The charlatans are failing

The public is rejecting the AGW/CC scam:

Just 57 percent think there is solid evidence the world is getting warmer, down 20 points in just three years, a new poll says…. The poll was released a day after 18 scientific organizations wrote Congress to reaffirm the consensus behind global warming. A federal government report Thursday found that global warming is upsetting the Arctic’s thermostat. Only about a third, or 36 percent of the respondents, feel that human activities — such as pollution from power plants, factories and automobiles — are behind a temperature increase. That’s down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year’s poll.

Brainwashing and appeals to scientific authority only go so far when Joe Public’s car is buried by snow in early October. No doubt the true believing scientific community will respond with calm reason and logical persuasion, by which of course I mean that we can look forward to the usual suspects shrieking about how stupid everyone is for daring to think for themselves and wistfully dreaming of PhDoctocracy.


This account of a debate between Thomas Woods and Tom McInerney, ING Chairman & CEO Insurance Americas, fairly well sums up the disastrous ignorance of the global financial elite. Keep in mind, the clueless wonder is an Econ major from Colgate with an MBA from Tuck:

The extent to which [McInerney], ING Chairman & CEO Insurance Americas was outmatched, though, was revealed in this almost embarrassingly funny episode. McInerney had mentioned that Bernanke was a diligent and knowledgeable student of the Great Depression. So, when it came time for the Q&A, one audience member asked Woods to briefly explain the Austrian view of Great Depression and how it might differ from Bernanke’s view. After Woods did this, McIerney took the stage, and as if he were about to unload a devastating blow against Woods, said to him, “this might seem like a bit of an attack. Don’t take it too personally.” And then…. he began to rant about … the relatively small size of the country of Austria. I kid you not.

Some audience members began to laugh; others cringed, as McInerney dug his hole deeper while under the illusion that he was unleashing a deadly zinger. Woods kept trying to stage whisper that Austria had nothing to do with the school of Austrian economics, but McInerney, undeterred, plowed on. Thus, when Woods took the stage he said, “this might seem like an attack, but don’t take it too personally…” And then Woods commented that we may as well say we shouldn’t listen to Milton Friedman, since the GDP of Chicago is pretty low.

And this sort of thing is just one of the many, many reasons that I’m deeply unimpressed with appeals to academic, professional, or scientific authority. Perhaps McInerney should have pleaded the Courtier’s Reply as it’s almost, though not quite, as deeply stupid as his soliloquy on the Austrian economy.

And it gets worse. Thomas Woods comments: “Of course people are right to observe that relatively few people get exposed to Austrian economics. The point here is that I had just finished a 40-minute presentation on the subject.”

No wonder McInerney’s company needed a bailout. I have little doubt it will soon need another one.

Dawkins, the historical dimwit

Someone really needs to tell the old coot to stop babbling about anything but biology and atheism. As I demonstrated in TIA, the man simply doesn’t know a damn thing about history:

HH: Well, you repeatedly use the analogy of a detective at a crime scene throughout The Greatest Show On Earth. But detectives simply can’t dismiss evidence they don’t want to see. There’s a lot of evidence for the miracles, in terms of eyewitness…

RD: No, there isn’t. What there is, is written stories which were written decades after the alleged events were supposed to happen. No historian would take that seriously.

HH: Well, that’s why I’m conflicted, because in your book, you talk about the Latin teacher who is stymied at every turn, and yet Latin teachers routinely rely on things like Tacitus and Pliny, and histories that were written centuries after the events in which they are recording occur.

RD: There’s massive archaeological evidence, there’s massive evidence of all kinds. It’s just not comparable. No…if you talk to any ancient historian of the period, they will agree that it is not good historical evidence.

HH: Oh, that’s simply not true. Dr. Mark Roberts, double PhD in undergraduate at Harvard has written a very persuasive book upon this. I mean, that’s an astounding statement. Are you unfamiliar with him?

RD: All right, then there may be some, but a very large number of ancient historians would say…

HH: Well, you just said there were none. So there are some that you are choosing not to confront.

RD: You sound like a lawyer.

HH: I am a lawyer.

RD: Oh, for God’s sake. Are you? Okay. I didn’t know that. All right. I will accept that there are some ancient historians who take the Gospels seriously. But they were written decades after the events that happened, and they were written by people with an axe to grind, written by disciples. There are no eyewitness written accounts. The earliest New Testament…

HH: I understand you believe that, Professor. I do. But what I don’t understand is how you can use the analogy of the Latin teacher or the detective, when it breaks down given your dismissal of evidence you don’t see fit to deal with squarely?

RD: I think that’s a very, very specious comparison, because the Latin teacher is dealing with enormous numbers of documents. Remember, my Latin teacher is supposed to be confronted with skeptics who don’t even think the Latin language was ever spoken. And there’s huge amounts of documentary evidence of the Roman Empire. We’re talking about the entire Roman Empire here. There’s enormous amounts of eyewitness accounts written down at the time. It just is no comparison.

HH: Actually, it is. It’s actually a very persuasive…in fact, the arguments for the manuscript evidence of Christ and His doings is much stronger than anything, for example, Tacitus or Pliny wrote. It’s just much stronger

It’s probably just as well that Dawkins hides from debate because he’s completely incompetent. Hugh Hewitt is far from a master debater in my opinion, and yet he caught Dawkins making blatantly false statements about history and historians, forced him to drastically change his definition of evidence from the one he utilizes in his books – the “enormous amount of eyewitness accounts” is a hilarious remark if you’re familiar with his previous statements about the value of eyewitnesses – and encouraged him to make an appeal to documentary evidence that was a sharp dagger in the hearts of dictionary-challenged atheists across the Internet. And notice that while Hewitt can name a specific historian in support of his position, Dawkins doesn’t… because he can’t. Just all… er, ah, lots.

Now, understand that no sane historian or archeologist rejects the Bible as historical evidence. At most, they reject specific details… rejections which archeological history indicates that they will probably be forced to eventually recant. Among other things, the Bible is one of the primary sources for calibrating the Egyptian Chronology – ironically, it turns out, as anyone familiar with Rohl’s New Chronology will know – and it has repeatedly shown itself to be more accurate than the dynamic archeological consensus. From the “mythical” Assyrian empire to Roman tax rolls and titles of Greek officials, the Bible has consistently shown itself to be an extraordinarily reliable historical document. Were it not for the supernatural elements that material reductionist scientists find impossible to believe, no one would even think to question it.

“The excessive skepticism shown toward the Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, certain phrases of which still appear periodically, has been progressively discredited. Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition to the value of the Bible as a source of history.”
William F. Albright

Richard Dawkins continues to keep digging himself in deeper. By the time he discovers just how completely wrong he was, he will have destroyed the greater part of his scientific legacy.

A minor, but legitimate intervention

Actually, far more of this sort of thing is in order:

The Obama administration plans to order companies that received huge U.S. government bailouts last year to sharply cut the compensation of their highest paid executives, according to a person familiar with the decision. The seven companies that received the most assistance will have to cut the annual salaries of their 25 highest-paid executive by an average of about 90 percent from last year, said the person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because it has not been announced. This person said Wednesday that the Treasury Department will announce the deep pay cuts within the next few days.

Look very closely at any commentator, so-called conservative or otherwise, who complains about this action by the White House being somehow “anti-capitalist”. If he was also a supporter of the bailouts last November, you should never, ever, consider taking him seriously again, because he’s either an untrustoworthy hypocrite or he’s too dumb to even realize his inconsistency. Once the government stepped in to socialize a corporation’s losses, that corporation lost the right to privatize its profits or even manage itself independently. From an economic perspective, the only thing more disastrous than a pure socialist system where both profits and losses are public is a fascist system where profits are private and losses are public.

No doubt this is merely a token act meant to discharge the growing public fury with Goldman and the other giant vampire squidsfinancial institutions. If Obama was serious, he’d announce a retroactive 95 percent tax on all bonuses paid in 2008 or later at institutions that received government assistance since August 2008 and accept Paul Volcker’s advice to beginning breaking up the big banks. Of course, what he should actually do is force the banks to mark the values of their assets to market, obey the law and have the FDIC initiate Prompt Corrective Actions as they are legally bound to do, and shut down every big bank that is insolvent. But he’s neither smart enough to understand the need to do this nor courageous enough to do so in the face of opposition from the influential vampire squidsfinancial institutions. And so the debt spiral continues….