Immigration Idiocy

Of COURSE You Separate the Children from Their Parents!

Recently, there has been a rather remarkable discussion going on within the United States regarding immigration policy. This debate has achieved epic proportions, pushed the political rhetoric to a new low (seriously, calling people Nazi’s?) and led to ridiculous, childish and downright dangerous behavior. First, let’s all agree to calm down and agree that OF COURSE you should separate children from parents when people cross illegally at the southern border of the United States. I mean, what the heck are you people thinking, have you become completely unhinged and out of your mind? To an objective observer, the right course of action seems blaringly obvious. However, I will explain in detail why this is the only reasonable course of action.

So, before we dive into the meat of the subject, we need to all understand a little background. First up is really the status of immigrants that cross illegally over the border. Do the same laws and due process apply in such circumstances? While there is a legitimate Constitutional question here on whether illegal immigrants are really entitled to the same due process under the law, for the sake of this article, let’s all just assume that immigrants that cross illegally are entitled to the same rights of due process as citizens of the United States and therefore should also be subject to the same laws and treatment as United States citizens. Fair is fair, everybody gets equal treatment.

So, if everyone should be treated equally, the natural question that arises is, “How are United States parents and children treated?” Well, the short answer is that around 100,000 children of United States citizens are separated from their parents or responsible adults every year. That’s right, 100,000…which is like way more than 2,000 for those of you that are math geeks.

Professor Paul Chill of the University of Connecticut School of Law stated in a 2004 article that:

According to statistics published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, more than 100,000 children who were removed in 2001–more than one in three–were later found not to have been maltreated at all. And that is only the tip of the iceberg. Because definitions of maltreatment are extremely broad and substantiation standards low, it can be reasonably assumed that a significant number of other children who are found maltreated, and for whom perhaps some intervention–short of removal–is warranted, are nonetheless removed on an emergency basis.

Now, when Mr. Chill mentions “extremely broad” and “standards low”, he is being extremely accurate. Consider the case of Debra Harrell, the working mother who was arrested for letting her 9-year-old spend summer days alone at a park crowded with families. Or the case of the widow who left four kids home alone for a few hours, only to have them taken by the state. Or perhaps that of Kim Brooks, whose nightmare began when she left her kid in the car while running a quick errand. In all of these cases, the state separated the children from their parents.

Where was the shock and dismay over these cases, and thousands others like them? Where were the cries of “Nazis!” or denying child protective services workers the right to eat at a restaurant or public shaming of said individuals? Not a peep.

So, I would submit to you that, were a parent or family to set out walking from an impoverished neighborhood in New York City bound for Texas (that’s about the same distance from Guatemala to Texas) with barely any food and water, subjecting their children to hunger, dehydration and crime that they probably wouldn’t make it out of New York state, let alone make it to Texas, before their children were ripped from their arms over cries of child endangerment.

But, let’s suppose that this family does succeed in making the arduous trek to Texas, all along the way subjecting their children to drug traffickers, local gangs, rape, murder, hunger and dehydration, and upon arriving find a local court house or other government facility and break-in, committing the offenses of trespassing and illegal breaking and entering. At this point, OF COURSE the parents would be separated from their children on the basis of child endangerment and after a potential year long stint and jail, the parents would likely be hard pressed to win back custody of their children…ever.

There would be no hue and cry over “Nazis” or stupid rhetoric and actions from anyone. Everyone would pretty much agree that those parents were irresponsible and put their children in a dangerous circumstance and had no right to continue being responsible for those children. People would pat the authorities and child protective service members on the back and say “Good job!”.

So, when you consider someone from Guatemala or other Central American country doing EXACTLY the same thing as our mythical family, OF COURSE you separate them from their children. They are putting those children in danger for crying out loud. And THAT is why what is going on today at the border is immigration idiocy.

Parkland Students Have Only Themselves to Blame

School Shootings and Suicide

Look, this is going to be short and to the point. And there’s no other way to say it other than to just come out and say it. Parkland Florida survivors have nobody to blame but themselves for what happened at their school. It wasn’t police (although they are definitely culpable), not the FBI (also culpable) or school guidance counselors, Florida Department of Families and Children, the shooter’s parents/family and most definitely not guns. No, the Parkland students themselves are to blame for what happened. Let me explain.

When someone commits suicide, we do not blame the rope that they used to hang themselves or the garage they use to suffocate themselves in. No, we actually tend to blame ourselves. What more could we have done to prevent that person from committing suicide? What signs did we miss? How could we have been a better friend, family member or coworker? But, those are mature, adult responses to a tragedy.

The problem is that Parkland students are not mature or adult. Like all teenagers, they are immature individuals who are self-absorbed and generally incapable of true human introspection. Thus, they angrily lash out at anything and everything that is to blame for what happened in Parkland Florida. But they should be blaming themselves. They are ultimately the root cause of why the shooter lashed out.

You see, the issue is that school shootings by teenagers tend to be a proxy for suicide. Both are the last, desperate acts of young individuals who have been bullied, teased, demeaned and made to feel so unpopular and outcast that they see no other way out other than suicide. Some are so angry that they wish to take their tormentors with them. It should therefore be no surprise that there are more school shootings these days considering that in the last decade the suicide rate amount 15-24 year olds has climbed about 30%, from 10% to well over 13%.

And the root cause of all of this is the kids. Kids today are over-privileged, mean, cruel to others different than themselves, form cliques, tease unpopular students, make fun of other kids and are generally just downright immature. Most parents would be mortified if they saw how their kids actually behaved towards others when in school. And every adult that went to high school knows exactly what I mean. Until the root cause of the problem with our society is addressed, teen suicide and school shootings will continue, regardless of how many gun laws are passed or politicians given the boot.

Which one of those Parkland survivors lifted a single finger to reach out to that shooter and try to make friends with him or make him feel included? Even more, which one of those Parkland survivors teased the shooter? Talked about that individual behind his back? Made him feel an outcast?

Emma Gonzalez, what did you do to make a difference in that young man’s life? What did you do to make his life worse than it was already? David Hogg, how about you? Cameron Kasky, what did you do? Daniel Duff, did you make a difference in that young man’s life? For the better or for the worse? Did you try?

The reality is none of those kids did a damn thing when it really mattered. And so now, instead of introspection, they stamp their feet and shout and scream and demand “change”. How unfortunate that what really needs to change is not government or gun laws, but themselves.

The Climate Bomb

Population Control or Race to Oblivion?

While you are reading these words, poor people will have died from climate change. Most of them children.

If the above words look familiar, that’s because this story of climate change has been told before. One Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich penned an incredibly similar alarmist narrative in his book, The Population Bomb in 1968. But here’s the thing, the climate change narrative is simply a rehashing of The Population Bomb narrative which is itself simply a rehashing of a Malthusian catastrophe. The reality here is that climate change is simply a repackaging of a failed theory penned in 1779. And, I can prove it.

We can state the climate change narrative and population bomb narrative and the Malthusian catastrophe narrative with a single narrative.

“There is a variable x that is growing exponentially. This growth is caused by people. Continued, uncontrolled growth in this variable will result in the end of the world.”

If you never got around to reading The Population Bomb, now you don’t have to. You’re welcome. With The Population Bomb, the variable is, well, the human population and its exponential growth is caused by uncontrolled breeding/insufficient death rates. With climate change, the variable is CO2. But, and here’s the kicker, CO2 is simply a proxy for human population. Why? Because we are told that the rising CO2 levels have an anthropogenic cause (caused by humans) through breathing and the burning of fossil fuels for energy. Well, more population means more breathing and greater needs for energy and thus the burning of more fossil fuels. Hence, rising CO2 levels is simply a proxy for the growth of the human population.

The fact that CO2 is simply a proxy for human population is actually confirmed by Ehrlich himself and by a host of other sources here, here and here and, frankly, all over the place. Thus, what we really have in climate change is simply a “Malthusian” theory about the relationship between population growth and the environment suggesting that as populations grow, they will strip their resources leading to famine, hunger and environmental degradation. With Malthus and Ehrlich this was setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to provide sustenance. With climate change this is setup as the population outstripping the Earth’s ability to absorb CO2 output. At its heart, this is what climate change is all about. In short, nothing new to see here, this same tired argument has been made since the 18th century. Always about overpopulation and always ending in catastrophe. In 1779, Thomas Malthus wrote:

Famine seems to be the last, the most dreadful resource of nature. The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world.

— Thomas Malthus, 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population. Chapter VII, p61

That’s some pretty dire, apocalyptic shit right there. But what I find more concerning really is Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists take on solving the problem. You see, these “Malthusian” catastrophes are always setup as an “end of the world” scenario. This is done to scare people and justify all kinds of horrific actions intended to “save the planet”. Specifically, population control. Ehrlich writes:

“The essential point made about population growth is as valid today as it was in 1968: “Basically, there are only two kinds of solutions to the population problem. One is a ‘birthrate solution,’ in which we find ways to lower the birthrate. The other is a ‘death rate solution,’ in which ways to raise the death rate – war, famine, pestilence – find us” (p. 34).

— Paul and Anne Ehrlich, 2009. The Population Bomb Revisited.

You see, the term “population control” is simply a polite way of saying “mass genocide of deplorables, mass sterilization of undesirables, forced abortion and eugenics”. This has been the environmentalist mantra since Ehrlich and continues to this day with climate science.

One can believe in climate change and reject its mantra of genocide, sterilization, abortion and eugenics. The failure of Ehrlich, environmentalists and climate scientists is that they blame all of the world’s problems on humans without ever considering human ingenuity and technological prowess. More humans means increased ingenuity and faster technological advancement. This has been proven since the 1960’s in that the growth in food production has been greater than population growth. The same is true of climate change and CO2. Human ingenuity and technology will prevail.

One Trick Pony

A “Final Solution” to Climate Change?

I think that the real problem that skeptics have with climate change advocates is the obvious political underpinnings behind mainstream climate science. Specifically, climatologists continually claim that the only solution to climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels in order to reduce CO2 emissions and replace the energy production with wind and solar. The problem with this is that such a statement ignores basic science, demonstrates an incredible inability to think critically and an unimaginable lack of imagination. In short, these climate change advocates are one trick ponies when it comes to controlling climate change. Somehow we are to believe that some of the supposedly “greatest minds in science” are too stupid to think of any other solution to climate change other than to stop burning fossil fuels by replacing them with wind and solar. Obviously, this is idiotic. The only rational explanation is that such scientists are politically motivated. This article will utterly expose this obvious political motivation by listing a plethora of alternative methods of controlling climate change that are both obvious and much more effective than replacing the burning of fossil fuels with wind and solar.

First, in order to understand the alternative approaches to controlling climate change, a little background is required. Specifically, one must understand the “forcing mechanisms” that cause climate change as well as the sources of CO2 within the atmosphere. With respect to climate change, internal forcing mechanisms include ocean-atmosphere variability and life. External forcing factors include orbital variations, solar output, volcanism, plate tectonics and human influences. If we accept that CO2 is a main driver of today’s climate change warming, then in addition to fossil fuel consumption we must also consider ocean-atmospheric exchange, plant and animal respiration, photosynthesis, soil respiration and decomposition and volcanic eruptions. Let’s take a look at all of these things and see what solutions we can come up with.

Let’s look at ocean-atmosphere exchange first. CO2 is a soluble gas that dissolves in the oceans and is taken up by marine plants. There is a natural cycle in which CO2 is absorbed from the atmosphere in cooler and more biologically active areas of the ocean and released back to the atmosphere in warmer, less biologically active areas. Using 2011 numbers, ocean-atmosphere exchange resulted in 330 billion metric tons of CO2 being released into the atmosphere. This is a huge number, an order of magnitude larger than burning fossil fuels. And yet, there is little if any research going into technology to influence this exchange for our benefit (reducing CO2 emissions). For example, we could reduce the rate of physical mixing that stirs deep water to the surface. Centuries of respiration produce high CO2 levels in the deep ocean and much of this CO2 is released when deep waters are brought up to the surface. We could also stimulate the growth of algae that consume CO2 on the surface and later transfer that carbon to the deep ocean when they die.

Orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles) have a large impact on climate. In fact, they are noted for their correlation to glacial and interglacial periods, and more of a glacial period is apparently just what we need right now. The IPCC does note that Milankovitch cycles drove the ice age cycles. To be clear, Milankovitch cycles are the result of variations in the Earth’s eccentricity (oval orbit versus a perfect circle), the tilt of the Earth’s axis of rotation and precession. Perihelion or Apsidal precession is the fact that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun rotates, tracing out a flower petal pattern and is a major cause of climate oscillation on Earth. While technologically daunting, we could potentially find a way to influence the orbital variations of the Earth to our benefit or nudge the Earth into a slightly farther orbit, thus reducing the solar input into our atmosphere.

Granted, that last one is a bit far-fetched, but it leads us to the concept of reducing the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere or reducing solar output. To reduce the input of solar heat into the Earth’s atmosphere, we simply need a “sunshield”. We could send up numerous spacecraft to the Sun-Earth L1 Lagrangian point and essentially block a portion of the solar radiation coming to Earth, thus cooling the planet. Conversely, it might be possible to develop technology to reduce the solar output of the Sun. Climates millions of years ago had many times the amount of CO2 that we have today but the Sun was weaker than it is today.

Another way to go would be to promote volcanism. Volcanism actually has a cooling effect on the Earth and releases relatively little CO2 compared with other natural processes. This is because volcanic eruptions release large amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere and the optical properties of SO2 and sulfate aerosols strongly absorb and scatter solar radiation. We drop a few MOAB’s down the neck of some inactive or active volcanoes and simply get them fired back up again or encourage an eruption. And we would only need one or two of these. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 affected the climate substantially as global temperatures decreased by about 0.5 degrees Celsius.

We could also engage in a bit of continental reengineering. The position of the continents determines the geometry of the oceans and therefore influences patterns of ocean circulation. The locations of the seas are important in controlling the transfer of heat and moisture across the globe, and therefore, in determining global climate. We might, for example, blow a hole in the Isthmus of Panama to allow the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to mix more freely.

Obviously what we have covered thus far are solutions on a grand scale that are likely largely infeasible. Except for the sunshield. I mean, duh, if you are getting too hot, fire up an umbrella. But, let us move on to more terrestrial solutions that are far less science fiction.

First up is nuclear fission. This one here, more than any other, demonstrates the absurd political underpinnings of mainstream climate scientists. Why? Because the introduction of more nuclear reactors solves the problem of fossil fuel burning today yet is not promoted at all by climate scientists. Climate scientists can’t promote nuclear reactors because environmentalists hate nuclear reactors. And yet, today’s nuclear reactors are many times more powerful and efficient than solar and wind. Consider that to generate the United States baseload electric power it would take approximately $30 trillion dollars and an area the size of Indiana with wind power. For solar, it would take about $20 trillion dollars and solar panels all across our southwest deserts. For nuclear, we could to it for as low as $1 trillion dollars on a few square miles of land. Also consider that a sunshield would cost $5 trillion dollars, just saying. But, nuclear fission reactors never enter the conversation, proving that climate scientists aren’t really about saving the planet and only about the politics.

Similarly, we could invest in research to speed up the creation of a viable nuclear fusion reactor, which is probably only about 20 years away anyway. Nuclear fusion reactors are effectively the opposite of nuclear fission reactors and essentially replicate the process that powers the Sun. And yes, we have achieved nuclear fusion, and yes we are making major breakthroughs and no, nobody in climate science ever talks about it.

We could also promote more plant growth, probably something like algae or Azolla in the oceans or artic. The process of photosynthesis removes CO2 from the air. The Azolla event in the mid Eocene epoch actually drew out 80% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, transforming the Earth from a “greenhouse Earth” state to the “icehouse Earth” state we have today. Yes Virginia, we live in an icehouse Earth state today, despite what climatologists might tell you.

Pollution. The human production of aerosols or pollutants actually has a cooling effect on the Earth because the pollutant particles reflect, absorb and scatter solar radiation. Nobody really wants pollution, but if pollution can save the planet, and that’s what we’re talking about here right? Saving the planet from the disastrous, terrible, awful effects of climate change that will destroy all of humanity? Then why not a little more pollution? Simple, effective and I guarantee we have the technology and yet, like nuclear fission, never enters into dialogues around controlling climate change because it is not what environmentalists want, further proving that climate change science is not about saving the planet but instead simply promoting environmentalist politics.

Now, let’s continue on with a much more controversial solution, wiping out large parts of the human and/or animal population. The average human releases 365 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere annually. This is generally considered a carbon neutral effect since the carbon expelled during breathing was recently taken out of the air by plants, which were eaten by said human to sustain their metabolic processes. Fair enough, but that only goes so far. You see, if we can grow more plants to help take CO2 out of the air, a sudden adjustment of the population, say wiping out 25 million North Koreans, that would remove 9 million metric tons of “anthropogenic” CO2 emissions per year. Some might view that as a “win-win” as it were. Good of the many outweighs the good of the few, or the one. Again, we are talking about climate change wiping out all of humanity correct? But, understandably, if you are a bit squeamish about intentional genocide to save the rest of humanity, we could always just kill all of the birds as that would solve global warming and also provide A Cure for the Flu. Again, win-win.

I could continue on with solutions, including things like banning all aviation travel, the most costly form of travel in terms of CO2 emissions and on and on and on without ever even approaching solar and wind solutions. Again, what this proves is that climate scientists are not really interested in actually solving the problem of today’s current climate change because we could do that today through nuclear fission reactors and pollution. No, their science is simply a sham to prop up environmentalist policies plain and simple. Otherwise, if the future of humanity was really at stake, then all options would be on the table. And yet, nobody talks or even hints at these alternative solutions or takes them seriously because the sole purpose of climate change science is to promote solar and wind power and to punish large, technologically progressive countries like the United States and transfer its wealth to smaller countries. It is a sham and it calls into question every piece of research, every model and every data point that has ever been conducted on climate change. And the scientists have done it to themselves because they have allowed themselves to become nothing but political hacks. Scientists, wake up. If you are really serious about the science then stop being a political one trick pony and actually get serious about solving the problem.

There are No Climate Change Deniers

Explaining Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change advocates impugn anyone and everyone that so much as raises an eyebrow over the various claims about climate change with the words “Climate Change Denier”. The trouble with this, however, is that it is inflammatory speech and is wholly inaccurate. It is inflammatory because it evokes the concept of a “Holocaust Denier”. This is not unintentional. It is inaccurate because there are no actual Climate Change Deniers. Well, OK, there might be but at the same level of volume as there are “Flat Earthers”. The problem is that the language is not correct, there is a deeper meaning to what is being referenced in calling someone that pejorative term that is not born out by the actual language. Understanding this will hopefully produce some more meaningful discussions around climate change.

Here is why there are no “climate change deniers”. Because everyone knows that climate change happens. Anyone that understands that there has been an ice age on Earth at some point in the past fundamentally grasps the concept that the Earth’s climate changes over time. It is fundamental. Therefore, calling someone a “climate change denier” is inaccurate because no one actually fits the ostensible meaning of those three words. That being said, that is not what is really intended by those three words in the first place.

What is actually meant when someone utters those words is that the person in question may not agree with the statement that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average, that this will continue indefinitely and that the primary cause for this is anthropogenic (caused by mankind’s actions), specifically from carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. You see, this is a very different thing than that someone simply denies that there is climate change because calling someone a “climate change denier” automatically makes that individual look foolish because, of course, the Earth’s climate changes over time. No reasonable individual would argue otherwise. But, if an individual is skeptical about any of the three real meanings behind that term, then they are labeled a “climate change denier” and made out to be a fool when there are legitimate reasons to at least be a little skeptical of at least one or all of those three underlying premises.

First, we must consider whether the current temperature increases are greater than average. The reality is, science does not know. There is no generally accepted “average” amount of temperature change. Why is that the case? Simple, we didn’t have satellites and other things measuring temperatures and CO2 levels hundreds, thousands or millions of years ago. Since modern temperature measurements didn’t begin until the 1970’s, scientists rely on archaeological evidence, glaciers, vegetation, pollen analysis, dendroclimatology (tree rings), ice cores, animal remains and fossils and sea level changes. This NOAA report does a decent job of trying to obfuscate the fact that there is no consensus “average” temperature change but proves this fact unequivocally. The report effectively states that only the last 150 years are recorded by instrumentation and that everything past that is inference and that “significant uncertainties remain”. So, could one be legitimately skeptical of the alarm over today’s temperature increases? Absolutely. If we do not know with certainty what an average is or really have no idea if temperature increases/decreases of similar magnitude have occurred in the past (and we don’t), then why couldn’t a reasonable individual be skeptical?

The IPCC’s fourth report, AR4, states that the Earth has warmed by 0.74 degrees Celsius from 1906-2005 OK, so considering that modern global temperature measurements did not begin until the 1970’s, could one also be skeptical of this figure? The answer here again is yes. It would be reasonable to be skeptical of temperature measurements made in 1906 as these would either be by devices that may not be calibrated to today’s standards or temperatures arrived at indirectly or through inference.

Perhaps more troubling, AR4 specifies that over the 50 years from 1956-2005 that the rate of increase is 1.3 degrees Celsius per 100 years or essentially 0.65 degrees Celsius over those 50 years. This is used to raise alarm over the current rate of climate change. Now, could one be skeptical of this? The answer again is, sure. And the reason, again, is that we do not know for certain whether any comparable such temperature change has occurred in the past or even what an “average” is. In addition, this presupposes looking into the future and assuming that the next 50 years will continue this increase of 0.13 degrees per Celsius. Predicting the future is really hard, so might one question or be skeptical of this? Sure.

Thus far, the analysis has shown that there are legitimate questions that could be raised by a reasonable, fair-minded individual regarding the first two premises that underlie the phrase “climate change denier”, that the Earth is currently warming at a rate that is greater than the average and that this will continue indefinitely. The primary arguments that underpin such reasonable skepticism being that methods of inferring temperatures beyond the last 50 years or so are indirect and potentially imprecise and that it is difficult to predict the future. Let us now turn our attention to the third underlying premise, that the primary cause for this climate change is anthropogenic.

First, can one be skeptical of an anthropogenic cause on the basis that there are other potential explanations? Sure, the list of natural causes of climate change includes orbital variations, solar output, volcanism and plate tectonics. The list of natural carbon dioxide emissions includes the oceans, animal and plant respiration, decomposition of organic matter, forest fires, and emissions from volcanic eruptions. If one just looks at human population growth, one sees that there are over 3 times as many humans alive today than in 1950. Hmm. Double the warming from 1950 to today versus the previous 50 years relating to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and 3 times the human population. Could one not reasonably conclude that the natural respiration of that many more humans is actually the main contributor to the increase in CO2 levels and thus the warming trend being experienced? Or, considering that we can only approximate the CO2 generated by ocean-atmosphere exchange, animal and plant respiration and soil respiration and decomposition, which account for about 750 billion metric tons of CO2 emissions annually, what if we are off in our estimates and those emissions are closer to a trillion metric tons of CO2 emissions?

Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the primary reason given for establishing an anthropogenic cause for climate change is a consensus among scientists. This consensus is established through a review of peer-reviewed, scientific papers that either support or deny this anthropogenic cause. Current estimates are that around 97% of such recent papers support an anthropogenic cause for climate change. Now, here is the problem with this. Scientific consensus has not only been wrong in the past, but spectacularly wrong in the past. Consider the following:

  • Prior to Einstein’s general theory of relativity, a magical “luminiferous aether” was considered by scientific consensus as the medium for the propagation of light. Einstein was actually still trying to work the aether into the theory of relativity as late as 1924.
  • Prior to the 1970’s, the scientific consensus for macro geologic processes was not plate tectonics.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, the scientific consensus was that there was no such thing as dark energy and dark matter. Scientific consensus was that we could see 100% of the matter and energy in the universe. We now understand that visible matter and energy represent only a small fraction of the matter and energy in the universe.
  • Prior to the 1980’s, scientific consensus would tell you that sauropods lived in lakes and that dinosaurs were cold blooded and extinct. We now understand these things to be entirely false.

These are just four examples of where scientific consensus was not only wrong but spectacularly wrong. Additional examples are numerous, including the consensus scientific beliefs in phlogiston, a flat Earth, an Earth-centric solar system, that there was no such thing as evolution, the “plum pudding” model of the atom and on and on and on. Science, particularly young science, tends to get things wrong. Spectacularly wrong. And climate science is at most 100 years old but in reality more like 30-50 years old. Physics, astronomy, paleontology and other sciences are orders of magnitude more mature and all of them have gotten things spectacularly wrong and likely have some consensus scientific opinions today that will eventually be proven wrong.

In conclusion, the term “climate change denier” is pejorative and wholly inaccurate. It is used to attack individuals that might reasonably question underlying assumptions and premises of a very young science. There is no reason for this and it is fairly unprecedented in the history of science for science to have become so political and descend into the realm of personal attacks and a concerted attempt to belittle opposing scientific views. The presumptions that underlie the term “climate change denier” can be legitimately questioned by a reasonable individual because the science, particularly in terms of historical climate change rates, is inexact. Finally, this reliance upon the supposed infallibility of this consensus science is ill-placed because scientific consensus has repeatedly been shown to not only be wrong, but to be spectacularly wrong in the past.

Published 6/8/2017

Guns Save Lives

Guns Don’t Kill Terrorists, British Firearm Units Kill Terrorists

First, before we get started, allow me to address the inevitable, predictable complaint this article is sure to generate. Specifically, that this article is despicable because it is using a tragedy to advance a political point of view. My response to this is rather lengthy and nuanced. I don’t care.

With that lengthy and nuanced discussion out of the way, I think that President Trump’s tweet on the London Bridge terrorist attack deserves some scrutiny:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump Jun 4
Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That’s because they used knives and a truck!

To be clear, what President Trump was referring to was the London Bridge terrorist attack where three terrorists used a van and knives to murder seven people and injure scores more. Two unarmed British police officers attempted to tackle the terrorists and were both severely injured in the attack. A British Firearms Unit was called in and eight British police officers armed with guns fired a total of fifty (50) shots to kill the three terrorists and end the threat.

There were many that thought this particular tweet was odd. Not quite as odd as “covfefe”, but odd none-the-less. Here’s how I took it. Every time there is some sort of attack that involves guns there is the standard, typical, predictable outcry over gun violence and an effort to ban guns or otherwise infringe upon the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Why then shouldn’t we point out when guns actually save lives, as in the case of the London Bridge terrorist attack? Without guns, there would have likely been many more deaths and injuries resulting from the terrorist attacks. Who knows, guns could have saved the entire population of Britain.

Herein lies the fallacy and hypocrisy of gun control advocates. Where is the outcry to ban knives and vans? There is none. And there is no acknowledgement from these groups that, in point of fact, guns saved the lives of countless British citizens. To an objective observer, this is the height of hypocrisy and is a disservice to honest debate on the topic. Gun control advocates should at least admit that guns can save lives as well as take them.

Solar Change Deniers

The True Lesson from Trump’s Exit of the Paris Accords

President Trump recently came out and announced the United States’ exit from the Paris Accords. In doing so, Trump claimed that the trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness to the United States were more important than vague, unspecific, purported, future harms to the environment from climate change. Climate change advocates were quick to denounce this point of view, arguing that a 0.2 degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures after 100 years is far, far more important. I must go on record and agree 100% with the climate change advocates. Obviously, putting trivial, immediate concerns ahead of vague, unspecific, purported, future harms is stupid, pigheaded and wrong. However, I must also go on record as saying that climate change advocates are also stupid, pigheaded and wrong for their continued support of the trivial, immediate concern of climate change. Let me explain.

You see, climate change advocates are concerned about the potential effects on humans from climate change such as rising water levels, increased violent weather and other matters that make life on Earth more difficult for humans. However, what they are missing is the very real threat of life on Earth being completely extinguished and the Earth itself ceasing to exist. These are the very real concerns of Solar Change. You see, billions of years from now the Sun will begin to change. As the Sun’s reserves of hydrogen become depleted, the Sun will change into what is known as a red giant star. The Sun will cool, becoming more reddish and expand, eventually consuming the Earth before collapsing into a white dwarf star. When this happens, all life on Earth ceases to exist. Anyone that does not believe this is simply a Solar Change denier, a science denier and a complete and utter idiot of the highest magnitude for the science behind Solar Change is absolute. It will happen.

Obviously then, through the same logic as climate change advocates (which kind of makes it sound like they want climate change…) what we need to do is to forget about trivial, immediate concerns like climate change and instead invest hundreds of trillions of dollars into preventing or delaying Solar Change. A 0.02% reduction in solar emissions means that the Sun will continue to burn for an additional 100 million years. That’s 100 million more years of life on Earth or 4 million more generations of humans, albeit each generation having to endure a bit more asthma in the summer. Who can argue with 100 million more years of life on Earth? Only pathetic, stupidly uninformed, moronic Solar Change deniers that’s who. Ptuhh! I spit on such filth. Besides, we simultaneously solve climate change, reduced solar emissions means a cooler Earther.

In order to achieve this lofty goal of a 0.02% reduction in solar emissions, what we need to do is focus on crafting a global agreement or accord on Solar Change. Such an agreement would naturally be voluntary and have no teeth, but would dictate in an extremely unspecific way that we must make technology investments into slowing Solar Change. Since third-world countries have so little Solar Change technology this will necessarily mean a huge transfer of wealth from prosperous nations like the United States. In addition, since China has a long history of Solar Change denial, or for whatever random reason we might invent, they would be exempt from such technology investments for a few million years or so.

Since the true fate of humans and the world is involved here, we must immediately end all unnecessary investments in frivolous pursuits such as green energy. What do a few degrees matter in the face of the staving off the apocalypse? Also, since such an endeavor will require huge amounts of time and energy, we must divert all resources from trivial industries like movies, songs and entertainment, which do nothing but consume energy and resources without contributing at all to Solar Change technologies.

In conclusion, climate change advocates are absolutely correct that we must focus on vague, unspecific, purported, future harms at the expense of trivial, immediate concerns of jobs, economics and fairness. Unfortunately, they have also exposed themselves as Solar Change deniers, the worst possible villains in all of villainy. These Solar Change deniers must be denounced and stopped before their ignorance and abject evilness dooms us all.