Green. Not New. Deal.

The actual science about the dangers of nuclear power – or lack thereof – is not “settled” so much as it is  very, very convincing:

“By now close to one million people have died of causes linked to the Chernobyl disaster,” wrote Helen Caldicott, an Australian medical doctor, in The New York Times. Fukushima could “far exceed Chernobyl in terms of the effects on public health.”

Many pro-nuclear people came to believe that the accident was proof that the dominant form of nuclear reactor, which is cooled by water, is fatally flawed. They called for radically different kinds of reactors to make the technology “inherently safe.”

But now, eight years after Fukushima, the best-available science clearly shows that Caldicott’s estimate of the number of people killed by nuclear accidents was off by one million. Radiation from Chernobyl will kill, at most, 200 people, while the radiation from Fukushima and Three Mile Island will kill zero people.

It’s a long read, but an excellent one…

…whose conclusions show that any “Green New Deal” that doesn’t include nuclear power, isn’t about saving the environment.

Settled Science

Whenever someone refers to “settled science”, I can be almost certain I’m talking with someone who doesn’t understand how science works.

Whenever I talk with someone who tries to apply the concept to psychology, I know that, beyond a profound lack of understanding of the discipline, I’m dealing with someone who has never had the faintest twitch of curiosity about the history of the field.

I pondered that last night as I listened to this piece, about how sixty years ago, the elite of contemporary psychology believed that showing inordinate affection and love to ones’ children would damage them profoundly.

Tide Pod Evita Does Science

I have concerns about the climate, and about man’s involvement in them.

I have bigger concerns about being logrolled.

I have nothing to say about Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’ “Green New Deal” (which got disappeared after it was revealed to be something a spoiled sixth-grader could have, and may have, written) y abou that David French at National Review doesn’t say better.

Read the whole thing. I add emphasis:

Nobody has to be a progressive to be concerned about the environment. Nobody has to be a progressive to respond to climate change. Any proposal that conditions response to climate change on the adoption of the full progressive platform is not only doomed to fail, but it raises the question of whether the declared climate emergency is more pretext than crisis. There’s a need for a serious discussion about our climate. The Green New Deal is not serious.

Did you miss it before it got disappeared yesterday? Have no fear, people glommed onto it. And David Harsanyi found the 11 bits you really needed in the first place.

She’s So Cold

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Minneapolis and St. Paul public schools are closed today.  I’m getting old, my memory isn’t what it was.  I remember looking forward to snow days, but did we get cold days off school?  My sister claims there were a couple of occasions when the country kids didn’t have to come in, only the town kids, but I wonder if that was due to bad roads for the school busses more than low temperatures?
I’m having trouble squaring school closures for cold, record setting cold in Chicago, freezing temperatures for  75% of the nation, with The New Hotness’ claim global warming will destroy the world in 12 years.  
Although if it does, I suppose women and minorities will be hardest hit, so I’ve got that going for me.

It’s science, because shut up.

“What’s The Difference Between The GOP And Democrats?”

The short answer: whille the GOP on the national level capitulates on spending and allow all sorts of government scope creep the chips are down, the Democrats take the gas pedal of power and jam it to the firewall:

Democrats are increasingly lining up to support a “Green New Deal,” which, while vague on details, could end up being the largest expansion of government in decades.
As it stands, the “Green New Deal” is more aspirational than actual policy. Indeed, it takes its name from the New Deal of the 1930s, and its main backer, incoming Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, compared it to the Great Society of the 1960s.
More than 40 Democratic lawmakers support the “Green New Deal” as part of a broad plan to fight global warming and bring about what they see as “economic, social and racial justice.” A poll found most Americans supported the deal, but knew little about it.
But the big question is when Americans find out what’s in the “Green New Deal,” will they be willing to pay for it?

After a few months or years of media alarmism and emotional logrolling from an in-the-bag media?

Is that even a serious question?

Serious

Joe Doakes from Como Park notes that if we’re really serious about climate change…:

Climate scientists insist we must stop driving petroleum powered vehicles.  Public health officials are worried about an epidemic of childhood obesity.  Cities want heavy vehicles off the streets to reduce wear.

Seems to me there is one common solution.

Ban school busses.

And we should ameliorate schools’ huge carbon footprints by making homeschooling mandatory…

…oops.  Went too far.

A Satirical Proposal. Probably.

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

If Democrats honestly believe in global warming, they should insidt we declare war on Canada so we can shift our citizens Northward to survive the Deluge.
 If Republicans honestly believe in global cooling, they should insist we declare war on Venezuela to shift our citizen Southward to escape the glacier.
Bonus. Both have lots of oil to maintain our lifestyle.  This is what a resilience officers ought to be working on.
Or just invade New York, DC and California to curb the efflux of hot air.

Science, Unsettled

A study that claimed that the oceans are warming 60% faster than the IPCC’s prediction turns out to have had a bit of an issue:

“The findings of the … paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought — between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling said. “We really muffed the error margins.”

A correction has been submitted to the journal Nature.

Of course, to the crowd that thinks “I Heart Neil DeGrasse Tyson” is “science”, the narrative is already set.

Michael Savage Was Wrong

Syndicated talk show host Michael Savage once had a huge hit with the book “Liberalism Is A Mental Illness”.

The implication was inflammatory – as Savage fully intended, being Michael Savage.

But science shows he was incorrect; new evidence shows it may be more a matter of brain damage:

A joint team of American and British scientists have discovered that powerful magnetic pulses to the brain can temporarily change people’s feelings on a variety of subjects…researchers have now found that by targeting the part of the brain that deals with threats, they can temporarily change people’s beliefs and views…

Amongst those who received the strong magnetic dose, 32.8 per cent fewer had decreased beliefs in God, angels and heaven compared to the control group who received no dose.

And 25.8 per cent more of those who had received TMS [Transcranial magnetic stimulation – magnetism applied to parts of the brain] had a more positive response to the immigrant who had written a negative letter about their country.

What this nation needs is commonsense magnetism control.

Can’t Make This Bulb Much Dimmer

I’m gonna take a wild guess that if you asked Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez how precisely it was that the US defeated Naziism, “turbocharging the industrial base and floating the whole thing on a sea of oil and a mountain of coal, to back up a complete national militarization” isn’t what she’s thinking.

I think she’s thinking it was all about Rosie the Riveter.

As They Say, Not As They Do

A study shows that global warming skeptics’ actual behavior is more environmentally responsible than Warmists’, and that enviro-weenies feel they are entitled to do a little polloting:

The study, published in the Journal of Environmental Psychology, followed more than 400 Americans for a full year. On seven occasions—roughly once every eight weeks—participants revealed their climate change beliefs, and their level of support for policies such as gasoline taxes and fuel economy standards.

They also noted how frequently they engaged in four environmentally friendly behaviors: recycling, using public transportation, buying “green” products, and using reusable shopping bags.

The researchers found participants broke down into three groups, which they labeled “skeptical,” “cautiously worried,” and “highly concerned.” While policy preferences of group members tracked with their beliefs, their behaviors largely did not: Skeptics reported using public transportation, buying eco-friendly products, and using reusable bags more often than those in the other two categories.

This pattern was found consistently through the year, leading the researchers to conclude that “belief in climate change does not appear to be a necessary or sufficient condition for pro-environmental behavior.”

It’s more important to signal virtue than to actually be virtuous.

Evolutionary Programming

If you are a hack social science researcher who dabbles badly in pseudo-science and fatuous wrenchings of correlation into causation, you are living in a golden age.  Even Scientific American is running your drivel, and paying for it, with a straight face.

As we see in this piece – which attributes (white) men “stockpiling” guns to…

…well, pick your threadbare feminist trope:

The short, broad-brush answer to the first part of that question is this: men, who on average possess almost twice the number of guns female owners do. But not all men. Some groups of men are much more avid gun consumers than others. The American citizen most likely to own a gun is a white male—but not just any white guy. According to a growing number of scientific studies, the kind of man who stockpiles weapons or applies for a concealed-carry license meets a very specific profile.

These are men who are anxious about their ability to protect their families, insecure about their place in the job market, and beset by racial fears. They tend to be less educated. For the most part, they don’t appear to be religious—and, suggests one study, faith seems to reduce their attachment to guns. In fact, stockpiling guns seems to be a symptom of a much deeper crisis in meaning and purpose in their lives. Taken together, these studies describe a population that is struggling to find a new story—one in which they are once again the heroes.

Of course, we’re in the post-logic era – where the last thing you should look for in Scientific Ameircan is “Science”.

Turn, instead, to actual science – the evolutionary science that so many on the left chant their fealty to when it’s time to vent their two minutes’ hate against Christian fundamentalists, but which nearly none of them supports when it comes down to the many areas where evolution kills and dresses out their sacred political cows.

American men – especially American men in the Red States – are buying guns because it fulfills the evolutionary imperative to protect what is yours, and those who depend on you – and a rational person sees that a gun is a useful tool toward that end.

Scientific American’s not going to pay for that insight, though.

Lit

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

LED lights use less electricity, which is good for the environment because it means power plants burn less coal, emitting less carbon dioxide and creating less acid rain and global warming.
LED lights allow us to light up more places for the same money, which is bad for the environment because it means fewer pitch-dark places for wildlife and star-gazing, plus the bluish tint of all-night reflected LED light fools our bodies into thinking it’s daytime and messes with our health.
It’s always something with Luddites.

Joe Doakes

I wonder if Whole Foods has reverted to natural wax candles yet?

A Cold Antananarivo

Joe Doakes emails from Como Park:

I had an appointment at Health Partners yesterday.  First question the receptionist asked: “Have you traveled outside the country in the last two weeks?”

Why does it matter if I went anywhere?  I live in Minnesota, home to the largest tuberculosis outbreak in the nation, centered in the Hmong population, and the largest measles outbreak in the nation, centered in the Somali population.  There’s nothing to stop somebody from Madagascar, home to the largest outbreak of antibiotic resistant plague in the world, from coming here and bringing the disease along.

I don’t need to travel outside the country to encounter deadly infectious disease.  I have free delivery, all over town.  And if I don’t like it, the Governor said I can leave.

Joe Doakes

Ayep.

Now Passing Looking Glass

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The school bus company requires boys to sit on one side of the aisle, girls to sit on the other side, most likely the result of insurance company lawyers trying to avoid claims of inappropriate touching, sexual harassment or sexual assault occurring on the bus while under the driver’s control which would make the school bus company likely to get sued for failing to protect the students.
Two girls choose to sit on the boy’s side of the bus and won’t move back.  The driver puts them off the bus.  Outrage occurs because the girls claim to be pre-operative transgender boys.  They look like girls, they dress like girls, they act like girls, they flirt like girls . . . but in their secret innermost thoughts, for today anyway, they’re boys.  So asking them to sit on the girls’ side of the bus is a hateful act of gender discrimination . . . which makes the bus company likely to get sued for failing to protect those students.
Thus we see the problem with attempting to establish rules for ordering society based on subjective, secret, ever-changing and unverifiable criteria, rather than based on objective, obvious, easily established criteria.
Joe Doakes

What “duckspeak” is to language, our “elites'” current conception of “gender” is to biology.

And Now From The “It’s Only News If You Haven’t Been Paying Attention For The Past Eighty Years” Department

Pew study shows Democrats get more stressed out over cognitive dissonance over politics than Republicans:

Democrats feel more negatively about talking politics with people who have a different opinion of the president than do Republicans. A large majority of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents – nearly seven-in-ten (68%) – say they find it to be stressful and frustrating to talk to people with different opinions of Trump. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, fewer (52%) say they find this to be stressful and frustrating.

White Democrats and Democratic leaners are more likely than black and Hispanic Democrats to say it is stressful and frustrating to talk to people with different opinions of Trump. About three quarters of white Democrats (74%) say it is frustrating, compared with 56% of black Democrats and 61% of Hispanic Democrats.

And if you thought the worst offenders were shrieking middle-aged single Whole-Foods-shopping Subaru-driving women with degrees in Political Science from Saint Olaf?

Of course you were right:

Overall, more women (64%) than men (54%) say talking to people with a different opinion of Trump is stressful and frustrating. And adults under 30 are more likely to say they find these discussions interesting and informative than do those 30 and older (42% vs. 33%).

Which proves that my anecdotal observations are just as accurate as science.

Well, no.  Not usually.

But this time, yes.

Because Science!

It’s become something of a low-impact cult on the left to declare oneself “driven by science”.

This “drive” usually manifests less in the form of “being able to develop a testable, falseable hypothesis” or design a valid, controlled course of experiements than in believing Neil DeGresse Tyson is the dreamiest or posting Bill Nye memes on social media, of course.  But to each their own.

Of course, behind all the “I F****ng Love Science” reposts and the articles about those dumb flat-earthers, actual comprehension of science is often pretty weak.

Example:  watch the heads melt when you tell “science” cultists that there is no actual controlled, empirical, scientific evidence that gay people are “born that way”.

(The response is usually a political, not scientific, one; “you think they choose to be gay?  Of course not.   Point is, there are more than one possible answer – and while “Nye-ence” is perfectly fine drawing “scientific” conclusions from political data, science isn’t).

“The Science Has Always Been Settled, Winston”

Netflix edits history – cutting out the part of a 20-year-old Bill Nye episode about there being precisely two genders.

Because science!

(Note for bobbleheads:  It would be appropriate for Nye to explain why he’s reversed course; since he styles himself a “Science Guy”, perhaps he’d include some evidence that led to his conclusion, rather than just a perfunctory flush of the memory toilet.

My Client Is Clearly Delusional

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Plainly, this is a meritless lawsuit, brought by some whiner hoping to strike it rich.  There is no air pollution in Paris.  There can’t be: that’s where the Paris Accord was signed, which eliminated all air pollution and thereby saved the planet from global warming before President Trump condemned us by withdrawing the United States.

If the air in Paris were that bad, they wouldn’t be complaining about who’s still in the “save-the-planet” group, they’d be fixing the problem.

Wouldn’t they?

Joe Doakes

As Glenn Reynolds says, “I’ll believe climate change is an emergency when its advocates start acting like it’s an emergency”.