel says they shouldn't. It's a scam.”

Read More...
Comments

Wednesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Carrying water

I don't like seeing others manipulated into carrying water for "moral" cause that is in fact pure politics. You can't trust politicos, especially when they say "Let's you and him fight."
     — NeoWayland
Comments

NeoNotes — Conservatives and big government

The real problem is government.

Read More...
Comments

When perception is more important than actuality

Arizona is the ONLY state to ever put MLK Day to a public vote.

Read More...
Comments

Tuesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Pretty sure

I'm pretty sure that political correctness just means shaming the dissenters enough so they shut up.
     — NeoWayland
Comments

Fake news checking

“Google’s New ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Partisan Garbage”

Read More...
Comments

Dick Durbin lied before

“Oct. 23, 2013”

Read More...
Comments

from crux № 17 — spiritual warrior

All I am saying is that you should check your experience with others who have a different perspective, people you can talk with face to face.

Read More...
Comments

Monday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Nothing scandalizes like the truth

Nothing scandalizes a leftist like the truth. Point out that women and men are different, that black Americans commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime, that most terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, and the Left leaps to its collective feet in openmouthed shock, like Margaret Dumont after a Groucho Marx wisecrack. This is racism! This is sexism! This is some sort of phobia! I’m shocked, shocked to find facts being spoken in polite company!

No one is really shocked, of course. This is simply a form of bullying. The Left has co-opted our good manners and our good will in order to silence our opposition to their bad policies. The idea is to make it seem impolite and immoral to mention the obvious.
     — Andrew Klavan, Of Crudeness and Truth
Comments

The obvious

“Of Crudeness and Truth”

Read More...
Comments

The people aren't…

The people aren't shitholes, the countries are. No one immigrates from a country where things can get better.
     — anonymous
Comments

Worldproof

You can't childproof the world. You can only worldproof your children.
     — probably L. Neil Smith, The American Zone
Comments

America meddled and made a shithole

“If You Think Haiti Is a Shithole, Then Blame America for Helping to Make It That Way”

Read More...
Comments

“As if withholding belief was a moral crime…”

I have a problem with this assumption "at the moment the general reaction seems to be to disbelieve abuse survivors." I do not find it to be accurate. Mostly because of what group is being examined to provide the baseline for the general reaction, which I've rarely seen explained.

Every time I see this idea come up, it is used as a weapon against those who desire to have an examined and rational discussion without having to say "I believe." as if withholding belief was a moral crime. That idea that there is a culture of disbelief has been weaponized and used to silence those who ask uncomfortable and disquieting questions.
     — Isabella LeCour, comment on Accusations of abuse surface against ADF founder Isaac Bonewits
Read More...
Comments

Friday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Thursday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

from crux № 21 — American hegemony

In the name of the greater good, the US supported tyranny and dictators all over the globe.

Read More...
Comments

Charity instead of trash

“Instead of Trashing Groceries During Cooler Malfunction, Store Donates 35,000 Pounds of Food”

Read More...
Comments

Wednesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Great idea

“Work 50 minutes for meal at Tokyo eatery”

Read More...
Comments

“The Problem With The UN | Corrupt, Anti-Western & Useless”

“Corruption, abuse scandals, extravagant spending, and laughable committee assignments. Here are some of the biggest problems with the United Nations.”

Read More...
Comments

“We All Knew”

“Street Artist Trolls Golden Globes with ‘We All Knew’ Artwork”

Read More...
Comments

Tuesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Monday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

“Can't be sure if parts of it are true”

“The author of the explosive new Trump book says he can't be sure if parts of it are true”

Read More...
Comments

Friday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Thursday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Force

Government is force. Every government program, law, or regulation is a demand that someone do what he doesn't want to do, refrain from doing what he does want to do, or pay for something he doesn't want to pay for. And those demands are backed up by police with guns.
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government
Comments

Wednesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Politics

Government is politics. Whenever you turn over to the government a financial, social, medical, military, or commercial matter, it's automatically transformed into a political issue — to be decided by those with the most political influence. And that will never be you or I.
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government
Comments

Tuesday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments

Control

You don't control government. It's easy to think of the perfect law that will stop the bad guys while leaving the good guys unhindered. But no law will be written the way you have in mind, it won't be administered the way you have in mind, and it won't be adjudicated the way you have in mind.
     — Harry Browne, Principles of Government
Comments

Monday roundup

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Read More...
Comments
2018       2017       2016       2015       2014       2011       2010       2009       2008       2007       2006       2005