Cartago Delenda Est

Public 20 Times More Interested In Climategate Than In Tiger Woods

2009-12-04T14:25:00.000-08:00

But who would care, except a few fringe lunatics wanting to please customers via committing journalism? Thankfully there are few of those.

Link

It's Unusual To Agree With The Saudis

2009-12-04T14:23:00.001-08:00

But sometimes it happens:

Next week's Copenhagen conference may well see discussion of climategate, as at least Saudi Arabia is preparing to make an issue of it. It is getting harder and harder for the mainstream media to keep intact their embargo of news on the biggest scientific fraud on history. The BBC reports:

Saudi Arabia's chief climate negotiator, Mohammad Al-Sabban said that the CRU e-mail issue will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit.

Mr Al-Sabban made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.

"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons."

Of course, the Saudis have an obvious interest in keeping hydrocarbon demand high. Nevertheless, with nations openly debating the issue, the coverup looks more and more ridiculous.

Spectaclism

2009-12-03T14:09:00.000-08:00

Good philosophical post by Edward Feser.

It ends:

“But, but, but, but… naturalism just can’t be as groundless as that!” Wanna bet?

“But most contemporary academic philosophers are naturalists! How can they all be wrong?” Tsk tsk, come now, everyone knows that arguments from authority went out with the Middle Ages…

I've always found it interesting that the very same people who say, "Surely you cannot believe that an entire field of human intellectual endeavor (climate science, let us say, or Darwinism) has gotten it fundamentally wrong!" are precisely the same people who assert that essentially everyone across all fields of human intellectual endeavor got it fundamentally wrong in the Middle Ages.

Lovable Little Fuzzballs

2009-12-03T13:53:00.000-08:00

This is news to some:

Jerry Coyne: "Atheists Have Been Humble for Centuries"--If You Don't Count the Last Three

Sometimes Jerry Coyne makes me spray my coffee. This gem from a post of his on detente in the new atheist-theist wars:

Atheists have been “humble” for centuries (who was more humble than Spinoza?) and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. It’s that crop of new atheist books that have finally created a climate in which atheists need not feel like pariahs...

Humble? Atheism's first assumption of power at the level of the nation-state was in the French Revolution. "Humility" doesn't do justice to the carnage wrought by French atheism-in-power, nor to the Napoleonic wars and millions of dead that followed in the ensuing decades of "atheist humility."

In the 19th century "atheist humility" incubated in the minds of men like Marx, and again gained the reins of power in 1917. The 20th century was the century of atheism in power. Here is the death toll of its "humility" (from The Black Book of Communism):

65 million dead from Atheism in People's Republic of China

20 million dead from Atheism in Soviet Union

2 million dead from Atheism in Cambodia

2 million dead from Atheism in North Korea

1.7 million dead from Atheism in Africa

1.5 million dead from Atheism in Afghanistan

1 million dead from Atheism in the Communist states of Eastern Europe

1 million dead from Atheism in Vietnam

New Atheists like Coyne sell a toxic ideology; atheism's transparent nastiness in "humble" exile is nothing compared to its record of totalitarianism and atrocities on assumption of power. There's a lot more to atheism than "humble Spinoza." Atheism-in-power is mankind's deadliest ideology, bar none.

"The First Lie Is The Deepest"

2009-12-03T11:49:00.001-08:00

Excellent Vanderleun post.

To which Gagdad Bob commented:

Don't piss down my back and tell me it's acid rain...

And also comments:

The task now before the MSM is how to hide the decline. Of science.

Use Of The Term "Swifthack" Does Not Help Your Case. But You'd Know This If Science! Were Not Infested With Leftism.

2009-12-03T11:19:00.000-08:00

Chris Mooney thinks that the use of the term "Swifthack" for the climate scandal is clever. This is because he thinks the Swiftboaters were liars. But the people who think the Swiftboaters were liars are leftist fools. Why does Chris Mooney not think he is simply digging a deeper hole for the cause of Science! ? Why does he think this attitude is going to convince those who need convincing?

Fair or not, true science is in the position of having to convincingly defend itself, if it wants to maintain its prestige. But its biggest alleged fans have gotten it into their heads that the answer to their critics is merely to shout "F*ck you! We're scientists!" Given the stakes, this attitude betrays a certain lack of wisdom and bigger-picture thinking. Folks are correct to wonder if this evident cognitive shortcoming also applies to the science itself.

The credibility inferno rages with ever greater intensity, and their only answer is to fiddle and mock. It seems that compact fluorescents are not the only dim bulbs we need to contend with.

Microsoft Helpfully Updates Excel In Wake Of Climategate

2009-12-03T10:50:00.001-08:00

Link

Hey, Jerks, If You're So Bright And Clever, Why Don't You Create Your Own Original Symbolism Instead Of Abusing Ours?

2009-12-02T20:10:00.000-08:00

Not an original thought to be found (NSFW).

"Joanna Krupa's Naked Crucifix PETA Ad Photo"

They Can't Even Count To Seven

2009-12-02T20:08:00.000-08:00

Denial.

The Science Of The Saints

2009-12-02T11:36:00.001-08:00

Mark Shea. The start of it nicely expresses (what should be) a commonplace, but the twist at the end makes it great.

But Science! Is Always Right!

2009-12-02T11:20:00.000-08:00

Jonah Goldberg:

The Perils of Groupthink, Cont'd

My USA Today column yesterday (USAY for short) was on groupthink and the CRU debacle. Well, here's a good concrete example of what I was talking about. When an organization is plagued with groupthink, any convenient data or fact will be immediately believed without question. Contrary or inconvenient facts will be explained away.

Charlie Martin over at PJM highlights a perfect illustration of this tendency. Apparently the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, recently blew a gasket over a study that was equivocal on whether or not the Himalayan glaciers were melting due to global warming. Pachauri said: Of course they're melting! In fact, the 2007 IPCC report asserted that they are melting faster there than any place else. They'll all be gone — gone I tell you! — by 2035 if not sooner. The panel reported that: "If the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

Now, anyone who has seen a glacier up close who is not drunk on Kool Aid would have looked at a prediction that all of the roughly 10,000 Himalayan glaciers would be gone in less than 25 years with skepticism (particularly when many of them are, in fact, growing). It turns out that the 2035 prediction was a typo. The original paper on which the prediction was based had said the glaciers could be gone by 2350, but the IPCC guys read it as 2035 and Pachauri not only believed it, but when confronted with scientific evidence that even the 350 year prediction might be overblown, angrily defended the 25-year prediction as authoritative.

Nothing New Under The Sun

2009-12-02T10:44:00.001-08:00

Ed Driscoll with an excellent video piece on how we've seen this all somewhere before.

John Stewart On Climategate

2009-12-02T10:18:00.001-08:00

And Yet Even They Are Starting To Tire Of The Fraud

2009-12-02T08:17:00.000-08:00

A Delingpole post rounding up latest climate scam developments.

excerpt:

Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:

“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

Completely In The Dark And That's The Way They Like It

2009-12-01T17:34:00.001-08:00

David Bernstein:

[L]iberal students are currently not being well-served educationally by their professors.

In particular, studies show that approximately 40% of American adults consider themselves to be conservatives. I would therefore posit that a well-educated American college graduate should have some idea of what mainstream conservatives think, and why they think it.

Yet the late controversy over Rush Limbaugh and the Rams suggests that many well-educated liberals don’t know the first thing about American conservatism. In particular, I found it extremely troubling that so many columnists, bloggers, political figures, and so on, were gullible/ignorant enough to believe that a mainstream figure like Limbaugh publicly praised the assassination of MLK, or stated that “slavery had its merits,” without any apparent controversy at the times these alleged remarks were made, with no diminishing of his 20 million strong audience, and with no harm to his political standing among conservatives and within GOP circles.

I’m a libertarian, not a conservative, and I’ve probably listened to a total of less then ten hours of Limbaugh in my life, but it was obvious to me that these alleged statements were phony. I would have hoped that they would have at least raised eyebrows among liberal commentators, such that they would have demanded a firm source before attributing them to Limbaugh. But no, apparently a significant fraction of well-educated American liberals, the products of our best universities, thought it unexceptional, indeed, completely congruous, that a mainstream conservative figure would praise slavery and James Earl Ray.

I’m not sure what the solution to this problem is, but I do think it’s clear that many product liberal-leaning institutions, starting with the universities, are sufficiently engaged in groupthink that they lack the most basic curiosity about or knowledge of what their ideological adversaries believe, and are instead inclined to dismiss them entirely as mere evil reactionaries. [And they are sufficiently isolated from contact with conservatives that they don’t have personal experiences to suggest otherwise; it’s easy enough, for example, to go to a top university, on to a major journalism school, and from there to the New York Times or MSNBC or The Huffington Post without every having had a serious intellectual discussion with a conservative colleague or mentor.] That’s not good for the universities, it’s not good for liberals themselves (isn’t easier to defeat one’s enemies if one first understands them?), and it’s not good for America.

Men Won

2009-12-01T11:20:00.000-08:00

Only mildly satirical.

And No Doubt Capone Had Approving Peers

2009-12-01T10:58:00.000-08:00

National Review has an excellent editorial on Climategate.

"You Want To Be On The Fun Partying Team, Don't You?"

2009-12-01T10:38:00.000-08:00

A superb Ace of Spades post (some off color language in places).

This Is What A Real Hockey Stick Graph Looks Like

2009-12-01T10:22:00.001-08:00

Link

Well, The Speaker Should Know

2009-11-30T21:02:00.000-08:00

In case you were wondering:

Creepy Statist Quote of the Day From the Folks Who Object to Being Called Creepy Statists

Nancy Pelosi:

In a recent press release, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., argues that constitutional objections to the individual mandate are "nonsensical," because "the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited."

We're All Gonna DIE!!!

2009-11-30T19:10:00.000-08:00

Science!

The Decision Tree

2009-11-30T14:44:00.000-08:00

Great article, educational charts.

Well Said

2009-11-30T11:09:00.000-08:00

From here:

Abortion is the most reliable issue there. If you're a Democrat, you better be pro-choice. No, that's not enough. You better be fiercely opposed to any restrictions whatsoever on abortion, and be in favor of the federal government paying for abortions if the unmother can't swing it. Otherwise, you're just another quasi-cancerous growth to be scraped off off the donkey's uterus.

Scrabble Gate

2009-11-30T10:50:00.001-08:00

Sullivan's on it.

Cartoon

2009-11-30T10:47:00.001-08:00

Here: