Wednesday, October 05, 2011

NY State Senators: We need Canada's speech laws

Only 10 times more restrictive.
Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom [speech] should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.
Refined? That isn't "refined." It's what statist fools mean when they call the Constitution a living document: "It means what we say it means, whenever we say what it means." It's Orwell's Newspeak. It's Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland. It's Bill Clinton expounding on the meaning of the word "is."

If this...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...isn't clear on the subject of speech, then I suggest it is also not clear on freedom from religion, freedom of religion, freedom to publish, or the right to associate freely. All those things are subject to the whims of unelected and faceless bureaucrats.

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Sex and drugs

Let me see if I have this right: Sexual orientation is societally imposed by the Patriarchy, except when an 8-year old "decides" he is a girl. Then we give him hormone blocking drugs.
The little boy who started a sex change aged eight because he (and his lesbian parents) knew he always wanted to be a girl
We have a society that says 8-year olds can't consent to having sex, but they can decide to change sex?

Saturday, October 01, 2011

Get a Clue

Canadian ice shelves halve in six years

No, what's shrinking is not the little ledge at the back of the penalty box where they keep the Molson Stock Ale, it's glaciers. There are some glaciers apparently melting in Canada.

Professor Steven Sherwood, Co-Director of Australia's University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre, thinks it proves the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory:
The real significance of this, in my view, is that this ice has reportedly been there for thousands of years. The same is true of glaciers that have recently disappeared in the Andes. These observations should dispel in one fell swoop any notion that recent global warming could be natural.
Really? Let's assume this study, unlike many other recent hysterical reports of glacial disappearance, is accurate. (Let's even pass over what a scientist might mean by the odd qualifier "reportedly," when giving such a definitive opinion.) Does Sherwood's contention this melting proves humans caused the melting make sense?

Let's stack the deck further in his favor before deciding. Let's assume that when Sherwood says "thousands of years," he is specifically aware of the state of those Canadian glaciers during the Medieval Warm Period, from about 950 to 1250 AD. And that the plural of "thousand" may have been boyish enthusiasm.

Bottom line? No matter how much latitude we grant, Sherwood's statement that AGW is proved by melting glaciers in Canada is nonsense. When they assert that if A=B and B=X, then A=C, credentialed Co-Directors of University Climate Change Research Centres deserve no less skepticism than that guy selling Government of Greece bonds. You expect scientists to be aware of such things. Anyway, you used to.

A long line of enviro-hysterics and hucksters - from Rachel Carson to Greenpeace using Bardot in the baby seal ploy - have poisoned the well. Since they abandoned Bardot to the seals and recanted their 1970's doomsday Global Cooling scenario, they've been working on predictive Global Warming models that don't predict - even when the models are cooked to favor an AGW conclusion. These flip-flops and errors and prevarications and religiosity from the AGW grant-application industry have many of those who believe in the scientific method a tad skeptical.

Co-Director Sherwood had to have been made co-director in order that he might speak PR for the Climate Change Research Centre. His position clearly didn't depend on his grasp of the scientific method, much less the ability to employ simple logic. He's the "securing funding" co-director. His PhD is probably in Marketing, if that's even possible. (After a search, I see that's wrong. His Ph.D. is Oceanography.)

Lest you think I protest the man's scientific acumen too much, let me paraphrase him once again:

1. Mrs. Peacock had been stable for decades.
2. Mrs. Peacock is now overly stable, room temperature-wise.
3. It is indisputable: Colonel Mustard, in the Library, with an SUV.