Is the Human Species on a Fast Track Toward Extinction? - By Bernard Starr

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author is advocating for complete central control of the entire world, in the name of saving the planet. Aside from the problematic idea of giving complete and total control to an intellectual ruling class, the author never even bothers to explain why humankind should not become extinct. What is bad about the planet dying? Why is it a problem that species die off? 

And why should we survive as a species?

The author is operating according to some unstated moral premise. Extinction may be bad, but it is not self-evidently so. The author would need to explain the moral premise upon which he bases his presentation. 

In actual fact, the author doesn't really believe that we will become extinct. Nope, that is a convenient excuse. What he really wants is a dismantling of capitalism. He wants the installation of a world administration. He is a marxist at heart, and marxists love the utopian ideas of a perfect society governed by wise elders, or whatever these despots would call themselves.

------------------

Climate Change Myths - Louder with Crowder

Found here. No commentary necessary.

OBAMA IN GLASGOW

• On Monday, Barack Obama showed up in Glasgow to lecture the peons on CLIMATE CHANGE! Obama spent a large portion of his speech shitting on Donald Trump and Republicans and tooting his own horn.
  • The biggest reason greenhouse emissions have steadily decreased is because of natural gas, not more Obama era regulation. SOURCE: UNIPCC
  • The Paris accords don't do anything. China, the world's largest polluter, has increased carbon output even though they were in the Paris agreement. SOURCE: NYPost
  • In 2019, after leaving the Paris agreement, the US reduced emissions by nearly 3%, the most of ANY major country. SOURCE: IEA
  • Weather-related deaths have decreased over time. SOURCE: WSJ

Forced Vaccination Court Case: HENNING JACOBSON, Plff. in Err., v. COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

Given recent claims that the Supreme court authorized forced vaccinations in the below case, upon reading it we discover that the defendant was not forced to receive the vaccine, he was forced to pay the fine.

The judgment of the court below must be affirmed, which was:

The case was then continued for the opinion of the supreme judicial court of Massachusetts. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Company, the exceptions, sustained the action of the trial court, and thereafter, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, he was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $5. And the court ordered that he stand committed until the fine was paid.

There is nothing in the ruling that states the man must receive the vaccination.

------------------

What Is The Value of “Intellectual Diversity”? - by Nathan J. Robinson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------

These 2203 words are a muddled mess of logical leaps and bare assertions. We refer the reader to several critiques we have made of Mr. Robinson's "superior" rhetorical and reasoning skills.

Mr. Robinson is an elitist, entirely convince of his intellectual and moral superiority. Thus intellectual diversity is a waste of time because all other viewpoints are inferior. He's already right, he's already determined the correct way of thinking, which makes other points of view stupid if not irrelevant.

------------------

Trust the experts - Stevie Berryman

Found on FB. Our comments in bold.

-----------------

This author wants us to believe that the experts must not be questioned, and those who disagree with experts have nothing to offer because they are not experts. Further, those who are experts but disagree with other experts are "discredited," apparently because he agrees with one side and not the other.

----------------

A market-based method to deal with warming - letter by Dr. Kenneth Pierce

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------

Dr. Pierce apparently does not understand the concept of free markets, because "putting a fee" on carbon content has nothing to do with the free market. A "fee" (that is, a tax) is a government intervention into the free market, not an activity of the free market. And this particular tax is not for the purpose of generating revenue for the operation of government, it is a manipulation designed to alter peoples' behavior to certain desired outcomes. This is known as social engineering, which is about as far from the free market as one can get.

Citizens' Climate Lobby is an advocacy organization attempting to persuade people to consent to taxing themselves by dangling a carrot called a dividend. This dividend is intended to be given to people to mitigate the impact of the fee. They claim: "A national carbon price, with full revenue return and border adjustments, will do four things: internalize the social cost of carbon-based fuels, rapidly achieve large emission reductions, stimulate the economy & recruit global participation. And it will do so for FREE." Yes, they really believe it is free.

Here's a chart from their website:

Notice they want an escalating tax, obviously intended to become confiscatory at some point, which will be transferred to you and me. This tax will be applied "at the point where they [greenhouse gases] first enter the economy," but each household will receive a dividend from a "trust fund," which supposedly covers the increased cost of goods and services resulting from the tax. 

The point at which carbon enters the economy is not the point where carbon enters the ecosystem. Therefore, it seems that their intent is to tax oil, coal, and gas companies. for that is the only substantial place where carbon enters the economy.  "The fee would start out low — $15 per ton — and gradually increase $10 each year." 

Why History isn't Scientific (or, atheists are historically illiterate) - By Tim O'Neill

(This is a guest post I was invited to write for the atheist blog Deity Schmeity. Regular readers of Armarium Magnum or of my answers on Quora will recognise the general themes).


"History sucks."

In April last year Grundy, the usual writer of this blog, posted "History Isn't My Area", commenting on the release of Bart Ehrman's critique of the Jesus Myth hypothesis, Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike the majority of actual historians, many prominent atheists find Jesus Mythicism convincing and many of them are unhappy with the generally sceptical and highly renowned Ehrman for criticising this idea. Grundy, for his part, stated frankly "I honestly have little knowledge as to whether or not Jesus existed", though added "I tend to think he did". That said, he made it clear why the overwhelming consensus of historians and other relevant scholars that the Jesus Myth idea is junk was underwhelming for him:

"History sucks. Okay, that’s unfair, but it was never my subject. My confidence of the accuracy of historical events goes down exponentially with the paper trail. The idea that history is written by the victors highlights the biases of the past. Books are burned. Records fade. Who should I trust for an accurate portrayal of events two thousand years ago?"

Since history actually is my area, I responded by making some critical comments on this attitude and some points about how history , as an academic discipline, is studied. Grundy, unlike many so-called "rationalists" I've encountered over the years, was happy to listen, and he invited me to expand on my points in this guest post.


Atheists and Historical Illiteracy

I should begin, however, by pointing out that I am an atheist. I have been an atheist for my entire adult life, am a paid up member of several atheist and sceptical organisations and have a 21 year online record of posting to discussions as an unbeliever. I note this because I've found that when I begin to criticise my fellow atheists and their grasp of history or historiography, people tend to assume I must be some kind of theist apologist (which doesn't follow at all, but this happens all the time anyway).

After 30+ years of observing and taking part in debates about history with many of my fellow atheists I can safely claim that most atheists are historically illiterate. This is not particular to atheists: they tend to be about as historically illiterate as most people, since historical illiteracy is pretty much the norm. But it does mean that when most (not all) atheists comment about history or, worse, try to use history in debates about religion, they are usually doing so with a grasp of the subject that is stunted at about high school level.

This is hardly surprising, given that most people don't study history past high school. But it means their understanding of any given historical person, subject or event is (like that of most people), based on half-remembered school lessons, perhaps a TV documentary or two and popular culture: mainly novels and movies. Which is why most atheists (like most people) have a grasp of history which is, to be brutally frank, largely crap.

Worse, this also means that most atheists (again, like most people) have a grasp of how history is studied and the techniques of historical analysis and synthesis which is also stunted at high school level - i.e. virtually non-existent. With a few laudable exceptions, high school history teachers still tend to reduce history to facts and dates organised into themes or broad topics. How we can know what happened in the past, with what degree of certitude we can know it and the techniques used to arrive at these conclusions are rarely more than touched on at this level. This means that when the average atheist (yet again, like the average person generally) grasps that our knowledge of the past is not as cut and dried and clear as Mr Wilkins the history teacher gave us to understand, they tend to reject the whole thing as highly uncertain at best or subjective waffle at worst. Or, as Grundy put it, as "crap".

This rejection can be more pronounced in atheists, because many (not all) come to their atheism via a study of science. Science seems very certain compared to history. You can make hypotheses and test them in science. You can actually prove things. Scientific propositions are, by definition, falsifiable. Compared to science, history can seem like so much hand-waving, where anyone can pretty much argue anything they like.


History and Science

In fact, history is very much a rigorous academic discipline, with its own rules and methodology much like the hard sciences. This does not mean it is a science. It is sometimes referred to as one, especially in Europe, but this is only in the broader sense of the word; as in "a systematic way of ordering and analysing knowledge". But before looking at how the historical method works, it might be useful to look at how sciences differ from it.

Neil deGrasse Tyson, hero - FB conversation

FB friend S.B. posted this:

Just a few seats left for tonight, a few more tomorrow

Neil deGrasse Tyson - Tickets - Cordiner Hall - Walla Walla, Wa - September 12th, 2014


A.V.: how are any tickets left???

S.B.: Yeah I don't understand either

Me: It may surprise you, but most people don't regard him as some sort of hero.

S.B.: A lot of folks do respect him a great deal Rich. He's been selling out larger venues in major cities with tickets going in excess of $200.

I sure can't draw crowds like that. Lol

K.J.: Anyone who can influence even one child to be interested in science and learning is a hero in my book.

D.C.: @Rich, Neil is not your hero. What he is an amazing critical thinker that can cut through the BS in pretty much anyone's flawed way of thinking. He is very good at taking what people incorrectly call Theories and turns them back into crackpot hypothesis that do not stand up to scientific scrutiny. What makes him a hero to many is that he has a talent many people wish they had. In that sense he is the same kind of a hero as "name your favorite sports player or political figure or religious personality".

Me: I did not say he was not my hero. There's no need to defend him since I did not criticize him. I simply pointed out that he's not everyone's hero. He can be yours, but I really don't care.

D.C.: @Rich, so you just went out of your way to point out the obvious? No one in the history of mankind is a hero to "most" people. If you really don't care, then why do you just post random pointless thoughts? (these points are rhetorical - no need to answer; you can just think about them before you post comments)

Me: I think I was clear that I don't care who YOU find to be a hero. More power to you. Nor do I really care what you consider pointless or obvious. But please feel free to police the thread for people who violate your sensibilities.

M.P.: @Rich I think what folks are reacting to is why you felt the need to mention his non-hero status to us all when nothing in the post or comments before your line claimed him to be such, to the world or an individual, yet you felt the need to "go there".

Me: Someone expressed astonishment that there were tickets left. I supplied a reason.

M.P.: No, you talked about hero status, not ticket status. People can like a show just because, not thinking they need to see a hero.

Me:  Feel free to parse and analyze my brief comment about a man who is regularly lionized. As Scott said, a lot of folks respect him a great deal, and he commands $200 ticket prices. But using the word "hero," well, that's just beyond the pale.

Climate change deniers foster no civil dialogue - letter by Wendy Weaver

Mr. Scott Warwood wrote a letter to the editor, and Ms. Wendy Weaver wrote a response. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My responses are in bold.

------------------

Mr. Warwood's letter is first:

Call me a denier. When I see sensational, above-the-fold headlines like “U.S. roasts to hottest year on record by landslide” in the Chronicle, I get hotter because it makes my blood boil. As an engineer who has worked for the same big “evil” corporation for the last 28 years, I help my customers save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and construct alternative energy sources – all for that ugly ‘p’ word – profit.

The socialist left, who despise the”p” word, have taken up residence in the climate change debate. Their true aims are power and control – they always know what’s best for the unwashed masses.

Bozeman has a highly educated populace, and yet the Chronicle continues to foist this propaganda on us without questioning it in the slightest. A lie repeated enough times is soon accepted as the truth.

In doing a little research, I found this: Global temps have moderated over the last 15 years. The media has chosen to concentrate on the U.S., which accounts for 1.6 percent of the earth’s surface!

Apparently the National Climatic Data Center has two sets of data – the correct set, and an inflated set for use by the gullible media and populace (www.wattsupwiththat.com).

If the same measurement stations used in 1930 were used for 2012, 2012 would not crack the top 10 for record maximum. Many more stations have been added, skewing the data (www.climatedepot.com).

Polar bear populations are up by more than 13 percent (www.polarbearscience.com).

When Al Gore stops lining his own pockets with our money, starts flying commercial, drives a hybrid car, and moves to a small, energy efficient home, I might start to listen, but until then, question everything when it comes to this topic.

Scott Warwood
------------

Now for Ms. Weaver:

In response to Scott Warwood, the climate change denier:

I too am an engineer but come from a different school of thinking — one that values peer reviewed science over special interest drivel promoted by front groups with an obvious agenda. (Notice the either/or scenario: Either you agree with Ms. Weaver, or you believe special interest drivel. There apparently is no legitimate opposition opinion. This is an easy and convenient rebuttal method, isn't it? All you have to do is blow off your opposition with a couple of abusive assertions and your job is done.)

Scott, everything you find on the Internet is not true.(Um, what? Did she mean "not everything you find on the internet is true?" Anyway, besides the obviousness of this [corrected] assertion, simply tossing out a generic assessment does nothing at all to address the specific points Mr. Warwood brought forth. What SPECIFICALLY is wrong about Mr. Warwood's sources? I'll wager Ms. Weaver never even visited the referenced sites.)

As an engineer I would assume you’re familiar with the scientific process — the process that allows us to develop cancer drugs, launch the Mars Explorer to a distant planet, and tells us where to drill for natural gas. (Now Ms. Weaver gets condescending. "Mr. stupid man, you do know how science works, don't you?" Look at all the wonderful things science has been able to do! Look, we can send probes to Mars! And because we can send probes to Mars, this means that climate change is correct. 

Because science does other amazing things, climate change is unassailable. Really.)

The evolving understanding coming from this same scientific process is overwhelmingly in support of the view that climate change is real, that the changes we see today are primarily human caused, and that its impacts will be detrimental to our future vitality. (This all might be true, but what exactly does it have to do with the points raised by Mr. Warwood? Is there any point at which Ms. Weaver will address and refute the points offered?)

As a self-proclaimed denier, you fuel the divisive and polarized politics that have made proactive community action on climate change so difficult. (See, Mr. Warwood? You're part of the problem. Dissent is not patriotic. Skepticism is not scientific. Challenging the status quo is divisive. Yup, Ms. Weaver has a real scientific perspective here, doesn't she? Can you feel the science oozing from her every pore? Oh, and by the way. Action on climate change is not a scientific activity, it's a political one.) 

Your statements do nothing to help us build a strong and vibrant regional economy or encourage civil dialogue. (It's even worse for you, Mr. Warwood. You are damaging the economy! Does anyone note the irony of Ms. Weaver's statement. She has lambasted and impugned Mr. Warwood in a most venomous and puerile way, and suddenly now she values civility?)

While no one person or group has all the answers, in civic dialogue there is a hope that all parties coming to the table hold on to some small shred of reality. (Whoa, stop the presses. Did she really just say that no one has all the answers? Hasn't she spent her entire letter on a denunciation of deniers like Mr. Warwood? If the deniers cannot be admitted to the table, then could Ms. Weaver identify what parties would be allowed to dissent from the "consensus" and offer their small "shred of reality," since she has already excluded everyone who is not already marching lockstep with the "Consensus"?) 

As for the socialists who can’t stand profit, which of these companies — GE, Shell, Wal-Mart, or BP — would you call the biggest socialist climate kook? (My head is now beginning to spin. These companies are hated by the Left. BP dumped millions of gallons of crude into the Gulf of Mexico a few years back. Walmart treats its employees like chattel. Shell's products pump millions of tons of carbon into the air every year. GE makes war machines that kill people all over the globe. So now they're friends of the environment because the donate a portion of their obscene profits to environmental causes and print their brochures with green ink and pictures of trees? How naive can someone be? 

Further, Mr. Warwood did not make any claim about corporations being socialist. He said the profit-hating socialist Left has "taken up residence in the climate change debate." Rather than debate this point, Ms. Weaver drags corporations into the mix and refutes that instead. This is known as a Red Herring.)  

And when did the U.S. military — which discusses climate change as a major force for global geopolitical destabilization in the 21st century — turn communist on us? I must have missed that headline... (Wow. The disconnect from reality is staggering. Mr. Warwood made no mention of the military. And when, exactly, did the military become a for-profit corporation? I didn't see the announcement. It shouldn't surprise anyone, even Ms. Weaver, that the military, as a government entity, implements government environmental policy.)

Years from now when I am sitting around the table with my grandchildren, I will know that I worked my butt off to do everything in my power to prevent and slow climate change. (This is so over the top. Everything in her power? I'm willing to be she owns a pollutant-spewing automobile, that she lives in a house or apartment constructed of wood and heated with fossil fuels. She buys food, which was delivered to the store in fossil burning vehicles, produce grown by extracting natural resources from the soil, and clothing made in a factory somewhere. 

Ms. Weaver is a hypocrite. She lives a lifestyle that could pay for hundreds of people who live on pennies a day in the third world. If she really wanted to do everything in her power to prevent and slow climate change, she would remove her carbon footprint completely. But of course, she isn't willing to do that for the sake of the planet, which means that some level of pollution is completely acceptable to her. The only difference between her and someone like Mr. Warwood is where that line is drawn.) 

What will your legacy be? (Notice the smug, self-satisfied narcissism. She is so superior to Mr. Warwood, someone she knows nothing about, that she is happy to pass judgement on him. This imperious, pompous arrogance is distasteful  especially in the context of her scattershot diatribe.)

Wendy Weaver