Of course the guy that voted for a Communist in 1976 over Jimmy Carter is all in with Cultural Marxism:
Nick Searcy responds:
POWERLINE uses the embarrassment angle to mention a few things, the following being one:
Of course the guy that voted for a Communist in 1976 over Jimmy Carter is all in with Cultural Marxism:
Nick Searcy responds:
POWERLINE uses the embarrassment angle to mention a few things, the following being one:
(Originally Posted June, 2017)
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:
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.
See my post for more context to the above last point:
1993 “Homosexual” Platform
1972 “Homosexual” Platform
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:
But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.
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.
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:
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
What is funny is CNN produced some #fakenews from the study — of course they did!
A Couple Older “Bias” Graphics
This comes from YOUNG CONSERVATIVES:
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:
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:
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:
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:
(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.)
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,
Here is a recent mention of the below in COMMENTARY MAGAZINE (added here 9-4-19):
More than half of the stations the NOAA use are tainted or wrongly placed equipment.
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):
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:
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:
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).
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:
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
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.
After laying out a detailed case of what by Julia Pollak experienced in the military as a woman, she goes on to compare this experinece to her experience at Harvard. A MUST read, great article! I pick up as she enters the comparison:
…Compare all this to the model for sexual assault prevention and response at the institution I belonged to before the military—Harvard College. There, complaints of sexual assault are filed with the Administrative Board, or “Ad Board,” comprised of deans and faculty members. The written policies regarding sexual assault are far less favorable to victims, requiring non-consent to be expressed “verbally or physically” and requiring the Ad Board members to be “sufficiently persuaded” that an assault occurred.
In stark contrast to the stories I’ve heard about military perpetrators landing up in Leavenworth Prison, Harvard’s history of dealing with sexual assault cases might easily give more encouragement to perpetrators than victims.
During my time at Harvard College, between 2005 and 2009, I had one friend who was sexually assaulted by a fellow student, another who was beaten by her boyfriend (a fellow student), and another who was involved in a highly improper and abusive relationship with a professor. Not one of these incidents was ever reported.
In the five years from 2005 to 2010, according to the Harvard Crimson, eight cases of sexual misconduct were brought before Harvard’s Ad Board. Only three perpetrators were required to withdraw from Harvard College for at least six months, and none received a permanent expulsion.
So perhaps, instead of being a punching bag on Capitol Hill, the military should be studied as a model for sexual assault awareness, prevention, and response policy, especially among young people aged 18 to 24.
To place the military’s sexual assault problem in a wider context, here are some illustrative numbers. According to an anonymous survey, service members may have experienced as many as 26,000 instances of “unwanted sexual contact” in 2012. In other words, about 6.1% of female service members and 1.2% of male service members experienced unwanted sexual contact that year. Note that this number includes a substantial number of cases that occurred before the victim entered the military, as well as cases involving civilian perpetrators.
Although it is difficult to make direct comparisons due to differences in the way survey questions are asked, rates of sexual assault outside the military appear to be similar—if not higher. A 2010 study by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found that 6.7% of all women had experienced sexual violence, rape, or attempted rape in the 12-month period preceding the study. Since sexual assault rates are highest among the young, the CDC finding implies that the incidence of sexual assault is even higher than 6.7% among military-aged women. The CDC also found that between 20 and 25 percent of women, and approximately 6.1 percent of men, are victims of an attempted or completed sexual assault while they are in college.
And perhaps that model should be exported to the nation’s college campuses, where sexual assault is equally prevalent but far more hidden; where sexual assault policies and practices are outdated; and where the fear of litigation or falling rankings makes university administrations reluctant to expel offenders and eager to brush the problem under the carpet.
Really the idea of “progressive, democratic evolutionary ethics” is meaningless if true (see here). Dennis Prager discusses a recent defense of Bloomberg’s “soda-ban” by an evolutionary professor from Harvard. He [Dennis] even wrote about this in a recent article:
The quotation of the week last week had to be that of Harvard professor Daniel E. Lieberman in an opinion piece for the New York Times.
Lieberman, a professor of human evolutionary biology, was among those who publicly defended New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan to ban the sale of sugared soft drinks in cups larger than 16 ounces.
And he did so using, of all things, evolution.
Now, we all know that humans have always needed — or evolved to need — carbohydrates for energy. So how could evolution argue for Mayor Bloomberg’s ban on sugar, a pure carbohydrate?
“We have evolved,” the professor concluded his piece, “to need coercion.”
Evolution explains love, altruism, morality, economic behavior, God, religion, intelligence. Indeed, it explains everything but music. For some reason, the evolutionists have not come up with an evolution-based explanation for why human beings react so powerfully to music. But surely they will.
Now, along comes Professor Lieberman, not merely to use evolution to explain human behavior but to justify coercive left-wing social policy.
In other words, the left is not only progressive when it coerces citizens to act in ways the left deems appropriate but also science itself — through evolution — inexorably leads to government coercion on behalf of such policies.
Whereas until now, the democratic left has attempted to persuade humanity that left-wing policies are inherently progressive, this Harvard professor has gone a huge step further. Left-wing policies are scientifically based. This is exactly how the Soviet Communists defended their totalitarian system. Everything they advocated was “naoochni,” “scientific.”
To differ with the left is not only definitionally sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist, and bigoted (SIXHIRB, as I have labeled it) — it is now against science itself….
Here are the original comments by Prager on this deterministic proclamation:
Talk Origins in its 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (written between 199 and 2004) quotes a 1999 study that purportedly proves their stance:
Well, the tables have turned on neo-Darminian claims yet once again and science (not “scientism”) advances:
It is worth mentioning that this supposed truth for evolutionary theory is further along the wrong prediction mark than the proof of “Junk DNA” was along this path when I was debating in 97′ with people over at the Discover site. (In fact, this “proof” is connected to the “junk DNA” position.) In 1997 people — in debate situation — said that evolution predicts junk DNA and that they have known of junk DNA for quite some time, thus proving evolutionary explanatory power. IN 2003, one of the first articles to hit the mainstream scientific press that this long held assumption was in jeopardy hit Discover and Scientific American magazines, two subscriptions I receive out of the many mags I get. Pictured is the first Discover magazine (yes, I have kept them) ruminations that this “proof” was disintegrating, like the vestigial organs “proof” did, cytochrome C differences, bacterial evolution, etc.
So debating a topic like this supposed proof is funny because it is much further along the scientific path than it was when I first debated the issue. Not to mention all the “evolutionary tree” models that are supposed to be factual when in fact their order is a topic of much debate. For instance, I posted a bit earlier a layman’s article on the argument within the evolutionary camp about mankind coming from orangutans rather than a chimpanzee split in the family tree… (this earlier post mentions the belief within the evolutionary camp that man came from some aquatic ancestor rather than orangutans). A few people likewise believe that apes (Gorillas) are descended from mankind in some way. For instance, Dr. Aaron G. Filler:
He wrote a book entitled The Upright Ape: A New Origin of the Species, in which he follows the footsteps of another well respected scientist showing that apes are most likely a breakaway group from mankind. The other scientist I mention is Dr. Geoffrey H. Bourne:
He said that apes are descended from man. Why would men of science believe such a thing? Because science has never seen any information being added to the evolutionary upward “slant” that is required by its theory (Darwinism, e.g., “scientism”). So since apes are less than us, Dr. Bourne says that science [not “scientism”] proves his theory due to observable facts. (SEE APPENDIX) All this though, junk DNA being disproved and a differing order of our family tree are other impediments to the Vitamin C Pseudogene argument. In order for this argument to work (and the subsequent predictions made to be coherent), he [the evolutionist] has to have all his ducks in order, this is something he does not have the luxury of (see image at top). One of the papers linked above (GULO pseudogenes have been intensively investigated) and its in-depth research led it two authors to say the following:
That last sentence really shows the assumptions made in this “proof” that steps away from true science and into the realm of historical science. And the historical sciences are fraught with bickering, changing branches of human lineage, and naturalistic philosophies that make the vitamin C pseudogene argument pretty vacuous.
The following is a good round-up of the problems seen in this line of argument, by Sean D. Pitman MD:
All this is to say, yet again, that this “evidence” is anything but!
As was said before the known factors of the pentose phosphate pathways:
So, to sum up, at best this could be viewed as a theological argument: “what should have God done if he did create ‘A’.” At worst it is an argument that has not evolved with science correcting itself and is stuck in the 90’s science and not the mid-to-late part of the first decade of the beginning of the 21st century — science. Science has evolved, have the evolutionists?
This is an excerpt from the much hated book, Of Pandas and People, pp 34-40 (click to enlarge):
1. It takes 6 million years for one mutation to arise in a DNA binding site.
2. 6 million years is how long, historically, one has to get from primates to humans.
3. Humans differ from primates in hundreds of ways, requiring probably thousands of different gene mutations.
4. What’s more, many of the differences between primates and humans would require coordinated mutations. For example, the correct legs, feet, pelvis, spine, and neck to walk upright are differences which individually are useless by themselves.
5. Experiments with bacteria (i.e. with population sizes and mutation rates much higher than primates and humans) suggest that a single protein cannot mutate six or more times in a coordinated fashion in a timespan less than the known age of the universe.
6. Given these numbers, it is impossible for humans to have evolved from primates.