Category: Science & technology

Dipping A Toe In

Despite my spidey sense tingling like crazy and that little voice in my head saying, “Leave this one alone” my curiosity and a genuine heartfelt desire to educate myself on a topic I feel limited in, I’m going to throw out another climate change post, but from the position that I would like input from those so called experts for my on benefit.

First a disclaimer, I have no science background and 8 times out of 10 whenever the subject is brought up, it comes from a position of certitude so off putting (the science is settled so get with the program) or it is espoused by those so radical/tyrannical (anyone that denies climate change should be jailed) that my immediate reaction is to change the channel. I admit I must resist the urge to tune out, thus this post.

There is a group of Republicans that formed to address the seriousness of climate change, The Climate Leadership Council. Here is their mission statement;

Mounting evidence of climate change is growing too
strong to ignore. While the extent to which climate change
is due to man-made causes can be questioned, the risks
associated with future warming are too big and should be
hedged. At least we need an insurance policy. For too long,
many Republicans have looked the other way, forfeiting
the policy initiative to those who favor growth-inhibiting
command-and-control regulations, and fostering a needless
climate divide between the GOP and the scientific, business,
military, religious, civic and international mainstream.
Now that the Republican Party controls the White House and
Congress, it has the opportunity and responsibility to promote
a climate plan that showcases the full power of enduring
conservative convictions. Any climate solution should be based
on sound economic analysis and embody the principles of free
markets and limited government. As this paper argues, such
a plan could strengthen our economy, benefit working-class
Americans, reduce regulations, protect our natural heritage and
consolidate a new era of Republican leadership. These benefits
accrue regardless of one’s views on climate science

.

What clued me on to these guys was a WSJ article I read this morning. It is a short piece, easily readable.

I would appreciate Stogy, CM, Hal, and Alex to comment on it from a position of;

Does this make sense to you?
Does it go far enough?
Do you think they have a proper handle of the situation?
Can capitalism/free trade exist in a world where climate change is seriously addressed?

Any other readers who feel compelled to comment is also appreciated.

Naturally I think any “carbon taxes/carbon dividend” steps can only be addressed after real meaningful tax reform, lowering the corporate tax rate and providing tax incentives to facilitate bringing back home the trillions out there overseas.

OK, let me have it.

No way! They lied… Again?

I could set this all up and write as if I am totally surprised to find out that top men at NOAA have been lying again for political reasons, but that stuff is getting old and sad. Lets just read the thing and get to the most recent revelations of malfeasance by the credentialed elite with an agenda:

The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper.

His disclosures are likely to stiffen President Trump’s determination to enact his pledges to reverse his predecessor’s ‘green’ policies, and to withdraw from the Paris deal – so triggering an intense political row.

Where to begin? Tom Brady won a fifth NFL title for New England, pissing off that douchebag Goodell and setting up the stage for a ton of libs pants shitting when he and Bill Belichick meet with Trump and are all happy about it. No wait. That’s a different story for a different day. So I guess I will start with the revelation that this paper was not peer reviewed and was presented as critically important scientific fact by people with an agenda. I wish I could say this revelation somehow was a surprise as well, but considering how much made up shit, rigged data & models, massaged systems that always produce the same cataclysmic results, and whole cloth exaggerations, if not downright making up fake crap, have been part & parcel of this cult, that would drag me down to the level of these people. You of course ask yourself, how could this happen? What about scientific rigor and oversight? Well, here is what we find out next:

In an exclusive interview, Dr Bates accused the lead author of the paper, Thomas Karl, who was until last year director of the NOAA section that produces climate data – the National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) – of ‘insisting on decisions and scientific choices that maximised warming and minimised documentation… in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming pause, rushed so that he could time publication to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy’.

Dr Bates was one of two Principal Scientists at NCEI, based in Asheville, North Carolina.

Official delegations from America, Britain and the EU were strongly influenced by the flawed NOAA study as they hammered out the Paris Agreement – and committed advanced nations to sweeping reductions in their use of fossil fuel and to spending £80 billion every year on new, climate-related aid projects.

The scandal has disturbing echoes of the ‘Climategate’ affair which broke shortly before the UN climate summit in 2009, when the leak of thousands of emails between climate scientists suggested they had manipulated and hidden data. Some were British experts at the influential Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

NOAA’s 2015 ‘Pausebuster’ paper was based on two new temperature sets of data – one containing measurements of temperatures at the planet’s surface on land, the other at the surface of the seas.

Both datasets were flawed. This newspaper has learnt that NOAA has now decided that the sea dataset will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming. The revised data will show both lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.

The land temperature dataset used by the study was afflicted by devastating bugs in its software that rendered its findings ‘unstable’.

The paper relied on a preliminary, ‘alpha’ version of the data which was never approved or verified.

A final, approved version has still not been issued. None of the data on which the paper was based was properly ‘archived’ – a mandatory requirement meant to ensure that raw data and the software used to process it is accessible to other scientists, so they can verify NOAA results.

Get that? The very director of NOAA’s climate data production factory rigged the game to produce the desired results that would fit the narrative by the cultists that the end was nigh. Of course, as we know, this is neither new nor uncommon behavior with these people, whom for some reason don’t lose their scientific credibility after being caught red handed fabricating the results they want to push the agenda, because the whole thing is political.

So since you can’t defend this indefensible anti-science behavior, I expect the cultists to attack a man with the following credentials for not believing the correct dogma that they sell by consensus.

Dr Bates retired from NOAA at the end of last year after a 40-year career in meteorology and climate science. As recently as 2014, the Obama administration awarded him a special gold medal for his work in setting new, supposedly binding standards ‘to produce and preserve climate data records’.

I am certain that this infidel will be punished for letting us take another peek behind that dirty curtain. The sad fact is that these idiots have themselves to thank for the lack of credibility they suffer from, and for the reactions clear thinking people – those of us that respect the scientific process – have towards them. When the crap hit the fan a long time ago when neither the models nor the predictions bore any resemblance to reality, had these people really been interested in making the case with science, the correct action would have been to go back to the drawing board. We got none of that. They basically doubled down on the nonsense, screamed even louder, denigrated and called anyone that pointed out they had nothing to really stand on, accusing them of being deniers, all of which were clear signs you were dealing with a cult.

Revelations like this, only serve to make it even more clear that we are not dealing with anything scientific. Well that and the fact that the solution to this calamity always boils down to some massive wealth redistribution scam that removes more of our freedoms, drastically grows the nanny state, seems to have a scary eugenics bent at its center, and without a fault always serves to enrich a small cadre of establishment credentialed elites. This nonsense has been very lucrative for a connected few, and a costly and idiotic thing for the rest of us. It’s time it died and the reds picked a new calamity to push their agenda with. Maybe a meteorite strike or an alien invasion.

When reality doesn’t back your idiocy…

Alter Reality!:

Whether they admit it out loud or not, many global warming alarmists want more destructive weather events to validate their assumptions. But what happens when they can’t get their “dirty weather,” as Al Gore calls it? Then they’ll just have define down what a disaster is.

Eleven years ago, Gore swore that “the science is extremely clear now.” Global warming was “magnifying” the “destructive power” of the “average hurricane,” he said. Man’s impact on the environment “makes the duration, as well as the intensity of the hurricane, stronger.”

The weather refused to cooperate with Gore and the U.S. went 11 years without a hurricane making landfall. But Hurricane Matthew renewed the alarmists’ faith in their own nonsense. Acting is if 11 days rather than 11 years had passed, Gore said last week that in Hurricane Matthew, “Mother Nature is giving us a very clear and powerful message.” From the same stage in Florida, Hillary Clinton said “Hurricane Matthew was likely more destructive because of climate change.” The Washington Post, ever dutiful to the man-made global warming narrative, asked climate scientist Michael Mann (whose hockey stick chart supposedly proves human-caused warming but fails the test for some) about her statement. Naturally, he told the Post she was “absolutely” right.

Strain though they might, they’re not convincing anyone who isn’t already riding along on the climate-change disaster wagon. And they know they’re not. So the climate-hysteria movement needs a new approach. It has to in essence redefine what a hurricane is so that what had before been tropical storms and hurricanes that didn’t make landfall will in the future be catastrophic “hurricanes” or “extreme weather” events that they can point to as proof that their fever dreams are indeed reality.

After Matthew dumped more than 17 inches of rain in North Carolina, science editor Andrew Freedman wrote in Mashable that “it’s time to face the fact that the way we measure hurricanes and communicate their likely impacts is seriously flawed.”

“We need a new hurricane intensity metric,” he said, “that more accurately reflects a storm’s potential to cause death and destruction well inland.”

The current measure is the Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale, which, according to the National Hurricane Center, provides “a 1 to 5 rating based on a hurricane’s sustained wind speed.” But if the intensity of a storm is redefined by using other criteria, such as rainfall and storm surge flooding, the game changes.

“So with a new metric, warmists can declare every storm ‘unprecedented’ and a new ‘record,’ ” says Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot and producer of “Climate Hustle,” a movie that “takes a skeptical look at global warming.”

“This is all part of a financial scheme,” says Morano. “If every bad weather event can have new metrics that make them unprecedented and a record, then they will declare it fossil-fuel-‘poisoned weather.’ Warmist attorneys general will use any storm now to get money from energy companies claiming that their company made tornadoes, hurricanes, floods and droughts worse. They will use any bad weather event to shake down energy companies. That is why the extreme storm meme is so important.”

The alarmists need to redefine hurricanes especially now, since the data show that hurricane and tropical storm frequency is “flat to slightly down,” and science — yes, that “settled” field that somehow continues to discover new things — . They still need to hide the decline, except this time the decline that must be buried is in hurricanes, not the temperature record.

They did it with unemployment and other economic measurement units, so why not with this too?

Scientific American Drifts From Science

A few weeks ago, Scientific American sent twenty questions to the four Presidential candidates, asking for their policy positions on scientific issues. I think that’s a fine idea. The next President will control billions of dollars in federal funding for science, have to set priorities for our various department and agencies that do science and have to deal with scientific issues like disease, vaccines and climate change. These questions won’t reveal much about what the candidates think, but will reveal the kind of people they surround themselves with who actually write the answers. Are they surrounding themselves with real scientists or cranks? Big government lackeys or free market gurus? Earth-first idiots or global-warming-is-a-fraud crackpots?

Having read through the answers, it’s about what I would expect. It’s mostly pablum but gives you a general sense of their philosophies. Clinton thinks government can solve everything, Johnson is very in favor of free markets, Stein is a crackpot and Trump is kind of all over the place. All show some grasp of the issues but differ on their approaches. In terms of the quality of answers, I would rank them Johnson, Clinton, Trump, Stein, but … that is an entirely subjective rating. I rate Johnson high because I favor free markets and Stein low because she’s a crank who favors massive government intervention in everything.

Well, that wasn’t enough for Scientific American, who decided to “grade” the candidates on their answers. They rated Clinton highest (64 points), Stein (44 points), Johnson (30) and Trump (7). But their ratings having nothing to do with the actual science and everything to do with politics.

Both Trump and Johnson are hit for favoring free market approaches to climate change. Why? Because Scientific American doesn’t think the free market can handle climate change. Maybe it can’t, but that’s an opinion not a fact. It’s fine for pundits to have opinions but SA is presenting this as though it is some kind of objective analysis, which it clearly is not.

It get worse. They are heavily biased against Trump, frequently giving him zeros on issues where he’s not entirely wrong. They give him 0 points on education because he favors bringing more market forces to bear on education. Trump may be right or wrong on that (I think he’s right) but they bash him because ITT folded and Trump University was a scam. This has nothing to do with what Trump said. It’s bashing him for things he said outside of the forum and for issues unrelated to what he’s talking about. If you’re going to hit Trump for the failure of ITT (which he had nothing to do with), why not hit Clinton for taking millions in “for profit” college money? Clinton and Trump give basically the same answer on nuclear power, but Clinton gets two points and Trump gets one because reasons. On scientific integrity, they give Trump 0 points because … Politifact has rated a lot of his utterance as untrue. Look, I’ll be the first to call Trump a liar but this has nothing to do with his answers to this specific question. It’s ridiculous.

But it gets even worse. On nuclear power, they give Jill Stein 2/5 points. Jill Stein’s answer on nuclear power is one of the worst answers the entire debate. She plans to shut nuclear power down based on junk science and favors on-site storage based on junk science. Her proposal would almost certainly make climate change worse, not better. And if we’re going to judge candidates by what they’ve said elsewhere, she once claimed nuclear power plants were bombs. Stein is a complete crank on nuclear power. There is no way she should get any points on this. She also get 2/5 on food, even though she’s a complete crank on GMOs and farming.

Nowhere is this bias more visible than the question on vaccines. Trump is given 1/5 for occasionally engaging in anti-vaccine nonsense. But Stein is given 3/5 when her entire party is devoted to anti-vaccine nonsense; nonsense she has not seen fit to dispel. Seriously, Scientific American? Seriously?

I’m glad someone is asking the candidates questions about science policy. But Scientific American needs to just lay out the questions and answers and leave it that. We do not need this kind of biased analysis showing up in a supposedly scientific magazine. Write about it on Politico or Daily Kos or whatever.

You might wonder why this set me off. It’s because this is one of the biggest problems facing science today: the efforts by scientists and scientific publications to wed scientific facts to political opinions. This shows itself most thoroughly in the debate about global warming where disagreeing with left wing policy solutions to global warming is considered a form of “denial” on par with claiming the planet isn’t actually warming. The debate over global warming (and a host of other issues) would be light years easier if we separated those two; if we said “you can accept that global warming is real and not accept my solutions to it”. SA’s “grading” of the answers to the science debate is just the latest in the misguided philosophy of mistaking opinions about scientific issues for facts about scientific issues. And it needs to stop. These issues are way too important.

The Nearest Earth

Well, it’s 24 trillion miles away, but at least we now have somewhere to go once Clintrump send us on a spiral of doom:

In this golden age of exoplanetary science the announcement of a planet 30% more massive than the Earth, in an 11.2 day orbit around a low-mass star with a luminosity 0.15% of the Sun’s would usually elicit little more than a raised eyebrow.

Except for the fact that this world orbits the nearest star to ours; Proxima Centauri.

It means that at a cosmically trifling 24 trillion miles (4.243 light years) from where you are at this instant is an alien system with a planet that could conceivably harbor life as we know it. That planet is estimated to be around 4.9 billion years old, it receives about 65% of the Earth’s stellar irradiation, and its skies – whatever else is in them – are bathed in the red-hued rays of a diminutive star only 12% the mass of our Sun.
Say hello to the closest truly alien world.

The planet was discovered by the very small doppler shift its orbit induces in Proxima Cen. Way back in 1993, I did a presentation in my astrophysics class in which I claimed that this was the best approach to finding extrasolar planets. My professor — who was and is a good friend and a brilliant man — thought I was crazy, that we would never be able to measure doppler shift precisely enough to find Earth-like planets. So every time we do find one this way, I still feel a little thrill of vindication.

There are actually plans to send a probe to a nearby world. Russian entrepreneur Yuri Milner is funding a program to send a tiny probe at a significant fraction of the speed of light to a nearby star. It would be a very quick visit. But talking with my exoplanet colleagues this summer, it sounds like he’s serious and this could be done. The main hurdle to be overcome is how to pack it with enough power to transmit a signal back to Earth.

The more we look at the universe, the more ubiquitous we find planets to be. So I’m not entirely surprised by this. The universe is teeming with planets and the number of potentially habitable planets almost certainly numbers in the billions. If we live long enough, we will see a space telescope get a spectrum of a nearby planet’s atmosphere. And then it’s only a matter of time until we find a signal of life in another star system.

In the meantime, let’s hope we one day get off our butts and get moving. The universe is at our doorstep.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

I see human genetic manipulations as inevitable. Someone will go there, and others will need to follow to keep up. Of course, while I can see the author’s point that the Chinese will go there first, I think they might not actually be the ones to commit the worst offenses. After all, the Chinese are still a post-communist dictatorship, and those leaders are definitely not going to risk their hold on power from a gang of enhanced super-humans. Hence the introduction of a flaw to control them bye, and the proceeding unraveling of the whole thing.

The inevitable reality is that as technology and knowledge advances, it will present us with opportunities that can, and will, lead to bad things. I remember reading a book a while back that basically made the case that the reason humanity was not finding other intelligence out there was not merely because we were looking/listening for the wrong things as some that point out our technology doesn’t lend itself to the overcoming the difficulties of the vastness of space, but that they simply didn’t exist. Civilizations reached a point where their technological advances caused them to tamper with themselves or build bigger and better engines of destruction, with the inevitable consequence that they would wipe life out.

But who knows? Maybe Ideocracy had it right, an the greatest scientific minds will all gravitate to improving erections and solving hair loss, and we will be spared extinction as the stupid people out-breed the others.

The future looks bright!

Science, baby!

I have often wondered why a simple solution, kind of like this one, was never thought of. From the article;

Imagine being able to go to the doctor and having any plaque that had built up in your arteries removed in an afternoon.

It sounds pretty high-tech, but researchers have come up with a conceptual device that could do just that – possibly saving lives in the process.

The technology is still just an idea for now, but the video above shows how it might work. Let’s hope someone decides to develop this one further.

Follow the link, and look at the video. For all its complexity and wonder, the human body is nothing but another machine, albeit a biological one, and it doesn’t seem to be too far fetched to think that some common real world solutions that apply to mechanical machines couldn’t be adapted for our bodies.

I remember when I was doing work on my EE masters degree, shiz, more than 20 years ago, when I actually worked with a professor that went on to use the then new and emerging MRI technology to implement an idea I had brought up in class after talking to a couple of friends in the medical field: use an MRI machine to create a 3-D image of a human, and then, use VR to let doctors do test operations or analysis before doing actual invasive work. I recently read an article that this was now a capability being marketed to the real world.

Now if we could just come up with something that would allow us to find those poor people infected by the collectivist mental disorder and cure them of that horrible affliction.

I could say “I told you so” but even that feels hollow after the destruction wrought by these idiots

Frankly, I am left wondering if the people that write articles like this one actually are this dense and don’t get that what Obama promised was exactly what he delivered on. Only a fucking idiot fell for that “Hope and Change” shit, and those of us that pointed out what we would get was many people hoping they would get to keep some change – an expression of getting fleeced/robbed by the vote buying crooks that due to their lack of ability to produce anything of value make a living from ripping those that do off – from these crooks, are only surprised that the idiots that fell for it still don’t realize why it was obvious to us that this is exactly how things would play out. We got an unvetted, inept, and idiotic narcissist marxist islamist that talked a mean talk but whose only track record was “community organizing” as our POTUS because the assholes in the media that are bought and paid for by the DNC managed to bamboozle enough mental lightweights to tip the voting in favor of the party of “Free shit”.

The left sold Obama as the second coming. After 8 years of Boosh and all that pent up anger people were convinced they needed a change. That anger existed primarily because Boosh not only managed to prevent Al Gore from using an army of lawyers and every dirty trick in the book to steal the 2000 election, but then ended up dealing with the War on Terror, which everyone knew would have just been politicized by the left to push more stupid shit. Just look at how Bill Clinton whined that it happened under Boosh and not him, depriving him of that political opportunity to grand stand, or how Obama has handled the aftermath of the war fought by Boosh. In hindsight, Iraq having been a bad miscalculation, with the expensive and bloody victory pissed away by the next administration, along with Afghanistan which was the only moral war unit Obama was in charge when only the wars started by Obama would be moral, one can say we should have avoided that conflict. But the truth is that the left wanted to make sure America lost for daring to fight back instead of accepting the role of the bad perp the left believes it is, and they did everything they could to made that happen. Boosh was called a warmongering madman, and the usual credentialed elitist scumbags all pretended the reason everything was fucked up was because he actually decided to make a weak stand to a murderous ideology hell bent on enslaving the globe and to a plethora of leftist thugs across the globe.

In marched Obama, whom his PR team told us would not only fix everything and make America loved again, but stop the rising of the oceans, and usher in peace on earth. Now, 8 years later the United States, and the world in general, are all in absolute disarray. Things – across the board – are far worse. Where to start? The list of items to back up this claim is just so long, with so many egregious and downright horrendous failures and abuses, that it boggles the mind. The one thing I can say is that even I couldn’t imagine these people would be this inept and destructive as they have proven to be, showing this much disdain for the American people they are supposed to be representing, while tearing everything down, leaving chaos and pain in their wake.Be it economic policy, foreign policy, or simple things as upholding the law, they not only failed, and failed bad, but did so in ways that set new standards for how low things could go. Basically we had a bunch of amateur checker players that bought into the delusion spread by the media that they were capable geniuses trying to outsmart others that compared to them would have to be ranked as chess champions. And the constant lying, man. Bear with me.

The islamists which had been taking an ass whooping under simpleminded Boosh, despite attempts from the left to aid and abet the enemy during the Boosh years, are now not only spreading their cause and winning, but Obama and his people can’t even admit that even if we don’t want to be at war witht hem, they sure as hell are at war with us. I don’t have to elaborate. Look at the news. Not a week goes by without some scumbag murdering people in the name of that evil cult. This cancer has only gotten stronger. And taken as a whole, I admit that the only strategy I see from this administration is actions that helped make that the case. Obama has started more wars, excuse me, kinetic actions, not one of them resulting in anything but abysmal failure for us and an escalation of the problems, but we keep getting told by idiots that Boosh was the warmongering asshole. You do remember Libya and Syria, right? Hillary and her buddies sure do. They made big money, left a US ambassador out there to be murdered – an act of war – because they were worried about an election, then lied about what happened to advance an agenda. I would not be surprised to find out ISIS was a child of the Obama admin that basically turned on its master.

And the failures don’t stop with the disastrous handling of the war that the islamist have brought to the crumbling western world. From Russia – remember the rest button from Staples Hillary used as a prop to fix thingsto China, to Europe, our enemies all are in a better position to screw us over, while our allies all have reason to be weary of the US because of backstabbery on a Machiavellian level perpetrated by this administration. They managed to be outplayed by Putin and countless others from multiple players in China to Iran, always focusing on the political ramifications at the voting booth instead of the political ramification on the global scale. Iran will build a nuke and likely start a nuclear war in the Middle East in the next decade, and I bet the left blames the next president for that – especially if it is not a democrat – while North Korea has continued to be more and more aggressive (yes, Boosh dropped the ball there). And man did the Obama admin set a new record for using the agents of government against political enemies both at home and abroad. For example, this administration used tax payer money to pursue a personal vendetta against Nethanyahu whom they wanted to fuck over because he called them on their ineptitude and lies, not just about Iran, but in general. At home they fucked over anyone that dared point out they were basically going to let Iran build a nuke. And there are countless other stories like that, many not even told by a media that went into overdrive playing damage control for these buffoons. Yet, we still have to hear that Boosh was the inept politician and cowboy, while I just saw a misleading commercial about how awesome Hillary was as the SEC-STATE of the most inept administration in my lifetime was, despite the reality, and that we should now make her president!

Domestically this administration set new records for abuses and down right criminal activity. Nixon is spinning in his grave because the scumbags in this administration actually used every agency of the government, from the IRS, to the DOJ, to the EPA, and so on, to target enemies of the Obama administration. And they got away with it because of a complicit media populated by DNC operatives with bylines. Heck, the FBI just let Hilary walk on a slam dunk case that would have been a one-and-done under the very espionage act that the Obama administration used more than all previous administrations combined, to punish anyone that dared to whistle blow on the breadth and dept of criminality in what Americans were promised would be the most ethical and transparent administration evah! (Another bullshit slogan that turned out to be the exact opposite of the lies).

Our economy is in shambles. After these crooks ripped us of to the tune of trillions, be it through their shovel-ready prokulous projects or the money pissed away buying votes from those that vote for a living, all while cock-blocking every and all real job creating opportunities. The rich have gotten richer than ever, the pool of people sucking at the government’s teats has set new records, we now have the lowest percentage of worker participation since the thirties, if not in the history of the country, the middle class has been ass raped, our healthcare system is in disarray and unraveling after Obamacare finally got to do its thing and Obama threatens to veto those that want to stop the train wreck, the economic future looks bleak, and their solution is to make life worse for us so their rich buddies that stand to make a ton of money from these schemes and scams or hippies that worship Gaia, can all signal their social justice virtuousness. And Obama’s plan for the future, that fundamental change to America he promised, comes in the form of an invasion from the rejects of South America.

I can go on and on, but you get my drift. Those of us that know better know how bad things are and why. Those that don’t want to admit they bet on the wrong horse or are so ideologically blinded that nothing will convince them otherwise, will find fault with me pointing their hypocrisy out. The fact is that Obama has managed to make Carter look like a decent president, and until Obama, Carter was hands down the worst president of my lifetime. Obama’s PR team and his narcissistic nature wrote a lot of checks that he simply couldn’t cash. These people have no problem telling lies and abusing power. Remember that when you wonder how someone like Trump could end up the presidential candidate opposing the only other person in politics that I think is even more inept, corrupt, and dangerous than Obama.

Science Sunday: A Big Social Science Oops

Wow:

Social science can be so amusing. There is a bit of a contretemps over several recent articles that used datasets supposedly measuring the personality traits of liberals and conservatives which has resulted in several abashed corrections. The researchers used the data in an effort to show that personality traits are not the cause of political attitudes, but instead both are correlated with some other factor, most likely genetic. Interesting enough. This finding is not what is being corrected.

Instead, what is being corrected is the rather casual assumption in the studies by the researchers that a personality factor identified in the datasets they used is supposedly associated with conservative political views. That factor is called Psychoticism. They hasten to explain that Pyschoticism is not the same thing as psychotic. The original article, “Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies,” in the American Journal of Political Science explains:

Having a high Psychoticism score is not a diagnosis of being clinically psychotic or psychopathic. Rather, P is positively correlated with tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation-seeking, impulsivity, and authoritarianism (Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; Eysenck and Eysenck 1985, McCourt et al. 1999). In social situations, those who score high on P are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome, and socially withdrawn, but lack feelings of inferiority and have an absence of anxiety. At the extremes, those scoring high on P are manipulative, tough-minded, and practical (Eysenck 1954). By contrast, people low on P are more likely to be more altruistic, well socialized, empathic, and conventional (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985; Howarth 1986). As such, we expect higher P scores to be related to more conservative political attitudes, particularly for militarism and social conservatism.

Well, guess what. It turned out that they’d coded their spreadsheet wrong. Higher “psychoticism” scores actually correlated with liberal beliefs, not conservative ones. So their study, cited by many liberals as proof that Conservatives Be crazy, showed the exact opposite of their conclusions.

Digression time:

The best thing about science is that it has a corrective mechanism: someone else can do the experiment and check the results and see if they’re borne out. This mechanism works well in the physical sciences, where mechanisms are fairly deterministic — no matter how many times you drop a steel ball, it will always follow the same law of gravity. It works reasonably well in the biological sciences. In biology, systems are more complex and a bit more unpredictable. On balance, heavy drinking will kill you. But there are people who drink like fish and live long lives because genes or other factors or just plain luck keep them going. You also have a problem of reproducing experiments — I can mix chemicals over and over again and weed out the bad results. But I only get to do a 40-year study of people’s eating habits once.

In the social sciences, though, all bets are off. Part of it is that you are dealing with complex systems. Economies are complex, humans are complex and we only get to live out history once. Part of it is an “observer effect”. People behave differently or even lie to researchers when they know they are part of an experiment. For example, Sweden claimed the number of men who had ever seen a prostitute dropped massively after they imposed their “Nordic Model” on sex work, which only makes sense if massive numbers of Swedish men were struck dead by the legislation. In reality, fewer men were willing to admit they had because of the social pressure.

But it’s also ideological. Physicists, chemists, engineers and biologists tend to have a mix of political views; social scientists tend to be almost exclusively liberal. Physical and biological research only occasionally has big political implications (e.g., global warming, GMOs, evolution). And even in these cases, the science is not political; the science is politicized by opportunistic politicians.

But in the social sciences, almost everything has some political implication. So results that confirm the ideological bias of the researchers sometimes isn’t questioned too carefully. Massive tomes on income inequality are praised despite serious methodological flaws. Papers supporting Keynesian economics are taken as gospel despite huge flaws. Garbage research claiming massive amount of sex trafficking is used to inform policy.

An example more germane? A lot of people have claimed that Donald Trump’s supporters are authoritarian. This sounds about right to me except … that analysis is based on sociological debris. Here are the questions used to determine if someone is authoritarian:

Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: independence or respect for elders?

Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: obedience or self-reliance?

Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: to be considerate or to be well-behaved?

Please tell me which one you think is more important for a child to have: curiosity or good manners?

Everyone claims this is the “definitive” test of authoritarian tendencies. Is it? Those traits seem to track culture far more than they track politics. My grandparents’ generation would have shown up as very authoritarian even though they voted FDR in four times and huge numbers of them had fled Europe because of the rise of authoritarianism. But because this test shows that conservatives are more authoritarian and all the sociologists believe that conservatives are more authoritarian, everyone accepts it.

But which is more authoritarian? Believing in a government that governs least? Or believing in a government that controls our lives? The problem here is that liberals don’t think of themselves as authoritarian even thought they are. If you believe in government controlling healthcare, education, retirement and half of the country’s wealth, you’re authoritarian, no matter how sincerely you believe that gays should be able to get married or how liberal your parenting methods are.

(This problem of nomenclature comes up a lot. I can’t find the link, but McArdle has written about a study that showed that liberals valued “fairness” more than conservatives. Every liberal scholar and pundit cited it was proof of how unfair conservative ideas were. But conservatives objected, arguing that wealth redistribution was not “fairness”. They saw it as plunder. Conservatives think that allowing people to keep what they’ve earned is “fairness”. In the end, the researchers agreed that people might differ on the definition of “fairness” and changed their word choice.)

In any case, this is yet another demonstration of how bias clouds the social sciences. This was a very basic error, something that even a modicum of checking would have shown. but no one questioned it, no referee gainsaid it, no one reproduced the results because it confirmed what liberals wanted to believe.

Science!

Who would have think that a tyrannical asshole like Nye would fall this low? Well, I did. These supposed scientists, like Nye and DeGrasse-Tyson, are nothing but left wing shills with delusions of grandeur.

Leading climate activists are warning moviegoers to shun the May 2nd nationwide one-day theater screening of “Climate Hustle,” a new film debunking climate alarmism and its big government solutions.

Bill Nye (not a real “science guy,” FYI), who entertains the idea of throwing climate skeptics in the slammer, warned the film’s producer, Climate Depot publisher Marc Morano, that “Climate Hustle’s” content endangers not just the nation, but also the world:

“I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.”

U.N. Climate Scientist Michael Oppenheimer has, likewise, condemned the film – without even viewing it – for daring to dispute climate alarmism. “Marc is a propagandist,” the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientist cautions viewers.

Yeah, think hard on that. If you really believe the stuff you are peddling is science, you wouldn’t be this worried about contrary opinion. If you are peddling bullshit, having others point that out however will be detrimental. Basically a shorter Bill Nye is “drink our koolaid, and don’t let the facts get in the way”.

I am gonna buy a dozen tickets to this movie.