Chicken Little Update

EnviroWackoismThumbby Brad Nelson
According to this article at the Washington Examiner, the all-knowing U.N.’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel of Committed Communists) has determined that Gaia will be getting cooler.

I consider earth sciences to still be a legitimate line of inquiry even despite science having been bastardized and sold to the highest government bidder for decades now. One of the smug conceits of the “secular” crowd is the mantra that science is superior because it self-corrects.

Well, no. Science isn’t self-correcting of its own accord necessarily. It’s just that when bullshit is piled so high, the pile can tend to topple over on itself as it is starting to do now. The “self-correcting” idea — which sounds so noble when said by smarmy atheists — is actually the inability of bullshit to sustain itself forever.

But you and I know that these environmental kooks would try to sustain their scam forever if they could. There are various reasons for this. Many have been indoctrinated into a hatred of capitalism. Many having had this happened to them plus they’ve had environmentalism drummed into their heads and now hold it as a fundamentalist religion.

Others simply chase grant money that can be had by attaching any research to “environmental” claims. Still others (and I’m thinking of Thomas Sowell’s shtick here) will reflexively be “for” anything that even sounds remotely “environmental” because they are narcissists and think this reflect on their good name.

There are doubtless other reasons still that people have signed onto this environmental scam and/or look the other way at the corruption. But we now know without a shadow of a doubt that it is BS. All of those who have been told by these “Progressive” or Leftist nitwits that they are “raping Mother Gaia” unless they believe every bit of the environmental-wacko BS are now vindicated.

Folks, it is not now, and never has been, religious zealots (that is, Christians) that we needed to fear. It is Leftist or “Progressive” zealots who need to be reigned in. These are the same disingenuous fools, fakers, and ideologues who tell us how we must have this pristine and absolute “separation of church and state.” But if we did actually separate religiously-held dogma from the state, it would be the environmental wackos and their Democrat allies who would suffer most from having their policies negated.

We live in a nation right now where half the people are nuts or believe nutty things. That doesn’t mean they’re necessarily bad or dangerous people. But as Dennis Prager puts it, many people are “nice” but not good. For whatever reason or reasons, people feel that it is required to believe all this “Progressive” nonsense and thus adopt the “nice” posture even while the policies they support lead to ruin or waste vast amounts of money — thus they are not good.

We should come to realize who the real hucksters, frauds, and flim-flam men (and women) are. They are the Democrats, the environmental movement, and the various scientists who have whored their science (and the scientific method) to this premeditated fraud of man-made global warming, and all for hard cash, partisan gain, and/or Communist ideals. It’s time to give all of these people the discredit they deserve.

[widgets_on_pages id=2]

 • (1686 views)

Share
Brad Nelson

About Brad Nelson

I like books, nature, politics, old movies, Ronald Reagan (you get sort of a three-fer with that one), and the founding ideals of this country. We are the Shining City on the Hill — or ought to be. However, our land has been poisoned by Utopian aspirations and feel-good bromides. Both have replaced wisdom and facts.

This entry was posted in Politics and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Chicken Little Update

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    Ayn Rand had her character Robert Stadler observe that the first word of “free, scientific inquiry” is redundant. When science works properly, it is indeed self-correcting. But the Hadley e-mails reveal that to the eco-zealots, scientific inquiry is not in fact free. They sought to exclude opposing views from peer-reviewed journals (which they then used as “evidence” of the weakness of the opposing case), and even tried to prevent skeptics from getting access to the data that the alarmists claimed provided the proof of their theories. They also happily stood by while newsliars used terms such as “deniers” to smear skeptics.
    Note how shrill and fanatical the defenses of “climate change” are getting. As with the trolls at NRO, the shriller and angrier they are, the weaker their case is. “When you’re weak on the law, argue the facts. When you’re weak on the facts, argue the law. When you’re weak on both, bullshit the jury.”

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      It’s particularly galling when you have all that junk you’re talking about, Timothy, and yet you have the Left thinking they are the pro-science party.

      The Left has politicized science to the extreme…to the point of being fraudulent. In all honesty, I see very little of this from the right. Plus, there is the mature attitude on the right that although science might measure things and produce provisional facts, that is no way predisposes science or scientists to setting good policy, their conceits of omniscience notwithstanding.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I believe it was Dennis Prager who pointed out that any leftist is a leftist first and foremost. Thus, a leftist who happens to be a scientist places politics above science; likewise a leftist who happens to be a newsliar or a lawyer or a teacher. I’ve noticed this myself quite frequently.

        • faba calculo says:

          Do you really think that everyone on the left can be so described?

          • Kung Fu Zu says:

            “Do you really think that everyone on the left can be so described?”

            He modified it with “quite frequently.”

            I noticed you use this same approach all the time, oh sorry, quite frequently. It is not a serious approach.

            While precise language is useful, it is not in the nature of blogs that every word must be parsed and every thought footnoted.

            Groups of people have general characteristics in common. Otherwise, they would not be characterized as a group.

            The group known as the left has basic characteristics in common such as the tendency to put their leftist beliefs ahead of facts. That is not to say every leftist does this, but it certainly appears that the so-called scientists who pushed the anthropomorphic theory of climate change put ideology before facts. The Dems in Congress who lied about the numbers on Obamacare, put ideology before fact, the same sex marriage zealots of the left put ideology before facts. The leftists who push the lie that gender is a social construct put ideology before facts. I could go on. In all cases, the leftists invent stories and make up “facts” to fit to their leftist ideology. Their real motto is “don’t confuse me with the facts, I already know what I believe”.

            You might do us all a favor if you would start arguing seriously instead of preening by picking petty picayune points which in no way refute the import of what others are saying.

            And for present clarification and future reference let me stipulate that after birth, the only thing everyone one does is die.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              A very nice refutation of Faba’s disingenuous, troll-like posts. Everyone has an opinion. I can appreciate that. But some don’t even venture an opinion. They just pick at others like picking their own nose.

              • Kung Fu Zu says:

                I suspect such people believe they are being very clever, almost Socratic.

                I find them rather like a four year old who constantly asks, “why, why”why?” to everything a parent says.

              • faba calculo says:

                Jesus, you ask one question for clarification about an absolutist statement and suddenly you’re a troll.

            • faba calculo says:

              Me thinks the commenter doth protest too much.

              There was no qualification in the reference to Prager. The only qualification was to how often Mr Lane noticed this phenomenon.

              Had I assumed that this meant that Mr. Lane meant this as a universal, you might have a case for rebuke. But given that all I did was ask for clarification, you’ve got nothing but a case of your own over-sensitivity.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Well, in the Inner Party left, I think such behavior probably comes close to being universal. It’s probably less likely in the Outer Party, but on the other hand most of them behave like sheep and reflexively accept whatever the Inner Party tells them, so the results are much the same. I personally know of liberals who tolerate dissent and even one who criticizes the persistent intolerance of his fellow liberals, but I don’t know of any liberal that I can definitely say keeps an open mind on such subjects.

              • faba calculo says:

                Just out of curiosity, how did you take my question? Did you feel like I was “trolling” you?

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          There’s a definite fundamentalist, cult-like aspect to the Left. These people are wound up by a crank ideology and then spun off into the world to spout their nonsense.

  2. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I find them rather like a four year old who constantly asks, “why, why”why?” to everything a parent says.

    Yes, well said again, Mr. Kung.

    When I started this site, I was well aware of the “not that” factor. Bred into us by Cultural Marxism — and it surely exists as a part of human nature to some extent as well — is the “not that” disease.

    William Shakespeare may have just written a wonderful play. But there will always be somebody to point out that he left out a comma on page 349. This mindless sniping from the peanut gallery is what I wanted to avoid. I’ve done my share of that at NRO and other places. And at the end of the day, those are all empty calories.

    Cultural Marxism itself is a belief system of “not that” although it does at least also make some specific claims or beliefs such as the superiority of Communism (often called softer terms such as “socialism,” “equality,” or “social justice”). It also forwards environmentalism as a religion.

    But I will not even mindlessly “not that” regarding the Left. Even small-c communism has its place, such as inside the family structure (surely no one expects a three-year-old to earn his bread) or voluntary religious orders where the point is to put God (not the Democrat Party) above worldly concerns.

    I believe that what Michael Savage say is true, that liberalism is a mental disorder. Everything the Left touches it makes worse. We must be aware of their propaganda and habits-of-thought that are sometimes a part of human nature, that is true, but very often becomes a learned way of looking at the world.

    We must think in ways that are more complex than a nudibranch, which is a type of mollusk that scientists often use to study the nervous system because the nervous system of a nudibranch is very simple and large, and thus easy to study. But one supposes that it is not capable of complex thought. We are…or should be.

    As a conservative, we can appreciate, for example, the need to put some emphasis on environmental considerations when making decisions. But we delve into the area of cranks and zealots if we were to put all emphasis on such considerations. We even become mad and deranged if we say that people who don’t put all emphasis on such policies are polluters, in the back pockets of the oil companies, or just don’t “care” about Mother Gaia. And that really is the realm of the environmental wacko movement — or the nudibranch.

    The Left itself, despite its grand beliefs of benevolence and omniscience, is an ideology of simplistic fundamentalism and of uninformed or misinformed people. It’s also the realm of thinly-veiled grievance….and often that grievance isn’t veiled at all.

    We all are going to have a different points of view. And that’s fine. But if we do little more than assert “not that” or take up the simplistic, one-neuron mindset of Cultural Marxism, then we are part of the problem, not the solution. We must be FOR something. We must, to some extent, express a love and appreciate for the true and good things in American and of Western Civilization. “Not that,” this petty sniping from the peanut gallery, is not what this site is about. And if you look at what it’s done to the level of conversation at NRO, you might understand why it is a good guiding principle to avoid being merely a nudibranch.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    To respond to faba calculo’s final question to me above (a reply spot was unavailable, no doubt because of the indenting), I read his comments and all the other responses, so it would be hard to describe a response. There is a difference between making generalizations, which are subject to what I call the First Law of Generalizations (i.e., there are always exceptions), and making stereotypes, and we don’t always make that clear (one minor criticism I have of Ann Coulter, as I intend to discuss in my review of Mugged). On the other hand, it can be tedious to have to keep pointing this out.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I try to not get into too much metaspeak….the talking about the talking. It sort of defeats the purpose of trying to keep an affirmative thrust to this place. We could argue how many angels can dance on the head of a pin forever.

      But I thought Faba’s comment was of a trollish nature. And it’s so easy to deny these trollish quotes and jibes. “What, little ol’ me? I’ll I did was to ask a simple little question.”

      But it wasn’t a question. It was just more gunk thrown out from the Peanut gallery. It’s certainly a legitimate question as to how many on the Left are kooks and how many are just programmed in such as way as to be called useful idiots and how many are aware of the propaganda but just go with the flow anyway.

      And to some extent, we all live in a culture. We all swim in someone’s cultural soup, at least to some extent. Truly, no man is a cultural island.

      But I don’t tend to fall for the Alinsky-style tactic wherein one makes a statement and then the Peanut Gallery chimes in with, “Oh, does that mean everyone all the time?” It’s a disingenuous tactic. It’s an attempt at superiority via nit-picking. And we’ve all done that. But a stead diet of it isn’t good.

      But maybe I’m not making enough allowances for how people really think. I think there may actually be people who are of a more fundamentalist or partisan mindset and they just can’t believe that there are people who don’t think in the same way. I know that I’ve encountered this often.

      But I’ve also frequently encountered the shadow personalities who are forever out of reach of actually stating anything solid. It’s always some supposed excuse for how you have misinterpreted them. And I just don’t typically play that game. Sometimes misunderstandings do occur. But there are also people who use this as a shield and a way to manipulate others.

      • faba calculo says:

        “Sometimes misunderstandings do occur. But there are also people who use this as a shield and a way to manipulate others.”

        Then how did you determine that I was the latter and not the former?

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Also, Timothy, I’m not sure what to do about the indenting thing. I’m going to keep my eye out for some WordPress plugin or manual modification that gets around this. But at least I give them credit for making it work fairly well. I haven’t noticed any problems with posting.

      One thing that would help would be to get rid of the avatars. That would allow at least two more levels of practical indented-style responses. I’m fine with the avatars. I have nothing against avatars. But that’s something we could do. Most people aren’t using them anyway although it’s extremely easy to add one. If anyone wants info on this, let me know.

      • faba calculo says:

        I think you’d be best off accepting the fact that there is no solution to the indentation problem. The old NRO commenting section allowed endless indentations, and some of my exchanges there got down to the point where each line was about three words wide. Disqus, as I recall, allows a limited number of indentations and then erases all indentations and starts over.

        Frankly, I like your current way best. When you’re out of indentations, it lets you know, and you just have to start a new response.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Thanks for the feedback, Faba. I guess it works well enough. If we got rid of the avatars I could squeeze another level at least. But at some point, it just gets too thin. Also, there is a margin to the left of even the most leftmost avatar that can be removed….if I go to an all-white background (the area outside for site content area proper). I’m still fiddling with optimizing the site. I just reduced the size of the top banner, for instance. It really didn’t need to be so big. But a lot of stuff just comes the way that it is and you have to figure out how to change to code underneath.

    • faba calculo says:

      I would certainly agree with your First Law of Generalizations. But that law applies even to itself. Example: I’m not sure that Prager thinks it applies, at least to liberals. He didn’t say, in your reference, that liberals do X, or that most liberals do X. He said that each liberal did X, which, insofar as I can tell, has the exact same meaning as every liberal does X. Such an absolutist wording leaves major room to doubt that the speaker thinks that the FLoG applies here. Hence the request for clarification.

      Nevertheless, it’s now clear that you believe that FLoG is binding here.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Very good point. Indeed, the Second Law of Generalizations is that the First Law is itself a generalizations. I suspect that most of those would actually be tautological. I have no idea whether Prager is saying every liberal behaves that way. In public life, such a statement comes close to being accurate. on the other hand, as a Fox viewer I can think of at least some counter-examples (such as Pat Caddell, Douglas Schoen, and even Joe Trippi) of liberals who are at least honest in their presentations.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *