Here's some fun and interesting information about Saint Patrick's Day, Saint Patrick himself, the Irish, and... huh? Italians?! What the hell -- why would I bring up Italians on such a well-established holiday of Irish Pride, you ask? Well, despite Ireland and modern-day Italy being on complete opposite sides of Europe and being geographically isolated from eachother, they have quite a bit of interesting history with eachother.
First, let's get this out of the way. Saint Patrick was actually Italian. Heresy, I know, but it's true. Ole Saint Patrick was born to Calpurnius (a Roman diplomat) and Conchessa, who lived on a British estate within the then-Roman Empire. Of course, you have the history of him being taken prisoner by pagan Irish pirates when he was 16, made into a slave where he lived for six years, escaped, and returned to his family. He later returned as a cleric and 'drove the snakes out of Ireland', which really means that he converted the people from paganism to Christianity. 'Snakes' are referenced because the druidic priests had tattoos of snakes on their forearms.
Why does any of this matter? Why bring it up? Well, because it's interesting and I find it funny regarding the whole 'Irish pride' thing mixed with Saint Patrick, being that he was actually Italian and not Irish. But it doesn't end, there. There is actually a lot of interesting recent history between the Irish and the Italians. There's basically like this quasi-joke that goes on between Irish and Italian circles of a kind of 'cold war' between them, that they 'can never get along', or are 'so much alike and yet so different and so hate eachother for it', et cetera.
You won't hear about any of this amongst European Irish or European Italians, though. It'll be the first they hear about it if you mention it or try to joke about it. But it's not them I'm talking about. This is in America. New England, specifically. Well, mostly the Boston area, actually. It's really all but faded for all practical purposes, to the point of it being a passing joke that Irish and Italians these days laugh about and get along great, but we love to make fun of eachother over it. So why is this? Well, it has little to do with Saint Patrick's Day, I'll tell you that.
I'm pretty sure it has a lot to do with the history of the Irish and Italian immigrants going back about a hundred years. About a hundred years ago, right before Italians really started migrating in, the Irish had already migrated over a lot and were a lot more accepted than they were when they first came here. They finally integrated more after they stopped trying to hopelessly rely on racist local officials and police to protect them and look out for their interests, and so started with their own Irish mobs to do it for them. Eventually, it kind of worked and people mostly stopped causing as many issues with them, and they started getting more involved in local government, and especially becoming the police force in the area. When Italians first started coming here, they were treated worse than almost anyone else, including blacks, in a lot of ways -- racially, in the perception of their 'lower class' status, weren't trusted, etc -- like Mexican immigrants are today, unfortunately, but even worse. They were treated poorly even in more traditionally 'liberal' places, like here in Massachusetts. After some time, Italians started banding together more and looking out for eachother, and that's when you had the rise of the Italian mafia families from the 20s and decades since and the criminal enterprises that arose out of that. Naturally, this caused even more tension with now heavily Irish-dominated police and local officials, which were basically owned by the local Irish mafia families in the first place. Corruption was rampant. The Italian and Irish mob families were fighting constantly and agreed to a meeting -- but the Italians decided, instead, to show up with the intent of outright slaughtering the heads of the local Irish mobs in one fell swoop, leading to a massive boost in power to the Italians. From there on enters the era we all know about in movies and television regarding the Italian mafia.
To top it all off, the tensions and 'war' between the Italians who ran the 'North End' of Boston and the 'Winter Hill Gang' (Whitey Bulger) in 'Southie' (South Boston) just further adds to the whole Irish / Italian 'thing'.
It's all a very interesting part of Greater Boston history. As we all know, there's lots of great books, movies, and television on all of this.
Now, let's bring on the obligatory nitpicking randos!
So how do you pro-regressives and 'democratic socialists' like your precious democracy, now? How is that working out for you, exactly, what with Trump absolutely slaughtering his opponents in the debates and primaries, and the idea that he will most likely be your next President? This is democracy. This is the mob. This is how it works. Democracy is your 'God that Failed' (hat-tip, Hans-Hermann Hoppe). The idea that the 'sock in the wind' of 'public wisdom' can decide on good government representatives and policy decisions is one of the most absurd notions, ever, and history and this entire election reflect exactly that. The irony that 'democracy' ends up ushering in what seems like the antithesis incarnate of almost everything pro-regressives stand for is truly sublime.
But the vast majority of them don't seem to be getting it. Pro-regressives are so unbelievably out of touch and just not understanding why Trump is so popular -- with the Republican rank-and-file, with centrists, independents, and even some right-leaning Democrats. It has far less to with his 'policies' or how 'liberal' or 'conservative' he is (or isn't) than other factors, and attacking him over ignorant, incoherent, or flip-flopping statements that he constantly makes is actually counter-productive. A lot of it is an act, of course, and the guy is a social genius, whether you want to admit it or not.
In the end, the more people from 'the left' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'the right' (whatever that even means, anymore), 'big media', 'the establishment', et al attack him, the stronger his support gets and grows. His support is a referendum on big media, the establishment of both parties, the way politics is conducted, how support for presidential candidates is manufactured, and on political correctness in general. He says what a lot of these people are already thinking, and his support continues to grow because it only makes them feel empowered when they've felt so weak and so powerless for so long. It may all end up being short-sighted, but since when has the mob not been?
Yes, Donald Trump is the culmination of GOP policy and pandering and flame-fueling for years, now. They are greatly responsible for creating this monster. I won't bother getting into why, because that's already been widely established and talked about elsewhere, and it should be obvious in the first place.
But what further adds to all of the irony is that we can't just thank the GOP for this. We have to thank Pro-regressives in particular, and even some Democrats as well -- what with their ridiculous political correctness, elitism, condescension, fueling the flames of (arbitrarily-drawn lines of) 'racial' and 'class' tension, and constant, non-stop explicit and implicit personal attacks on those who have now become Trump supporters. These attacks have been the norm for a long time. They've felt manipulated and powerless and hopeless for so long, and he is tapping in to that -- which is exactly why attacks against them and him just make them that much stronger and rally and dig in their heels that much more fervently. Trump supporters are lashing out in the most angry and unified way, now, by supporting and voting for someone like Trump. They don't like the way the table is set (and has been set for a long time), and so they're flipping the table.
His supporters just don't care about 'the usual stuff' -- how liberal or conservative he is (or isn't), what his policies are, his 'substance' (or lack thereof), what he's said about people, who he's supported politically in the past or done in his life and how he got to where he is, et cetera. It's that he's a protest vote that can actually win -- and the outright disruption he and his supporters are causing among both parties really is quite a thing to behold. He can flip-flop on the issues all he wants, and it will barely hurt him -- if at all. It might even strengthen him by giving more people who hate Hillary some hope somewhere else. It's basically all a kind of political nihilism, which almost warms even my ice-cold, Vantablack void of a political heart.
Almost.
I think Trump is pretty damned horrible, policy-wise, but this is the reality we're facing. Barring any extremely ruthless (and short-sighted of their own) GOP shenanigans, he absolutely will be the GOP nominee, and he has a strong chance of becoming the next president, whether we like it or not. Dismiss and underestimate his chances at your own peril.
Basically, it comes down to this, as it always does. Democracy is the idea that the People know what they want. And they deserve to get it, too -- good and hard.
But enough of my rant. I don't entirely agree with him, but Louis C.K. seems to be one of the few Pro-regressives who (mostly) gets it. He recently gave a (mostly) good to maybe even great rant on Donald Trump, from his perspective -- as a kind of love letter to his supporters. It's one for the ages. You've got the typical overdramatic Hitler and Nazi comparisons going on (thank you for satisfying 'Godwin's Law', by the way, like every other head-exploding pro-regressive out there, recently), but hey, when are pro-regressives not overdramatic? Here's a snippet of this that I particularly enjoyed from him...
"And that voting for Trump is a way of saying “f--- it. F--- them all”. I really get it. It’s a version of national Suicide. Or it’s like a big hit off of a crack pipe. Somehow we can’t help it. Or we know that if we vote for Trump our phones will be a reliable source of dopamine for the next four years. I mean I can’t wait to read about Trump every day. It’s a rush. But you have to know this is not healthy.
If you are a true conservative. Don’t vote for Trump. He is not one of you. He is one of him. Everything you have heard him say that you liked, if you look hard enough you will see that he one day said the exact opposite. He is playing you."
Go read the whole thing, though. Seriously. Check it out, here.
So, like, wow, man. Abraham Lincoln actually said this. I knew he had 'reverence for the law' (ugh), but really? 'Political religion'?
In a nutshell, to adopt the political religion and to sacrifice unceasingly upon the altar of the state? Shameless. Stalin would truly be proud.
"Let every American... swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others... let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor... Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap – let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; – let it be written in Primmers, spelling books, and in Almanacs; –And, in short, let it become the political religion of the nation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, the grave and the gay, of all sexes and tongues, and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars.” - Abraham Lincoln
Of course, libertarians have been calling out statism as a form of religion for some time, now. There's tons of stuff around the internet by libertarians you'll find on this, but this one is my personal favorite:
"Libertarianism is "cultish," say the sophisticates. Of course, there's nothing cultish at all about allegiance to the state, with its flags, its songs, its mass murders, its little children saluting and paying homage to pictures of their dear leaders on the wall, etc." - Tom Woods
Sophisticates? Sophists, maybe, but I've got to give it to ole Tom Woods -- he's always been a treasure trove of righteous indignation and disdain for state fundamentalism. Regardless of calling out political religion for what it is and has been for decades, though, libertarians are usually mocked and laughed at for it. This phenomenon is not simply isolated to 'the right' or 'the left' (whatever either of these concepts even mean anymore, anyways) though. Both conservatives and pro-regressives are horribly guilty of worshiping the state as a kind of religion. And now we've got further explicit evidence from another one of 'Our Dear Leaders' that that's exactly what it is and exactly what it aims to be.
Oh, well, what's this? A wikipedia on 'Civil religion'? What's that, you ask?
"Civil religion is a concept that originated in French political thought and became a major topic for American sociologists since its use by Robert Bellah in the 1960s. It means the implicit religious values of a nation, as expressed through public rituals, symbols (such as the national flag) and ceremonies on sacred days and at sacred places (such as monuments, battlefields or national cemeteries). It stands outside the churches, although church officials and ceremonies are sometimes incorporated into the practice of civil religion"
Hrm. Let's dig a little deeper, shall we? Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his reverence for his 'social contract'? But, of course.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau coined the term in Chapter 8, Book 4 of The Social Contract (1762), to describe what he regarded as the moral and spiritual foundation essential for any modern society. For Rousseau, civil religion was intended simply as a form of social cement, helping to unify the state by providing it with sacred authority. In his book, Rousseau outlines the simple dogmas of the civil religion:
I'm so over Bernie Sanders and Progressives spreading lies and misinformation about their unrealizable ideals regarding socialismand so-called 'Democratic socialism'. First off, there actually aren't many countries governed by democratic socialist parties. The ones that are, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Honduras, Brazil, and Greece -- are complete and total social and economic shit-shows. There actually isn't much difference between plain ole Vanilla Socialism and so-called 'Democratic Socialism' -- they share the same exact ends while differing merely in the strategy on how to get there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
"No, no, no... I'm not a Socialist. I'm a DEMOCRATIC Socialist!"
As it turns out, I'm not the only one -- it also looks like Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen of Denmark is sick and tired of these claims as well...
Danes apparently have grown weary of Sen. Bernie Sanders insulting their country.Denmark is not a socialist nation, says its prime minister. It has a “market economy.”
Sanders, the Democratic presidential candidate who calls himself a socialist, has used Denmark as the example of the socialist utopia he wants to create in America. During the Democrats’ first debate last month, he said “we should look to countries like Denmark, like Sweden and Norway, and learn from what they have accomplished for their working people.”
While appearing in New Hampshire in September, Sanders said that he had “talked to a guy from Denmark” who told him that in Denmark, “it is very hard to become very, very rich, but it’s pretty hard to be very, very poor.”
“And that makes a lot of sense to me.”
So because something makes sense to him, he has the right to force that system on people who don’t want it? Isn’t that what he’s saying?
But we digress. This is about Danes being offending by Sanders using the word “socialist” to describe their form of government. And who can blame them, especially when the free world has had enough of national socialists and Soviet socialists and North Korean socialists and Cuban socialists?
While speaking at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, the center-right Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said he was aware “that some people in the U.S. associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism.”
“Therefore,” he said, “I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.”
Rasmussen acknowledged that “the Nordic model is an expanded welfare state which provides a high level of security to its citizens,” but he also noted that it is “a successful market economy with much freedom to pursue your dreams and live your life as you wish.”
To that we’ll add that Sweden, another of Sanders’ inspirations, has for decades quietly moved away from its cradle-to-grave form of government welfare. And the Swedes are better off for having done so, just as the Danes will continue to be better off as their government overhauls its welfare state.
Source, here. You can also see the full youtube video in reference of the Danish PM,here. In addition to this, if Sanders, his supporters and Progressives in general would like to move towards an economy more like 'the Nordic Model', then they should also be prepared to accept some, what they would consider, 'radical free market concepts' such as absolutely no government-mandated minimum wage, a far lower corporate tax rate than than the US, a majority of privatized roads like in Sweden, lower taxes on the wealthy, higher taxes on the poor, radically higher taxes on the middle class, and far, far fewer economic regulations in general. Of course, because Sanders and his supporters are more socialist than they'd care to admit, the vast majority of them would probably never be willing to accept such relatively low economic regulation and 'radical' free market concepts. These are a major piece of the puzzle as to why these countries can prop up such a system in the first place. Another possible explanation of this behavior by Progressives and socialists is that many of them know all this, and that it's actually desirable and beneficial for them to have real, 'state ownership of the means of production' style socialism (which includes democratic socialism) be conflated and muddied up regularly with welfare statism (which isn't technically socialism). In this regard, it could be simply a matter of dishonest marketing through disinformation -- the ideological equivalent of a bait-and-switch tactic.
Sometimes, I really love me some Camus (obviously, considering the name and theme of this blog).
"The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus
Political activism and even what I call 'anti-activist activism' is, unfortunately, completely fruitless and hopeless. Voting is worse, of course, but in most recent elections the majority of the voting population literally did 'vote for nobody'. Somebody got elected, anyways, and it changed nothing. In our alleged, so-called 'democracy', if, a) you can even call it that, and b) it being one of the worst forms of government available to a civilized population -- Obama was elected within a handful of points from Romney, and approximately 24% of the 'eligible voting population' (about 19% of genpop) 'decided' on who would be able to impose his will on the rest of us.
However, as long as we realize that 'not voting' won't change anything, neither, and that we need to engage in other activities outside of the system to enact gradual and slow change, or better yet, to enact meaningful change in your own life in spite of the system (which is what is most important), then I think 'not voting' is good.
However, the moment you believe or convince yourself that 'not voting', or voting third party, or voting for Mickey Mouse, or voting for a Republican or Democrat of any kind, et al, in and of itself can or will actually change anything in any meaningful way -- then you've, unfortunately, entered into the realm of self-delusion.
It is said that 'if you don't vote, then you have no right to complain'. Whoever says this has it backwards -- it's only because I don't vote, that I have a right to complain. With that being said, it is what it is, and mere complaining does nothing.
It's time to stop making excuses. We have to take control of our own lives. PS - I know this is direct contrast to an older post(s) I made in my more electoral, Ron Paul activist days. My views have changed on this, since then.
Ah, yes. The ole Anthropogenic Global Warming (hereon referred to as 'AGW') 'debate', if one could honestly call it that. I apologize in advance for sullying your computer screen with another such screed, but the AGW hype-train, fueled by fear and alarmism, just keeps on keepin' on, and there are some particularly glaring, nosebleed-inducing dents in said train for me to ignore much longer.
As for instructions on how to properly handle watermelons, well, I'll get to that part, later. Don't worry, it'll all be worth it.
CO2, the Innocent Whipping Boy
First, let's look at the real meat of the numbers, here. AGW and CO2 alarmists constantly refer to the current CO2 level in the atmosphere as being at a 'potentially catastrophic' 400 ppm (parts per million). However, a lot of people touting this number either ignorantly or dishonestly don't seem too interested in communicating what this really means. They just regurgitate how it's increased from about 270 ppm since 1850 to 400 ppm, today, correlated with the rise of industrialization. That's true, but the issue is this -- 400 ppm of the atmosphere is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. 400 ppm minus the 270 ppm means an increase of 130 ppm since 1850. That's an increase of only 0.013% in the atmosphere in 164 years of increasing industrialization. 0.013% is not a significant ratio of increase relative to the whole of the atmosphere, and certainly not a significant ratio relative to other times in the history of the earth. No one can deny this, as it's based on their very own oft-touted numbers. No one. This is just the simple math.
Of course, I can see it, already. Dishonest alarmists will then want to talk about how an increase of 270 ppm to 400 ppm "is an increase of over 48%", and while, yes, mathematically that's also true -- this interpretation of the numbers is not at all helpful. The statement 'an increase of over 48%' conveys far less information than the method provided earlier, and conclusions based on less information versus more are far less valuable, particularly when you're trying to draw conclusions from them. With the previous method, you're given far more context -- you're provided information about the piece as it relates to the whole. With the 'Dishonest Alarmist Method', it's just numbers in a vacuum -- almost meaningless. Of course, unless you're engaging in unadulterated propaganda as opposed to the actual science -- then such an interpretation of the numbers is exactly what you'd want. Take note that these are the kinds of games that are very often played with statistics for a whole range of issues. With statistical interpretation, it's easy to tell lies by using the facts -- and those seeking to validate their preconceived notions will jump all over it and propagate it until they're blue in the face.
Further, it's important to emphasize that this CO2 increase of 130 ppm is, again, correlated with the rise of industrialization since 1850. It's of course difficult -- virtually absurd, even -- to claim that none of this increase is due to human CO2 contributions, but it is equally absurd to claim that none of this increase is due to some combination of natural factors, as well. The conclusion we can draw, however, is that we cannot lay 100% of the 130 ppm increase of CO2 at the feet of human activity, as we know that CO2 levels have risen long before the existence of humanity, and they will rise, at times, long after we're gone.
As for the fact of the increase, it is more than likely that the earth's ecosystem will adapt and that life, including human life, will continue to survive, if not flourish, as life always has and does amidst these kinds of CO2 levels. This extra CO2 means an abundance of plant (including algae) food, leading to more plant-life, which leads to an eventual balance where the even greater amount of plants 'eat' the excess CO2, with the natural 'breathing' of the earth stabilizing. This has panned out exactly as expected, according to NASA, with the recently rising CO2 levels leading to what they refer to as a 'greening' of the earth:
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
...
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
Further, and this point is particularly important with respect to the natural 'breathing' of the earth,
The extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first half of this study with Myneni as a visiting scholar at Boston University.
Greener areas show a 'leaf area' gain aka 'greening', whereas redder indicates loss.
To further capitalize on this point, much higher CO2 concentration levels of 2200 ppm preceded the rise of the Devonian Period about 400 million years ago, and vast forests covered large portions of the earth. Trees began competing with eachother over the 550% higher CO2 concentrations, to the point of eventually dying on top of eachother until they were 100 meters or more in depth. Want to know where all of our coal deposits we've been finding have come from? You guessed it -- those vast forests of dead trees consumed all of that 'catastrophic' CO2 that we're burning today. And even with a CO2 concentration of 2200 ppm, temperatures were only 6 degrees celsius higher than they are today.
In the end, it is all very silly to say that an increased CO2 level of 0.013% is 'catastrophic' -- especially considering our ecosystemic adaptability and the history of CO2 levels and the life that flourished under it.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc
Yes, temperatures have risen. Yes, CO2 has risen. No one denies this. However, linking temperature increase to CO2 increase solely because of the amount humanity is adding in to it since industrialization is a pure post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. There are many more factors at play with respect to temperatures and climate, and only acknowledging temperature changes for the last 150 years since industrialization, even just in relation to the past couple hundred thousand years of human existence (let alone hundreds of millions of years of climate history), is a pretty piss-poor sample size. Whether we're looking at the climate over the past year, past 150 years, past 20,000 years, past 400,000 years, or past 400 million years, not only does the climate change, but it's always changing, across virtually all timescales. There are cycles, within cycles, within cycles, within cycles. Even a cursory glance at temperature data derived from ice cores (below), shows how silly and nonsensical the whole idea of AGW is, as one can clearly see that the vast majority of human history has seen climate to be multiple degrees warmer than it is, today. To the extent there's been any climate change, we've actually been cooling for the past 1,000 years or so.
Ice cores clearly show that the vast majority of human history has been warmer than it is, today. To the extent there's been any climate change, we've been cooling for the past 1,000 years.
In addition to this, evidence shows that temperature fluctuation for Earth is very cyclical, switching between very warm periods and very cool periods every 100,000 years or so. We're actually currently in an interglacial period called the Holocene, and these interglacial periods are very tightly correlated with insolation (incoming solar radiation), leading to this being a major factor in earth's climate cycle. Clearly such a tight correlation over hundreds of thousands of years is far from coincidence, so either the earth is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the sun, or the sun is having a significant affect on the cyclical climate of the earth. Needless to say, it shouldn't be difficult to realize that one of these two possibilities is prima facie absurd.
Data clearly shows extremely tight correlation between earth's climate (temps), CO2 concentration, and insolation (incoming solar radiation)
Further -- and this is very important to note -- CO2 increases come after the temperature increases (on average about 800 years after), not before -- further putting into question the claim that 'CO2 increases are what cause higher temperatures'. They may contribute, but it doesn't seem that they're the cause. This doesn't necessarily prove that CO2 doesn't cause temperatures to rise, or that they aren't a factor in causing them to rise, otherwise we'd be engaging in the same correlation fallacy AGW proponents do, but it does show that this data is not valid evidence to their argument.
Speaking of planetary ecosystems, climates, temperature, greenhouse gases and life, let's bring our attention, for a moment, to Venus. Fear mongering alarmists, especially in the pop-science celebrities sphere, love to talk about and use Venus comparisons a lot. Man, they love to use them. But Venus has no vegetation. It doesn't have vast oceans of H20 and other complex ecosystems with fauna and flora and dirt that cyclically absorb and breathe out CO2, as we noted earlier. On Venus, it just gets trapped under an atmospheric blanket, under the brutal power of the sun and doesn't go anywhere. The Earth is not even remotely comparable to Venus, and there's no good reason to believe we will become Venus.
AGW is Political Religion, Not Science
So around and around we go, with AGW alarmists and other useful idiots claiming they are 'doing science', running around exclaiming how much they supposedly 'fucking love science', but they clearly haven't a clue what science actually is and what it means to 'do science'. 'Doing science' involves utilizing the scientific method, which is testing to try to disprove a hypothesis (not trying to prove it, as many of these organizations and individuals are actually trying to do) by utilizing control groups vs experimental groups in controlled environments. This point is important, here -- controlled environments. I'd hardly call the earth's climate a 'controlled environment' and I'd hardly call using a sample size of a mere 150 years in the tens of thousands of years of relatively recent human existence, amidst the millions of years of earth's climate, a proper sample size to compare this against.
This brings us to another point of interest in this debate -- climate 'models'. These 'models' are procedurally generated speculations produced by computer programs and designed by flawed individuals with extremely limited information. They incorporate relatively few factors (there are vast numbers of factors in earth's climate and ecosystem, many of which we don't even know) into these algorithms while trying to produce results akin to historic trends up to the current climate reality 'and beyond'. Of course, as the real-world climate changes, the algorithms governing the models (which regularly produce future predictions inconsistent with reality) are 'adjusted' to reflect new and updated data in order to shoehorn them into fitting both the actual climate along with predicting trends that uphold the AGW narrative. Climate models are not particularly rigorous, they don't utilize the scientific method, and the process surrounding them is eerily similar to how religion is rationalized, ad-hoc, based on preconceived notions and dogma. Yet, instead of being called out as such, these ad-hoc climate 'models' and their future trend predictions are regularly cited by the usual suspects to fuel the fire of alarmism and fearmongering. This is all completely backwards and not how actual science and the scientific method works.
Then there are the pet projects and special interests involved. The IPCC is a political authority that, while it doesn't engage in direct funding itself, has many subsidiaries that do, and if your outfit doesn't provide evidence that justifies its own existence and support the special interests involved, your funding gets cut. The existence of the IPCC in the first place absolutely relies on AGW dogma -- without it, they would disappear. As such, this naturally creates distorted incentives that amount more to supporting political favor than to supporting actual science that constantly challenges itself to discover truth as opposed to re-affirming certain political narratives.
One such narrative we still, unfortunately, hear propagated to this day, from the 44th President of the United States on down to any rando reddit commenter, is the notion of the scientific consensus re-affirming AGW. The '97% of scientists agree' claim is a debunked myth, but it circulates, regardless.
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
Another widely cited source for the consensus view is a 2009 article in "Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union" by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master's thesis adviser Peter Doran. It reported the results of a two-question online survey of selected scientists. Mr. Doran and Ms. Zimmerman claimed "97 percent of climate scientists agree" that global temperatures have risen and that humans are a significant contributing factor.
The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change.
The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.
In 2010, William R. Love Anderegg, then a student at Stanford University, used Google Scholar to identify the views of the most prolific writers on climate change. His findings were published in Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. Mr. Love Anderegg found that 97% to 98% of the 200 most prolific writers on climate change believe "anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for 'most' of the 'unequivocal' warming." There was no mention of how dangerous this climate change might be; and, of course, 200 researchers out of the thousands who have contributed to the climate science debate is not evidence of consensus.
In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters.
Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.
Rigorous international surveys conducted by German scientists Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch—most recently published in Environmental Science & Policy in 2010—have found that most climate scientists disagree with the consensus on key issues such as the reliability of climate data and computer models. They do not believe that climate processes such as cloud formation and precipitation are sufficiently understood to predict future climate change.
Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus. Only 39.5% of 1,854 American Meteorological Society members who responded to a survey in 2012 said man-made global warming is dangerous.
Finally, the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—which claims to speak for more than 2,500 scientists—is probably the most frequently cited source for the consensus. Its latest report claims that "human interference with the climate system is occurring, and climate change poses risks for human and natural systems." Yet relatively few have either written on or reviewed research having to do with the key question: How much of the temperature increase and other climate changes observed in the 20th century was caused by man-made greenhouse-gas emissions? The IPCC lists only 41 authors and editors of the relevant chapter of the Fifth Assessment Report addressing "anthropogenic and natural radiative forcing."
Of the various petitions on global warming circulated for signatures by scientists, the one by the Petition Project, a group of physicists and physical chemists based in La Jolla, Calif., has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
The fearmongering and alarmism continues in the face of all of the conflicting scientific evidence. Global climate change is happening, yes -- it's been cyclically happening for millions of years, and there is far too much evidence that suggests, contrary to AGW dogma, that humans have virtually to absolutely nothing to do with it. Ultimately, Anthropogenic Global Warming is an excuse towards an ideological agenda -- to regulate, tax and redistribute as much as possible, and to curtail capitalism and individual liberty, in favor of centralization and collectivism.
A Gallagherian Conclusion
For this reason, I've long referred to AGW activists and environmentalists as 'watermelons' -- 'green' on the outside, but ultimately deeply 'red' on the inside. These are utilitarian ideologues, and utilitarians are well-known for their affinity towards what's known as The Noble Lie, if that's what it takes to advance their narrative and political agenda. The ends justify the means, and eviscerating the truth and individual liberty is a small price to pay towards achieving what is, in their perception, the aim of some 'greater good'.
To be clear, I am not implicating all AGW scientists -- though there are certainly some distorted incentives and politics taking place, that much is clear. The political and ideological activism I am concerned about poisoning this issue are in the mainstream media, bureaucrats and representatives within the State, special interests, influencers on social media, and amongst the rank-and-file. It's in this domain where they are spinning or even outright fabricating claims, some of which pro-AGW authorities don't even claim, themselves, to push an ideological agenda and send it viral.
"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself." -- Joseph Goebbels
The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success." -- Adolf Hitler
Anthropogenic Global Warming is, simply put, just another of the latest in a long line of compounding Noble Lies employed in the service of an ideology which cannot stand on its merits, alone, and it should be publicly recognized as such. So let's finally peel the green skin off of this watermelon, for good, expose the mushy, rotten, red flesh that's beneath, and smash it to bits once and for all.
And with that, I leave you with your moment of zen...
This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 10/15/2015. It has been edited and updated with more sources and other information and for 'A Sisyphean Revolt'.
I've noticed recently that while there's rare and sporadic talk of libertarian celebrities, there's not really a comprehensive list of them.
Well - we're gonna do it. Right now. We're gonna make the best, most exhaustive & comprehensive list of notable libertarians we can possibly come up with.
I really think it's important for us to show more of the masses libertarians that they know and love - that it isn't as fringe as they think and that there some very prominent, reasonable, smart, funny people are libertarian. This will make them more open to the ideas of liberty.
They vary in degree of libertarianism (some are ancaps, some are minarchists, constitutionalists, etc). These should be people that almost everyone knows, or groups almost everyone knows who the people are associated with.
Confirmed libertarians:
Philip Labonte (singer of the band 'All That Remains')
This post was originally published under my old pseudonym, 'Sentient Void', at the Ron Paul Forums Blog, on 07-26-2011. It has been edited and updated with new names for 'A Sisyphean Revolt'.
