Obama demonstrates Alinsky’s rules number 5 and 6
Oh, those stupid climate deniers, they think the moon is made of green cheese:
For the White House it’s about getting the liberal base excited for the midterms. It’s a confidence that climate change has shifted in voters’ minds. It’s a broader play against congressional Republicans as obstructionists.
And for Obama, it’s a good time. Wednesday night, Obama ripped into his opponents in front of a League of Conservation Voters crowd so friendly that some were pumping their arms in the air as he spoke.
“It’s pretty rare that you encounter people who say that the problem of carbon pollution is not a problem,” Obama said. “In most communities and workplaces, they may not know how big a problem it is, they may not know exactly how it works, they may doubt they can do something about it. Generally they don’t just say, ”˜No I don’t believe anything scientists say.’ Except, where?” he said, waiting for the more than accommodating crowd to call back, “Congress!”
Obama smiled ”” not his big toothy self-satisfied grin, but his stick-it-in-the-ribs smirk.
The rules:
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
This approach works, by the way. Most liberals I know think Republicans are scientific troglodytes.
Most liberals I know think Republicans are scientific troglodytes.
I’ve had liberals say that to me, although I’m a conservative and not a Republican. I silently point to my degrees in physics and nuclear engineering and the more self aware among them at least have the decency to look embarrassed.
He is a nasty man. Just nasty.
Rush is forever pointing out, with some exasperation, that a computer model isn’t “evidence,” it’s an illustration of a theory.
Theories need to be proven by being tested against empirical evidence, and retested by other scientists. Results have to be able to be replicated.
The man-made global warming theory, illustrated by their computer model using cherry-picked evidence (another no-no), has Failed that test: we haven’t had global warming in over 17 years.
Did I miss anything? (just an English major, here). 😉
Amen, N-Neocon!!
One need not look further than the (snicker) critical thinkers and scientific (sneer-snort) types who drink the Global Warming…OOooooops, sorry…Climate Change koolaid: Emotion driven, Leftward dwelling, NON-critical thinking BIG Gov’t Doofuses. Ideologues tied to a secular blarney religion.
And, needless to say, for His Infantile Shipwrecked Majesty to be blathering on this subject as the globe burns(NOT carbons, but definitely Man!!)reminds me of the old writer’s trick called: “Watch my hands so you won’t see what I’m saying!!”
“Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html
The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
By Christopher Booker
The Telegraph
4:04PM BST 21 Jun 2014
When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.
When I first began examining the global-warming scare, I found nothing more puzzling than the way officially approved scientists kept on being shown to have finagled their data, as in that ludicrous “hockey stick” graph, pretending to prove that the world had suddenly become much hotter than at any time in 1,000 years. Any theory needing to rely so consistently on fudging the evidence, I concluded, must be looked on not as science at all, but as simply a rather alarming case study in the aberrations of group psychology.
Today while sitting on the can i heard a professor pontificate as to the nature of conservatives and how their xenophobia and so on…
i wanted so badly to say…
“what makes you know that your thesis is correct other than blind acceptance and group think? have you ever examined it for validity? how about pedigree?”
– Caleb Rossiter, the math prof. that got dis-fellowshipped from the liberal Institute for Policy Studies (exerpt from “Dems End Up Believing their Own Lies”)
and the worst of them are those with phds..
why?
because they are wonderful as long as they have no competition and they neve think they do. then the minute i show up, and can run circles around them (and no one has ever done that, let alone a non degree person outside their field), they then do their best to hurt my life and so on.
they cant accept that the reality they BELEIVE in RELIGIUOSLY, has no basis in reality nor any basis in religion either.
they say or express hteir superiority, but being a cargo cultist is not superior, even if you the right BELEIFS and ideology to plug up the space where religion would be.
they have no idea of how they are manipulated, feeling they are too smart for that… though in my life experiences, its easier to trick the smart than the stupid.
proof?
the smart lead the dumb and keep re-teaching them, but they only needed to learn the script to follow. they cant discern whether their life script is right, or wrong, other than declarations and attacks at the other.
this is why they cant come to the table. you cant merge ideas you dont understand and fake and have no principals behind them and no first order understandings.
this is why they copy and repeat history
why they cant deviate from a plan that evolves based on their learning what works and doesnt work, not based on the principals behind what works.
so to make socialism in the US by vote, they repeat nazi gtermany… like copying technology and reusing it!!!
they are so panicked that they are now moving hard to change the constitution making their first pushes in california!!!
which is funnysince it was such that got them the power in california – but like the latvian rifle men, what can make you, can break you and remove you. so after it does what it does, you dont reward them, you exterminate them. like breakkng off the key in the lock and tossing it.
The erosive effects of TED platitudes has hit home, homeruns.
There is qualitative science, there is quantitative science…
Now Barry is pushing emotive non-science — nonsense.
***
It’s almost universally assumed that New York and London will flood if the Arctic ice cap melts.
However, you can prove to yourself that melting icebergs don’t raise the sea level/ water level. Just toss some ice cubes in a water glass. Measure at Time = 0 and Time = End. The level will not rise.
The same nill effect occurs with the Ross ice shelf. It’s a floater.
High altitude glaciers are not going to melt in enough quantity to have any oceanic impact. They will remain cold.
Here and there, some coastal glaciers figure to be affected — marginally.
The alarmists are too late. They needed to spread the alarm 20,000 years ago.
&&&
BTW, ALL of the insane melting action in the northern latitude is due to Red China’s coal soot.
Its exponential rise (as air particulates) perfectly coincides with the rise in Arctic ice melt. (!) Amazing.
Then, because particulates trigger rain/ snow/ sleet the Arctic sheet comes back with a vengeance every season. (!) Amazing.
Here and there, you see this or that glacier in the lee of an active, sooty volcano. Amazingly, such a glacier is melting like crazy. The dark, sooty nature of its surface goes un-remarked by the bozo MSM. They ought to sit down with a Cal-Trans road crew working the Winter I-80 shift.
$$$
The corn-fused metrics of food-for-oil and all the rest…
Does anyone recognize cronyist politics?
Beverly
good poing but you have to get your terms right 🙂
a theory is something that is proved already
einsteins theory of relativity is very well proved
a hypothesis is a potential theory. that is, you test hypothesis…
on another thing. i can dash the whole simulation science to the floor in one argument!!!! i even work in research computing and could destroy lots of medical simulations and such… ones that will go nowhere… because they are doing such work with no ability to program, no math rigor, and so on!!!
my favorite was walking past the women they got from lawrence livermoore… a real lady geek!! (thats a compliment!)… in passing i said, so you solved the rounding problem and incorporated the solution into all iterative simulations?
since i am a never been nothing… destroyed comiing from bronx science… no one listens to me or lets me have any future etc.
but she knew exactlywhat i meant and looked at me hard for a minute… now we smile at each other and not much to do but shrug, as we cant tell the cargo cultists. they will fre us and find someone who will validate their erroneous work
another biologist allowed me to show him that a small error injected… how small, 13 decimal places.. would, over time, cause the output to be completelywrong!!!
you can find tons of papers on it
Dealing with rounding error problems in evolutionary physical simulation
but you cant find one in which the people doing these simulations are even aware of the problems… (cause management isnt and you cant tell liberal management, their idea of such is dictatorhsip, not leadership that removed obticals for their race horses t run)
funnier, you can find papers at naza that talk about it, but i guess the political lysenkoists dont care
lysenko
they are coping that part of history
whicvh is why i said, if you want to knw what they will do, just know your history…
which is why they despoil history and such!!! its their playbook and it would not do for your opposiion to know your play book!!! (i have said this for almost 10 years now… and yet, no one wants to read their play book, guessing and losing is more fun!!! that is until the dead mexican children are found, the dead syrians, the dead va men, and so on… those that didnt want to learn the book and negate the game, are part of the problem and are partly responsiblew for those outcomes too… )
sadly
nasa isnt smart enough to understand the rounding problem
note that they pretend you can fix a rounding error.
but the universe decimal places go down to the plank length (eh physics guy?)… we dont know if it goes beyound that… so i settle on that…
In physics, the Planck time (tP) is the unit of time in the system of natural units known as Planck units. It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length.[1] The unit is named after Max Planck, who was the first to propose it.
some planck numbers go to over 120 decimal places!!!
and if one number is different… the progression of your simulation will deviate.
i spent a lot of time trying to bring mor rigor to biology… working with a porphyrin reseaarcher i taught him about all kinds of things he never knew about his stuff… like why the sorbet stuff was the value it was… and how red light can make the desease progress because the red light can do a double hit and the two photons add up to the 103nm light… and showed him how that relates to the metal rings and the behavior of charges.. and how that blows apart the molcules that then cause damage. even going so far as to show that the earliest life forms were not life forms as we know it… but large volcanic pools deep enough that rising and falling could cycle molcules… a really cool paper.. and stuff on genetics.. .
and even a solution for the big data problem
but he erased me.
i am not approved to think
and what owuld it look if a self taught person made a contribution?
sadly..
he became a loser who negated everything
and i was hoping to bump into someone like HARDY..
who said his greatest scientific contribution was not his math theories, but finding the self taught ramanujan
i digressed
sorry
walking dead people do that a lot…
they have not figured out a way to get around the rounding problem… their areas blocks in their cellular automata simulatio is 400 kilometers on a side, and on and on and on… horrid stuff…
The problem is that we don’t use Alinsky’s rules.
We should mock Obama and the Warmists for calling CO2 a pollutant. Pollutant = something unclean or an impure foreign substance. That is certainly NOT TRUE of CO2! It’s a very necessary trace gas and has been around as long as plants have. Without it we wouldn’t have any of Obama’s favorite, arugula. If CO2 is a pollutant then Obama is a big time polluter. We breathe out CO2 and emit much more when we are speaking. Why do we let them get away with calling it a pollutant?
At 400 parts per million, CO2, even though it does block some radiation going from the Earth to the atmosphere, it’s affects are exceedingly small. CO2 absorbs only a small portion of the entire light spectrum. This is why adding more and more CO2 to the atmosphere does not have the disastrous effect the Warmists claim. The Warmists ceded the point that it was difficult to see how CO2 could cause large scale warming several years ago. (Back in the 90s.) So the came up with the concept of “forcings.” These are: Atmospheric aerosols such as volcanic sulfates and industrial emissions. But they posited a new one – water vapor. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. It contributes about 95% of the entire greenhouse effect that we observe. Unfortunately for their purposes it isn’t related to human activities. They have, however, manipulated (made wild ass guesses) their models to show that increasing CO2 causes increasing water vapor that causes the enhanced greenhouse warming. And that is what they base all their proven “science” on. The fact that none of the models have predicted what has happened over the last 17 years embarrasses them, but does not deter them. Their only claim to being right is their models – which are guesses. Faith is what they have.
We should be mocking them for being pseudo scientists, for peddling half-baked hypotheses, for being the modern equivalence of witch doctors. But we don’t because we want to engage them on the facts. But they don’t listen and won’t engage.
All the real truth about climate science can be easily accessed at Watt’s Up With That?: http://wattsupwiththat.com/
My favorite climate scientist is Dr. Roy Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
What’s really frustrating is that so many apparently intelligent people in politics, industry, and finance won’t take some time and look at all the abundant information for laymen that helps people understand the debate.
Mocking them and laughing at them is the best strategy. Alinsky was an evil b**t**d, but he understood mass psychology.
J.J….
We’re told that Carbon Dioxide is too acidic for shell fish….
Pray tell how said bi-valves ever lay down the Cliffs of Dover?
They EAT carbonates — like they’re nutrition. At the levels under discussion, the tempo of shell fish growth simply explodes.
They deplete the local CO2 levels (in sea water) to such a degree that shell fish need to be in turbulent water… every time.
&&&
As for Barry’s budgets: He’s a Bust Out Artist.
See Goodfella’s — the bar bust out and arson.
At this time, Barry is still moving liquor out the back door — to his stashist clique — the gibsmedats, the cronyists, the true believers. ™
That’s all fine and dandy until he’s called out as being the Louis XVI of our time.
It certainly helps when he’s got the media, entertainment industry, and academia on board with the Climate Change farce. People are conditioned to be in on his jokes and jabs.
Most liberals I know ARE scientific troglodytes. They are conditioned to repeat certain things as fact, but know nothing about the subjects they’re absolutely certain about.
They know they’re on the right side of “the science”, because smart or popular people whom they trust or admire tell them all they need to know about “the science”. Where you can insert almost any subject that qualifies as science between the quotes.
Global warming-climate change-and the rest of the terms they throw around to scare the peasents is not on the radar screen of a vast majority of voters. It consistently polls at the bottom or near the bottom of issues the voters care about. BHO is turning to AGW it rally his base, same goes for “war on women”. It thrills the MSM but does not influence voters concerned with the economy and the resurgence of Al Qaeda.
parker:
“War on women” mattered in 2012. I heard friends of mine talking about it almost as soon as that slogan started.
Of course, they were going to vote for Obama anyway. But it kept them from even looking at Romney with any objectivity at all; he became the awful enemy, trying to suppress women and go back to the 1950s.
“.. it kept them…”
They were already predisposed to ignore. War on women works on single women, especially single women with children who will vote for mommy-daddy government 90% of the time. Nothing can be done, just move on. You can not stop the rippening corn.
Rippening corn…
Or fungal infestation?
“a computer model isn’t “evidence,” it’s an illustration of a theory”
Not really, A computer model is the result of a computer program. The model is only as true as the program algorithm and the data plugged into it. Computer models show more about the programmers skill and intent and the users integrity when entering data than anything else
The trouble is not with facts. Leftists WANT to believe. Facts be damned.
We cannot make them changelings by parading facts.
We have to make them suffer. Like alcoholics, they have to hit a bottom before they can rise again as better beings.
They must suffer. Of course, until they do, they make the rest of us suffer. They will end up killing many of us in the process.
07 A satisfied soul loathes the honeycomb, But to a hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet. – Bible
most socialists are satisified souls who loath their comfort
most of the poor value what the other doesnt, and often finds life sweet in a way that makes the loathful desire poverty. – artfdlgr
For riches are not forever, Nor does a crown endure to all generations. – Bible
And the walls came tumbling down..
Has anyone noticed that Alinsky’s rules only work if the other side insists on playing by rules that assure his defeat? Suppose an Alinsky target decides to play by the same rules?
As for climate models: I do groundwater modeling which are kid stuff compared to climate modeling. In that far more simpler type of modeling I always warn that the model can only predict what can or cannot happen and not what will happen. It follows, IMHO, that the climate models that make specific predictions about climate years in advance are unmitigated hogwash.
So our sex is genetically encoded in us. Yet one side thinks you can “pick” your sex. Tell me again which side doesn’t understand science?