"Do I have any words of encouragement or hope for the good people of Minnesota on this grey and gloomy afternoon? Not really."
A great article in a recent Alpha News penned by Gil Gutknecht. For those who do not remember or know this, Gil represented the First District in Congress until he was succeeded by Mr. "Rocks and Cows" Walz. Gil talked about how grey and gloomy this month has been. Some of it because of the weather, some of it because we now know what is coming. And it ain't pretty.
One of Gil's point in his article was the business and tax climate is going to get so bad under a Walz/Ellison administration, that more seniors and upper income people will be voting with their feet. In other words - leave. Gil is not the first to say that. Many economists have also said that. Heck, it is happening in New York and California right now. But here is the irony (and I love irony) - many on the Left tell the "makers" and the seniors who are leaving - "Don't let the door hit you, where the Good Lord split you." In other words, the "takers" are glad the "makers" are leaving. But then who will pay for all this stuff? Who cares...
What is to become of this once great state of Minnesota? Truthfully, after looking at the specifics from the last election, fewer and fewer are giving a care. A good friend of mine who is very politically astute (and NOT a pessimist), summed it up this way - so long as the Islamic coalition continues to vote in a growing monolithic block in Minneapolis, St. Cloud and Rochester, we will NEVER will another state wide election. PLUS (buckle up for this one) - we will have the most flawed Keith Ellison for as long as he chooses to serve.
Some ad hoc and PACs are already starting to form for the battle which awaits in 2020. "More money and a better way to get a better message across!" Yes, we were outspent by the Democrats this past election. Some say outworked and out hustled also. But here is the bottom line as I see it - and I have addressed this before since the election. So long as the East African refugees keep pouring into Minnesota, so long as 20% more woman than men vote Blue, so long as our Common Core educated kids vote for socialism - we can expect the same results in 2020. Tina Smith will get a six year term, the Minnesota House will stay Blue, and maybe even get Bluer, and the Minnesota Senate will flip Blue.
Do I have any words of encouragement or hope for the good people of Minnesota on this grey and gloomy afternoon? Not really. I do know that minds much sharper than mine are working to save this state from total oppression. I always thought the people in this state were smarter than this. That we could not be cowed. I guess I was wrong.
You sound pessimistic. Let me help:
ReplyDeleteHow to win a debate against a liberal.
It is very simple. You cannot do it. It is like trying to teach astrophysics to a cat. It gets you nowhere, and just annoys the Cat. It is often and truly said, “you cannot reason a man out of an idea he did not first reason himself into.” Liberal thought is thoroughly and irretrievably grounded in the emotional certainty that they are morally superior, based on their own moral definitions, and constantly reinforced by a biased media and negative campaign advertising. You will never shake it.
The only way to “win” is to use a sort of political ju-jitsu. That is, you must convince them that their own moral superiority requires them to support YOUR ideas and candidates, rather than the lies and dogma of those on “their” side. First you inquire what are the important considerations in policy (it will always be some form of “caring” or “fairness”) and then show how those concerns are better served by the conservative policy, ONLY showing how the liberal policy fails those tests as a side-effect of asking things like, “How is that unfair?”
Of course, it is still not easy. First you have to get them to talk to you, rather than over you, you stupid immoral bum. Then you have to get them to discuss rationally, by starting with their moral “requirements” on the issue and then using that
ju-jitsu to your advantage and changing their emotional attachments. You have to avoid the talking points and THEN, you must somehow keep them from being “re-infected” by the rampant media bias, social media and negative campaigning.
Difficult, not impossible.
Just a few sentences about the American public......
DeleteIf stupidity were oil, America would be Saudi Arabia. We elected Trump. We believe idiot fake stories on Facebook.
We mainline conspiracy theories like a back alley oxy fiend. We think vaccines cause diseases. We love guns, believe climate change is a hoax, and use motorized scooters at the store because we’re too fat to even waddle.
We know, like John Adams said, that facts are stubborn things, and since we’re too lazy to deal with stubbornness, we just ignore them. Our feelings and what we want to believe are more important than facts or evidence. We never learned to think critically; it’s just too much effort.
In that world, a random social media post carries more truth than a New York Times investigation, a wild-eyed rant on InfoWars is worth more than footnoted research, and lies are easier to digest than facts. In that universe, Tupac and Biggie are alive in Cuba, pizza restaurants are fronts for pedophile rings, and Trump’s word salad is gospel.
Don't move out of MN, move out of the US, for your own sanity.
You first. If facts do not convince you, for example, that gun control is folly and climate change is a hoax, then you are not using your rational faculties as you claim. I understand, though. "You cannot reason a man out of an idea he did not first reason himself into." Upon what factual, logical basis do you believe global warming is real?
ReplyDeleteI agree gun control in the US is folly, wouldn't waste a ounce of energy on it.
DeleteRe: Climate Change, I would like to read some of the 17000 page Climate Study before responding. I don't think my facts vs. your reality will convince you otherwise, but I may try some day in future.
You articulate climate change denial well, so I want to do the same.
Prior to finding and reading some of the latest study, released on Black Friday (how appropriate). Just a taste of what I have read and believe are indicators of a change in the climate that if continued would be disastrous for our planet.
ReplyDeleteGlobal temperature rise
The planet's average surface temperature has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere. And I would add, a possible slight tilting of our planet in relation to the sun. Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. Not only was 2016 the warmest year on record, but eight of the 12 months that make up the year — from January through September, with the exception of June — were the warmest on record for those respective months.
Warming oceans
The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of more than 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have decreased in mass. Data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment show Greenland lost an average of 281 billion tons of ice per year between 1993 and 2016, while Antarctica lost about 119 billion tons during the same time period. The rate of Antarctica ice mass loss has tripled in the last decade.
Glacial retreat
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
Decreased snow cover
Satellite observations reveal that the amount of spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the past five decades and that the snow is melting earlier.
Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century. The rate in the last two decades, however, is nearly double that of the last century and is accelerating slightly every year.
Declining Arctic sea ice
Both the extent and thickness of Arctic sea ice has declined rapidly over the last several decades.
Extreme events
Glaciers are retreating almost everywhere around the world — including in the Alps, Himalayas, Andes, Rockies, Alaska and Africa.
The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events.
Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.
I realize, there are exceptions to all of the above and I know most of them, but the trend and movement globally satisfies my scientific mind to the existence of a change in earths overall climate.
It will have detrimental and positive effects, depending on where you are on the planet. But, mostly negative. I will list them in next post.
PS I suppose we shouldn't stomp all over the Birds concerns over the state of MN, voiced in HIS blog with our debate re: existence or not of Climate Change.
Here's another aphorism for you: "The difference between intelligence and stupidity is that there is a limit to intelligence.
ReplyDeleteReally?
Delete"... a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere." An assertion with absolutely zero evidence!
ReplyDelete"with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010." Not true, you are looking at the "doctored" temperature records created by former NASA chief James Hansen-- highly paid acolyte of the Great Church of Global Warming. Warmest temps were in the 30s.
"Glacial retreat" and "Decreased snow cover" So explain to me, exactly, how you are distinguishing this MANMADE global warming effect from an entirely NATURAL global warming?
"Sea level rise
Global sea level rose about 8 inches in the last century..." I question your numbers. The figures I see is that sea levels continue to rise at the same rate as they have for the last 150 years, something like 1mm/year. And it is difficult to distinguish between sea level rise and land subsidence.
"The number of record high temperature events in the United States has been increasing, while the number of record low temperature events has been decreasing, since 1950. The U.S. has also witnessed increasing numbers of intense rainfall events." Latest studies say not true. Number of record highs is DECREASING, while number of record lows have decreased, probably due to the UHI (Urban Heat Island) effect. And, by the way, hurricanes and tornadoes are DOWN, droughts and rains more or less normal.
"Ocean acidification
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, the acidity of surface ocean waters has increased by about 30 percent.13,14 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year." This is just silly. Ocean acidification AND atmospheric CO2 are tightly linked to the heating of the oceans, since warm water holds less CO2 than cold water does.
Perhaps the problem is that you are looking for "proof of global warming" when the debate is whether this "warming" is manmade or natural, since we simply cannot distinguish the one from the other. Also, just because the Earth is getting warmer has ZERO bearing on our ability to predict the future climate 100 years from now. The IPCC reports explicitly state that this is true, the climate models have been PROVEN (above the 95% confidence level) that they are wildly in error and worthless as a basis of public policy, and those very same models PROVE that manmade CO2 is not the problem, that cutting out all fossil fuels would reduce warming, 100 years from now, by about 0.37 degrees.
Sorry, Bird, but we cannot win elections until we can defeat these liberal myths and the myth-makers who support them.
You don't leave much room for discussion with terms like PROVEN and Silly, so I guess I'll hope I live long enough to say "I told you so". No, I'd guess I'd rather not.
DeleteSorry about the "silly," but PROVEN is exactly what it says. The ONLY evidence you can possibly have for a climate catastrophe 100 years from now is the sum of the computerized climate models! Current observations cannot tell you their CAUSE. It's all politically-driven propaganda. And not only do the models vary in predictions over a range of 3:1, from well under the vaunted Paris accords to an admittedly unbelievable 8.5 degrees, but they are off (to the high side) of the actual temperature record at the 95% confidence level (statistically). Either way, their prognostications are worthless as a basis of public policy; they are fundamentally flawed. If all you do is take the ACTUAL satellite temperature record and project it forward 100 years, you find we are already meeting the Paris accords and, supposedly, we have no problem!
ReplyDeleteWorse than that, the policy prescriptions being driven by the politicians, of radically altering our energy supply to the detriment of the poor and everybody else, are PROVEN by those very same models to have minimal effect on the climate. This is surprising but again, a consistent result from the very same "scientists" and models that we have been told to believe. You cannot call me a denier because I'm simply repeating what the science says.
And I am still drawn to the word "silly" for the stubborn belief that something is happening which science says not only is not happening, but not possible. Here is an experiment for you. Take a can of soda pop out of the fridge and set it on the kitchen counter for a few hours. What happens? It loses its "fizz." That is the CO2 escaping. So if /something/ warms the 70% of Earth's surface covered in water, what happens? The sea loses CO2 to the atmosphere! Global warming drives CO2, not the reverse! That, too, is proven from the 600,000-year ice core data, and recent research says that manmade CO2 contributes about 4%, compared to a natural contribution of the other 96%. If you do the math (shown on request) you find we are being told we can avoid "catastrophic global warming" by altering the composition of the atmosphere by something like 4 ppm (Parts Per Million). You should also know that the natural seasonal variation of CO2 is about 19 ppm.
Feel free to discuss, and I hope you live long and prosper, but there is no way I can adopt your religious faith in Al Gore's doomsday cult. I've got the science.
Drop the CO2 issue
Deleteand discuss sea level rise, temperature changes that are already occurring, possibly with a tip of earths axis OR cyclical changes on earth since time began OR whatever else your scientific mind can come up with. It's here and we are going to have to pay for it, something a GOP mind should be able to come to grips with. Worry about something other than a few cents gas tax in MN and get on board.
If you want to discuss how our government spending must change to ADAPT to naturally occuring "Global Warming," then you must first convince them to STOP spending money trying to prevent it by controlling manmade CO2. Right now that is something like $20 Billion/year and growing, with the officially-estimated "benefit" of 1/100 of a degree per CENTURY less warming!
ReplyDeleteSince the House controls the spending and for the last two years nothing was done by climate change denier GOP, I won't hope for a change with the lefties in charge.
DeleteAt least our President took us out of the insane Paris "all pain no gain" Agreement, and that is unlikely to change. Of course we can expect States like Minnesota to "voluntarily stay in" the agreement, though I expect it will be by empty words rather than concrete and measurable proposals. Why? Because the world is already meeting the Paris targets, if you look at the data, and because NOTHING we do about manmade CO2 is going to change that by any observable amount.
ReplyDeleteYou are correct, however, the current tilting with windmills will continue.
ReplyDelete