Thursday, February 29, 2024

The Dangers of Posting on Social Media | Konstantin Kisin

Climate deniers don't deny climate change any more

This is a straw man argument.

It is absurd. The political left deliberately promotes falsehoods and then cry bloody murder when people object to their nonsense. 

 The IPCC has shown its bias by refusing to hire anyone who does not already believe in catastrophic man-made warming. This is not how you do science, by starting with the conclusion. Real science is done by looking at the data and seeing where that takes you.

The IPCC has tried to suppress papers by skeptics and even got a skeptic fired from a university. 

 One person who resigned from the IPCC said that it wasn't so much about protecting the Climate as it was about doing away with free-market capitalism. Other people have resigned from the IPCC in protest claiming that they were too biased. 

 Everywhere I look I see articles claiming that the only solution to Climate Change is socialism. At least for some, this is the real agenda. 

It is questionable to claim that everything is rigidly peer-reviewed when the universities have been taken over by the extreme left. 

 Almost everyone believes that the average atmosphere temperature has increased, by a small amount, and that humans are the cause. There are some minor disagreements over the details, but there is widespread agreement on the basics. However, future predictions of gloom and doom are very debatable and scientifically disprovable. The CO2 level is already at 90% of its potential to block infrared radiation. Climate Alarmism depends upon as-of-yet unproven positive feedback mechanisms. If there were some evidence for this I would be on board, but there is a long list of past predictions that have not come true. 

The solutions involve making energy expensive for everyone and denying energy to developing countries.

Ayn Rand: The Real Motive for the Socialist Mindset

The term "Capitalism" gets thrown around and has become a pejorative on the political left.  So maybe we should define what we mean by "Capitalism".

A free market is one in which you get to make free choices.  The opposite of this is tyranny, but no society is either completely free or completely tyrannical.  Being free to make choices includes the freedom to make voluntary exchanges,  to own property, and to do business for your own benefit.

The definition of Socialism is that the means of production is socially or collectively owned.  By definition, the means of production can't be privately owned, which requires an authoritarian state to take away people's right to engage in commerce.   This makes Socialism not only evil, but impractical because it prevents people from acting in their own benefit, and it prevents the innovation that would come from large numbers of people doing business.  It also takes away incentive structures of success and failure that result in a more efficient free market.

One thing that the political right believes that maybe the political left doesn't is that people respond to incentives.  Give people an incentive to not work and they won't work.  Give people an incentive to be productive and innovative and they will be productive and innovative.

These claims are easily demonstrated by looking at how various economic systems have faired.  Far-left economic systems have faired very poorly and have been a disaster for the people living under them.  All you need for a prosperous society is to embrace a free market to at least some degree.

Could #WWII have been prevented?? Victor Davis Hanson

Worse than Abestos?

My only concern here is that the health claims need to be backed up by duplicatable peer-reviewed research.

World War 3

I have stated that World War 1 was one of the dumbest wars ever. Most of the people fighting that war probably had no understanding of why they were fighting except for nationalism. A combination of tensions and mutual defense treaties, not unlike today, allowed one spark to lead to an immense conflagration of many combatants. All the elements are there for this to happen again. The difference today is that many of those combatants have nuclear weapons.

However, the Treaty of Versailles that ended the war was very punitive toward Germany. Germany, which had been one of the mightiest countries in Europe before the war, found itself having greatly diminished status. Because of this diminished status, they were willing to back a radical who essentially promised to Make Germany Great Again.

It shows that if people think that they have been wronged then they will put up with an authoritarian government that promises to right those wrongs.

This is the line of the Chinese Communist Party because the Chinese people view the 19th century as the century of humiliation. Western powers, mostly Great Britain, dominated China in the 19th century. There is much resentment in China over this. The Chinese were once a world power, and the Chinese people want to again have high status in the world. The CCP has promised to give this to them, essentially promising to Make China Great Again.

Russia has taken a similar view. In his interview with Tucker Carlsen, Putin claimed that other countries are oppressing Russia, and claimed that the United States wants to control everything. Russia has multiple times been an empire and Putin compared himself to Tsar Peter the Great.

With many countries vying for status, there is great potential for war.

Tucker Carlson Admits What Politician Truly Scares Him

Tucker Carlson often sounds conspiratorial, but he makes a good point here.

Fwd: murderer Ibarra immigration status adn sponsership

Under Biden-era immigration protocols, Venezuelan migrants can be "sponsored into" America by individuals or groups that are willing to take responsibility for the new arrivals. 

According to reports, Ibarra provided Covenant House, a youth homeless shelter in New York City, as his sponsor to gain entry into the U.S.   

But in an email exchange with this writer, the Executive Director of Covenant House wrote that, 

Covenant House New York did not sponsor Jose Antonio Ibarra's entry into the country and has not done so for any other person.  We do not know how our address came to be on his form, but there have been and continue to be instances when our address is given at the border.

Assuming that is accurate – and I have no reason to believe it is not – how is this possible?  Can asylees simply conjure sponsors out of the air? Does DHS not do the most rudimentary checks into the putative sponsors of asylum claimants?

The sponsorship issue begs other questions.  What, exactly is genuine "sponsorship" based on?  Considering that upwards of 85% of asylum claims are ultimately denied? 

And further: Do sponsors bear responsibility for keeping tabs on those they sponsor?  Including potential legal liability? 


But positing that ICE did become aware of Ibarra's criminal status: What provision is there for a case like Ibarra's? Considering that Venezuela's President Maduro has suspended repatriation flights?  Where does a Venezuelan criminal like Ibarra go? Who houses him in the meantime? 

Has the Biden administration thought any of this through? 

The questions around this crime go to the heart of our current immigration debacle – and we deserve answers.  Apparently, ICE is currently taking the "no comment" approach at this time regarding the specifics of Ibarrra's status. 

Laken Riley's death in Georgia begs big unanswered questions. Here are 10 | Fox News


Saturday, February 24, 2024

The Poetry, Power, and Philosophy of Andor's Monologues

New Evidence Suggests Long COVID Could Be a Brain Injury

'As part of the preprint study, participants took a cognition test with their scores age-matched to those who had not suffered a serious bout of COVID-19. Then a blood sample was taken to look for specific biomarkers, showing that elevated levels of certain biomarkers were consistent with a brain injury. Using brain scans, researchers also found that certain regions of the brain associated with attention were reduced in volume.

Patients who participated in the study were "less accurate and slower" in their cognition, and suffered from at least one mental health condition, such as depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, according to researchers.

The brain deficits found in COVID-19 patients were equivalent to 20 years of brain aging and provided proof of what doctors have feared: that this virus can damage the brain and result in ongoing mental health issues. 

"We found global deficits across cognition,"'

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Tuesday, February 20, 2024

I escaped's what Tom Cruise is really like: Mike Rinder

The SHOCKING Details Of Katie Holmes' Escape From Tom Cruise & Scientology

The Gin Craze

The Milankovitch Cycle Timeline: Where are we now?

The Hockey Stick Trial: Science (and free speech) Dies in a DC Courtroom

In a 39-page report, climate scientist Judith Curry gave her opinion that it is "reasonable" to have referred to the hockey stick in 2012 as "fraudulent" in the sense that "aspects of it are deceptive and misleading."

However, Judge Alfred S. Irving excluded Curry's report, which cataloged the manipulations of data to get a hockey stick shape and quoted severe criticisms of the hockey stick made even by climate scientists supportive of the climate-change consensus (most of these made privately).'


The trial closed with Mann's counsel, John Williams, making a naked appeal to the jurors' political prejudices. Williams urged the jury to award punitive damages so that no one will dare engage in "climate denialism" – just as Donald Trump's "election denialism" needed to be suppressed. "In 41 years of trying cases to juries," John Hinderaker wrote on the Powerline blog, "I have never heard such an outrageously improper appeal."

Trump’s VP: Ranking the candidates from most likely to least

Monday, February 19, 2024

New Rule: Stop the Spiel | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)

Not everything is sunshine and roses.  Food costs up to double what it used to.  Under the Biden administration, 6.9 million people have come into the United States illegally, of which 2.5 million came in last year.   Our national debt and spending have skyrocketed, and our foreign policy is at best questionable.

Nobody updated me. Girl Scout Cookies

Sunday, February 18, 2024

Facts About Money That Will Blow Your Mind

The last point is a stunner...

How to Think About Climate Change | William Happer

The biggest lie in the World #cattle #beef #farming #food

Best wishes,

John Coffey

Human Nature Vs. Ideas From Collectivism to Sh**Holes

The Extremely Depressing Case of Richard Hunne

Characterization of Trump over COVID

Oh Well:

I never had Covid But I do remember putting many people into Body bags while Trump belittled its effects


I feel that this is an unfair characterization of Trump. He said many things while we didn't know what was going on. This is like CNN's political spin:

Trump took very decisive action early on. I don't like everything about Trump, but I think that he did a very good job and his actions were closer to the left than they were to the right at the time:

Saturday, February 17, 2024

Tucker Carlson and Jordan Peterson Reveal the WEF's Dark Agenda

Population growth can be a legitimate issue.  We see that in overcrowded cities everywhere.   We see conflicts arising right now out of overcrowded countries.

However, these problems aren't beyond fixing.

Population growth can be a legitimate issue.  We see that in overcrowded cities everywhere.   We see conflicts arising right now out of overcrowded countries.

However, these problems aren't beyond fixing.

The price of a lost tooth

When I was a small child, I might have gotten a quarter for a lost tooth, maybe. Of course, a quarter went further. Candy bars cost a nickel. In 1969, they went up to a dime.

The Kim Komando Show reported that some parents are giving their children between $20 and $100 for their first lost tooth.

Seems to me that this represents everything wrong with modern society. Inflation aside, some people have grown up with a sense of entitlement that did not exist in previous generations.

My parents came out of The Great Depression and World War II. They had different priorities. People today have two to three times the spending power, which is great, but some have no sense of frugalness.

Best wishes,

John Coffey

Wednesday, February 14, 2024

Richard Wolff: How You Are Being Exploited

Richard Wolff on Capitalism

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of economics.  I have worked many different jobs with many different salaries.  Not one of these I could have earned the same amount of money working on my own.  I didn't have the resources.  It was my employer that provided the facilities, the equipment, the customer base, and the know-how that allowed the business to make money.  I voluntarily traded my labor for the resources that the employer provided.  On my own, I wouldn't have been nearly as productive.  I would have starved.

Voluntary exchange works.  

Richard Wolff has never run a business.  If he had, he would see the world differently.

Monday, February 12, 2024

Is this some kind of joke?

It might be useful to look at the M3 money supply.

Senator Wants to Prosecute Climate Realists!

The chance of this happening in the United States is close to zero but not zero.  Sometimes, mass hysteria takes over, and I could see this happening in other countries.

Fwd: Methane Causing the End of the Ice Age

---------- Forwarded message ---------

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 1:04 AM al wrote:
I think this video came after the one you sent. It talks extensively about a dramatic peak in methane in the atmosphere, which has much more to do with global warming than CO2. I found it interesting.



This video is three months old and I already saw it.  

I think that his claims are speculative.  We have been in the Pleistocene ice age for 2.6 million years.  It was caused by the huge decline of CO2 over the last 40 million years.  To say that the ice age would suddenly end because there is a spike in methane is speculative.

Although methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, it exists in the atmosphere at a much lower quantity, like 200 times less.  We measure it in parts per billion.

There is some concern that natural bodies of water, like large lakes, that contain greenhouse gasses could release those gasses if disturbed.

Water vapor is the most influential greenhouse gas.  Minor changes in CO2 level can change how much water vapor is in the atmosphere creating positive feedback.  

There is disagreement on whether clouds produce positive or negative feedback, but I think that common sense would say that it is negative.  If it is positive as the IPCC claims, then this would imply that there would be a runaway greenhouse effect.  However, past spikes in warming did not see this.  Actual climate is complicated involving many factors.

By definition, the amount of radiation hitting the earth and radiating from it is balanced.  Greenhouse gases cause a change in the equilibrium producing a slightly higher temperature.


Friday, February 9, 2024

No upward trend in hurricanes

Tucker Carlson Interviews Putin

I just finished watching the two-hour Tucker Carlson interview with Vladimir Putin.

Putin claimed that Ukraine is historically part of Russia.  This seems to me to be a bit like China claiming ownership of Tawaiin.

Putin tried to make the case that outside forces have tried to oppress Russia.  He claimed that there were previous agreements that NATO would not expand toward Russia which it has done five times.  He claimed that Ukraine was going to have American military bases which would be a threat to Russia.  He claimed that Ukraine supports modern-day Nazis.

He claimed that Russia has been willing to negotiate peace but the other side hasn't, and that it is the United States that is preventing negotiation.  However, he contradicts himself by saying that to get negotiations the United States has to stop supplying Ukraine with weapons "and it will all be over in a few weeks and then we will be willing to negotiate."

Putin comes across as very nationalistic, which is normal, but it seems to me that he is authoritarian and brutal in his methods.

Famous "Expert" Climate Predictions That Never Happened

Michael Mann climate scientist wins defamation case

"After a day of deliberations, the jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through some of their statements. The compensatory damages were just $1 for each writer. But the punitive damages were larger. The jury ordered Simberg to pay Mann $1000 in punitive damages; it ordered Steyn to pay $1 million in punitive damages.

Mann did not respond to requests for comment. But in a statement posted to the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter, he said: "I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech."

Simberg's attorney sent an email that cast the decision as a victory for him. In an email, Steyn's manager Melissa Howes said, "We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue. And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages."

Mann's trial comes at a time of increasing attacks on climate scientists, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, who notes that her fund helps more scientists each year than the year before."

Just for the record, Michael Mann's hockey stick graph showing a rise in atmospheric temperature in the last few decades has been widely criticized.  The main complaint is that it leaves out the medieval warm period, making the current warming trend look unprecedented.  Poeple have also complained about his methodology.

Michael Mann has made failed predictions.  It seems somewhat justified to call him a fraud, and expressing this opinion should be protected free speech.

Wednesday, February 7, 2024

Denying the Catastrophe: The Science of the Climate Skeptic's Position

"It is important to begin by emphasizing that few skeptics doubt or deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas or that it and other greenhouse gasses (water vapor being the most important) help to warm the surface of the Earth. Further, few skeptics deny that man is probably contributing to higher CO2 levels through his burning of fossil fuels, though remember we are talking about a maximum total change in atmospheric CO2 concentration due to man of about 0.01% over the last 100 years.

What skeptics deny is the catastrophe, the notion that man's incremental contributions to CO2 levels will create catastrophic warming and wildly adverse climate changes. To understand the skeptic's position requires understanding something about the alarmists' case that is seldom discussed in the press: the theory of catastrophic man-made global warming is actually comprised of two separate, linked theories, of which only the first is frequently discussed in the media.

The first theory is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels (approximately what we might see under the more extreme emission assumptions for the next century) will lead to about a degree Celsius of warming. Though some quibble over the number – it might be a half degree, it might be a degree and a half – most skeptics, alarmists and even the UN's IPCC are roughly in agreement on this fact.

But one degree due to the all the CO2 emissions we might see over the next century is hardly a catastrophe. The catastrophe, then, comes from the second theory, that the climate is dominated by positive feedbacks (basically acceleration factors) that multiply the warming from CO2 many fold. Thus one degree of warming from the greenhouse gas effect of CO2 might be multiplied to five or eight or even more degrees.

This second theory is the source of most of the predicted warming – not greenhouse gas theory per se but the notion that the Earth's climate (unlike nearly every other natural system) is dominated by positive feedbacks. This is the main proposition that skeptics doubt, and it is by far the weakest part of the alarmist case. One can argue whether the one degree of warming from CO2 is "settled science" (I think that is a crazy term to apply to any science this young), but the three, five, eight degrees from feedback are not at all settled. In fact, they are not even very well supported...

Despite these heroic efforts to try to find observational validation for their catastrophic warming forecasts, the evidence continues to accumulate that these forecasts are wildly overstated."

Our New Global Economy

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie

The referenced paper by Hulme and Mahony is "Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?" Hulme, also author of the recent book, Why We Disagree About Climate Change, is a key proponent of what is called "post-normal science" (see here and here), a postmodern narrative that consists of a complete perversion of standard scientific practice that he supports in order to propagandize for his socialist agenda. As he explained in portions of his book and his article, "The appliance of science," in the Guardian (March 17, 2007):

"Philosophers and practitioners of science have identified this particular mode of scientific activity as one that occurs...where values are embedded in the way science is done and spoken."

"It has been labelled 'post-normal' science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus...on the process of science—who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy...The IPCC is a classic example of a post-normal scientific activity." Customer reviews: Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity

"Having participated in the national and international debate over climate change for more than 15 years, I eagerly bought and read this book in the hope that it would examine the ideas and motives of both sides in the global warming debate. But that is not what this book is about.

The author, Mike Hulme, is a professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia, in the UK. He helped write the influential reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many other government agencies that are commonly cited by alarmists in the debate. He has been one of the most prominent scientists declaring that "the debate is over" and that man-made global warming will be a catastrophe.

In this book, Hulme comes clean about the uncertain state of scientific knowledge about global warming, something alarmists almost never admit in public. For example, he writes, "the three questions examined above - What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change." (p. 75)

Later he admits, "Uncertainty pervades scientific predictions about the future performance of global and regional climates. And uncertainties multiply when considering all the consequences that might follow from such changes in climate." (p. 83) On the subject of the IPCC's credibility, he admits it is "governed by a Bureau consisting of selected governmental representatives, thus ensuring that the Panel's work was clearly seen to be serving the needs of government and policy. The Panel was not to be a self-governing body of independent scientists." (p. 95)

All this is exactly what global warming "skeptics" have been saying for years. It is utterly damning to the alarmists' case to read these words in a book by one of their most prominent scientists.

How does Hulme justify hiding these truths from the general public? He calls climate change "a classic example of ... `post-normal science,'" and quoting Silvio Funtowicz and Jerry Ravetz, defines this as "the application of science to public issues where `facts are uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent.'" Issues that are put into the category of "post-normal science" are no longer subject to the cardinal requirements of true science: skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness."

In "post-normal science," consensus substitutes for true science.

Friday, February 2, 2024

How High The Water Will Be 🗽 w/ Neil deGrasse Tyson

This seems completely disingenuous.  Multiple sources have said that it will take 5,000 years for the polar ice caps to melt.  We are 5,000 to 10,000 years away from the next ice age. 

Meanwhile, we will be out of most fossil fuels within 100 years.  We only have 40 years of oil reserves.   Depending upon who you ask, it can take between 20 and 1,000 years for the CO2 to leave the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of it is absorbed by the oceans in 20 to 200 years.*  We are never going to get to the point where the polar ice caps melt.   

 It has taken 140 years for the average atmospheric temperature to rise by 1 degree Celsius.   The current rate of warming is less than 0.2 degrees per decade. We would have to rise 5 degrees Celsius to melt the ice caps. Therefore, we have plenty of time to deal with this problem if it is even a problem.   The rise of the seas will be very slow. 

Climate Alarmism depends upon as-of-yet unproven positive feedback mechanisms, because the effect of increased CO2 is very weak, especially going forward. There are many feedbacks positive and negative. There is widespread disagreement over clouds, where the alarmists think that clouds have positive feedback and the skeptics think that they have negative feedback.

"The lifetime in the air of CO2, the most significant man-made greenhouse gas, is probably the most difficult to determine because there are several processes that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Between 65% and 80% of CO2 released into the air dissolves into the ocean over a period of 20–200 years. The rest is removed by slower processes that take up to several hundreds of thousands of years,"

"About 50% of a CO2 increase will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and a further 30% will be removed within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years."

The seven biggest lies Biden told this week | The Hill