Category Archives: Politics

Influencing People Through Fear

People who wish to influence or control others have long since understood one of our prime motivators is the use of fear. It drives our instinct to survive, fight or flight. No normal person wants to sign up for pain & suffering. Secondary control factors include, financial incentives (reward), social status & peer pressure (ego).

torture-devicesGovernments, especially those who have unlimited power to do what they want, have used fear to motivate or control the populace. Torture was part of their tool kit, and the thought of ending up humiliated in shackles, or placed on a rack, was enough to instil fear in most people.

burn_in_hell_graphic

Christianity found their tool with the word, “hell”. You don’t behave, or do what the group thinks, you’re going to end up in a highly undesirable zip code, for eternity.

We see it’s more than peer pressure to influence predictions of climate change, we have government grants for educational and research institutions which measure and computer model predictions. The arsenal of control and scaremongering is reinforced through sympathetic media on “global warming“. If the latest trends don’t follow “scientific prediction”, than it’s called “climate change”. You places your bets, then change the predictions based on latest trends.

Which ever way the thermometer and weather, especially severe weather patterns change, it’s always based on “climate change”. Therefore if you have a drought, a flood, a grouping of tornadoes, it’s attributed to climate change.

Who Decides?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), states the largest contributor to global warming is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) since 1750, particularly from fossil fuel combustion, cement production, and land use changes such as deforestation.

Human influence has been detected in warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes. This evidence for human influence has grown since AR4. It is extremely likely (95–100%) that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.IPCC AR5 WG1 Summary for Policymakers

We’ve been here before – More Lies

In November 2009, hackers gained access to a server used by the CRU and stole a large quantity of data, anonymously posting online more than 1,000 emails and more than 2,000 other documents.

A series of independent public investigations of the allegations found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. The Muir Russell report exonerated the scientists, but found “a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA”. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged.

In 2011, an analysis of temperature data by the independent Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature group, of whom some had stated they thought it was possible the CRU had manipulated the data, however concluded that “these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions”.

So, the hacked emails supposedly didn’t reveal anything that pointed out a bias or a skewing of results. Here’s what some of the email said, you decide. See
University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes.

From: Phil Jones. To: Many. Nov 16, 1999
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

From: Kevin Trenberth (US National Center for Atmospheric Research). To: Michael Mann. Oct 12, 2009
The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t… Our observing system is inadequate

You can click on the above link to see more of these emails.

More critical background and science history of Michael E. Mann found here.

Here we go again!

How can we trust global warming scientists if they keep twisting the truth?
| DailyMail February 11, 2017 | The following is an excerpt from their post.

The contentious paper at the heart of this furore – with the less than accessible title of Possible Artifacts Of Data Biases In The Recent Global Surface Warming Hiatus – was published just six months before the Paris conference by the influential journal Science.

It made a sensational claim: that contrary to what scientists have been saying for years, there was no ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the early 21st Century.
Indeed, this ‘Pausebuster’ paper as it has become known, claimed the rate of warming was even higher than before, making ‘urgent action’ imperative.

The ongoing battle between a radio host and author vs. the scientist.  | Michael E. Mann v. Mark Steyn

ipcc_2001_tar_figure


The Bias Construct

Recent public conversations about the political nature of Supreme Court appointments, has surfaced again. No matter who is proposed, if they’ve lived, worked, met, and offered numerous legal opinions, any nominee is going to have opinions on key issues of their day.

Supreme-court-building-sml

United States Supreme Court Building

Such confusion and double-talk exists in our public-politic, it’s amazing that anyone can be appointed. In a recent public speaking engagement at University of California, Berkeley, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had this to say.

“I’m saddened to see that many people have lost confidence in judges and believe they are political.”

Sotomayor made the comments while taking questions from law students. The school’s interim law school dean, Melissa Murray, served as Sotomayor’s clerk when the justice was a federal appellate court judge.

Sotomayor said judges try to be fair and impartial and don’t have rigid beliefs they apply to every case. She encouraged people to view judges as “human beings who care deeply about what we’re doing.”

This is an interesting response, considering her words elsewhere.

Sotomayor, spoke at the University of Minnesota on October 19, 2016, commenting that the Supreme Court was designed to have nine justices so it can break ties on difficult cases.

“We try to come to decision-making as best as we can,” she said. “Where we can find a very, very narrow way of deciding a case, we use it.”

Sotomayor compared Scalia’s death to the loss of a family member despite their differences.

“There are things he’s said on the bench where if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it,” she said.

Enter the new nominee Neil Gorsuch. There’s a leading headline in Rueters describing, “ideological balance at stake in confirmation fight” . Of course the usual politicos, Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, and Democrat Dianne Feinstein, are leading the opposition to his appointment along ideological lines. The Rueters article describes some of the opposition rational as to why he shouldn’t be appointed.

It’s a good thing Supreme Court judges are fair and impartial and don’t have rigid beliefs.

neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-nominee-2

Neil Gorsuch – Supreme Court nominee

What is Freedom?

I’ve recently offered my opinion through social media on the vagaries and alignment of two sides on an issue which should be fundamentally understood by all. That issue is “Freedom of the Press.” Some people wish to try on their hip waders and defend their position on the basis of the Constitution. Very well, let’s take a moment and see how well we understand the first amendment. Keep in mind this one thing above all, if one-side of the political system adopts this position, what would prevent the next party to do the same, once they’re in office?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

donald_trump_explaining_his_positionsPlace this in context with the position our President, Donald Trump, has taken with regard to some of those who represent the press. No other modern president has taken such a hostile position and altered policy to reflect such a position.

“WASHINGTON — Journalists from The New York Times and several other news organizations were prohibited from attending a briefing by President Trump’s press secretary on Friday, a highly unusual breach of relations between the White House and its press corps.

Reporters from The Times, BuzzFeed News, CNN, The Los Angeles Times and Politico were not allowed to enter the West Wing office of the press secretary, Sean M. Spicer, for the scheduled briefing. Aides to Mr. Spicer only allowed in reporters from a handpicked group of news organizations that, the White House said, had been previously confirmed.

Those organizations included Breitbart News, the One America News Network and The Washington Times, all with conservative leanings. Journalists from ABC, CBS, The Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and Fox News also attended.

Reporters from Time magazine and The Associated Press, who were set to be allowed in, chose not to attend the briefing in protest of the White House’s actions.”

This constant claim that news organizations present false information, “fake news”, isn’t the responsibility of the President, it is ours. If we see, read, or listen to news that doesn’t align with the facts or misrepresents a statement made by others, it’s our duty to ignore or challenge this information.

constitution-page-portion

Click on this image for background

The framers of the Constitution never intended to limit access, or control the message, anymore than they placed limitations on the type of firearms people are allowed to own, in the second amendment. This is how the Constitution functions best.

Placing limitations on freedom creates more harm than good. We don’t need a President to be our filter on the news. It’s up to us to access any and all information, and for those hired to do the work of journalist, to do this work to the best of their ability. When they fail, they fail us, but their bad or biased work shouldn’t qualify how the Constitution is implemented.

George Orwell seeing in front of our noseSo ask yourself, if this is an action you support by President Trump, would you support this same action by a Democrat President? Freedom isn’t a gift bestowed on us by a benevolent government, it’s our inalienable right. I believed that over four decades ago when I signed up for the Marine Corps. I still believe it needs defending today.