Scientists Ask Obama To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics

Having just read Mark Steyn's "A Disgrace to the Profession" (see my previous blog entry) I was even more horrified than I otherwise would have been to see that the cabal of "the science is settled" climate scientists (20 of them, in this case) is asking Obama to use the RICO act against their critics. I've written about the corruption that government involvement brings to science (and to everything it touches), but this is a new low.

Regulation Red Herring

The myth of an unregulated market is destroyed in this C4SS Feed 44 video.

A Disgrace to the Profession

That's the title of Mark Steyn's newest book -- although Steyn wrote probably less than 10% of it, since it's mostly a compendium of long quotations by scientists from all over the world, including Nobel Winners. Topic? Climate scientist Michael Mann, who -- as a newly-minted Ph.D. -- published the infamous and now thoroughly discredited "hockey stick" climate study in 1999. More recently, Mann was foolish enough to sue Steyn for libel, and this book is "Volume 1" (so the cover proclaims) of Steyn's response.
Wow. Page after page of climate scientists, physicists, and others -- each with his or her credentials and various positions, awards, etc. listed -- many who believe in global warming but hate what Mann and others have done to science -- on the topic of not only the error-prone, poorly conceived, and often outright fraudulent "science" that Mann has been putting out, but also on his character and personal behavior in regards "deniers" (anyone who questions him or points out his mistakes), on the horrific corruption of peer review, of scientific journals, and of science itself.
I didn't read the famous hacked email dump on the topic from 2009, but bits of many of those emails, and commentary by scientists about them, show up here. In all, this is a most incredible volume, just destroying Mann and his small group of fellow conspirators (a characterization that those emails and this book amply justify). I also read the Wikipedia page on Mann, and the self-serving, hide-the-truth nature of that page really leaps out after having read Steyn's book. 
Both educational and huge fun -- my wife is enjoying the book also -- A Disgrace to the Profession is something no scientist and no honest person of good will should miss, regardless of their politics or views on global warming.

Laws cause mayhem


That's the exact inverse of what the lawn order crowd claims, but it's been systematically established by Lawrence Samuels in In Defense of Chaos and the present fiasco in Europe over Syrian refugees is a good illustration. Today's ZGBlog explains.

The Government and You


In this AdamKokesh video, an interaction between a couple cats and a moth serves as an analogy for the interaction between the State and you.

Building 7, 14 Years On

One of the oddest things I find about the 9/11 saga is the relative dearth of attention that even 9/11 Truthers have leant to the full scope of info available about the demise of Building 7.
The government's "official" 9/11 Commission Report concludes that 7 was showered with burning debris from the Twin Towers, causing a series of office fires, which then in turn precipitated the collapse of the building.  That this is completely preposterous is uncontestable.  But there's more.
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001, openly admitted on PBS television to instructing the NYFD to "pull" (demolish) Building 7.  This raises a number of questions, seldom visited by anyone on any side of the 9/11 incident:
1.)  How do the NYFD, on Silverstein's say-so, rig a building for controlled demolition and then move to detonation within a matter of a couple of hours, with no preparation, on 9/11, in the midst of total chaos, with their services also sorely needed elsewhere?
2.)  If indeed Silverstein's admission is valid -- even in part -- why then is no mention made of it at all in the 9/11 Commission Report?  Why were the members of that commission reduced to clutching at such straws in order to explain the building's collapse?  This is a glaring inconsistency that makes zero sense.
3.)  Why do 9/11 Truthers generally attack only the government's "official" whitewash, without even mentioning Silverstein's public (though in part questionable in terms of specifics) admission?  I'm not suggesting anything conspiratorial with respect to this particular shortfall -- but rather a gaping blindspot in the 9/11 Truth movement overall.
Some things to think on, 14 years after that day's resonant tragedy.

Top 5 Pointless Congressional Hearings on Baseball


The idiocy of the American Legislative State is on naked display in this ReasonTV video.

Escaping Oppression


In this catoinstitutevideo video, a refugee from the former USSR recounts the tyranny of the USSR Communist Party.

What the Queen is For

Today is a very notable day in UK history: Her Majesty has reigned for longer than any other monarch in a thousand years. To celebrate the Zero Government Blog offers Long-Living Lipstick. Enjoy!

Dissolving Borders

Open Borders Day is celebrated in this C4SS Feed 44 video.

Syndicate content