There is, moreover, no denying that there is a strong consensus among climate scientists on the existence of A.G.W. — in their view, human activities are warming the planet. There are climate scientists who doubt or deny this claim, but even they show a clear sense of opposing a view that is dominant in their discipline. Nonexpert opponents of A.G.W. usually base their case on various criticisms that a small minority of climate scientists have raised against the consensus view. But nonexperts are in no position to argue against the consensus of scientific experts. As long as they accept the expert authority of the discipline of climate science, they have no basis for supporting the minority position. Critics within the community of climate scientists may have a cogent case against A.G.W., but, given the overall consensus of that community, we nonexperts have no basis for concluding that this is so. It does no good to say that we find the consensus conclusions poorly supported. Since we are not experts on the subject, our judgment has no standing. (Gary Gutting, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame, NYT, 6/12/2011)
The good professor, shilling for the global warming crowd, states his case: there is a consensus of scientists who believe in global warming (we thought it was now called climate change?); you and RedStateVT are not experts; ergo, we should believe the experts who are in the majority.
Here are our problems with this line of thinking. Is there a consensus? Has someone lined up every scientist who is an expert and polled them? Even if the numbers fall their way, however, they are suspect. Consider that one reason there may be more who believe the climate change is that they are invested in the issue. They get paid. Middlebury College is not hiring any professors to the position of Professor of Climate Change Skepticism. The scientists who beat the climate change drum get paid. Those who disagree, don't.
Gutting fails to consider the human aspect: money talks.
Oh, and one more thing on the whole consensus thing. What was that whole hub-bub about Galileo?
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Getting in Tune to the Straight and Narrow
Supremely
The United States Supreme Court now sees its central task as comforting the already comfortable and afflicting those already afflicted. If you are a large corporation or a political candidate backed by lots of private money, be assured that the court’s conservative majority will be there for you, solicitous of your needs and ready to swat away those pesky little people who dare to contest your power. (E.J. Dionne Jr, Washington Post, 6/29/2011)
So E.J. thinks the conservatives are in the pocket of Corporate America. Let's see now...what conflicts of interest might the Court's liberal minority have? Hmmm.... Who was it that served as General Counsel of the ACLU? That's right, it was Ruth Bader Ginsberg!
Around Town
Vermont's GOP is hot on the story of local businesses afraid to expand given the climate of uncertainty resulting from the policies of Governor Shumlin and the Progressive mafia. Shumlin continues to stick his thumb in the eye of the state's largest employer, IBM. He has told IBM that they aren't getting the Circ Highway; that he is closing Vermont Yankee, the main provider of IBM's cheap and reliable power; and finally, forget the IBM group medical plan, they are getting single-payer. Now that's how you support the business community!
The United States Supreme Court now sees its central task as comforting the already comfortable and afflicting those already afflicted. If you are a large corporation or a political candidate backed by lots of private money, be assured that the court’s conservative majority will be there for you, solicitous of your needs and ready to swat away those pesky little people who dare to contest your power. (E.J. Dionne Jr, Washington Post, 6/29/2011)
So E.J. thinks the conservatives are in the pocket of Corporate America. Let's see now...what conflicts of interest might the Court's liberal minority have? Hmmm.... Who was it that served as General Counsel of the ACLU? That's right, it was Ruth Bader Ginsberg!
Around Town
Vermont's GOP is hot on the story of local businesses afraid to expand given the climate of uncertainty resulting from the policies of Governor Shumlin and the Progressive mafia. Shumlin continues to stick his thumb in the eye of the state's largest employer, IBM. He has told IBM that they aren't getting the Circ Highway; that he is closing Vermont Yankee, the main provider of IBM's cheap and reliable power; and finally, forget the IBM group medical plan, they are getting single-payer. Now that's how you support the business community!
Friday, July 8, 2011
Expecting To Fly
Matter Of Facts
“What I’ve heard from people you might not expect to hear it from ... is if they bring to the Senate a [deal] that really comes down heavy on working families and children and the elderly and they expect me to matter-of-factly vote for it, they’ll have another thing coming,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday morning. (Washington Post, 7/8/2011)
Let's all play the Bernie game! Goes like this: "if they bring (fill in the blank) to the Senate a deal that really comes down heavy on working families and children and the elderly and they expect me to matter-of-factly vote for it, they'll have another thing coming." Sample topics include: a defense appropriations bill, a tax cut, funding for anything other than increased entitlements, etc.
Gloom and Doom
Friday’s gloomy jobs report has put President Obama at increasing risk of losing what could be one of the strongest arguments for his reelection: that he turned around an economy in rapid decline and ushered in a vibrant recovery.(Washington Post, 7/8/2011)
This one gave us pause. Is the implication that - up until this pesky jobs report - Obama had presided over a vibrant recovery? What exactly are the strongest arguments for Obama's reelection. We're just not seeing 'em.
Generic Victory
If the election were held today, President Obama would get only 56 percent of the Jewish vote against a generic Republican candidate, down from the 78 percent he won in 2008 and less than the 74 percent John Kerry received in 2004. (Dick Morris,7/5/2011)
We can only hope that Obama's former supporters in the Jewish community and on Wall Street (to name a couple) remember at voting time that he has stiffed them.
“What I’ve heard from people you might not expect to hear it from ... is if they bring to the Senate a [deal] that really comes down heavy on working families and children and the elderly and they expect me to matter-of-factly vote for it, they’ll have another thing coming,” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Friday morning. (Washington Post, 7/8/2011)
Let's all play the Bernie game! Goes like this: "if they bring (fill in the blank) to the Senate a deal that really comes down heavy on working families and children and the elderly and they expect me to matter-of-factly vote for it, they'll have another thing coming." Sample topics include: a defense appropriations bill, a tax cut, funding for anything other than increased entitlements, etc.
Gloom and Doom
Friday’s gloomy jobs report has put President Obama at increasing risk of losing what could be one of the strongest arguments for his reelection: that he turned around an economy in rapid decline and ushered in a vibrant recovery.(Washington Post, 7/8/2011)
This one gave us pause. Is the implication that - up until this pesky jobs report - Obama had presided over a vibrant recovery? What exactly are the strongest arguments for Obama's reelection. We're just not seeing 'em.
Generic Victory
If the election were held today, President Obama would get only 56 percent of the Jewish vote against a generic Republican candidate, down from the 78 percent he won in 2008 and less than the 74 percent John Kerry received in 2004. (Dick Morris,7/5/2011)
We can only hope that Obama's former supporters in the Jewish community and on Wall Street (to name a couple) remember at voting time that he has stiffed them.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Mirage
Cult Classic
This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 7/5/2011)
This one is too easy, even by the low standards of Cohen. Cohen calls the GOP a cult because of pledges against taxes, abortion and global warming. While the Dems pledge for taxes, abortion and global warming. This column would not get a passing grade in a high school political science discussion. Actually, it might given the mindset of the teachers unions. Now that is a cult!
All The President's Men
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job. (The Weekly Standard, 7/3/2011)
This intellectual rigidity has produced a GOP presidential field that’s a virtual political Jonestown. The Grand Old Party, so named when it really did evoke America, has so narrowed its base that it has become a political cult. (Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 7/5/2011)
This one is too easy, even by the low standards of Cohen. Cohen calls the GOP a cult because of pledges against taxes, abortion and global warming. While the Dems pledge for taxes, abortion and global warming. This column would not get a passing grade in a high school political science discussion. Actually, it might given the mindset of the teachers unions. Now that is a cult!
All The President's Men
The report was written by the White House’s Council of Economic Advisors, a group of three economists who were all handpicked by Obama, and it chronicles the alleged success of the “stimulus” in adding or saving jobs. The council reports that, using “mainstream estimates of economic multipliers for the effects of fiscal stimulus” (which it describes as a “natural way to estimate the effects of” the legislation), the “stimulus” has added or saved just under 2.4 million jobs — whether private or public — at a cost (to date) of $666 billion. That’s a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job. (The Weekly Standard, 7/3/2011)
Ooops! Now Paul Krugman is going to have to retract dozens of columns.
Monday, July 4, 2011
Do The Huckle-Buckle
Driving Us Crazy
The administration is proposing regulations that will require new American cars and trucks to attain an average of as much as 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, roughly double the current level. That would require increases in fuel efficiency of nearly 5 percent a year from 2017 to 2025. The standard would put domestic vehicle fuel efficiency on a par with that in Europe, China and Japan, saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump and creating for the first time a truly global automobile market.
A classic case today of the inherent bias (and dishonesty) of The New York Times. Allow RedStateVT to explain. Reading above one would think that the U.S. auto industry (of which we are no great fan, by the way) was technologically inferior. Why is fuel efficiency so much higher elsewhere? Simple answer: exorbitantly high gas which forces people to buy econo-box micro cars. Who hasn't heard the stories of the French father packing up his wife, children, mistress and illegitimate children in their four-seater and heading to the south of France for their 12 week summer vacation? This is the world that The New York Times longs for. In their words, a "truly global" world. In the U.S., Dad packs the wife and kids up in a safe SUV and heads to the beach for two weeks.
Some good news, though. Finally some news on the solar-powered car:
Car companies could receive credit for using low-polluting air-conditioner refrigerants, building cars that can run mainly on biofuels, putting solar panels on cars to provide cooling power and other technological gimmicks. (NYT, 7/4/2011)
The administration is proposing regulations that will require new American cars and trucks to attain an average of as much as 56.2 miles per gallon by 2025, roughly double the current level. That would require increases in fuel efficiency of nearly 5 percent a year from 2017 to 2025. The standard would put domestic vehicle fuel efficiency on a par with that in Europe, China and Japan, saving consumers billions of dollars at the pump and creating for the first time a truly global automobile market.
A classic case today of the inherent bias (and dishonesty) of The New York Times. Allow RedStateVT to explain. Reading above one would think that the U.S. auto industry (of which we are no great fan, by the way) was technologically inferior. Why is fuel efficiency so much higher elsewhere? Simple answer: exorbitantly high gas which forces people to buy econo-box micro cars. Who hasn't heard the stories of the French father packing up his wife, children, mistress and illegitimate children in their four-seater and heading to the south of France for their 12 week summer vacation? This is the world that The New York Times longs for. In their words, a "truly global" world. In the U.S., Dad packs the wife and kids up in a safe SUV and heads to the beach for two weeks.
Some good news, though. Finally some news on the solar-powered car:
Car companies could receive credit for using low-polluting air-conditioner refrigerants, building cars that can run mainly on biofuels, putting solar panels on cars to provide cooling power and other technological gimmicks. (NYT, 7/4/2011)
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Wild World
Killing In The Name Of
The skies over at least six countries are patrolled by robotic aircraft, operated by the U.S. military or the CIA, that fire missiles to carry out targeted assassinations. I am convinced that this method of waging war is cost-effective but not that it is moral..... First, there’s the practical question of whether killing terrorists in this manner creates new ones. (Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 6/30/2011)
Special thanks to Robinson for reminding us of this old chestnut of liberal illogic. Essentially, America should not defend itself because its enemies will not like it. And thinking back, did killing Nazis create more or less Nazis? (Answer next week.)
Assets and Liabilities
The Taliban’s greatest asset has been its ability to provide quick justice in a country shattered by war and corruption. (David Ignatius, Washington Post, 6/30/2011)
Kept reading this Ignatius piece waiting for him to say: But, of course, the Taliban's form of justice was barbaric. Surprise! He never says it. Guess he is OK with the stoning and cutting off of hands and feet.
Wedgie
The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments. (NYT editorial, 7/3/2011)
It was good to be reminded that it was a DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT who signed the law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Meanwhile, New York Times issue watch: Five gay-themed articles today.
Your Tax Dollars
At some point, the NEA is likely to endorse Mr. Obama, as the union has never endorsed a Republican.....The unions don't like the administration's embrace of charter schools—public schools run by non-government entities—or its support for the dismissal of ineffective teachers in low-performing schools. (WSJ, 7/30/2011)
Another union controlled by the Democrats. And why not, the Dems are not going to force teacher accountability.
The skies over at least six countries are patrolled by robotic aircraft, operated by the U.S. military or the CIA, that fire missiles to carry out targeted assassinations. I am convinced that this method of waging war is cost-effective but not that it is moral..... First, there’s the practical question of whether killing terrorists in this manner creates new ones. (Eugene Robinson, Washington Post, 6/30/2011)
Special thanks to Robinson for reminding us of this old chestnut of liberal illogic. Essentially, America should not defend itself because its enemies will not like it. And thinking back, did killing Nazis create more or less Nazis? (Answer next week.)
Assets and Liabilities
The Taliban’s greatest asset has been its ability to provide quick justice in a country shattered by war and corruption. (David Ignatius, Washington Post, 6/30/2011)
Kept reading this Ignatius piece waiting for him to say: But, of course, the Taliban's form of justice was barbaric. Surprise! He never says it. Guess he is OK with the stoning and cutting off of hands and feet.
Wedgie
The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 as an election-year wedge issue, signed by President Bill Clinton in one of his worst policy moments. (NYT editorial, 7/3/2011)
It was good to be reminded that it was a DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT DEMOCRAT who signed the law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
Meanwhile, New York Times issue watch: Five gay-themed articles today.
Your Tax Dollars
At some point, the NEA is likely to endorse Mr. Obama, as the union has never endorsed a Republican.....The unions don't like the administration's embrace of charter schools—public schools run by non-government entities—or its support for the dismissal of ineffective teachers in low-performing schools. (WSJ, 7/30/2011)
Another union controlled by the Democrats. And why not, the Dems are not going to force teacher accountability.
Saturday, July 2, 2011
You Decide
Mindful
Keep in mind,” President Obama cautioned reporters halfway through his hour-long news conference Wednesday morning, “that the business community is always complaining about regulations. When unemployment is at 3 percent and they're making record profits, they're going to still complain about regulations because, frankly, they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits.” (Foxnews.com, 7/1/2011)
It is in these unscripted moments that the real Obama comes through. Here RedStateVT notes his utter contempt for the business world. Of course, like Vermont's Colonel Bernie Sanders who shows a similar contempt, Obama never worked in the private sector. And how dare those companies try to maximize profits!
Simple Math
In the Republican address, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana criticized the president’s handling of the economy and suggested that he looked to Indiana for guidance on solving Washington’s fiscal crisis. “The Hoosier way is quite simple — we work hard and we live within our means,” Mr. Coats said. “In Indiana, we understand that you cannot spend more money than you take in.” (NYT, 7/2/2011)
Mid-Westerners are just the best.
Grounded
No one asked the president why, if the tax break (for corporate jets) is such an affront to the liberal conscience, it was part of Obama's stimulus bill, which was passed without any Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate. (Yes, Nancy Pelosi voted for the special tax break for corporate jets and the GOP didn't.) (Jonah Goldberg, NY Post, 7/2/2011)
Loved this one from Goldberg!
Keep in mind,” President Obama cautioned reporters halfway through his hour-long news conference Wednesday morning, “that the business community is always complaining about regulations. When unemployment is at 3 percent and they're making record profits, they're going to still complain about regulations because, frankly, they want to be able to do whatever they think is going to maximize their profits.” (Foxnews.com, 7/1/2011)
It is in these unscripted moments that the real Obama comes through. Here RedStateVT notes his utter contempt for the business world. Of course, like Vermont's Colonel Bernie Sanders who shows a similar contempt, Obama never worked in the private sector. And how dare those companies try to maximize profits!
Simple Math
In the Republican address, Senator Dan Coats of Indiana criticized the president’s handling of the economy and suggested that he looked to Indiana for guidance on solving Washington’s fiscal crisis. “The Hoosier way is quite simple — we work hard and we live within our means,” Mr. Coats said. “In Indiana, we understand that you cannot spend more money than you take in.” (NYT, 7/2/2011)
Mid-Westerners are just the best.
Grounded
No one asked the president why, if the tax break (for corporate jets) is such an affront to the liberal conscience, it was part of Obama's stimulus bill, which was passed without any Republican votes in the House and only three in the Senate. (Yes, Nancy Pelosi voted for the special tax break for corporate jets and the GOP didn't.) (Jonah Goldberg, NY Post, 7/2/2011)
Loved this one from Goldberg!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)