Pedophilia

(Originally Posted June, 2017)
(UPDATED CONVERSATION [
jump] Nov. 2021)

Pedophilia ‘rights’ next civil rights battle

In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (SavageSchlafly; Schlafly; CNS-NewsMore)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

We need only look at her 230-page book, called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, to see elements of her radical philosophy:

The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”

  • Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)[.]
  • Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)
  • She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)
  • She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
  • Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)

[….]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion in Grutter v. Bollinger, affirmed the use of racial preferences in university admissions, citing the fact that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination temporarily allows for the “maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups.” Separate but equal?

(PATRIOT or TRAITOR)

See my post for more context to the above last point:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

1993 “Homosexual” Platform

  • The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.

1972 “Homosexual” Platform

  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
  • Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
  • Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
  • Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
  • Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
  • Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Okay, we know this was a fast transition for polygamy, as I SHOWED and GATEWAY PUNDIT showed:

THE POLITICO reported:

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…

And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition.  We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”

Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations.  It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society.  That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”

But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette via ALLEN WEST:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

[….]

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

…more…

With all of the above, the most egregious is that the Left wants to decriminalize pedophilia along with a myriad of other crimes.


FACEBOOK DISAGREEMENT
Nov 2021


Here is the graphic that kicked it off on a friends FB:

MIKE B. said to the above:

  • Who cares what one nut may or may not think

To which I Said:

  • Many Nuts Mike.

To which MIKE B. responded:

  • I can’t see anyone but a pedophile being pro pedophile

And this is the main point. You will see during the conversation that as it becomes apparent that there has been a legal challenge to drop the age of what would be considered “age of consent” (thus changing the legality of “what is” a pedophile) by one Political Party, partisan attacks start to swirl. But here is the meat of the convo… I reproduce some of the above for MIKE:

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (SavageSchlafly; Schlafly; CNS-NewsMore)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

Here, as usual MIKE B. punts to others to do the thinking for him:

  • they are lying to you still. (He links to an AP article)

I then posted the pages 101-105 from the aforementioned book so I would not be accused of “ripping out of context” — but he still wasn’t picking up what I was laying down. (Images are loaded upon clicking the choices above the 1st loaded cover page to the 1977 edition):

I added:

MIKE B. responds thus:

  • I read all the legalize stuff you posted. not one mention of any support for lowering the age for consent. these guys continue to lie to you. why do you accept it?

I counter with a post I think needs to be read in full over at AKA CATHOLIC:

Mike B. I will have to update my post with this info… thank you for making me confirm, well, My previous position:

(The bill RBG mentioned did not pass BTW) On page 102 of The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law, the authors make the following straightforward recommendation in reference to U.S. Code, Title 18 §2032, which addresses the crime of rape:

  • Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years” and substitute the offense as set forth in S. 1400, §1633. [Emphasis added]

To exactly what does “S. 1400, §1633” refer, and how is the offense “set forth” therein?

This is a reference to Senate Bill 1400, which, fortunately, was not voted into law. The “offense as set forth” in Section 1633 of the bill, the same text that the “esteemed jurist” Ginsburg wanted to see inserted in the U.S. Code, reads:

  • A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, not his spouse, and ( 1 ) compels the other person to participate: (A) by force or ( B ) by threatening or placing the other person in fear that any person will imminently be subjected to death, serious bodily injury, or kidnapping; ( 2 ) has substantially impaired the other person’s power to appraise or control the conduct by administering or employing a drug or intoxicant without the knowledge or against the will of such other person, or by other means; or ( 3 ) the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old. [Emphasis added]

If you’re wondering where the confusion lies, the answer is that there is none.

Ginsburg and her fellow feminist specifically cited the chapter of the U.S. Code addressing the crime of rape – Title 18 §2032 to be exact – and very plainly stated that one of its descriptions of a rape victim as one who “has not attained the age of sixteen years” should be substituted with language that lowers to age of victimhood to “less than 12 years old;” i.e., making twelve the age of consent.

(READ THE ENTIRE POST!)

I add to the above — the “heres” added for my readers:

  • BTW, who are “they”? You always say that [many past conversations which I disprove his contentions: here, here, here – for instance]. Is it the same people that made the Washington Post remove portions and edit others regarding Trump/Russia Collusion?? After indictments fell and the NYT and WaPo and CNN are -[now] all asking “how the media got it so wrong” (here, here, here, here)

After this all that was posted was essentially, “yeah, but look at these Republicans charged or convicted with some sort of underage assault, proposition, etc.” I made a point that Republicans do not give important committee positions and standing Ovations to those caught in sexual relations with underage assistants via my [RPT’s] post:

  • The openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts [Barney Frank] was once embroiled in his own sex scandal, involving a young male prostitute hired as an aide back in 1987(TIME)

These are the people who were outraged when a similarly gay “hustler” (Mark Foley) asked a sixteen-year old what he wanted for his birthday, and had PMs (private messages) with an eighteen-year old that were salacious. No sex occurred between either the 16-year old nor the 18-year old. Nancy Pelosi, who marched in lock step with a known pedophile and member of NAMBLA (who wants the age of consent to be 12-years-old) at a Gay Pride parade and then on television mentions how proud she is of this pedophile she is now the champion of the Democratic movement? (AMERICAN SPECTATOR: When Nancy Met Harry | Democrats Called Foley Guilty of Sex Crimes)

And this older example I am proud I elucidate others with:

It was loyalty to that extreme agenda that accounts for Democrats holding back their ire during a far worse underage homosexual scandal: that of Gerry Studds, a Democratic Massachusetts congressman, for more than two decades.

According to the 1983 House ethics committee report, one congressional page allegedly traveled to Europe with Studds and testified that he took him to his apartment in Georgetown three or four times and that there was sexual activity between them each time. The two later took a 2 1/2-week trip together out of the country, according to the page, and “engaged in sexual activity every two or three days.”

According to the ethics panel’s report, “the relationship may have begun when the page was 16…. At that time, Rep. Studds was 36 years old.” What’s more, the underage page had told Studds that he would have preferred not to engage in sexual activity with him. “I mentioned that to him,” the former page testified.

The report added that “two other former pages, both male,” stated under oath that Studds made sexual advances to them. “One was 16 or 17” at the time of the alleged incident, “the other was 17.”

Studds never apologized, and when he was censured by his colleagues, he defiantly stood in the House well looking up at Speaker Tip O’Neill, hands casually folded behind his back. Afterward, Studds not only remained in Congress for more than a decade; the House Democratic leadership allowed him to rise in the congressional ranks and for years hold a full committee chairmanship.

Some of Studds’ Democratic colleagues even voted against the slap on the wrist of censure. Then-Rep. Parren Mitchell of Maryland, for instance, complained of the “absolute humiliation and degradation” Studds had already suffered and said censure would “cannibalize him.”

When Studds returned home to his district, an August 1983 editorial — in the liberal Washington Post of all places — asked with astonishment, “What is it exactly, or even inexactly, that those Massachusetts Democrats were so loudly cheering when they gave Rep. Gerry Studds three standing ovations last weekend? What accounts for this extraordinary response to a man just censured for having taken sexual advantage of a youthful congressional page?”

Why were Democrats cheering? Maybe the answer lies in the causes they support and the ideological company they keep.

MIKE B. responded:

  • read the republican item I posted. I think you picked the wrong party

I respond thus:

  • You miss the point [as usual]. A Supreme Court Justice wanting to change the age of consent. Democrats wanting H.R.5 which would change the course of sexual relations between adults and minors, and take away parental influence in the arena. Standing ovations. Democrats have a legislative means to change this, Republicans do not.

MIKE B. essentially repeated what he said before by saying: you have not shown one document that is from a credible source that shows she said or thinks that – not one. and, in the end, we both are anti-pedophiles. let’s call it a day on this one.

I cannot make people think well, read well, or read at all…. which is why people like MIKE B. will just link to AP news articles and let the MSM (which the bemoan at other times) do their thinking for them. It’s easier.

 

Trying to Cut Through Bias To Talk Ivermectin (Didn’t Work)

Here is a recent “Ivermectin Facebook conversation” I had.

M.B.

  • [taking Ivermectin to treat Covid in the early stages] personal choice – agree. just like a company’s business choice not to employ you if you are not vaccinated. but there is that horse worming medicine that cures it. I saw a clip of Tucker promoting it. must be true

CONTEXTUAL DETOUR…
…A regular tactic by Lefties…

For context, this shows you where he gets his news from. Rachell “left of Mao” Maddow. She said Tucker pushed a “Horse Dewormer” – see here. Of course he did no such thing.

The picture to the lower right is my HUMAN prescription…. next to the “Народный куб.” (BTW, to deal with Covid you do not take 6 a day, you take 1 on the first day and 1 on the third day.)

But this is classic M.B. who once told me that Trump told people to take fish tank cleaner, saying Trump told people to take chloroquine phosphate when he was talking about hydroxychloroquine. Which has been used for many decades; and is handed out for free in many malaria ridden countries.

Similar changes can be seen how the Left [not just Twitter in these next examples] change what someone is thinking/saying:

…CONTEXTUAL DETOUR OVER

ME – RPT

M.B.

  • hopefully you never have to use it

ME – RPT

  • hopefully.

M.B.

  • PS – WSJ was an opinion piece not an article with research behind it. I just read what I could w/o being a subscriber. It really isn’t an endorsement

ME – RPT

  • Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups. [To wit]
  • You do realize, first, I wouldn’t make a choice on “a” opinion piece. Right? I look at quite a few factors, probably way more than you. I weigh them, and make a decision. And both Iver and Hydroxy are safe for proper use. In fact, they are over the counter medications in most places and have many decades of use to prove it. NOT TO MENTION that in the mix of all sources are also people like this: [AUTHOR’S BIO]

M.B.

  • That’s a choice – just like getting vaccinated. And just a data point on Trump – when caught he didn’t get either of those treatments. He recovered pretty quickly

ME – RPT

  • right, he could afford a crazy expensive treatment. But you act as if that sways the data points of evidences.

M.B.

  • Henderson is a professor of economics. Likely a smart guy, but no medical credentials

ME – RPT

(Don’t miss the question) Sigh this is the problem with ppl like yourself, you do not read well. Ross has the same malady. To repeat:

[Already stated above]

I look at QUITE A FEW FACTORS, probably way more than you. I WEIGH THEM and [THEN] make a decision. And both Iver and Hydroxy are safe for proper use. In fact, they are over the counter medications in most places and have many decades of use to prove it. Not to mention THAT IN THE MIXOF ALL SOURCES ARE PEOPLE LIKE THIS [AUTHOR’S BIO]

A question[s]. Considering the graphic I added, would a person feel good that Tokyo’s Medical Association Chairman (Haruo Ozaki) recommends Ivermectin?* Or Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine recommends Hydroxychloroquine? (See RPT, here and here)

* Japanese medical chairman doubles down on ivermectin support after early calls went ignored

IF NOT, why not? Can you explain why other than you dislike Trump? How do you weigh cost benefit issues? No input from well-known and trusted economists?

I always ask:

1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?
Do you?

SOME… Some of the Panoply of Evidence I use

  • I have been following African nations for a year that to fight various illnesses they hand out Ivermectin and or Hydroxychloroquine to the population. Those countries have a provably lower death rate.
  • The studies (by specialists and medical professionals) again prove an aspect of trusting it. (see pic)
  • (an example) One retirement home that had 83 people contracted [alpha] Covid used Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment and all lived that chose to take it versus the others.
  • Medical Professionals, scientists.
  • Decades of use.
  • COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

Etc., Etc.

M.B.

  • does Trump support it. I thought this was just a Fox News thing. And I’m not anti something just because trump wanted something. I am 100% for his call to get us out of Afghanistan. I was 100% against him felating Putin and the North Korea guy

ME – RPT

  • Obfuscation is thy moniker

POSTSCRIPT

Just as a follow up trump was tougher than Obama and previous presidents on Putin. Just one of my MANY examples:

“There’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there’s actually some basis for the president’s boast.

“When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era,” said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council….

(NPR | see more at real clear politics: Meet the Heretics: Not Every Liberal Has Trump Derangement Syndrome)

The only ppl “felating” Putin is the Democratic Party,

[….]

in other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates’ energy policies will enrich Putin.)

In fact, President Joe Biden continues to be the best thing that ever happened to Vladimir Putin.

John Brennan, Pretty Fly (For A White Guy)

Of course the guy that voted for a Communist in 1976 over Jimmy Carter is all in with Cultural Marxism:

….MSNBC analyst and former Sen. Claire McCaskill said during a panel segment on “Deadline: White House” Monday that she’s “never seen so many whiny white men calling themselves victims” until the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). McCaskill said lying is now acceptable “for the new Republican Party.”

“Well I must say, to Claire’s point, I’m increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days in light of what I see of my other white males saying,” Brennan said in the segment…..

(DAILY CALLER)

Nick Searcy responds:

….Nick Searcy had a message for former CIA Director John Brennan who said that he’s “increasingly embarrassed to be a white male these days.”

“That’s so weird, @JohnBrennan,” the 61-year-old actor tweeted Monday following Brennan’s comment that he was “embarrassed to be a white male.”

“We white males are all embarrassed that you are one of us too,” he added. “Why don’t you scram?”….

(DAILY CALLER)

POWERLINE uses the embarrassment angle to mention a few things, the following being one:

….*Speaking of embarrassing, the petition for certiorari (i.e., for Supreme Court review) filed by the Asian-American plaintiffs in their case against Harvard provides a breakdown of Harvard’s undergraduate admit rates by ethnicity/rate and academic credentials. The numbers look very much like Yale’s, which we reported on here.

In brief, Whites in the top 10 percent academically are admitted as undergraduates to Harvard at a rate of 15.3 percent; Asian-Americans at a rate of 12.7 percent. Blacks in the top 10 percent are admitted at a rate of 56.1 percent.

To find a decile in which Blacks are admitted at about the rate at which the top 10 percent of Asian-Americans are, one must go all the way down to the fourth decile (from the bottom). In other words, an African American in the fourth-lowest academic decile (that is, in the 30 percent to 39 percent range) has a slightly higher chance of being admitted to Harvard than an Asian American in the very top decile. And in that fourth-lowest decile, where 12.8 percent of Blacks are admitted, Whites are admitted at a rate of 1.8 percent; Asian-Americans at a rate of 0.9 percent.

Black Americans should be embarrassed that the academic performance of Black students is so comparatively poor. White Americans should be embarrassed that our colleges universities, by rewarding mediocre performance by Blacks, provide scant incentive for improvement.

All Americans should be embarrassed if the Supreme Court doesn’t take the Harvard case and declare that college’s racial preferences unlawful….

Hydroxychloroquine Effective and Safe (Mark Levin UPDATED)

Dennis Prager reads from Harvey A. Risch’s (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) article entitled, “The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” (NEWSWEEK)

In the article, not only does Dr. Risch discuss Hydroxychloroquine as safe and effective to use, but he notes the attack on doctors who use it:

  • Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

One such high profile doctor is Senator and “Doctor of the Year,” Scott Jensen, MD. I have two videos about that on my site: “Enforced Group Think – Covid 1984”. Later in the Prager commentary he reads some Tweets by ALEX BERENSON, of which the strain can be found at the link. If you are Tweet savvy, follow the discussion throughout the branches.

In a separate video a friend sent me, the video talk show “America Can We Talk?” interviews Dr. Richard Bartlett who goes through some of the countries with very low death numbers and helps explain their use of steroid inhalers. Interesting indeed:


UPDATED STUFF


This updated and graphics are all with thanks to REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE. What a great post!

This paper from the censored group of doctors provides pretty strong arguments  that HCQ is both safe and effective.

White Paper on HCQ 2020.2

And another.

COVID-19 Treatment – Analysis of 126 global studies showing high effectiveness for early treatment

Also, a friend linked this to me on FB (hat-tip, Joshua P.)

 

Dr. Harvey Risch | Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the MSM

Do not let what Dr. Risch said get lost in the below. He said 70-to-100-thousand people could be alive today is we had treated our patients with the Hydroxychloroquine protocols other countries have followed. 70,000 to 100,000!

Dennis Prager has Dr. Harvey Risch (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) on his program to discuss the issue of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), its use, and the seemingly political fallout from the media and the Left (Democrats in Congress and Democrat governors). There is also discussion of how or why there is pressure or push-back against it’s use. I would say partly because of “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), but also BIG-PHARMA. Otherwise known as “Crony-Corporatism”. Previously Dennis discussed his earlier NEWSWEEK article.

Dennis also mentions in passing the French United Nations official, who has served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Special Adviser on Innovative Financing for Development in the UN and chairman of UNITAID — PHILIPPE DOUSTE-BLAZY. But shortly after discussing the issue Dennis asks the $64,000 question, “has the ban on HCQ led to deaths?” [adapted]… that shorter response is isolated here:

(WOW!)

While Dr. Risch did not want to impugn motives, Robert Kennedy Jr. was not so coy:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that.

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

(Alan Dershowitz’ And Jfk Jr.’s Debate)

Before moving on, I recommend the BANNON WAR ROOM video that discusses Dr. Risch’s appearance on CNN (fuller CNN video HERE):

THE WASHINGTON TIMES notes the percentages of lives saved worldwide in their story entitled

….On July 23, 2020, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) provided the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration copious amounts of data showing, among other things, that countries using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are attaining far lower mortality rates than the United States. “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ,” said the AAPS, “is only one-tenth the mortality rate of countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”

Did you catch that? One-tenth the mortality rate means that our country’s current death count of about 160,000 could be and perhaps should be, as low as 16,000.

Oh, but I assume you’ve been told that the AAPS is a “fringe group” of “conservative” doctors who should be discredited? 

Well, aside from the fact that such a claim is a textbook example of the Socratic fallacy of an ad hominem attack, i.e., “shooting the messenger rather than attending to the message,” there’s more, lots more.

First, there’s the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, which recently published a study involving thousands of patients where HCQ proved to be both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19. This study reports reducing mortality by 50%. Did you catch that? Fifty percent. 

Then, there’s the Palmer Foundation report published last week highlighting the Indian slum of Dharavi. This is Asia’s biggest and densest slum, housing more than a million people. In the early days of the pandemic, Dharavi suffered a cluster outbreak. Doctors report containing it by using proactive measures, “including the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment.” As a result, Dharavi’s COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June, and in July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.”  

Yes, you read that correctly. “Almost reaching zero.” 

Still the stuff of right-wing nut jobs, you smirk? 

Well, there is Harvey, A. Risch, MD, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health (generally not known as a bastion of conservative political thought), who recently wrote in Newsweek magazine: “I am flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.” …..

(WT goes on to note some of the studies)

AGAIN, besides the studies Dr. Risch mentions (12), the total worldwide that shows benefite to using Plaquinel are 68 studies (41 peer reviewed). One of the better posts on this topic comes from REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE — of which some of these graphs are from or updated from the MAIN SITE tallying all this:


Death Becomes the MSM


Okay, I just want to say that we have heard many media types and Democrat Lefties say that by the President touting Hydroxychloroquine he is killing people. My first example comes from Neil Cavuto:

Fox News host Neil Cavuto warned viewers that hydroxychloroquine “will kill you” after Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he was taking the unproven drug to prevent Covid-19 infection.

Mr Cavuto, who appeared stunned at the US president’s decision, said he was not making a “political point, but a life-and-death point”.

“If you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment … it will kill you. I cannot stress enough. This will kill you,” said the Fox News host…..

(INDEPENDENT – May 19th)

But all this is based on a Lancent study published May 22nd (that media heads caught wind of a couple days early)… the only problem? The entire study was faked — here is a fair dealing with it via MEDCRAM. (A previous post where the known issues with “peer review” is noted: Peer-Review Issues | Sharyl Attkinsson). Here is the indomitable Press Secretary tearing shit up:

So the above and below “concern” about a drug many-many millions of people have taken for decades, safely, ALL OF A SUDDEN is a health emergency. I wonder why? (I refer you to the already posted Washington Times article title above.) The “blood on the hands” argument is really more apt in the 70-100-thousand lives that very possibly could have been saved had our country done what other countries had… save the MSM Derangement with Trump.

Here is some more examples of what I am saying:

Brianna Keilar spars with Trump campaign spokesman, says hydroxychloroquine ‘kills people’. Laura Ingraham gets reaction from Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, regarding CNN’s anchor who is accused of ‘ludicrous’ claim about hydroxychloroquine.

(Decent montage) The discredited and subsequently retracted hydroxychloroquine study had hardly appeared in Lancet magazine before CNN pounced on it with great eagerness to try to prove President Donald Trump wrong. This is yet another of their horribly WRONG reports on this treatment which on July 3 was contradicted by a Henry Ford Health System study which showed that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduced mortality among COVID-19 patients. Once again, CNN WRONG and Trump RIGHT!

CNN’s John Harwood went after President Donald Trump for “extending false hope” and “recklessly” touting unproven coronavirus treatment hydroxychloroquine, after a study published Friday revealed the drug is linked to “increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues.”

Medical journal The Lancet’s study found that there was a 34 percent increase in death and a 137 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias in those who received hydroxychloroquine alone. There was also a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias for those given the drug with and an additional antibiotic.

CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explained that although other studies exposed the potential dangers linked to the drug, the Lancet’s is much larger.

“This new one looks at 671 hospitals over six continents. The one before was looking at 25 hospitals,” Cohen said. “This is a very, very large study. And what they found was increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues. Now, these were hospitalized patients, some quite ill.”

She reiterated Trump’s claim that these studies look at sick people taking the drug, while he is healthy and taking it as a preventative measure, but questioned that if hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect at all if does not help the infected.

They then played a clip of the president’s “reckless” promotion of the drug, during which he calls hydroxychloroquine “a gift from heaven” but admits he is not a doctor.

“Increasingly, this study gives the impression that this president was extending false hope to people and he has gotten negative judgment from the American people for his handling of coronavirus, this is not going to make that any better,” CNN White House correspondent John Harwood added after the clip aired…..

(MEDIA’ITE – May 22nd)

This comes by way of THE TENNESSEE STAR:

Metro Nashville At-Large Council Member Sharon Hurt said Wednesday during a virtual meeting of the Joint Public Safety and Health Committee that there should be stronger legislation for those not wearing masks and suggested they be charged with murder or attempted murder.

Hurt said that she works for an organization that, “If they pass the virus, then they are tried for murder or attempted murder.”

Hurt thinks the same standard should apply to the general public.

“This person who may very well pass this virus that’s out in the air because they’re not wearing a mask is basically doing the same thing to someone who contracts it and dies from it,” she said.

“Maybe there needs to be stronger legislation to say that if you do not wear a mask, and you subject exposure of this virus to someone else then there will be some stronger penalty as it is in other viruses that are exposed,” the council member added…..

(read it all)

Is Harvard Racist?

Harvard University’s admissions policy is proof that one can remember negative history, write about it in great and vivid detail, and still be doomed to repeat it. In the name of “affirmative action” and “diversity,” Harvard is doing to Asian-American applicants exactly what it once did to Jewish applicants: discriminate. Lee Cheng explains.

Elizabeth Warren is bent on using the race card, even if it means falsely claiming Native American heritage. Dennis Prager explains why race doesn’t matter.

Media Bias Exemplified… AGAIN! (Plus: More CNN #fakenews)

FOX NEWS ends up being the most “Fair and Balanced,” as usual. Now, some of it may be explained away by this analogy: “The Lions [NFL] get bad press because they do poorely.” Okay, I cannot argue against nor defend Trump’s insane Tweets and foot-n-mouth disease. But many of the major networks and papers show their bias towards the issues thus:

  • …immigration coverage received 96 percent of negative coverage. (NEWSBUSTERS)

In a previous NEWSBUSTERS study, they pointed out the same biased media coverage (see graphic to the right).

I WILL INCLUDE some similar graphics I have collected over the years, at the end of this post.

Here is the

How negative was press coverage of President Trump’s first 100 days in office? Far more than that of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, according to a new report from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy.

The Harvard scholars analyzed the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and the main newscasts (not talk shows) of CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC during Trump’s initial time in office. They found, to no one’s surprise, that Trump absolutely dominated news coverage in the first 100 days. And then they found that news coverage was solidly negative — 80 percent negative among those outlets studied, versus 20 percent positive.

The numbers for previous presidents: Barack Obama, 41 percent negative, 59 percent positive; George W. Bush, 57 percent negative, 43 percent positive; and Bill Clinton, 60 percent negative, 40 percent positive.

Accusations of bias aside, it’s simply a fact that a number of negative things happened in Trump’s opening 100 days. The Russia investigation, for example, was a source of endless criticism from Democrats and other Trump opponents. The travel ban executive order led to intense argument and losses for the administration in the courts. The healthcare debacle created more negative coverage because it was a major screwup and a setback for both Trump and House Republicans.

That said, the coverage of some news organizations was so negative, according to the Harvard study, that it seems hard to argue that the coverage was anywhere near a neutral presentation of facts. Assessing the tone of news coverage, the Harvard researchers found that CNN’s Trump coverage was 93 percent negative, and seven percent positive. The researchers found the same numbers for NBC.

Others were slightly less negative. The Harvard team found that CBS coverage was 91 percent negative and 9 percent positive. New York Times coverage was 87 percent negative and 13 percent positive. Washington Post coverage was 83 percent negative and 17 percent positive. Wall Street Journal coverage was 70 percent negative and 30 percent positive. And Fox News coverage also leaned to the negative, but only slightly: 52 percent negative to 48 percent positive.

Ninety-three percent negative — that’s a lot by anybody’s standards. “CNN and NBC’s coverage was the most unrelenting — negative stories about Trump outpaced positive ones by 13-to-1 on the two networks,” the study noted. “Trump’s coverage during his first 100 days set a new standard for negativity.”……

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER)

What is funny is CNN produced some #fakenews from the study — of course they did!


A Couple Older “Bias” Graphics


94% Of New Jobs Created During Obama’s Era Were Temporary Positions

This comes from YOUNG CONSERVATIVES:

From Investing:

A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time “gig” jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

…But Then I Started College

This comes via the Harvard Crimson… which will surely be shut down do to it violating the feelings of a minority of students (h/t to Twitchy & Truth Revolt):

I used to believe that open discourse was a value all Americans hold dear. I presumed that when asked about what makes America so unique, many Americans would respond that our pluralistic society is the foundation of so much of our success. That it was understood that without a marketplace of ideas, our society simply could not flourish.

But then I started college.

Since the beginning of my freshman year, I have come to believe that a more fitting way to describe the current culture on college campuses is a culture defined not by open expression—but by sensitivity. This undue focus on feelings has caused the college campus to often feel like a place where one has to monitor every syllable that is uttered to ensure that it could not under any circumstance offend anyone to the slightest degree. It sometimes feels as though pluralism has become an antiquated concept. Facts and history have been discarded, and instead feelings have been deemed to be the criteria that determine whether words and actions are acceptable.

It is important to have organizations and movements on college campuses that work toward protecting individuals’ identities. The past few decades have witnessed an explosion of new identities, and students should become aware of and respect the plethora of new identities that have recently emerged. But many of these movements have gone too far.

Take the University of New Hampshire’s “Bias-Free Language Guide.” The list was compiled to inform students of words that are considered offensive in conversation. According to the guide, which was removed from the school’s website a few months ago after it incited controversy, the word “American” is unacceptable, for it fails to recognize people of South American origin. “American,” it argues, should be replaced with “resident of the U.S.” The words “senior citizens,” “older people,” and “elders” should also be eliminated, and instead replaced with “people of advanced age” and “old people.” If we’re at a point where it is offensive to say that your 90-year-old grandparent is a senior citizen, it seems that pretty soon, there may not be any neutral words left.

[….]

In a class I attended earlier this semester, a large portion of the first meeting was devoted to compiling a list of rules for class discussion. A student contended that as a woman, she would be unable to sit across from a student who declared that he was strongly against abortion, and the other students in the seminar vigorously defended this declaration. The professor remained silent. In a recent conversation with peers, I posed a question about a verse from the Bible. A Harvard employee in the room immediately interjected, informing me that we were in a safe space and I was thus not permitted to discuss the controversial biblical passage. And these are just stories from the past three months.

The assaults on free expression have dire consequences. The rise of the microagression movement has been reported to be detrimental to mental health on campus. Students’ emotional distress is increasing as educators presume that fragile undergraduates need to be protected from any form of dissent. Administrators must recognize that the current restrictions are incompatible with the very premise and goal of an education.

It is time to stop focusing on feelings as the criteria for speech and actions on the college campus.

(More by Rachel E. Huebner)

While we are on the topic of censorship… Dennis Prager gives us an update to Marquette University’s Censorship of Professor John McAdams and other students:

This next video brings a damning aspect to university campuses in that it speaks to the worst countries for freedom of speech:

Is 2014 The Hottest Year? No (Part 2 of a Series)

This is meant mainly as a supplement to a Christmas Eve-Eve gathering/discussion I was at. I will make this post  a little different than other posts, as, it will be “minimalist.” This is the second installment of the topics covered, which are polar bears, rising sea levels, CO2, Inconvenient Truth (the movie), nuclear power, warmest year, electric vehicles (EVs)/hybrid cars, and bullet trains.

Tarzan couldn’t take this kind of hot!

The question becomes this:

  • WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT WAYS TO MEASURE TEMPERATURE,
  • WHICH ONE ARE MANY MEDIA SOURCES USING,
  • AND WHICH ARE THE MOST RELIABLE.

 

These are the questions any serious person who tells people 2014 is the hottest year as if they are the final arbiter of truth. I have dealt with this in the past, but will again deal with it here.

The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:

Viewed another way:

UAH Reading

Another instance highlighting the NOAA’s overestimating temperature is when it said October was the hottest month ever, but RSS data showed October to be ninth warmest on record. And I wonder what family members on the East-Coast would say to there being more than 400 record lows and record cool highs set, via The Weather Channel (11/2014):

A third surge of cold air pushed into the Northern Plains, Upper Midwest and East Coast. This third surge reinforced the cold temperatures for millions of Americans who have already endured at least a week of January-like chill.

There have been more than 400 record lows and record cool highs set, covering 43 states, since Sunday. That leaves only five states in the contiguous U.S., all in New England, that have not experienced record cold temperatures this week. 

On Wednesday morning record lows were broken or tied from New York to Houston. Thursday morning brought more record cold to parts of the Southeast.

[….]

First arctic surge: Spread into the East last week (November 11-15).

– Second arctic surge: Blasted through the East, Midwest, and South through early Thursday (November 16-20). For parts of the mid-Mississippi Valley, Ohio Valley, Tennessee Valley and the Middle Atlantic States, this was the coldest of the surges, with numerous daily record lows broken.

– Third arctic surge: Reached the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest Thursday, then slid east across the Great Lakes and parts of the Northeast on Friday. It did not press nearly as far south as the first and second surges did.

– Cold relief: Relief began in the Rockies, then expanded into the southern Plains and Southeast Wednesday and Thursday. Midwest and Northeast relief arrives this weekend.

Okay, what we have already seen is that the satellite temperatures say 2014 will NOT BE the hottest year. One should ask what the hottest year was: 1934:

2CorrectedTemps_lg

(L.A. Times) A slight adjustment to U.S. temperature records has bumped 1998 as the hottest year in the country’s history and made the Dust Bowl year of 1934 the new record holder, according to NASA.

[….]

That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler.

This is where I transition to the NOAA temperature, but I wanted to take this transition with help from Dr. Willie Soon (NM), who is an Astrophysicist and Geoscientist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (I will embolden the point made below.) More and more scientists have been coming out of the closet and Dr. Soon is one of them. He says in fact that if his community continues “to keep silent and do not express outrage like the one I now feel, the notion of science as a philosophy and way of life will soon be reduced to computer games and animation for the mind-controllers and beauty-contest institutions….” Dr. Soon continues:

2014 hottest year a manipulation

Is this a joke or simply my BAD dream? Prostituting science like this is now consider a virtue. It is no wonder that science writer Lord Ridley said that he has lost his faith on science as an institution.

Why would anyone even bother with claims and insistence of the globe in 2014 being the hottest to a relative colder years all within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius? Poor Anders Celsius should be dancing in his grave.

The claim is based on just one (from a half dozen or so) thermometer-based products whose measurement quality is fraught with uncertainty and with actual error bars at least ten times larger than those claimed “effects”. WMO and others simply pick and choose the “data” that produces the press news they want in time for the Lima, Peru political pow-wow.

In truth the datasets taken as a whole clearly show that the global temperature has been flat-trending for nearly two decades now and that the theory of rising CO2 leading to global warming is sorrowfully exaggerated.

This kind of manipulative science, exemplified by IPCC, WMO, NOAA and what have you, is serving its master in the realm of politics and policy, and is indeed very sickening.

All of them are essentially behaving in ways we would never want any of our school children to behave: cheating and manipulating that are accompanied by careful wording and clever rhetoric….

This sets us up for HOW the NOAA gets their temperatures, and why they are inaccurate. The below is posted elsewhere on my blog and is semi-technical for the layman. But the key is PLACEMENT, and you can see that in the photo’s below Dr. Mueller’s presentation on how the numbers are skewed/manipulated.

(Dr. Mueller is part of the Department of Physics at the University of California at Berkeley, and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, where he is also associated with the Institute for Nuclear and Particle Astrophysics.)


ESPIONAGE

There seems to be a misunderstanding by the general public of the NOAA and other organizations and how they misuse data points (or average them wrongly).

So, for instance, professor Mueller at Berkeley mentions how climate “scientists” were hiding the decline in the past:

They were skewing the numbers in other words. This is an example of fraud. But numbers can be skewed by faulty or outdated methods/equipment. For instance,


EQUIPMENT FAIL

Here is a recent mention of the below in COMMENTARY MAGAZINE (added here 9-4-19):

STUDY by meteorologist Anthony Watts found that almost 90 percent of the 1221 weather stations in the U.S. did not meet the National Weather Service’s setting standards, which requires that they be at least 100 feet from any artificial heat source or radiating surface. You can see some of the most egregious violators here. To deal with this defective information, climate scientists, have “adjusted” the data to solve this problem. Invariably, these adjustments have made earlier data show lower temperatures, and recent data show higher ones.

To develop reliable data, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) placed 114 state-of-the-art weather stations relatively evenly spaced about the lower 48 states. They were carefully sited to be away from urban areas, which are heat islands, airports, which can be affected by jet exhaust, etc.

The system became operative in 2005. Now, realclearenergy.com is reporting that there has been no increase in average temperatures in the continental United States over the last 14 years, as measured by these new stations. If anything, overall temperatures are slightly cooler than they were….

Here are some examples of fudged data because of sub-standard equipment:

You’d think the answer would be obvious, but here we have a NOAA operated USHCN climate station of record providing a live experiment. It always helps to illustrate with photos. Today I surveyed a sewage treatment plant, one of 4 stations surveyed today (though I tried for 5) and found that for convenience, they had made a nice concrete walkway to allow servicing the Fisher-Porter rain gauge, which needs a paper punch tape replaced one a month.

Here is what you see in visible light:

Here is what the infrared camera sees:

Note that the concrete surface is around 22-24°C, while the grassy areas are between 12-19°C

This station will be rated a CRN5 by this definition from the NOAA Climate Reference Network handbook, section 2.2.1:

Class 5 (error >~= 5C) – Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface.”

More than half of the stations the NOAA use are tainted or wrongly placed equipment.


CHANGING DATA-SETS

Another example of changing averages was noted by Steve Goddard and others — even the NOAA have acknowledge it — have been discussing recently is exemplified in Dr. Judith Carry’s post on the matter (from a larger post of mine):


Even the Wall Street Journal chose the higher temperature reading to say that July of 2012 was July was the “hottest month in the contiguous U.S. since records began in 1895.” WUWT found this on accident and it has led to quite a few other revelations as we will see. Here is description in part of what we looking at:

Glaring inconsistencies found between State of the Climate (SOTC) reports sent to the press and public and the “official” climate database record for the United States. Using NCDC’s own data, July 2012 can no longer be claimed to be the “hottest month on record”.

[….]

I initially thought this was just some simple arithmetic error or reporting error, a one-off event, but then I began to find it in other months when I compared the output from the NCDC climate database plotter. Here is a table of the differences I found for the last two years between claims made in the SOTC report and the NCDC database output.

[….]

In almost every instance dating back to the inception of the CONUS Tavg value being reported in the SOTC report, there’s a difference. Some are quite significant. In most cases, the database value is cooler than the claim made in the SOTC report. Clearly, it is a systemic issue that spans over two years of reporting to the press and to the public.

It suggests that claims made by NCDC when they send out these SOTC reports aren’t credible because there are such differences between the data. Clearly, NCDC means for the plotter output they link to, to be an official representation to the public, so there cannot be a claim of me using some “not fit for purpose” method to get that data….

The WALL STREET JOURNAL made a graph showing this record setting month (below-left). The more accurate temperature for July likewise is shown in the same graph (below-right):

This looking at the data sets chosen and what is used and isn’t used to support an idea that fails in every way. Combine this obvious cherry-picking with the bias, collusion, and charges against the report that the President used to route Congress, all show we have a problem Houston! But this is only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. It seems the NOAA has been skewing these temps for some time. Why? Because the left uses this as a way to promote an ever growing government and the scientists get more-and-more funding. This data fudging story is newer, and it is evolving quickley, including this newest post via Real Science where Steve Goddard notes that More Than 40% Of USHCN Station Data Is Fabricated. Here is Dr. Judith carry’s synopsis (excerpted), in which she critiques a bit Goddard’s post… but then bows to the evidence:

OK, acknowledging that Goddard made some analysis errors, I am still left with some uneasiness about the actual data, and why it keeps changing. For example, Jennifer Marohasy has been writing about Corrupting Australian’s temperature record.

In the midst of preparing this blog post, I received an email from Anthony Watts, suggesting that I hold off on my post since there is some breaking news. Watts pointed me to a post by Paul Homewood entitled Massive Temperature Adjustments At Luling, Texas. Excerpt:

So, I thought it might be worth looking in more detail at a few stations, to see what is going on. In Steve’s post, mentioned above, he links to the USHCN Final dataset for monthly temperatures, making the point that approx 40% of these monthly readings are “estimated”, as there is no raw data.

From this dataset, I picked the one at the top of the list, (which appears to be totally random), Station number 415429, which is Luling, Texas.

Taking last year as an example, we can see that ten of the twelve months are tagged as “E”, i.e estimated. It is understandable that a station might be a month, or even two, late in reporting, but it is not conceivable that readings from last year are late. (The other two months, Jan/Feb are marked “a”, indicating missing days).

But, the mystery thickens. Each state produces a monthly and annual State Climatological Report, which among other things includes a list of monthly mean temperatures by station. If we look at the 2013 annual report for Texas, we can see these monthly temperatures for Luling.

Where an “M” appears after the temperature, this indicates some days are missing, i.e Jan, Feb, Oct and Nov. (Detailed daily data shows just one missing day’s minimum temperature for each of these months).

Yet, according to the USHCN dataset, all ten months from March to December are “Estimated”. Why, when there is full data available?

But it gets worse. The table below compares the actual station data with what USHCN describe as “the bias-adjusted temperature”. The results are shocking.

In other words, the adjustments have added an astonishing 1.35C to the annual temperature for 2013. Note also that I have included the same figures for 1934, which show that the adjustment has reduced temperatures that year by 0.91C. So, the net effect of the adjustments between 1934 and 2013 has been to add 2.26C of warming.

Note as well, that the largest adjustments are for the estimated months of March – December. This is something that Steve Goddard has been emphasising.

It is plain that these adjustments made are not justifiable in any way. It is also clear that the number of “Estimated” measurements made are not justified either, as the real data is there, present and correct.

Watts appears in the comments, stating that he has contacted John Nielsen-Gammon (Texas State Climatologist) about this issue. Nick Stokes also appears in the comments, and one commenter finds a similar problem for another Texas station.

Homewood’s post sheds light on Goddard’s original claim regarding the data drop out (not just stations that are no longer reporting, but reporting stations that are ‘estimated’). I infer from this that there seems to be a real problem with the USHCN data set, or at least with some of the stations. Maybe it is a tempest in a teacup, but it looks like something that requires NOAA’s attention. As far as I can tell, NOAA has not responded to Goddard’s allegations. Now, with Homewood’s explanation/clarification, NOAA really needs to respond….

(H/T to Climate Realist ~ See WUWT and Hockey Schtick for more)


So we see in the above, that temperatures can be changed years later as the totality of the data is included. What was considered the hottest falls to just an average month in the heat index.

And this has — within the past few months — turned into a very large debate.


EQUIPMENT FAIL II

Here is another example of older/faulty equipment:

A Quick Note about the Difference between RSS and UAH TLT data

There is a noticeable difference between the RSS and UAH lower troposphere temperature anomaly data. Dr. Roy Spencer discussed this in his July 2011 blog post On the Divergence Between the UAH and RSS Global Temperature Records.  In summary, John Christy and Roy Spencer believe the divergence is caused by the use of data from different satellites.  UAH has used the NASA Aqua AMSU satellite in recent years, while as Dr. Spencer writes:

RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality.

I updated the graphs in Roy Spencer’s post in On the Differences and Similarities between Global Surface Temperature and Lower Troposphere Temperature Anomaly Datasets.

While the two lower troposphere temperature datasets are different in recent years, UAH believes their data are correct, and, likewise, RSS believes their TLT data are correct.  Does the UAH data have a warming bias in recent years or does the RSS data have cooling bias?  Until the two suppliers can account for and agree on the differences, both are available for presentation.

 


ROSE COLORED GLASSES

Another example of competing ideas is this example from two major UK papers, the first being from the Guardian:

This next one from the Daily Mail:

(DAILY MAIL) ….The most widely used measurements of Arctic ice extent are the daily satellite readings issued by the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by Nasa. These reveal that – while the long-term trend still shows a decline – last Monday, August 25, the area of the Arctic Ocean with at least 15 per cent ice cover was 5.62 million square kilometres.

This was the highest level recorded on that date since 2006 (see graph, right), and represents an increase of 1.71 million square kilometres over the past two years – an impressive 43 per cent.

Other figures from the Danish Meteorological Institute suggest that the growth has been even more dramatic. Using a different measure, the area with at least 30 per cent ice cover, these reveal a 63 per cent rise – from 2.7 million to 4.4 million square kilometres.

[….]

Crucially, the ice is also thicker, and therefore more resilient to future melting. Professor Andrew Shepherd, of Leeds University, an expert in climate satellite monitoring, said yesterday: ‘It is clear from the measurements we have collected that the Arctic sea ice has experienced a significant recovery in thickness over the past year.

‘It seems that an unusually cool summer in 2013 allowed more ice to survive through to last winter. This means that the Arctic sea ice pack is thicker and stronger than usual, and this should be taken into account when making predictions of its future extent.’

Same data used, one says BEWARE, the END IS NEAR, the other says making gains, as the graph shows below:

(So are Polar Bears, BTW) And the Antarctic has made BIG GAINS. But if the left — yes, the left — says we should renter the little ice-age to be at a normal point of “climate disruption,” then they are living a pipe-dream. As the earth gets warmer life flourishes, as warmer periods in history have exemplified:

June was ranked one of the coldest months in a while. According to the NOAA, July 2014 ranked 29th coldest out of 120 using the Maximum temperature. And so we enter the discussion about if the pause is real… which is now being acknowledged by almost all (except the IPCC).


PAUSE

Here is Dr. Judith Curry posting ion the subject before getting into two papers that talk about it from two points of view:

With 39 explanations and counting, and some climate scientists now arguing that it might last yet another decade, the IPCC has sidelined itself in irrelevance until it has something serious to say about the pause and has reflected on whether its alarmism is justified, given its reliance on computer models that predicted temperature rises that have not occurred. – Rupert Darwall 

The statement by Rupert Darwall concisely states what is at stake with regards to the ‘pause.’   This seriously needs to be sorted out….

For a running — updated — list of these excuses mentioned above, see here. What HAS been clearly shown is that while some wish to make CO2 illegal, CO2 is in fact not driving the climate:


GROUP-THINK

What is being shown as of late is that more-and-more scientists are becoming concerned with the group-think in the climate-sciences. Again, Dr. Judith Curry was the biggest pro-AGW proponent, but has — like many others leaders in their respective field — changed or softened her/their positions on what the science is actually showing:

The implications of dogmatic groupthink and intimidation for the pursuit of sound science — and sound policy — are chilling. – Christopher Snowden

A collection of articles from the health science community on the fate of papers and scientists that challenge the consensus.


SUN & OCEAN

  • Gross Scientific Negligence – IPCC Ignored Huge Body Of Peer-Reviewed Literature Showing Sun’s Clear Impact – See more at: http://tinyurl.com/kw47zcf (NASA is changing on this as well)
  • NASA is saying the sun — thanks to the Goddard Institute studying this, is the driver of warming and cooling: http://tinyurl.com/m29yo99 (Via Hockey Shtick)

And yet another study is showing the sun as the major player… NOT greenhouse gases.

So what’s the bottom line? NOAA temps change over time. Many in this respective field are seeing group-think. Ideology is driving this group-think, not science.

Why should you be interested? Sea surface temperature records indicate El Niño and La Niña events are responsible for the warming of global sea surface temperature anomalies over the past 30 years, not man-made greenhouse gases. I’ve searched sea surface temperature records for more than 4 years and ocean heat content records for more than 3 years, and I can find no evidence of an anthropogenic greenhouse gas signal in either dataset. That is, the warming of the global oceans has been caused by naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

(From the newest global temp data-set at WUWT)

No matter what evidences one puts forward, until people remove their rose-colored glasses, they will continue to explain away the pause showing CO2 has nothing to do with global temperatures.