‘Links’ Category

 

Science vs. Leftist Folklore

Harvard tells students gender can change from day to day.
Can you imagine paying for one of your children to be educated at Harvard?

5 Scientific Facts The ‘Science March’ Has Yet to Acknowledge

1) There Are Only Two Genders
2) Race is Not a Social Construct
3) Green Energy is Inefficient
4) Inequality is Not (Predominantly) Socially Constructed
5) Men and Women Are Born Different

One Scientist Debates 3 Laymen on Science (and I use laymen loosely)

 
 
 

Articles: The Democrats Were Here Before and Tore the Nation Asunder – Consider Lincoln

In 1860 the Democratic Party was divided. The slave states were the exclusive territory of the Democratic Party. It was, without argument, the party of slavery.

Today the Democratic Party would intentionally ruin our unique-in-history federalist and constitutional republic in order to replace it with an Administrative State not far removed from what we read about in Brave New World, 1984, and Darkness at Noon.

The Democrats, through their rhetoric and their actions, are opposing the Trump administration at every turn.  Through Obama administration government holdovers, they intend to bring down the present government and maintain and expand the bureaucratic Administrative State which is destroying federal…
AMERICANTHINKER.COM
 
 
 

Judicial Watch has filed suit against the EPA for not following the rule of law

The administrative deep state – the legions of unelected, entrenched bureaucrats in Washington – thinks it doesn’t have to answer to an elected president, the rule of law, or the American people. We are now seeking to uncover the truth about the particularly notorious fifth column in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Judicial Watch just filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for communications sent or received by EPA officials who may have used the cell phone encryption application “Signal” to thwart government oversight and transparency. We filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 1:17-cv-00533)).

JUDICIALWATCH.ORG
 
 
 

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Made $783,000 in Royalties From a Book That Only Sold 3,200 Copies

I smell a rat…News Corp. the parent company of Fox News makes a political pay off??

Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s tax returns show royalties from his book earned him $783,000 despite the fact that it only sold 3,200 copies.

International Business Times reports:

Fox News Channel parent News Corporation may be wrapped up in the sexual harassment accusations surrounding host Bill O’Reilly, but the company is facing another long-running scandal involving what appear to be exuberant payments to a Democrat — payments that occurred even as News Corp. was lobbying the New York State executive branch, which Gov. Andrew Cuomo oversees.

The New York governor, whose memoir was published by the News Corp.-owned HarperCollins in 2014, saw his gross income more than double last year, to $417,748 for 2016 (from $196,243 the year before), the Buffalo News reported Tuesday.

Cuomo attributed $218,100 of that increase to sales of his memoir, “All Things Possible: Setbacks and Successes in Politics and Life.”

In 2015, the governor reportedly earned zero income from book sales and in the nearly three years that it’s been on the market, it has sold just 3,200 copies. But Cuomo, the Buffalo News found, reported that he received a total of $783,000 from HarperCollins in book sales over the past three years,  a number that would translate to royalty payments of nearly $244.69 per copy. On Wednesday, the book was selling on Amazon for $13.05.

A spokesperson for Gov. Cuomo told International Business Times, “This payment was contractual and per the agreement with the publisher.” A spokesperson from HarperCollins said the publisher does not “comment on financial matters relating to our books.” News Corp. did not respond to IBT requests for comment.

News Corp., in the meantime, was registered as a lobbying client as recently as December 2016, according to the New York State government lobbying database. The mass media company, created and headed by Executive Chairman and former CEO Rupert Murdoch, has a long history of lobbying Cuomo’s office for the passage of bills beneficial to its businesses, as previously reported by IBT.

 2015 is a year that is very important as far as Cuomo goes, two important things to note: 1. Rupert Murdoch cedes power of his company over to his son, James Murdoch (Murdoch owns HarperCollins, Cuomo’s publisher); 2. Cuomo earns NO MONEY from book sales – could this be because of the transition period?

Look closely at New York and look closely at Cuomo’s book: why was Cuomo given such a large ‘royalties check’ when he hardly sold any books? What is going on here? Seems a bit like a deli being used as used as a cover for the mafia – is a book really a cover for financial payouts/bribes leading to something much more sinister? Pull the thread . . .

Murdoch was married to Wendi Deng, some speculate she was a Communist spy – did they divorce because she was a spy? or because people found out? Murdoch funnels money into a huge globalist, open borders entity. Something to note: Cuomo lobbies hard in favor of open bordersCuomo’s father, Mario Cuomo, was also thought to be involved with the mafia.

Hillary Clinton was a New York Senator with many ties to New York politics and just so happened to have announced her candidacy for the presidency a month prior to the ceding of power to James Murdoch, a globalist with liberal leanings. Was the ‘royalties check’ a payment from open borders Murdoch to perhaps help Hillary lock down New York?

NY Governor Andrew Cuomo Made $783,000 in Royalties From a Book That Only Sold 3,200 Copies

 
 
 

Mark Levin’s Landmark Legal Foundation Asks FISA Court To Order Investigation Into Anti-Trump Targeting, Leaks

As Landmark points out, “Each leak is potentially criminal and certainly unethical…Landmark respectfully urges this Court to exercise immediately its authority to direct the federal government to investigate the sources of these pervasive leaks.”

 
 
 

Trump Succeeds In Freeing American Charity Worker From Egyptian Prison. Obama Had Failed

This wasn’t your classic Obama-era quid pro quo transaction or controversial prisoner exchange. Unlike Obama, who infamously traded five senior Taliban Gitmo detainees for U.S. army deserter Bowe Bergdahl in 2014, Trump personally oversaw Hijazi’s release and received assurances from Cairo that the prisoner release was a gesture of good faith.

An Egyptian-American charity worker has been released from prison in Cairo after three years behind bars. The American citizen returned home to the United…
DAILYWIRE.COM
 
 
 

Media Bias: A New Chart

I’ve updated the following subjective chart based on information compiled from varioussources and your feedback. Some sources have shifted left or right, others have been added including: ESPN, McClatchy, the Federalist, Conservative Review, Washington Monthly, Twitchy, Gateway Pundit and Conservative Treehouse.Please note that outlets on left and right sometimes publish material that’s on the opposite side of the political spectrum, or that has no political leaning at all. The placement is based on perceived overall tone and audience. Position on the chart doesn’t necessarily imply credibility or lack thereof. Sources on far right and far left have, in many instances, produced excellent, factually correct information at times.

I have loosely placed more traditional information sources in the top half of the chart working down toward aggregators, fact-checkers, opinion sites and less news-related sources. (This posed some position challenges since most of traditional information sources are left-leaning.) I did not attempt to place individual programs or broadcasts.

Compiling such a chart is obviously difficult for many reasons, some of them having to do with space. The spacing should be considered relative and not an indicator of absolute position. A number of the information sources technically belong on top of one another.

You have contributed terrific ideas, such as sizing boxes based on audience, and dividing into quadrants. This is a work in progress. Thanks for your input!

Think a source should be moved? Want one added? Leave a comment!

For a larger view, click on the image and enlarge.

 

Alternate charts and opinions:

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/pj_14-10-21_mediapolarization-08/

https://www.infowars.com/alternate-reality-viral-propaganda-chart-demonizes-independent-media/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com

Preorder “The Smear: How Shady Political Operatives and Fake News Control What You See, What You Think and How You Vote.”

 

 
 
 

Big Red Flag for Cognitive Dissonance

Why I am a climate science denier is simple..
As Scott Adams states here, the global warming alarmists have convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic to win their allegiance.
You won’t convince me of climate science until a dire warning from the doomsayers happens.

But, as long as the sky doesn’t fall, the sea doesn’t rise, and the Swallows keep returning to Capistrano, I will believe in proven science, the birds and bees, and God.  Jimmy

Posted April 20th, 2017 @ 10:49am in #climate science #climate change #cognitive dissonance

When I see an obvious case of cognitive dissonance in the news, I like to point it out so you can see reality through what I call the Persuasion Filter. Today’s example comes from an article in SLATE about climate change.

The author, Tim Requarth, correctly points out that facts and logic have limited value in changing anyone’s mind about climate science, or anything else. He speaks from experience because he teaches workshops on how to better communicate science. I like this guy. He’s on the right path.

But the thing that got my attention was this bit from the article:

“Kahan found that increased scientific literacy actually had a small negative effect: The conservative-leaning respondents who knew the most about science thought climate change posed the least risk. Scientific literacy, it seemed, increased polarization. In a later study, Kahan added a twist: He asked respondents what climate scientists believed. Respondents who knew more about science generally, regardless of political leaning, were better able to identify the scientific consensus—in other words, the polarization disappeared. Yet, when the same people were asked for their own opinions about climate change, the polarization returned. It showed that even when people understand the scientific consensus, they may not accept it.”
Notice how the author slips in his unsupported interpretation of the data: Greater knowledge about science causes more polarization.

Well, maybe. That’s a reasonable hypothesis, but it seems incomplete. Here’s another hypothesis that fits the same observed data: The people who know the most about science don’t think complex climate prediction models are credible science, and they are right.

For my purposes today, we don’t need to know which hypothesis is correct. Maybe knowledge does nothing but make you more confident that your “side” is right. But maybe the people with the most knowledge on the topic of science are – wait for it – good at judging the validity of science in any particular area.

Keep in mind that the entire public argument in favor of climate change alarmism is that the people who know the most (climate scientists) are largely on the same page. But that conflicts with the idea that the conservative-leaning citizens who know the most about science don’t find their ideas entirely credible – at least in terms of the prediction models.

And what would historians say about this situation? I think they would say that the people who don’t understand history are doomed to repeat it. (Because that’s what they always say.) In my opinion, the conservatives who know the most about science are looking at it from an historical perspective, and they see a pattern here: Complicated prediction models rarely work.

That’s how I see it.

In order to change my mind on climate science, you would need to show me that in this one special case, history is not repeating. You’d have to show me that this one time in history is when complicated prediction models got it right. And I’m not sure that argument can be made, even if true.

I would like to add one more hypothesis to the SLATE article. Let’s consider the possibility that the only reason any non-scientist believes climate change is a danger to civilization is because of fear persuasion, not because of facts or logic, and not because of a citizen-level understanding of science. If you fear the world will become uninhabitable in your lifetime, you’re more likely to embrace the experts who say they know what is wrong and they know how to stop it.

Climate scientists probably believe they have convinced about half of the public to their side using their graphs and logic and facts. That’s not the case. They convinced half the public by using fear persuasion disguised as facts and logic. And it probably worked best with the people who have the least knowledge of how often complicated prediction models have failed in the past.  

For the purpose of this blog post, you don’t need to know who is right and who is wrong about climate science. My point today is that cognitive dissonance is preventing scientists from seeing what is actually happening here with their messaging. Scientists believe their facts and logic convinced all the smart people to their side already, so now they need a new strategy for the dumb ones. A different version of reality, as seen through the Persuasion Filter, is that citizens who don’t understand history are doomed to believe whatever the experts tell them. Half the country has been persuaded to climate alarmism by fear, not an understanding of the issue. At the same time, those who know the most about both history and science realize that complex climate models are generally not credible, so they are not persuaded by fear.

I remind new readers of this blog that I’m not a climate science denier. The consensus of climate scientists might be totally right, but I have no practical way to know. My point here, and in past posts, is that you can’t sell a truth by packaging it to look exactly like a huge lie. And those complicated climate prediction models look exactly like lies we have seen before, albeit in unrelated fields.

Big Red Flag for Cognitive Dissonance

Facebook Official Page: fb.me/ScottAdamsOfficial

You might enjoy reading my book because ice is melting wherever it is warm enough.

I’m also on…

Twitter (includes Periscope): @scottadamssays​

YouTube: At this link.

Instagram: ScottAdams925

 

 
 
 

My Inbox Is ‘Flooded By Democrats’ Saying ‘Ossoff Was a Terrible Candidate’

The Dems don’t have direction….which is 10 year old news. We are called the right for a reason..

Glenn Thrush: My Inbox Is ‘Flooded By Democrats’ Saying ‘Ossoff Was a Terrible Candidate’
BREITBART.COM
 
 
 

Admit It: Donald Trump Is Exceeding Your Expectations

If one believes the feverish Evan McMullin’s Twitter feed as God’s own truth, Donald Trump is Vlad Putin’s foot soldier and an evil, evil, EVIL man about to ruin the world, the country, and rend the fabric of nature itself. That may yet happen. In the meantime, there are whispers in polite society that President Donald J. […]

Continue Reading