Vox Popoli

Former NASA climate chief admits that there is no science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming/climate change:

“As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters’ programs (1982-94), an SES position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer, Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers, in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,” Theon wrote….

“My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy.”

This isn’t the first time that a politically charged theory that a) enjoys the support of a “scientific consensus”, b) fails as a predictive model, and c) is dependent upon constant tweaks in order to prevent its complex structure from collapsing with each exposure to new data, has failed. Nor will the collapse and eventual disappearance of AGW/CC be the last time this happens.

Science does work; one of its most positive attributes is that it works despite the best efforts of scientists to harness it in the service of their political, ideological, and professional ends.

Flirting with the TMI line, Ace nevertheless sums it up accurately enough:

It’s baffling that women’s magazines even exist. All those wasted pages on “How to Keep Your Man.” Any article on this topic that contains more than three words (“Screw him lots”) is missing the big picture and dwelling on trivialities.

To be honest, I’m not sure which is more pathetic. The fact that most men are so utterly and irredeemably simple or the fact that most women are so utterly stupid that they can’t figure out a binary relationship.

It’s not rocket science. Daily sex will usually make for a mutually stimulating relationship. Twice-weekly sex will usually make for a neutral and stable relationship. Sex once a month or less will usually lead to an affair and/or a divorce. There just might be a reason the Bible instructs men not to turn down their wives and women not to turn down their husbands, given that it also informs us that God looks askance on divorce.

Of course, if you’re a man or woman who genuinely prefers watching television, well, you don’t need to be married to do that anyhow.

I have to admit, I really love the stimulus package. I love the massive onslaught of liberal spending on everything from condoms to public schools. I want to see the American people absolutely and utterly crushed beneath the weight of the government services they demanded in democratic election after democratic election, because it’s the only way three generations of idiots will be forced to acknowledge the obvious:

In 2005, the state Supreme Court ruled that the education of Kansas schoolchildren was in peril because the Kansas Legislature had not spent enough on the state’s schools. Despite the fact that by every recognized measure, Kansas schools already were near or at the top in most state rankings, the court imposed spending increases that are now helping push the state into a deep budget crisis….

Research conducted for the University of Kansas Business School’s Center for Applied Economics by Dr. Florence Neymotin, a Kansas State University assistant professor of economics, shows the massive increase of school funding in Kansas between the years 1997 and 2006 so far has had “little evidence of improving student outcomes as measured by test scores.”

Shocking, isn’t it? The next thing you know, the experts will discover that every federal dollar spent doesn’t actually deliver a 5x multiple in economic growth. A few more years of this and they may even be ready for the concept of “water is wet”.

Now that everyone is getting ready for the final, it’s time to go ahead and start kicking around possibilities for the next book study. Here’s my initial thoughts on the subject, but feel free to argue the case for your favored candidate:

The Aeneid: Pros – new translation is pretty good. Cons – I’ve never actually been able to finish it.

Liberal Fascism: Pros – likely relevant to the new administration, nice segue from Rothbard’s AGD. Cons – no free texts available.

Herodotus: Pros – Lovely Landmark edition. Cons – are we really ready for another history already?

The Wealth of Nations: Pros – Classic economics text. Cons – More econ?

It was probably wise of PZ to run away from me, considering that he couldn’t even beat an incompetent Canadian:

I attended the debate tonight, and I have to honestly say that PZ lost… badly.

He basically decided to dismiss the agreed topic of debate and then proceeded to lecture on Hox genes. If the topic of debate was really evolution vs Intelligent Design he certainly would have won on the issue of genetics, but still would have lost on the issue of overall rationale.

In the end, his conclusion was that he couldn’t argue the agreed-upon question because it wasn’t his area of expertise and they should have gotten someone else.

PZ is so incompetent and historically ignorant that I doubt he could win a debate that remained solidly within his area of expertise. There’s a reason he’s still a community college professor, after all. Have a look through the blog at every single exchange that’s ever taken place between us; you’ll see that painfully lame ad hominem is the very best that he can ever do. It doesn’t sound like Durston was much of a debater himself, but that doesn’t prevent PZ from whining about him. That’s pathetic, since nothing is easier than slashing apart someone who is attempting to play fast and loose with the facts. They do your job for you.

PZ was completely wrong when he attempted to claim that Hitler was a Christian. (PZ’s opponent was also wrong, as Hitler was not an atheist although he was a science fetishist.) The OSS reports released in 2001, with which PZ is obviously unfamiliar, make it clear that while the man was, like Dawkins and Hitchens, raised within a church tradition, he abandoned it and sought to destroy both the Protestant and Catholic churches as an adult.

As for those who completely dismiss the legitimacy of the Testimonium Flavianum, I would merely inquire by what evidence they do so. I completely agree that the text doesn’t sound like Josephus, but then, that’s hardly conclusive proof of it being a post-facto addition. Moreover, the Testimonium Flavianum is not the only reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, it’s merely the only one whose legitimacy is seriously questioned.

The 2008 Housing Price Test:

NAR EXPERTS’ 2008 FORECAST: “Existing-home prices are expected to… hold essentially even in 2008 at $218,300.”

VOX: Instead of $218k, I’m expecting a decline that would project to $175k or less by the end of the year.

THE VERDICT: “The median price crashed 15.3% year over year in December, to just $175,400.”

That, ladies and gentlemen, is why I am entirely unconcerned with whatever the expert scientific consensus of the moment happens to be. Intelligence and logic will usually – not always, but usually – trump expertise and consensus. Consider the track record: 2008 housing prices, check. Embryonic stem cell research, check. Dark matter, check. Global warming, check. Evolution, okay, jury’s still out.

And I am an expert in precisely none of those things. Now, if you’re still not convinced, what more would it take to convince you?

One man’s theory as to why the annoying little bastard is the worst pop singer ever:

I think I’ve identified the qualities in B.J.’s work that distinguish his badness from other kinds of badness: It exhibits unearned contempt. Both a self-righteous contempt for others and the self-approbation and self-congratulation that is contempt’s backside, so to speak. Most frequently a contempt for the supposed phoniness or inauthenticity of other people as opposed to the rock-solid authenticity of our B.J….

He thinks people can’t stand him because he dresses wrong or doesn’t look right.

Billy Joel, they can’t stand you because of your music; because of your stupid, smug attitude; because of the way you ripped off your betters to produce music that rarely reaches the level even of mediocrity. You could dress completely au courant and people would still loathe your lame lyrics.

It’s not that they dislike anything exterior about you. They dislike you because of who you really are inside. They dislike you for being you. At a certain point, consistent, aggressive badness justifies profound hostility. They hate you just the way you are.

Far be it from me to dispute the idea that Billy Joel sucks with all the force of a thousand desperate, impoverished strippers chasing a Vivid contract. But I have to admit that I never contemplated the possibility that it was his lyrics behind the monstrous black hole of his despicable suckitude; I always thought it was the music itself that was so ear-bleedingly awful. Fortunately, I never listened to enough of his steaming stinkocity to even be passingly familiar with the greater part of his dreadful ouevre, but if I had to pick just one song as the nadir of the lot, it would be “We Didn’t Start the Fire”. Or maybe “Uptown Girl”…. Wow, it is really hard to choose just one… no, it’s got to be “We Didn’t Start the Fire”, because if you’re choosing between two equally bad songs, the list song has to be worst by virtue of its intrinsically annoying format.

Although I will confess that since my first exposure to rock music was “In a Gadda Da Vida” and my first record album was “Back in Black”, I had absolutely no idea what the hell Billy Joel was going on about in “It’s Still Rock and Roll to Me”. Is this supposed to be rock or something? Really? Sounds a lot more like a Debby Boone/Sean Cassidy thing to me. Wait a minute, don’t tell me the freaking Monkees are supposed to be rock and roll?

Speaking of “Back in Black”, has there ever been an album or CD that has TWO songs that begin better than “Hells Bells” and “Back in Black”? I don’t think so. My favorite song on the album, however, has always been “Shoot to Thrill”.

Where do you think they will land?

The Original Cyberpunk shutters The Ranting Room:

This, friends, is the final week of The Ranting Room. Come Saturday, January 31, this site will be going dark. The content will remain online for some unspecified time to come, but after four years of doing this blog, it’s time for me to hang the ‘Closed’ sign in the window and move on to other things….

I want to thank everyone who has contributed to making The Ranting Room the sort of underground cult-classic semi-success it is today; it’s you, the community, who really make this thing work. I especially want to thank everyone who has contributed a guest column in the past year. I did give a lot of thought to the idea of changing the rules, opening up the posting permissions, and expanding The Ranting Room to be more like an online magazine. But in the end, I came to the conclusion that this blog is just too personal and idiosyncratic to be opened up in that way, and it would be better to bring it to an end and begin something new.

So, the news is not all bad – indeed, for fans of the OC’s fiction, it’s downright good news – and denizens of The Ranting Room will no doubt be pleased to know that their community will live on, in an even more open and flexible form, at its appointed successor site. I congratulate the OC for The Ranting Room’s successful run of four years, and I hope to see many familiar Ranting Roomers at the new blog in the future.