Month: August 2018

The Climate Change Emperor has no Clothes, just a Video

The Climate Change Emperor has no Clothes, just a Video

What started as almost a point of agreement with the left resulted in an unraveling of a Climate Change “expert”.  The following outlines my brief encounter with Katherine Hayhoe.

I ran across a rare agreeable point made by socialist gun-grabber Beto O’Rourke today. Apparently, we share an interest in wind power. It is an excellent idea in my mind too! My interest is in it’s potential for supplement or off-the-grid energy. However, I knew my support for wind power would be twisted to imply a support for taxes on breathing. So, I added a comment to clarify that I only agreed with the idea of wind power, nothing else.

h1

This led to numerous opinions, insults, religious projections and consensus science propaganda. I eventually posted ice core data and asked for an explanation. The ice core data indicates a pattern of climate change on earth showing changes over hundreds of thousands of years. This fluctuation is periodic and extends well before humans roamed the earth. Here is one version of the data found online:

IceCores1

Let me also say that I really haven’t spent much time on this issue but I do find this data interesting as it seems to add reasonable, if not significant doubt, to the idea that human’s cause global warming or significant CO2 effects.

I’d really like to know how this ice core data is brushed aside to make room for the “human-caused” theories. Honest question #1.

At that point, an “expert” on climate change was tagged on Twitter and she entered the discussion. Her website expresses a friendly, “Hi, I’m a Climate Scientist” to eliminate all doubt of her expertise. Ms. Hayhoe suggested that I watch a video that would answer my question.

h2

So I did. After watching her video, the question about ice core data was not answered and her explanation had inspired another question.h6

I would really like to know how she can apply the “conservation of energy” law to volcanos and other natural possibilities but ignore that humans are also in the same closed system. Honest question #2.

Wikipedia: In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant, it is said to be conserved over time.

Here is the video, please let me know if you think it answers my question about the ice core data or if my “conservation of energy” question was uncalled for.

As you can see from the following screen captures, links to videos and insults is what I received from this expert after she initiated the conversation with “Davy”.  Here is the dead end conversation on the ice core data. Interesting “rinse, repeat” strategy of Twitter engagement, “watch my propaganda, watch it again.”

h3

Honestly, I did not expect such obfuscation. Pure propaganda is what I got for honest questions. I truly believed that I would be shown inconclusive consensus science stuff, if not a fact or two. Here was her final request to “rinse, repeat”.

h4She has since blocked “Davy” on Twitter solely for this exchange. There was no other exchange whatsoever with her or her Twitter page at any time since or before.

2018-08-24_12-34-22

I initially assumed there were easy answers to my questions. I assumed that she would easily embarrass me with consensus science magic, especially on Beto’s page with all the socialist cheerleaders watching.

Of course there is always a chance that the emperor has no clothes and thus can only respond with confusing and misleading videos and insults. Perhaps that was the case here. Experts that actually have solid fundamentals based on facts don’t bully and degrade others for asking questions that ever so slightly challenge their hypothesis. Perhaps propaganda experts do that, real scientist don’t need to.

I would still like to know:

  • How the ice core data is explained away to make room for the “human caused” hypothesis
  • How the “law of conservation of energy” can be selectively used in her video to discredit volcanos, etc because they can’t create heat in a closed system; but the same law of physics doesn’t apply to human-caused warming when volcanos and humans are part of the exact same closed system.

Perhaps she’s on to something though with “conservation of energy”. However, she will have to drop her political agenda. If her theory regarding the law of conservation of energy is applied without bias then the cause must be external. External is also implied by the ice core data and it’s hundreds of thousands of years untouched by human hands.

Interesting exchange, nonetheless. It reminded me of a quote by the late, great Michael Crichton.

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

-Michal Crichton

Why do you need an “assault” rifle?

Why do you need an “assault” rifle?

This question often comes up when considering attempts by Congress to pass unconstitutional gun ban legislation. The answer, given any honest historical context, is self-evident.

The first sentence of this year’s legislation indicates the intention:

To regulate the importation, manufacture, possession, sale or transfer of assault weapons, and for other purposes.

Subsequent sections include long lists of rifles, pistols and shotguns that are intended to be unlawfully infringed on by this legislation. (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text)

AR-15 use for “Assault” is Statistically Insignificant

First of all, an AR-15 is labeled “assault rifle” for effect. They are not used for assault to any significant degree as can be proven by FBI statistics that state an average of less than 300 murders per year involving a rifle. That is 300 out of a population of 325,000,000. That statistically approaches ZERO.

2018-08-23_8-15-05
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls

Further, the AR-15 rifle is only a tiny subset of the “rifles” category as reported by the FBI. The FBI doesn’t even publish statistics specific to AR-15s because the number would be embarrassingly low for gun-grabbers. In effect, banning the AR-15 would be statistically a useless act with regards to murder.

If you are tempted to disregard this data and claim “well, if it only saves one life”, then you are ignoring the hundreds of examples of lives saved when the AR-15 is used as a defensive tool. Here are some examples:

https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/14/8-times-law-abiding-citizens-saved-lives-ar-15/

The defensive utility and importance  of the AR-15 is profound. So, the question is really “why do you need a capable defensive rifle?” But let’s stick with a neutral version of the question for now, “why do you need an AR-15”?

So, “why do you need an AR-15?”

The needs satisfied by the AR-15s are broad and include defense, utility, marksmanship and fun. Here are a few points to consider:

  1. Nasty governments, throughout history, have abused and then murdered disarmed populations.
  2. Socialist governments become very nasty, throughout history, when they run out of other people’s money.
  3. Throughout history, socialist citizens do not respect property rights or individual freedom and thus encourage socialist governments to be nasty.
  4. Current lefties fit #3 and are demanding #2 more and more each month (and they haven’t even run out of other people’s money yet).
  5. It’s a great home and property defense rifle. https://mic.com/articles/64663/5-people-who-used-an-ar-15-to-defend-themselves-and-it-probably-saved-their-lives#.VehsdlcpJ
  6. Self defense is a natural right. As a free individual, I get to pick the weapon of choice for this, not you or your politician.
  7. It’s a great community defense rifle. You need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.  https://www.ammoland.com/2017/11/hero-ends-church-shooting-texas/#axzz5P0NTWyo3
  8. The Constitution guarantees that the federal government “shall not infringe” on the right to guns. If you want to change this then you should seek a Constitutional amendment, not usurping legislation. Federal legislation cannot “infringe” in any way, per the Second Amendment.
  9. The AR-15 uses relatively inexpensive ammo making it a good training rifle.
  10. The AR-15 has limited recoil making it a good training rifle for all ages.
  11. The AR-15 uses standard components so it is versatile and easy to customize.
  12. It’s a great rifle for controlling pests like Coyotes and Hogs.
  13. It’s a fun rifle to shoot.
  14. I don’t have to “need” it, I might just want it and I am a free individual.

Finally, to those that would take individual rights away, “You may all go to hell”… this is a corollary because gun-grabbers will read this list and reply with “so what, we want the guns”. Well, that is a affront to individual rights and at that point they have taken on the role of the assaulter. Which brings me to the primary point.

A Planned Assault on Individual Property and Rights

The irony is that those that would ban guns they mislabel “assault rifles” are the ones “assaulting”. They intend to steal private property and natural rights from individuals.

In the context of the current socialist movement, their leaders know the following:

  • The socialist plan is based on other people’s money and property.
  • It’s implementation requires individuals to be denied absolute rights.
  • It plans to tread vigorously on individuals, their families, their livelihood, their happiness
  • Eventually they will run out of other people’s money.
  • Historically, if the population is suitable disarmed, government force is then used.

Some of those that support socialist leaders understand this and support it. Many, which history refers to as the “useless eaters” are enticed by charismatic leaders, “free” stuff, a warped sense of justice, or claims of rights that are not rights at all (i.e. rights do not require other people’s money or services).  Regardless, the socialist movement is a planned assault on individual property and rights.

So, the primary answer to “Why do you need an AR-15?” really boils down to defending the individual from the incoming collectivist march. Obviously, this is not a new battle in the context of history. Arguably, it is the battle in the context of history. And given history as a guide, it is easy to see that the AR-15, even just the prolific ownership of it, is an important deterrent against those that would steal property and rights from others.

“From my cold dead hands.” is wise advice.