The big cheese of climatology is described by one of his allies in an e-mail to another star of the field as “vindictive”, “a bad enemy” and as having gone a little “crazy” at a paper which he perceived as an attack because it supported the existence of an historically proven period of time on earth, the medieval warm period.

One of these leading lights doesn’t know how to use the software that he does some of his data “analysis” on. That software is Excel.

The big cheese of the field told one of his main critics that “numerous (unnamed) persons” had proven his criticisms “simply wrong” (using unreferenced proofs) and asked the critic if he had the integrity to withdraw his criticism.

Big-Cheese and “science” bloggers defenders then demonstrate a shocking inability to understand the criticisms they claim to be debunking; equating the rejection of the claimed ability to measure global temperature (the planet is incredibly far from thermodynamic equilibrium) and the rejection of the concept of temperature itself–say, of a bucket of water.

I want to restate that last bit because I don’t read climate “science” advocacy very much anymore and so when I’m confronted by something like this it’s like jumping into cold water. No matter how much you expect it you are not ready for the shock. People who consider themselves men of science are unable to comprehend a simple and simply stated criticism. Yet they think it has been “proven” “simply wrong” by “numerous persons” and that this proclamation should be enough to invoke conversion of critics.

These are the people who ARE the field of climatology and the theory of a human driven climate crisis. These are the people whom we are called anti-science for not believing. This is a disgrace.

Here’s an idea. Fire all these loons and bring in people who know Excel, who understand statistics, who can follow a simple statement far enough to reply intelligently and who can understand that when a computer model diverges from observations of the system being modeled it is not reality that is malfunctioning. Let them publish works where the peer review process is open and transparent. If these new *qualified* (and identified) persons come to the same conclusions as the Hockey Team and are able to address criticisms, then I will give some consideration to their warnings. Otherwise, certain vindictive persons can be invited to place their hockey sticks in the appropriate places.

I was told that the idea of Marxist ideologues even trying to take over public and private spaces, let alone being allowed to, was ludicrous given the massive collapse of the Soviet system. The suggestion that America would be ruled by a class of people–journalists and politicians–who not only support these encampments but who think exponential increases in debt, spending and taxes is a good idea, was ridiculed. They told me that “There is no way that people would accept a political party which labeled all who disagree with them as racists and or violent. That’s just stupid.”

Oh, and what about the idea that many Americans and other Westerners would witness a massive terrorist attack on American soil, hear a well-funded group that had a history of such terrorism claim responsibility for it and yet be convinced that their own government was the actual perpetrator? The publishers of 1996 told me that coming up with such an idea demonstrated a profound inability to comprehend human nature.

When they read my assertion about scientific peer review becoming so corrupted that one psychologist could fake an entire career and other “experts” could be found to have monopolized and manipulated an entire field of study for the purpose of advancing a program of “wealth redistribution”, most of them read no further.

These publishers asked me why I thought that people in a mere decade and a half would suddenly be such complete morons at such a large scale. I couldn’t really answer that without saying that maybe people had always been that stupid and they would only become conspicuous about it in years to come. So they rejected my sci-fi story.

No royalties; no status of prophet/psychic for me. Stupid worthless time machine.

I was in the presence of a veteran today who had served in combat and taken fire for this country. He was studying for a new career and mentioned that he was unable to drive because of the condition of his leg. A specially outfitted car with hand controls is too expensive for him and while he has medical documents showing that the condition of his leg is a result of his service, VAC claims it isn’t so they won’t help him. So he is now in conflict with them. Or with us I should say, as it is our society which gives higher priority to trivial expenditures than to helping an extremely employable former serviceman achieve the mobility he needs. We would rather pay him welfare and unemployment for years while bureaucrats push him to take crappy but locally available jobs just to get him out of their jurisdiction for a few months.

Helping him get the car would be the moral thing to do (he is a veteran), the ethical thing to do (he has the medical documentation) and the financially reasonable thing to do, as it would save on other expenses that would not get racked up. Since it would be moral, ethical and reasonable/fiscally responsible, it’s not something government will do without a fight.

Even where you actually have good, intelligent and caring people in a branch of government it will never be able to act sensibly or compassionately. Like corporations, governments are simple collective organisms like slime molds or biofilms. Unlike corporations, government departments have nothing to measure success by and can only seek to expand not improve.

Demographic transitions to lower fertility rates are seen as proof of Western decadence, failures of capitalism or the evils of secularism. The observation that changes in total fertility rates are artificially magnified by demographic conditions like rising ages for marriage and child bearing is not well received by either pessimistic northerners or optimistic southern ideologues (or northern ones in the case of India).

Assimilation is a forbidden concept for all. Pessimists don’t believe it can happen; optimistic imperialists see it as a racist counter offensive that can easily be stopped via piety and purity of ideology. Somehow they will convince other immigrants to remain as supposedly pure of ideology as they are even in the face of many benefits to assimilation. History shows that unless an incoming wave of migrants quickly establishes military control over the host society, it is impossible for them to assimilate that culture and will themselves be assimilated, even if they arrive in huge numbers. They may contribute to the culture they join but they won’t supplant it.

The fact that the supposedly threatening societies from the south are undergoing the same demographic transition as the north has, and faster, or that immigration is only high when there are jobs to attract immigrants (Mexican immigration, both legal and illegal is now at about net zero or lower), have little space in the discussion of demographic trends. But then the discussion of demographics rarely moves beyond the phrase “if this trend continues…”. Pity, that.

Now the academic field has accepted an insular and incestuous group of ideologues as the voice of climate science and accused skeptics as being “anti-science”. Yet the widely held (dare I say, consensus) opinion in medicine, that the non-ionizing radiation of cellphones and Wi-Fi signals (not to mention fields given off by electricity infrastructure) does not cause the health effects ascribed to them, is rejected out of hand.

The reason that Wi-Fi, cellphones, electricity and such are not believed to be harmful (especially in regards to cancers) is that:
A) The theory of electromagnetism does not currently support such effects.
B) The suggested effects can not be seen in proper, statistically sound research and rely on science’s dirty secret, meta-analysis–a methodology which can prove contradictory claims depending on “legitimate” choices made by the analysts.

So while these folk can easily dismiss skeptics of what passes for climatology in our culture as being “anti-science”, the scientific view on electromagnetism is denied by many without them being labeled as “anti-science”.

So let’s ignore science and try simple reasoning. Across this planet there have been rollouts of cellphones, Wi-Fi, electricity infrastructures and the like at varying orders and rates with some areas getting cell service long before electricity or other potential health hazards like industrial pollutants and such. More over, many of these technologies have gone from being virtually non-existent to being radiating beside our beds, next to our heads and across our yards in a very short time. Shouldn’t we expect the health effects of these technologies to have risen at such a rate and in such a clear distribution that the jiggery-pokery of meta-analysis would not be needed to demonstrate it? Even if the effects take years to manifest, shouldn’t the early adopters have seen a small but measurable spike in such health problems which does not require statistical manipulation to expose?

Deniers. Anti-science. Anti-intellectual. Who gets to sew these labels on people and views? Our cultural elite? The same people for whom Stalinism, antisemitism and Keynesianism are ideas worth one more try? Those guys? They should only be sewing counterfeit handbags in sweat shops so the kids there now could train for the jobs our elite now hold.

Yah wanna be protected from your enemies and have all your needs provided for? You need a left-wing society man!!! All it takes is for you to belong to us. Everyone likes to feel they belong, right? Just follow our directions on what to say and do, let us claim to represent you. If your interests differ a bit from ours, keep it to yourself. If we find it advantageous we will turn on you with a ferocity that even our enemies don’t usually see. And they see a lot of our ferocity, let me tell you. But if you’re really playing on our team we won’t need to turn on you; you will belong to us.

What do you need to do to belong to us? The beauty of it is that you may already belong. Are you a woman? Black? Hispanic, Muslim, gay, a student, a worker (unionized, preferably)? Congratulations, you’re already ours. We’ll use information channels like schools, colleges, the news media and the entertainment industry to instruct you on what to think and say and do to better serve those to whom you belong. If you’re not one of the afore mentioned groups you can still get in and receive blanket immunity from charges of racism, misogyny and intolerance of all forms.

And remember, you get taken care of and provided for for life. The money to do this will come from those who unfairly sought to become more wealthy than the rest of the world by creating wealth and greedily keeping it for themselves. We’ll soon bring them back down by redistributing their wealth. And since people always want to create wealth, even if they don’t get to benefit from it, there will never be a lack of plunder. Once they are suitably humbled and brought down to a level playing field, we’ll continue on via credit from wealth foreigners. Soon all nations will follow our lead.

Things like education healthcare and food are fundamental rights which means they can only be provided by the state. Many cool societies have come close to implementing these ideas and have only been prevented from succeeding because of famine and because a few bad apples kept acting in their owns interests rather than that of their societies. Traitors! (spit)

So what do you say, wanna belong to the winning team? Don’t make us send the goons you racist, homophobic war-mongering fat cat.

There are different ways to avoid the conflict of values. One can keep your beliefs hidden and be a closet hypocrite. One could could appear ‘militant’ and challenge the use of the pledge. One could simply avoid aspects of social life where the pledge is used: Boys Scouts, public service/community meetings, patriotic sex parties etc.

All of these options have the benefit of maintaining a distance between believers and infidel, either socially or physically (like I said, clever). And in the end, isn’t keeping people divided what religion, government and patriotic sex parties are all about?

Many Libyans have voiced opposition to any ground forces coming in to assist fighting what’s-his-names but they are somewhat interested in a no-fly zone for the reasons mentioned. I can see pros and cons to the concept but there is one important thing to remember. America should respond to any request from the UN, EU, AU or whatever, for America’s help in such a project with a hearty “Fec off, ya gobshites!!!”

It is not that the Libyans don’t deserve help against this monster. And America would benefit greatly from a democratic Libya. But no-fly zones are not just a matter of announcing one and shooting down all planes that disobey. It involves bombing everything that even resembles an anti-aircraft gun, a radar installation on a military runway. Some civilians will be killed. Every air-strike will have Qadaffi’s “people” and “journalists” from CNN and the Palestinian film actor’s guild swarming around planting burning Korans and stuffed animals all over the scene telling the compelling story about blood thirsty American forces taking vengeance against Libyan kids. The news media mugs get a narrative that they like and it will only take a bit of spin to pull the blame off Obama and spread it on to the war-mongering American nature that poor Obama and Democrats tried to resist but Rethuglians forced upon – blah, blah, evil corporations, blah, blah, blah.

In short, a no-fly zone may or may not be the right thing to do but America should not be sucked in to helping anyone with their military. No where, no how, no way.

Iraq under the Baathists and Afghanistan under the Taliban were two of the most totalitarian states of the modern era and the US had their own security self-interests in defeating them. They could have just knocked down the regimes and left but they took on the responsibility of reconstruction and ensuring democratic institutions were given a chance to succeed. And they will never be forgiven for this intervention. Think what they would have to live down when they use bombs against Gadaffi and friends – people whom our world’s cultural elite are forced by circumstances to condemn but secretly admire for his anti-American street cred and fashion sense.

Let the Turkish do it. Or the Russians. Hey, the Chinese are big on helping out in Africa; ask them.

When Qadhafi is removed, there will be much cause for celebrating but freedom will take a lot longer to achieve.

Some states in this theater of revolution may even be hijacked by extremist groups who let the pro democracy folk do the heavy lifting of regime change – The old Iranian revolution is one example of this.

But at least, taking out the head of a fear state does go a long way to breaking its grip on their societies. I hope that enough of these revolutions go on to reform both nation and society so that the number of democratic nations in the world begins to climb again.