Freakonomics fail on “climate change”

I enjoyed Think Like a Freak: The Authors of Freakonomics Offer to Retrain Your Brain, as the authors once again show how the conventional wisdom can often be wrong.  But they ignored one of their own tenets — namely, the importance of incentives — when addressing “climate change.”  

While rightly acknowledging that people are universally influenced by incentives, they seemed mystified that so many conservatives would deny the scientific “facts.”  But they ignored the obvious: When the scientists benefit by advancing the man-induced climate change myth, either directly (i.e., Climahypocrite Al Gore) or indirectly (toe the line or get fired / lose funding / lose tenure / etc.), they are likely to lie.  The authors noted how people will distort the truth in many other venues but ignored it here.

For more details on one of the big lies of the “climate change” industry, see Behind the Lie That 97% of Scientists Back Global Warming Hoax.

A strategy useful for duping fools is to create a statistic out of thin air and repeat it until it is accepted as fact. After all, as a Founding Father of modern liberalism said, “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” One such lie is the preposterous but incessantly repeated assertion that 97% of the scientists of the world agree with the Obama Regime’s radical position on man-made global warming — or as they have been calling it since it stopped getting warmer, “climate change.”An actual scientist, Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, teamed up with Joseph Bast of the Heartland Institute to get to the bottom of where this 97% figure comes from. Apparently it is loosely based on various ideologically driven studies that made not even a token effort to achieve scientific vigor, but simply cherry-picked sympathetic scientists, many of whom had likely been pressured or bribed with government funding into backing the hoax. The view that human carbon emissions might conceivably contribute to warmer temperatures although this is not necessarily a bad thing is stretched into endorsement of the Regime’s apocalyptic hysteria, while dissenters are simply ignored.It would be easier to invent a statistic proving that most scientists say global warming is a lie.

 

Global warming will cause more hurricanes. No, the same number, but more severe. No, wait, there will be less.

Yet another reminder of the Kevin Nealon skits on Saturday Night Live where he’d catch himself in an error and say, “What I really meant to say was . . .”  But the experts are really sure this time!  So you should still radically change your lifestyle, even though the AGW leaders don’t change their lifestyles, and accept an unprecedented and permanent governmental power grab over your life.

First they said that anthropogenic global warming would cause more hurricanes. Then, after that didn’t work out, they said they wouldn’t necessarily increase in amount, but, they would be stronger. And, now that that didn’t work out, we find out, via C3 Headlines

A team of NOAA researchers has recently completed a new analysis and have now conceived a new “consensus” science: global warming will cause less storms to strike the U.S.

As C3 points out, there has been no major (cat 3) strike on the US mainland since 2005 (Wilma). I’ve pointed that out, as well. There’s been no US landfalling hurricanes since 2008 (Ike hit Texas on Sept 13, 2008). Hurricane Irene (2011) was not a hurricane when it came ashore either in North Carolina nor New Jersey.

Going six years with no major strikes is unprecedented. Three years with no landfalling hurricanes hasn’t happened since the 1860’s. So, the Warmists have to rewrite the “science” to match their unhinged alarmism. This is not science, it’s cult members attempting to match things that have happened to their cultish beliefs.

Remember, these are the same type of experts who insist that you are a dolt for even considering that the exquisitely intricate machinery of the universe and life were created by an Intelligent Designer.

Roundup

Texas doctors opting out of Medicare at alarming rate — just more of the Law of Unintended Consequences at work.  Guess what? If the government makes bad laws and tries to stiff people then behavior changes.  But of course, the 2,000+ page health care bill that none of its supporters actually read won’t have any negative consequences . . .

Naked liberalism: The desire for Congressional mandates to have conservative web sites link to liberal sites. Give it a listen.  It is ridiculous on multiple levels.  Aside from the pesky un-Constitutionality, how would you possibly measure and enforce it?

What is morbidly ironic is Obama’s chiding to listen to opposing views.  That is a two-way street.  I love asking liberals how much conservative media they consume (other than the extremely well informed Libs that hang out here ;-)).  It is usually something in the neighborhood of zero.

Also fun is asking them to state your positions, even though they disagree with you.  For example, I know all the most popular pro-abortion arguments and am glad to debunk them.  No straw men required.  But it is very rare to see a pro-abort be able to articulate the views of pro-lifers, even though they disagree with them.

Be sure to get the Stand to Reason iPhone app!

Check out Roxanne’s post on Throwing Women Under the Socialist/Progressive Bus.  Just a sample:

Then there’s the complete disregard for women’s health and well-being.  The Left is furious that crisis pregnancy centres do not provide abortions nor refer women to them; nevertheless, they seem to not care that Planned Parenthood promotes abortion and will refuse to provide adoption referrals and gives almost no prenatal care to pregnant women.

The Left cares no more about women’s health than about their reproductive autonomy. Although the link between abortion and breast cancer has been well-established (and studies that find anything else are methodologically unsound ), Obama’s change.org toutedRep. Harry Waxman’s report which criticised crisis pregnancy centres for mentioning the connection – and justified themselves with one single report from 1997.  They also claim that women who abort do not experience future fertility problems, despite the fact that women who have abortions are three times as likely to deliver a premature baby in the future,first-trimester abortions are associated with a higher rate of subsequent miscarriages, and abortion can cause infertility, PID, and a host of other problems.  The Leftist’s claim that abortion does not cause psychological distress would be comical, if not for the horrible pain that women experience post-abortion.

Brrrr… Scientists Issue New Warning of Imminent Food & Ethanol Shortages Due to Global Cooling – Shocking!  But those scientists couldn’t be wrong.  Hat tip: Wes

It is truly a bizarre, upside down world in international politics: Iran was elected to the United Nation’s Commission on the Status of Women.

Then the U.S. representative apologizes to China for our “human rights abuses” in Arizona.  Hey, just ask China what they do if people come into their country without paperwork and demand free food, clothing and education.  Ask them about the North Korean refugees they send back to certain brutal deaths.

And more and more Obama representatives admit they haven’t even read Arizona’s bill — even though they condemn it.

Great response from Arizona to Los Angeles over their boycott — Paraphrase: “Hey, we supply 25% of your power, so if you are serious about your convictions then we’ll send the electrons elsewhere.

Roundup

I love polar bears.  My all-time favorite zoo exhibits are those of the polar bears at the Tulsa and Central Park zoos.

But if you’ve ever seen this photo, please know that it was Photo Shopped and used to manipulate you.  Polar bear figures are up, but thanks for your concern.

Ironically, the photo was originally used in a piece preaching about how assaults on climate science are really bad.  Seems to me that their worst assaults have been their self-inflicted frauds.  Hat tip: Red State

P.S. The false-gospel preachers over at Sojourners used a similar picture and won an award for their errors.

Terrific link of responses to (alleged) Bible discrepancies — got this from Lone Wolf Archer — thanks!  I added it to the Apologetics links to the right as well.

Of all the challenges to a Christian’s faith, surely one of the most troubling in this day and age is skepticism’s charge that the Bible is filled with various discrepancies and contradictions. If true, such a charge (which is occurring with increasing frequency) certainly would serve to negate the inerrancy and inspiration of God’s Word. It is a simple matter for an unbeliever to hurl a barrage of alleged discrepancies and/or contradictions at a believer, but it is not always a simple task for the believer to respond quickly and effectively. This is the case because many of the so-called discrepancies and contradictions cannot be answered adequately via a “quick wave of the hand,” but instead require in-depth, painstaking research in order to craft a reply that can dismantle each one on a case-by-case basis.

Many people will mention concerns about all the “discrepancies” in the Bible but if you just ask politely, “What are your top 3?,” they’ll glaze over.  They’ve just heard it so many times they take it as truth.

Or they might have a specific objection from the Big Book of Atheist Sound Bites or something that is an authentic concern for them.  The test there is to give a thorough explanation.  If they concede valid points and seem to reconsider their overall stance, then keep engaging them.  If they can’t refute your points and just jump to the next objection, then it is pearl holding / dust shaking time.

William Lane Craig reponds to the arguments of the New Atheists

Some beautiful thoughts on Christian marriage by Stan.

Your organs aren’t really yours — So, are you comfortable letting the government decide when you are done with your organs?

Summary of recent thoughts on Arizona’s illegal immigration law:

  • From the “I can’t believe I have to explain this” category, the law doesn’t discriminate against Hispanics, it discriminates against criminals.  And that is the good kind of discrimination.
  • Most of the critics don’t understand the law at all and make all sorts of false claims about it.
  • It was a brilliant move on Arizona’s part: Both current and future illegal aliens will go to other states whether the law is enforced or not.
  • Hey states boycotting Arizona: Are you volunteering to take all the illegals yourselves?  Arizona would love that.  Let them know where to send them.
  • Challenge for those protesting the law: Go to Mexico (or anywhere else, for that matter) without documentation and demand free food, clothing, education and health care.  I’ll wait here.
  • Hey Los (Phoenix) Suns: Are you offering free admission, t-shirts and concessions to everyone?  Why not, are you Nazis or something?
  • Do Jim Wallis and other false gospel-teaching Sojourners writers care if people plagiarize their work?  After all, it doesn’t really “belong” to the authors, does it?  Shouldn’t they have to share with anyone and everyone who wants it?
  • Amazingly, even with the media distortions about what the bill really says, 49% of Democrats say they’d favor a similar law in their states.  Those racists!

More neo-Darwinian tautologies (“Neo-Darwinian evolution is true, or Neo-Darwinian evolution is true”).  Just more bedtime stories they give until they can think of a better one.

I wish I had a nickel for every statement of evolutionary certainty that later had to be dropped. Carl Zimmer’s recent piece on how eukaryotes are supposed to have evolved quotes Eugene Koonin as stating that “it is certain” that a long time ago, in a warm pond far far away, two cells (an archaea and a bacteria) symbiotically merged to form the first eukaryote. The rest, as they say, was history, as from that humble eukaryote sprung everything from the trilobite to the tyrannosaurus.

This is too easy. Now, less than a year later, evolutionists have switched it round yet again. New ground-breaking research, published in the elite journal Nature, now says the fusion story is out and common descent is in.

For you baseball fans, here is Will Ferrell’s minor league pitching debut.

Hypocrites ‘R Us

Check out Al Gore’s fourth luxury home.

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal… The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Oh, and let’s not forget Sting.

That’s the same guy who sang:

We can’t live here and be happy with less
With so many riches, so many souls
Everything we see that we want to possess

He’s a tremendous talent but he really needs to zip it. I don’t need a guy with 7 homes and a full time house staff of six telling me how to protect the earth.

Should we be good stewards of the planet?  Of course.

Should we trust phonies like these and let them take over the world’s economy?  Don’t be suckers.  The only man-made parts of global warming are the hypocritical deceptions perpetrated by those who profit from the scam.

The “Global Warming” fraud = Expelled!, the sequel

The Other McCain had a great piece on Evolution, Anthropogenic Global Warming and Other Non-Falsifiable Theories, where he ties the politics and thuggery of scientism that drives the neo-Darwinian evolution movement and the fakes in the global warming community.  Go read it.

Roundup

If I were an Olympic ice skating judge there would be automatic 10 point deductions for pink tassels and 25 point deductions for clown costumes.  Or perhaps disqualifications.  Seriously, people.  That’s just wrong.

A Reformed Evanjellybean Reconsiders Lent – by Marie


That insane pilot sounds kind of like a tea partier, huh? — Only if you ignore his closing comments and the other Bush-bashing, as the Washington Post did:

The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed.

Doesn’t sound tea-partier-ish to me.

19 points that undermine the claims of global warming alarmists — only 19?

Iran is a nuclear power, just as predicated by President Bush in 2007.  Olbermann et al mocked him and supported Iran’s leader.  I’m sure they’ll be apologizing any time now . . .