Country Living Series

Saturday, September 15, 2018

The latest victim of Social Justice Warriors

Here's my WND column for this weekend, entitled "Science: The latest victim of Social Justice Warriors."


For those unable to access the WND website, the text is below.



Science, the Latest Victim of
Social Justice Warriors

With the rise in awareness of “fake media” and the internet speech cartel banning conservative viewpoints, more and more people are starting to question the clamp on “truth” dominated by the left.

Science – supposedly neutral and free from partisan bias – is no exception. If something is controversial, it’s squelched. If a scientific conclusion contradicts political correctness, it is stifled and the scientist harassed and persecuted.

Consider this article by Theodore P. Hill, professor emeritus of mathematics at Georgia Institute of Technology, who had the audacity to research gender differences in intelligence, specifically the “Greater Male Variability Hypothesis” (GMVH) which asserts there are more idiots and more geniuses among men than among women. While there are many exceptions, the rule of thumb is there is generally more variability in males than in females of the same species throughout the animal kingdom.

“Multiple studies have found that boys and men are over-represented at both the high and low ends of the distributions in categories ranging from birth weight and brain structures and 60-meter dash times to reading and mathematics test scores,” writes Dr. Hill. “There are significantly more men than women, for example, among Nobel laureates, music composers, and chess champions – and also among homeless people, suicide victims, and federal prison inmates.”

Dr. Hill was curious to learn why males in many species are more variable than females. “My aim was not to prove or disprove that the hypothesis applies to human intelligence or to any other specific traits or species,” he stated, “but simply to discover a logical reason that could help explain how gender differences in variability might naturally arise in the same species.” [Italics in original.]

Like any good academic, Dr. Hill’s research was based on solid data. But he made the horrible miscalculation of addressing a subject – gender – inviolate among progressives. This proved to be an unforgivable mistake.

As Dr. Hill and his co-author Sergei Tabachnikov attempted to get the paper published in respected peer-reviewed mathematical journals, they found themselves facing increased hostility from an ever-widening pool of academic social justice warriors. How dare these men suggest there are more male geniuses? Faced with harassment, intimidation, loss of funding and other career threats, Dr. Tabachnikov asked his name to be removed from the paper.

No one could – or would – debate the soundness of the research or the mathematical accuracy of the conclusions. Instead, the opposition was based on feeeeelings. That’s it. Science took a back seat to feeeeelings.

Dr. Hill wasn’t the first to fall prey to progressive bias. Everyone remembers Harvard President Larry Summers, who was given the sack in 2005 for saying that the GMVH might possibly be a contributing factor to the scarcity of women in physics and mathematics departments at top universities. Feminists got a fit of the vapors and Summers was out.

Another high-profile victim, this one in 2017, was at Google when “engineer James Damore suggested that several innate biological factors, including gender differences in variability, might help explain gender disparities in Silicon Valley hi-tech jobs. For sending out an internal memo to that effect, he too was summarily fired.”

Recently, Brown University published a study concluding the “exceptionally rapid growth in cases of transgenderism among children and teens is very likely a result of ‘social contagion.’”

This article noted, “An in-depth report by the Federalist summarizes the study’s conclusion, saying ‘Rapid-onset gender dysphoria’ among teens and young adults may be a social contagion linked with having friends who identify as LGBT, an identity politics peer culture, and an increase in internet use.”

Translation: Transgenderism is a dangerous fad, not a biological condition. But the transgender activists went nuts and the study – regardless of the accuracy of its conclusions – was yanked. Telling the truth is a horrible thing when it contradicts the feeeelings of the left.

This leads to the esoteric question posted by Kevin Sorbo on Twitter: “If liberals don't believe in biological gender then why did they march for women's rights?”

In 2016, a SJW student at the University of Cape Town in South Africa put out a video that went viral, claiming all science must be torn down and abolished because it’s racist.

All science abolished. Let’s see, how did that video get made? How did it get distributed? Wasn’t it science that was involved in making and distributing the video? Doesn’t everyone benefit from this science?

But logic doesn’t apply to social justice warriors – it’s all about feeeelings. Science today does not dare challenge feminist or progressive ideology which, ironically, slows the progress of science (but who cares, right?).

“Feminist science” – a term that makes me want to puke – is becoming more and more popular (and funded by Your Tax Dollars). PJ Media notes, “They want scientists to only undertake studies and only publish conclusions that will support a radical feminist worldview.”

But that’s not science. Got that? It’s not science when “research” is cherry-picked to only support one point of view. That’s propaganda, creepily reminiscent of what went on in National Socialist (read: Nazi) Germany.

Feminist scientists and other academic twits want to argue there is no such thing as a universal truth; that everything is a matter of perception and social construction. “They're hoping to harness the field of scientific discovery to support this idea,” states PJ Media.

But they can’t. Truth is truth, and the scientific method has worked for a long, long time to discard biased feeeelings and uphold facts. Therefore the only way the social justice warriors can bypass this stringent process (as Dr. Hill learned) is to harass, intimidate, defund and ruin the careers of real scientists who refuse to support their agenda.

Great plan, folks. Let’s bring science to a standstill.

Even the left is getting fed up with SJWs and their feeeelings. “What used to be a characteristic of the left wing fringe is now creeping into the mainstream ether, a pitchforks and torches method of forcing regular people to abide by unwritten rules of interaction,” notes James Di Fiore (who describes himself as “a moderate progressive”) on HuffPo.

These kinds of reactions don’t make feminists or SJWs look tough, strong and academically competent. No, it makes them look like fragile little cupcakes unable to stand up to the rigors of the scientific method.

America is becoming an international laughing stock for the quality of its education. Clearly its science output will soon follow.

But there are many non-PC countries which depend on science to advance their national agenda. And some of those countries are our enemies.

Just saying.

38 comments:

  1. Patrice

    Great article and I ordered Dr. Hill's book. Imagine how empty these peoples lives are to try and bring down science on top of everything that keeps life living. Science is gender neutral and does not play favorites. The SJW forget that men and women are different down to our DNA. Our brains are wired differently. They have made choices and are unhappy with the way those choices played out. Rather than looking in the mirror, they look outside for someone else to blame. Some other person(s) always has to be blamed. It is some one else's fault for the SJW unhappiness in the way their lives turned out.

    Red

    ReplyDelete
  2. Feminists are simply too emotional and too stupid to grasp science (or any STEM).

    That said, I am equally disappointed in folks who call themselves Conservatives. The temperatures in the 9/11 towers could not possibly melt steel. Yet molten steel poured down and out of the towers. And the towers fell in free-fall, not one floor at a time. Anyone remember laws of gravity? And then there is the basic math of two airplanes taking down three towers. Yet Conservatives threw scientific principles under the bus to support 17 years of murdering, maiming, orphaning, and displacement of millions of Muslims. MAGA. Bombs away!

    Feminists and SJW’s are simply ignorant. But we who call ourselves Conservatives are willfully ignorant. Which is God going to hold to a higher standard?

    Dock Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. here's a link talking about it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzInIjD6nKw

      do you have a link of video showing molten steel "pouring out"? i've not seen anything like that.

      Delete
    2. It's a scientific fact under certain temperatures of heat, heat that can be caused by being detinated.

      Delete
  3. I would argue…who says it is always “liberals” and “progressives” who believe in biological gender mumble jumbo? I would certainly question that statement first. They throw these words around like they are gospel when in fact it is only one person's position.

    It didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that it took women over 100 years just to get the vote...not even being aware of “biological gender”.

    It took longer than that for women to be able to inherit their husband’s possessions and property should he die.

    If he wanted to kick her out of “HIS” home, he had the soul choice to keep their children and send her packing.

    You can see why it went so far the other direction to become the feminist movement. You get tired of being a door mat.

    Your right, none of it was based on science…but it didn’t need to be...and by the way...97% of scientists believe in climate change also. Now you can call that “fake news” all day long, but you would have a tough time convincing the rest of the world.

    Last weekend...over 900 demonstrations in 90 countries around the world were protesting the ignorance and greed driven audacity of polluting corporations that are killing us (with the blessings of this president).

    They know it is effecting us now and will be effecting them also. The world is screaming to put the breaks on...but money is still talking. Are all these people “liberals”? No, they’re just people.

    In SAN FRANSISCO alone;
    There were over 35K demonstrators pissed off because they are tired of a greedy government selling us to the highest bitter with no regard for the water we drink and the air we breathe.

    Cap-and –Trade is a half-cocked solution that is only a laughing joke...and the people know it. We don’t have till 2045 to fix this problem.
    J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 97% of scientists believe in global warming? Really? Please cite the poll that shows this. How was the poll conducted? Who paid for the poll? These are all basic questions that need to be answered to evaluate the validity of that statistic.

      Delete
    2. J, the women you refer to would include this old coot's Mother and Grandmother. Unlike today's angry, destructive, and militant women who drank from the empty fountain of Feminism, they were actually happy. Their children were happy knowing they had the security of a Father at the head of the household providing for and protecting them, a Father who was actually married and committed to their Mother, and a Mother to come home to, and we kids had the clarity of knowing which sex we were.

      Doormats? Honey, get a grip.

      Montana Guy

      Delete
    3. you say you get tired of being a doormat, except the things you list, like how long it took to get the vote or inherit property, aren't things that you experienced. so it's impossible for you to be tired of it as it never happened to you. unless you are very, very old the only america you have known has been with women voting and owning property, thus you have no right to victim status. sorry.

      science isn't based on consensus, it's based on reproducible, observable facts.

      san franc and the losers that live there should be more interested in the spread of disease thanks to all the humanure on the sidewalks.

      Delete
    4. (How do you have an articulate conversation with this kind of mindset?)

      Never said I was victim...if we don't stand on the shoulders of history...we will continue to act like the blundering idiots who never learned anything from it.

      And as for Montana Guy....How do you know who was happy and who wasn't during those years of suppression on women?

      My guess is that you also think that all blacks were pickin' daisies and singin'...."hallelujah..I'm a black slave". J.

      Delete
    5. I don't doubt that the real patriarchy was a miserable place to be a woman. I don't even have to re-read The Yellow Wallpaper to imagine it-- my grandmother remembered.

      Feminism did some wonderful things. Things I'd like to keep. Legal personhood, the right to own property instead of being property, suffrage, the right to work, laws against domestic violence... I'm pretty darn grateful for those things.

      Taking it to the radical extremes modern feminism seems to be working for-- things early antifeminists used as the basis for their opposition to women's liberation, by the way-- isn't going to benefit me, or my daughters, or my grandchildren should my kids reproduce. It's just going to drive a radical antifeminist backlash. Same song, 'nother verse. And I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE.

      Delete
    6. Please understand, the idea is already out there. Guys like this wouldn't have had a platform when I was a girl or a young woman. They would have been laughed right out of the redneck, small-town West Virginia gas station (or some boys would have taken them out and beat the tar out of them, because "You ain't gonna own my sister!!") Now people actually listen to what they have to say. Because modern feminism has become radical to the point of repugnance.

      Like your rights that previous generations of feminists fought for?? Want to keep them?? THEN DON'T BE AN IDIOT!!

      http://www.returnofkings.com/133400/would-the-world-be-safer-for-women-if-they-were-declared-the-legal-property-of-men

      Delete
  4. I don't deny the climate is changing. I don't believe it is man made nor America's fault.

    If someone could find a way to manipulate the weather, they would use it to make themselves immensely powerful and rich. Until then, if you don't like the weather...wait ten minutes.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Aye.

      Climate's been changin' for 4 billion years.

      Some of us call it ...'weather.'

      Delete
  5. NASA-GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RECORDS.


    Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.

    Check NASA Graft to actually see this dramatic rise at:

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

    •Melting ice caps
    •Excessive drought
    •Monster storms
    •Record fires
    •Massive flooding

    CONTAMINATION:
    •Polluted water from fracking
    •Coal-fire waste ponds seeping into drinking water
    •Cancerous air from coal fire plants and fracking gasses.
    •Wetlands and aquifers destroyed from prolific oil spills and leaks
    •Tar Sands and cancer synonymous in Alberta to indigenous people’s lands.

    The rest of the world gets it... For them, it's no longer an "IF" but "how do we fix it?"

    It doesn't help to have a president who is in complete denial and only concerned with corporate profits.

    Just catch up.....Look around and smell the coffee!
    J.







    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J, after telling us the sky is falling, I needed a good laugh. By now the whole world has seen the video of the reporter struggling to stand upright and holding onto dear life — until two people come casually strolling in the background. The Weather Channel got caught red-handed manipulating their report. Typical drama from a bunch of Chicken Littles.

      This is the same Weather Channel that is arguably The Nation’s ‘Face of Climate Change’. J, perhaps you can explain to us why we should believe anything The Weather Channel preaches to us.
      Montana Guy

      Delete
    2. Remember J, NOAA loses grant money if there is no crisis. This is how scientists and educators line their pockets. As I stated once before in a similar exchange, a running joke on our campus was "if you want your grant money link your study to global warming".

      Then there is this little tidbit:

      "Human Caused Global Warming" by Dr. Tim Ball.

      Dr. Tim Ball is the researcher being sued by Michael Mann, as mentioned in Climate Change: Why I No Longer Believe. . . What I find fascinating, and fundamental to why I changed my mind, is that Ball challenged Mann to release his data sets and analytical methods for public examination as a way to prove Ball’s accusations of fraud were unfounded – which would then facilitate Mann’s win over Ball in the lawsuit.
      Mann refused.
      Let me repeat this. Michael Mann is suing Tim Ball because the latter said the former was committing scientific fraud. Ball challenged Mann “OK, here’s a simple way to prove you’re right, and I’m wrong” and the plaintiff refused. IMHO this refusal is damning." This and a great deal more supported documentation is from the website of David Hunt PE.

      J, What you also fail to do is tell us how we are going to keep the environment clean and everyone fed and healthy without
      Oil, Gas and Coal? All plastics (medical too!) come from hydrocarbons. All synthetic closing comes from petroleum. Even the "off grid" folks would have no propane for their refrigerators and freezers (plastic shelves, drawers and vinyl seals either). In Minnesota it is no longer allowable to burn wood in the city limits of many cities. No tires for vehicles, no plastics for them, no disposable medical supplies and no clean treated city drinking water. Where would your sewage go? Can you image going back to a world with no AC in the summer and once a week summer baths and once every six months for some folks in the winter? That would mean lice and other things we don't often see now. Yes there are things that we need to continue to clean up in the energy industry, but the alternative is a starving, disease ridden 3rd world population. If you think we can sustain any kind of an economy on wind and solar you have not an inkling what electrical power is and how it works. Perhaps you as a single female can live without heat/AC/treated running water and a stove and refrigerator, but a family or 4 or 6 living on a city lot or in a high rise isn't going to make it.

      Please tell me how the country, you and your neighbors would get by without hydrocarbons, electricity, municipal water and sewer. How would you safely get around your community - at night in the "real" dark? What if it is brutally cold out? I will be looking forward to your response. Natokadn

      Delete
  6. We already know that they change records when the reports don't mess with what they believe.

    What were the temperature records in the 1400's? What size were the ice caps in the 1400's?
    How do you define excessive drought? Worse that the Dust Bowl years or however bad the drought was when the Sahara Desert was created?

    Saying that they are relying on the records of "recorded history" is like me saying I can rely on the basis of what has happened in my lifetime. I can but that doesn't make it scientific.


    So, what is the rest of the world doing about global warming. Al Gore wants beachfront property and a house that uses more energy than the average American home uses in a year.

    Leonardo DiCaprio takes a private jet to go to Europe to talk about global warming and the flies back.

    For them it is a "how do we fix it?" and how do we get the developing nations to fix it while we make it worse.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Are you giving doubt to the whole climate change record because Leonard DiCaprio and Al Gore didn't practice cutting back?

    Look at the bigger picture,man. This isn't the blame game. It is a very serious problem.

    The only changing of records I am aware of deviating from that of the NASA report is that:

    The Koch Brothers have sent at least $100,343,292 directly to 84 groups denying climate change science since 1997. Check it out.

    ...Can't say for sure..but there is a whole lot of serious motive there.

    Don't know if you are aware of it, but we have our greedy little frack sucking - coal sucking hands into every part of this planet.

    The United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad

    ...and it's not just because they love the food and the people. It's free money working off poverty.

    Clearly, our influence is something to be re conned with in regard to climate change. J

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will agree that we have too many bases in too many countries (thank you John McCain - a huge proponent of let's invade everyone) but there are lots of others. George Soros - the father of "I want to control the world" - sends money to all kinds of Global Warming groups as enough of them will suck the working population dry of funds via the government. (This is called redistribution of wealth, also.)

      Again - coal, oil and gas. WHERE will electricity come from with out it? Our grid is a massive 60 HZ cycling machine and with current technology power must be made at the exact rate it is used or we don't maintain 60 HZ and the lights go out. It is honestly that simple. We can store very limited amounts, but no where near what we need. Yes, we have some battery technology, but it is expensive and in the scheme of things would be like trying to control the level in an Olympic Swimming pool with a teaspoon.

      All of this aside. Tell me what how YOU think Coal, Oil and Gas could be replaced or do we just go back to horse manure in the streets, had made cotton and wool clothing and leather Moccasins? Natokadn

      Delete
  8. This a symptom of a broad problem. Leftwing rejects facts like this and science surrounding GMOs, rightwing rejects science surrounding evolution and climate change. Both reject science related to vaccines. The thing is, science does not require belief, and facts are remarkably stubborn things. Everybody wants to live in their own echo chamber and not hear things that challenge their preconceptions. I weep for our people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Notice you don't have information on weather conditions in the 1400's or the status of the icecaps in the 1400's. Do the scientists? They want to say that what has happened during recorded history is proof of something. They don't have enough records to show cause and effect.

    As for Gore and DiCaprio, how about the scientists? Are they living like they think that humans are responsible for climate change?

    What on earth does the fact that we have military bases have to do with whether or not there is human caused climate change.

    Free money. Right, we do give them quite a bit of money. If the other countries truly believe in human caused climate change, change their own attitudes and pay for it themselves.

    We have influence, yes. That doesn't have anything to do with whether or not human caused climate change (about 30-40 years ago, we were going into an ice age, according to scientists) exists.

    How much money has been given to scientists claiming climate change? How much of it was taxpayer money? Check it out.

    Most of the "serious motive" I see is people wanting to control other people while it doesn't apply to them.

    I doubt the climate change record because it is such a short time frame and they don't explain how we had global warming before there were people.

    "The United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. And this has what to do with verifiable human caused global warming. 30-40 years ago we were worried that we would turn into an ice age. They do not have enough information.

    Quit griping about what supposedly we are doing (and no other country pollutes, right) and show repeatable PROOF that this climate change is caused by humans(it is called the scientific method, and it includes publishing and listening to comments both for and against your "proof"). That would include proof that IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. If it has happened before, then obviously that should be considered in the discussion of whether or not humans are causing climate change. Also, the evidence that the sun has not changed at all and so didn't affect our climate needs to be included. Where is the information showing the carbon dioxide level correlating with the temperatures both up and down? They haven't proven to me that climate change is human caused and they can't because they are not doing their jobs impartially.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is exactly what I am talking about. Just reject out of hand what doesn't fit your belief system. Here's the thing, science is hard. It requires years of study to understand the minutia and Google degrees just don't cut it. I am a physician who has spent going on 4 decades studying the way bodies work and don't, and frequently have people who have spent a couple hours on line lecturing me on how they believe vaccines or bacteria or viruses work. They have no idea, but cannot be convinced of that. Look up the Dunning Kreuger effect. In short, the less you know about a subject the easier it is to believe you fully understand it. Easy to fool yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Lastly, over the last several years the US has shown a steady decrease in C02 which, if you remember your elementary science classes, is what plant life breaths. The world wide discharge of C02 has increased. So while the US is cutting back all of the those 'countries who get it" are making up for us - and then some. Natokadn

    ReplyDelete
  12. Don't know where you get your info (probably from Koch scientific data).....but here is the reality...CO2 readings:

    August 2018 406.99 PPM
    August 2017 405.07 PPM

    The most recent findings as of late on the news....is that 1 in 5 children in the U.S. now have cancer.

    Is it possible that this could be attributed to polluted air and toxic water? (duh)
    It's sure not from getting good exercise and eating a healthy diet.

    We need to change directions and find a better way into our future.

    It's been proven that more jobs can be created with green energy than with the alternative...so that's not an argument anymore.

    Big oil, fracking and coal are only still here because it behooves greedy corporations that don't seem to have enough already in their pockets. The change would be slow...but it at least needs to start.

    It reminds me of the toxic smells that would spew from Potlatch in Lewiston, Idaho. A big red flag was that you had to put your car through a "spray down" before you left the plant so that your paint wouldn't corrode. Most didn't question it because they were being paid very well.

    A few of my young friends died of cancer that worked there...but if you even mentioned the nasty smell that permeated the valley and what it was doing to you, they would say:

    "HEY, IT'S THE SMELL OF MONEY"!

    "Chicken Little" may be your answer to the obvious, but remember the old analogy about the frog....

    It was nice to sit in warm water to start with, but he would never be aware that he would die when it reached the boiling point. That's where Koch propaganda will take us.

    The rest of the world gets it. You can't fix anything until you admit there's a problem. Stuck on stupid isn't going to help anybody. J.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. J - So where do your CO2 figures come from? (You neglected to say.) Here are mine:
      Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Short-Term Energy Outlook
      ________________________________________
      EIA estimates that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions declined by 861 million metric tons (14%) from 2005 to 2017. In the latest Short-Term Energy Outlook, EIA projects that CO2 emissions will rise 1.8%, from 5,143 million metric tons in 2017 to 5,237 million metric tons in 2018, then remain virtually unchanged in 2019. In 2019, energy-related CO2 emissions will be about 13% lower than 2005 levels.
      From 2005 to 2017, coal-related CO2 emissions declined by 835 million metric tons (39%), and petroleum-related CO2 emissions declined by 289 million metric tons (11%). Natural gas emissions, however, increased by 285 million metric tons (24%) over that period. The underlying energy consumption trends that resulted in these changes—mainly because more electricity has been generated from natural gas than from other fossil fuels—have helped to lower the U.S. emissions level since 2005 because natural gas is a less carbon-intensive fuel than either coal or petroleum.

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

      Note that the increase is projected - it has not come to fruition. Note that the CO2 output has been decreasing in the US for the 12 years prior to last year.

      Note that a stated reason is due to the use of Natural Gas for electrical generation. Without fracking we would not have the natural gas with which to make these gains. I have seen reports of the large Solar plant in the Mojave desert not meeting generation predictions and using more natural gas than projected in order to meet that delicate 60 Hz grid balance.

      One additional question for you. There are ethanol plants in this area that produce CO2 (it is a byproduct of the fermentation process) and vent it to atmosphere because they do not have anyone to market it to. Another large facility here is capturing CO2 and sending it to Canada to use in the tar sands for oil recovery. Who will purchase collected CO2 if it is not used for oil recovery or does this CO2 "not count" because it is from producing a "green" fuel?

      I am waiting..... Natokadn

      Delete
  13. Oh, I'll buy that transgenderism is a real thing. I can remember my mother explaining what a sex-change operation was back in the Dark Ages (aka the early 1980s). It's been around.

    I don't think it's near so common as it suddenly seems to have become, though. Not 90% as common, not 10% as common, either. I figure bona fide transgenderism-- where the external sex characteristics and the brain wiring are mutually exclusive-- has to be quite rare. If it's not, where were all these people who NEEDED to be the other sex when I was a kid?? We had plenty of uber-tomboys (I was one-- I appreciate acceptance of me being myself, but I have less than no desire to become a man) and effeminate boys-- but that's what we were. We didn't need hormones and surgery and new pronouns-- we just needed people to let us BE.

    I'm sure glad I was a butch girl in high-top boys' sneakers with a hammer in my hand and a pocket full of worms back in the 20th Century. My 17-year-old daughter is tempered a lot like me (but without the autism and its attendant "Who Am I?" baggage, thank GOD!). Guiding her through figuring out who she is with all this business going around has been... a real boon for the makers of Advil!!

    At least she knows she's SEVENTEEN, for crying out loud, and knows the brain structures that make metacognitive decisions like that aren't even all the way online until a person's mid-20s. I'm sure it will all be OK in the end, and she'll settle down with some nice not-even-vaguely-macho guy the way I did. She's already frustrated with "all these little tiny boxes." Our last discussion on the subject started with, "Well, Mom, I think I was being silly. I'm not a lesbian. I'm not ready to even THINK about sex!! Mom?? I wish people could just be, you know, PEOPLE..."

    She'll be OK. But God have mercy, what a miserable, confusing time to be young and trying to figure out who you are!! When I was her age, all I had to stress about picking out was an educational track and a career. Now kids are under pressure to decide which of 37 discrete micro-genders they really are?!?!

    I smell a profit motive...

    ReplyDelete
  14. J, thank you for explaining the frog analogy. It makes so much sense now.
    Montana Guy

    ReplyDelete
  15. You obviously don't know what you are talking about when you tout green energy because it isn't green at all, it's just made in China so you don't see all the environmental damage it really causes. Those green batteries in prius' and electric cars put out more pollutants than a dozen gas cars do at the end of their life when they have other be junked. And the batteries in electric cars and parts of solar panels are made with rare earth metals which have to be strip mined out of the ground. Most of this is done in China so liberals from the USA never see all the damage these green energy devices cause! And they refuse to educate themselves on how electricity is stored and transmitted throughout the country. Guess what all that solar and wind power can only be stored for a short time and only transmitted a short distance unlike our current system. So using solar and wind means most of the country would be in the dark. Ask a lineman if you don't believe me. And just maybe our President has advisors that know all these things and have educated him and he's not quite as stupid as liberals would have us all believe!

    ReplyDelete
  16. J, 1 in 5 children has cancer? And this data comes from????

    I work VERY closely with energy companies who employ people in ALL areas of energy. They include wind, solar (concentrated and pv), hydro, nuclear, combined cycle, heat recovery, rdf and coal fired areas of electrical generation; petroleum production, gas processing and refining. I have been in this industry for 30 years. Your information is NOT accurate. There are no moving parts in pv solar ie, very few jobs. No one is monitoring each wind turbine when (if) it is generating. Without petroleum you can not lubricate the moving parts of a wind turbine. You would struggle to insulate and connect electrical devices without petrolem products. Would appliances be all metal again? (No pollution there...) Without power manufacture how would we produce the equipment and the drugs to treat cancer and everything else?

    What about water in the volume required for a city? Don't forget wastewater treatment.

    Seriously. I asked for what we would do to replace these products and energy sources you so abhor, while you spew more questionable data and call me names. You also cannot fix anything unless you have solutions. I agree that the quest to clean things up more needs to continue, but you seem to have ignored history and what life was like before the industrial revolution.

    I am still waiting. As per Patrice's article you seem to "feeeeel" we could get by just fine without massive human die off, wildlife and livestock hunted to hear extinction (plastics and drugs keep farm animals alive too) and you seem to have forgotten that in some of the countries that "get it" horses, dogs, cats, rats and monkeys are common main courses.

    I don't want the "what you think", I am asking for the "how it would be done and could work".

    Thank you. Natokadn

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mercy. Lund University in Sweden is being investigated for “anti-feminism”. Neurophysiology professor Germund Hesslow dared to state the obvious that there are biological differences between men and women. He was accused by a student of making “anti-feminist” statements.

    Poor feminists, bless their little hearts. While they were still struggling with Plumbing 101 Caitlyn slipped into their locker room. Gee, these transgenders seem to go through a lot of ‘procedures’ if there is no biological differences. Oh well, I’m celebrating! Men have broken through the glass ceiling of Feminism.

    Dock Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah....keep them barefoot and pregnant so you can remain king of the castle!

      NEWSFLASH! It's not a man's world anymore. Hope we never stoop that low again! EQUALITY IS WHAT WE NOW HAVE--------BUT NEVER HAD BEFORE!!

      Delete
  18. Okay folks, here's how NOAA gets to the conclusion of global warming . In decades past the temperatures were collected by humans and about 10 0/0 wouldn't send in their findings and so NOAA would average the temperature . Now, computers send the info. About 40 0/0 are offline on any given day and so they average the temperatures. And conveniently they guess the higher average and we end up with 'global warming'.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Also, the collection site conditions have changed. There are photos of weather stations, once on the edge of town along a field that are now surrounded by asphalt and buildings. I have seen a photo of one now close to the AC heat exchanger on a new building. (So how would this environment have changed?) I often see a 3 to 4 degree difference between edge of town conditions and the gravel when I head home. Another "official" (USDA) weather recording station is about 3 miles due east of our house. We check that regularly also. It is over a ridge from us and can some remarkably different readings than we see at home. Natokadn

    ReplyDelete
  20. Notekadn:

    Sorry, Note....but I’m taking the information provided by NASA on CO2 emissions long before I'll be getting into the weeds about anything the “Short-Term Energy Outlook EIA project” has to offer up.

    ...but even they say CO2 is anticipated to rise even more that it has to this point in time.

    PLEASE: Check out the charts:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

    By the way, I can’t believe the "ethanol plants carbon emissions" is what bumps you. We obviously have bigger fish to fry first.

    All you have to do is see the over-zealous gas, oil and fracking pollution that we are battling with in the U.S. today.

    U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment...PERIOD!

    Check it out:
    All told, nearly 1 million Americans are working near- or full-time in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors.

    This is almost five times the current employment in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. (from recently published Department of Energy 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report).

    I’m not going to do your homework for you, NOTE- BOY. I guess you’ll have to figure out how the transition will be made yourself.

    ...One thing is for sure...it will have to start with first admitting that there is a problem.

    Don't know how many more monster storms, droughts, fires, pole melting and over-acidic oceans we will be able to endure before the light bulb comes on!
    J




    ReplyDelete
  21. Notekadn:

    Sorry, Note...but I’m taking the information provided by NASA on CO2 emissions long before I'll be getting into the weeds about anything the “Short-Term Energy Outlook EIA project” has to offer up.

    ...but even they say CO2 is anticipated to rise even more that it has to this point in time.

    PLEASE: Check out the charts:
    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

    By the way, I can’t believe the "ethanol plants carbon emissions" is what bumps you. We obviously have bigger fish to fry first.

    All you have to do is see the over-zealous gas, oil and fracking pollution that we are battling with in the U.S. today.

    U.S. Clean Energy Jobs Surpass Fossil Fuel Employment...PERIOD!

    Check it out:
    All told, nearly 1 million Americans are working near- or full-time in the energy efficiency, solar, wind, and alternative vehicles sectors.

    This is almost five times the current employment in the fossil fuel electric industry, which includes coal, gas, and oil workers. (from recently published Department of Energy 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report).

    I’m not going to do your homework for you, NOTE- BOY. I guess you’ll have to figure out how the transition will be made yourself.

    ...One thing is for certain...it will have to start with first admitting that there is a problem.

    Don't know how many more monster storms, droughts, fires, pole melting and over-acidic oceans we will be able to endure before the light bulb comes on!
    J


    ReplyDelete
  22. When I hear stuff like this, I think of the Killing Fields of Cambodia. The Khmer Rouge killed scientists, teachers... anyone with glasses because they were "obviously intellectuals".

    I'd like to think that could never happen here, but... that kind of thinking is how it happens.


    Steve Davis
    Anchorage, Alaska

    ReplyDelete
  23. J,
    First I got a 404 Page does not exist note for your link (it was correct – I double checked). I had to search a little. These are resources from your site:
    Just glancing over it I found sources such as “National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.”
    “Temperature Reconstructions”?
    What about “Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009). “ ?
    We know for a fact that government entities have put out their share of faulty data. Remember – no problem no funding.
    Then there is “Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.” Two family friends – both with Graduate Degrees in Geology have told me this is bunk. You don’t have to believe me and I do not expect you to. However it is more of a “resource” than you have much of the time.
    With one exception the research dates listed in the sources I looked at were 1955 to present – except for the “reconstructed” one.
    Greenland is named what it is because it once was….before the industrial revolution.

    Web results
    Clean energy is building a new American workforce | Environmental ...
    https://www.edf.org/energy/clean-energy-jobs
    https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report
    The renewable energy sector employs 777,000 people, roughly the same as the U.S. telecommunications industry. ... The most rapid renewable energy job growth has come from the solar and wind sectors, which rose by 24.5 percent and 16 percent, respectively, from 2016 to 2017.
    Electric Power Generation and Fuels technologies directly employ more than 1.9 million workers. In 2016, 55 percent, or 1.1 million, of these employees worked in traditional coal, oil, and gas, while almost 800,000 workers were employed in low carbon emission generation technologies, including renewables, nuclear, and advanced/low emission natural gas. Just under 374,000 individuals work, in whole or in part, for solar firms, with more than 260,000 of those employees spending the majority of their time on solar. There are an additional 102,000 workers employed at wind firms across the nation. The solar workforce increased by 25% in 2016, while wind employment increased by 32%.
    How many Americans work in the solar industry?
    "More than 260,000 Americans are employed by the domestic solar industry — three times as many workers as employed by the entire coal mining industry."
    The Solar Foundation told us that their data comes from more than 500,000 telephone calls and more than 60,000 emails to known and potential energy establishments across the United States, resulting in a total of 3,888 full responses. The group counted jobs held by a worker who spends at least 50 percent of his or her time on solar-related work. They included jobs in installation, manufacturing, sales, distribution, and project development, among other categories.*( I know very few “part time” workers in the conventional energy fields. Not saying that there are not – but due to training for both safety and the technical aspects qualified employees are too expensive to train for “part time”.)
    The Energy Information Administration data, meanwhile, comes from official U.S. Labor Department data. It includes employees "engaged in production, preparation, processing, development, maintenance, repair shop, or yard work at mining operations, including office workers."
    Natokadn

    ReplyDelete
  24. J – What I am reporting now are figures from the government’s own website. And your numbers are from?
    But I digress. For the sake of discussion let us say I am wrong. We immediately go ALL Green. All I am asking you is how we would get that to work?
    You – once again – returned to name calling. I am not asking for “NOTES” – There is no science or technology at this time to replace what you (again) so abhor. If I had an answer I would be one of those people who could retire….and would be happy to share. If you have the answer – please share. I know it is not out there. You refuse to admit it. (I am sure we will get there…someday.)
    That 60 Hz cycling machine (The Grid) for our energy hungry lives will NOT exist with strictly renewable energy sources. You apparently believe that when they say a 200 MW wind farm they mean just that. That is only accurate in perfect wind conditions (which are rare). Wind turbines shutdown (brake) when the wind gusts to 50 – 55 mph to prevent damage from over-speeding. They generally have a “capacity factor” of around 33% - which means that is what you can expect as an “average”. (That is about 66 MW out of the rated 200 MW). Solar is only there when the sun shines (and that is when we don’t need lights..!) In my area of the country under the very best conditions we only get about 15 – 20% of our total power from wind and perhaps up to 1% from solar. (It is such a small amount they do not report it.). Also – wind turbines do not generate at temps below around 0 Degrees Fahrenheit. They USE grid (coal – oil-gas) powered electric heaters when it is really cold (below 0) so the lube oil won’t damage them when it warms up enough for them to start).
    I have no idea if Patrice will post this and wouldn’t blame her if she does not. That said – you can yell all you want about climate change, but you have no solution other than to cease all conventional energy sources and don’t want to think about the human and environmental consequences – and there will be many – if that happened. There is an adage – be careful what you wish for. Natakodn

    ReplyDelete