Category Archives: Religion and Superstition

Global coolin… no; ozone laye… no; global warmin… no; climate change!

If we made fractionating columns based on science with the quality of the environmentalists’ religion-of-the year “research,” we’d still be using whale oil for light and travel in coal-fired trains and ships:

Hansen underestimated the amount of CO2 that would be released into the atmosphere by 66%, but overestimated the warming that would result by 150%.  His “Scenario C” shown here (the one which almost maps to the actual recorded temperatures) assumed that there would be no increase in CO2 at all after 2000 —Borepatch: Politicized science.

Despite being proved wrong every single time, environmentalists encroach further and further into our freedoms with less and less oversight by the establishment media or real scientists. The power of science is that it can be used to predict and control Nature for human purposes. Because of that power, science gets special respect in Western Civilization, as the basis for our technological superiority.

When pseudoscience gets the same respect as real science, soon science loses to politics. And that’s what environmentalism has done: turn the institutions formerly of science against real science and use them to support political goals that undermine our civilization. It also uses political power to silence its critics, contrary to real science, which evolves by always questioning the status quo. Hence the saying the tragedy of science is the murder of beautiful theories by ugly facts.

Soon Steve Milloy will be sentenced to house arrest, but only after he recants his climate change denial — under threat of interrogation with harsh methods followed by burning at the stake.

This is what passes for Science these days

Climate change, the proof that what is called peer review is really pre-publication veto of non-compliant research:

This paper took some proxies that showed rapidly increasing warming a thousand years ago – during the Medieval Warm Period – and redacted them so that they show rapid warming now.  They arbitrarily added 1000 years to each data point, showing ZOMG industrial Thermageddon caused by burning carbon in today’s factories when in reality the carbon would have been burned by monks in the day of William the Conqueror — via Borepatch: The “Hockey Stick” climate graph has been proved!.

Real peer review happens when papers are published first and everyone in the field can review them, with the cost of a wrong review being borne by the reviewer not the author. This is what used to happen in the early days of science.

As for “climate change,” it’s basically a way of giving power hungry regulators, governments, and busybodies an excuse to meddle into all production processes and uses of energy; in other words, to control the supply side of the economy (and some of the demand).

Interestingly, the other great government program of our time, “free health care,” is the way these same power-hungry entities regulate what individuals can do, that is the demand side of the economy. After all, if the collective is paying for your health care, your personal decisions are everyone’s business.

What a happy coincidence that control is being asserted over both sides of the economy at the same time. But trust these people, they would never abuse their power.

A minor point that Aurini skipped

Aurini writes, in Schelling Points & the Catholic Church:

Pope Benedict’s resignation seems to have been driven by the attempts to prosecute him for the Priest Molestation scandal (and let’s keep things in perspective; children are still 100 times safer around a Priest than a School Teacher – let alone a Social Worker [the original report – long and boring for you]), which is all the more of a loss since he did so much to clear out the Liberal, and possibly Marxist priests from the Church. RTWT

A Reader is a devout atheist (though not a member of the Atheistkult), but he can’t avoid noticing that almost all cases of Priest Molestation involved boys, i.e., the priests involved were not just pedophiles, they were gay pedophiles. So here are the questions few people thought to ask:

  • Do priests have a higher incidence of pedophilia than the general population of men? (Despite the ongoing narrative, the correct answer is no — as Aurini points out in the excerpt above.)
  • Do gay men have a higher incidence of pedophilia than the general population of men? (A Reader doesn’t know the answer, but wouldn’t be surprised if it’s yes.)

A Reader has nothing against homosexuals, and enjoys their contributions to culture and the arts; he further notes that very few homosexuals are pedophiles. Also, the behavior of the Church’s hierarchy in the whole story was inexcusable and revealed the rot and corruption therein.

Still, the questions above are about relative incidence: basically, which of the two descriptors, gay or priest, is more informative, even if either is a weak predictor of the behavior? What A Reader finds revealing is that the corporate media emphasizes the priest dimension of the molestation and deemphasizes the gay dimension, when the most likely answer is that gay is a better (albeit still very weak) predictor of molestation than priest.

It’s almost as if the corporate media were deliberately trying to bring attention to, and heap derision upon, one of the foundations of Western Civilization, the Catholic Church, while distracting from something that might support conservative positions.

Surely they wouldn’t do that on purpose.