Category Archives: Blogs

There is only so much BS I can take.

And LGF is really trying my patience. Grow up guys.
EDIT: I’m taking a cooling off period. No LGF for me for a…week. Save the date. We will either kiss and make up next friday or they will prove themselves to be idiots. I frankly don’t care anymore.


Filed under Blogs, Dumbasses

Okay, seriously now-what is with LGF?

I’ve been totally unable to read anything on Little Green Footballs lately, because the vitriol and hate for “extremists” is getting positively sicking. Some moderates can be really self righteous jerks. Will I unlink them? No, that would be immature. But I do wish they would moderate the tenor of their more vicious and erroneous statements over there.

Comments Off on Okay, seriously now-what is with LGF?

Filed under Blogs


With apologies to those of you that don’t get internet lingo.

Obama’s Teleprompter has a blog.

Comments Off on LAWLZ!

Filed under Blogs


I can’t comment on Pat’s blog, what gives? 😦

EDIT: Okay, now its working, but that was pretty frustrating for a while.


Filed under Blogs

My Thoughts on Keynes, on Born Again Redneck

(and yes, I know you prefer your new blog name Pat. Just a bit of fun on my part!)

I just recently made this comment on Pat’s post “Taking the Name of Lord Keynes in Vain” (be sure to read it and the posts he references therein or this won’t make sense):

Based on your article before, I’d say he was more a “useful idiot”. He didn’t have a clue how socialist his ideas were, and what they would lead to, even when Hayek made him stare them right in the face. Unfortunately, it is all to easy for the Keynesians to say that this recession was caused by people not listening to them (except under Clinton, when their was a boom and a surplus and higher taxes, which is precisely Keynes’ recipe for boom times). Because, although Supply Side was not followed under any President during the period (they all had deficits, thanks to Democrat Congresses, or wimpy Republicans in Bush’s case,(Clinton is another story, with sometime Republican Congress and boom time revenue increase, he was able to spend more than ever and still get a surplus, with the help of some tax increases) Keynes wasn’t followed exactly either. As someone who intuitively understands at least microeconomics, I find Keynesian ideas absurd. Money only has value when it is real, and spending money you don’t have therefore will only work as long as people believe that the Government will be able to back up its fake money with real repayment at some point. Well, let’s say that, if and when the economy recovers, the Keynesian government wants to pay off those debts (presumably this is what Keynes thought should happen, as he suggested then cutting spending and raising taxes) it must increase its revenue and/or decrease spending to achieve a surplus to pay of those debts. Assuming (naively) that government really can distribute money effectively and reverse a recession (more likely, it would crowd out private spending) and again naively assuming that spending will actually be cut when conditions improve, then by Keynes own logic that government is better at handling spending than the private sector, his ideology is one of being perpetually trapped sharp, chaotic turmoil. Markets would boom and bust like crazy and deprive investors of any sense of security, greatly discouraging investment, impeding growth, leading ultimately to permanent recession. With more realistic assumptions-that poor distribution of money by government won’t help the economy and that government spend will continue in recovery periods, higher taxes will take money out of the private sector and weaken its ability to achieve continued growth. When an inevitable recession occurs, government will spend still more. The result of this cycle is periodic increases in the size of government and its control over wealth, and the loss of freedom and self determination that implies, and eventually a permanent recession. The Government, in both cases, will never fully pay off its debts. The result is that the currency it produces will be devalued, resulting in stagflation. Keynesian economics is not sustainable!

Pat Responded:

Exactly Andrew. You said: “Money only has value when it is real” Yep, the real “voodoo economics” is not Reaganism but Keynesianism.

I should add one more thought. I always thought it was Nixon who said we were all Keynesians now, not Milton Friedman!

1 Comment

Filed under Blogs, Economics

Sigh-Trying really hard not to be offended

I’m really trying to convince myself that Born Again Redneck’s recent vitriol against the religious right doesn’t apply to me. I’m not super religious, and I personally am more concerned with economic issues than social ones. But I consider myself to as “far right” as one can possibly be without being some kind of theo-anarchist. And then there’s this

“I’m not sure if pure secular/libertarian fiscal and defense conservatism can ever win over the youngsters; unfortunately they seem to want nanny state socialism. But I definitely know that they don’t want any preachy nosy-parker busy-body politicians telling them what they can and cannot do. If you haven’t realized that then a) you don’t have any adult children as I do or b) you’re living in some sort of moralistic Victorian cocoon.”

Sorry, Pat, but I am a youngster (18) and yes, I don’t want people telling me how to live, but that is not what social conservatism (real social conservatism) is about, and I really hope you understand that. It’s not about religion, either, as I have said before. My fundamental belief is that you can do whatever nasty stuff you want with whoever you want in your bedroom but 1. Its up to a child’s guardians where and when they are exposed to it, so it needs to be ensured that children are protected from this stuff until they are legally adults or their parents decide to teach them about it-whichever comes first 2. One’s “actions” have consequences-if a human life is unintentionally created as a result of a person’s carelessness, responsibility cannot be shirked by denying said human being its fundamental right to life 3. The traditional family unit is the basis for our entire civilization-redefining marriage has caused this unit to fall apart everywhere it has been done-maybe this because people are intolerant, I don’t know, and I try not to think about it, but I cannot, will not deny that the destruction of the family unit is a road I do not wish to travel down. 4. Our society’s moral and legal code are Judeo-Christian value based-we cannot deny this in the name of tolerating other value systems, as it opens the door to abhorant value systems which essential allow anything. There are other elements to my beliefs, but I’m losing my train of thought at this point.

Make no mistake, there are RINOs, and by letting them speak for all of us we risk surrendering to liberalism on every issue-we should respect them, and applaud the things they do which we agree with, but also remind everyone of where they go wrong. And, incidentally, Pat, you aren’t one. You may call me a blowhard if you wish-I might even be one. But I think we both know that neither of us wants to alienate the other-we share more common beliefs than differences (that’s why I linked you) and also more in common with one another than extremists on either end.

So starting with us, what’s say we each extend the hand of friendship to prevent our “factions” from splitting apart?


Filed under Blogs, Thinkers

But it didn’t happen

Anthony Watts, of, has an excellent post on his blog:

He mentions ten predictions based on science or scientific opinion or consensus, that didn’t come true. Obviously Scientism is wrong to blindly put faith in science. But lets think about this some more.

“They” (meaning “scientists” if it is even appropriate to refer to scientists as a body) used to think all sorts of things. It was respected scientific opinion for hundreds of years based not on the Bible, as commonly thought, but the expert opinion of the almighty Ptolemy and other secular Greek and Roman”scientists” if you will, that the earth was the center of the universe. Actually, there were earlier heliocentricists in many cultures, but they weren’t even close to Galileo and Copernicus’s level, as they were mostly philosophical rather than mathematical in their arguments. It is interesting to note that Geocentricists used complicated mathematical models which, of course, had to be “adjusted” to fit measurements, by adding “epicycles”

Note this bit:

“In part due to sometimes fantastic attempts to make the failed earth-centered model work, “adding epicycles” has come to be used as a derogatory comment in modern scientific discussion. If one continues to try to adjust a theory to make its predictions match the facts, when it has become clear that the basic premise itself should be questioned, one is said to be “adding epicycles”.”

I think warmers are guilty of something similar. Adding “flux adjustments” or other fudge factors. See these posts over at Climate-Skeptic:

I share the following sentiment, evidently said long ago by John Von Neumann about arbitrary parameters in models:

“Give me four parameters, and I can fit an elephant. Give me five, and I can wiggle its trunk.”

Enrico Fermi saved Freeman Dyson, self proclaimed “heretic” on Global Warming, from fruitless research on seemingly good models that weren’t based on reality but guesses. This is true of the climate models. They don’t know what will happen with clouds, and they can’t simulate them well anyway. So they “parameterize”. Additionally, they postulate a water vapor feedback that apparently doesn’t exist:

The fact is that the dire forecasts of the IPCC may or may not happen, but it wouldn’t be the first time “science” was, as “body” (mostly) “wrong”. So don’t act surprised absolutely don’t say nobody told you so. I’m here, right now, telling you so.

Speaking of predictions that were wrong, it seems Hansen continues to be wrong:

Perhaps I’m exaggerating, but look at this graphic here:

Hansen's predictions versus reality

We are presently below the forecasts which assume CO2 at constant 2000 extrapolated levels extrapolated mostly correctly from 1988:

And the IPCC 1990 predictions weren’t so good either, but they are a bit better now, at least:

UK’s Met Office expects 2008 to be colder than they thought very likely two years ago, but not outside their range:

In the short term, these predictions have been Okay, but as we see with Hansen, they can be dismal failures in the long run. Let’s wait at least two or three years before we decide the models can be trusted and used for policy decisions. By then it just might be cooler than it was ten years ago. It might not. We shall see. We shall see whether its just weather or not. Just wait.

Greenhouse….It will happen in 2012!

Yeah, sure. Just like the Earth turned out to be six thousand years old. Oh wait, no it didn’t. Or just like it turned out that Pluto was a planet. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the world was flat. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the Medieval Warm Period was tiny and regional. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that the scar on the face of mars were actually canals. Oh wait, they weren’t. Or last hurricane season, or the one before that, were real whoppers. Oh, wait, no they weren’t. Or that socialism was the future. Oh wait, no it wasn’t. Or that Eugenics could “save mankind”. Oh wait, no it didn’t. Or that….You know what, I’ve made my point. Scientific “Consensus” is a useless way to decide what’s right and what’s not. Scientists are human beings, and they have been just as often wrong as not.

Comments Off on But it didn’t happen

Filed under Blogs, Klimacht