Truslen mod rationaliteten kommer fra venstrefløjen

En kristent troende politiker funderer højt over at der måske er mere mellem Himmel og jord og straks er manden en kreationist og en vederstyggelighed som videnskabsminister. Det blev dog det helt jordnære der endte med at skandalisere ham. Den besynderlige ide om kreationisme skamrides af venstrefløjen til at male et billede af et højrekristeligt angreb på selveste videnskaben og medierne agerer megafon. Hvad der er gået op for de færreste og især disse overvejende evangelister, der oftest synes at abonnerer på kreationisme er hvor arrogant til det blasfemiske denne pseudovidenskabelige ide er. At mennesket har udviklet sig til at kunne kigge Guds skaberværk så meget i kortene at vi kan se hans fingeraftryk. Så meget for Troen, der driver værket.

Men den grundlæggende isolerede kreationisme får følgeskab af en række eksotiske fikse ideer, som kan trives hos selv højt begavede mennesker. Den republikanske præsident kandidat kandidat Ben Carson dyrker trods sit virke som en fremragende neurokirurg en ide om at kristne har haft Gud i ryggen da de byggede pyramiderne i Ægypten. Jo, beviserne tårner sig op mod de kristne højrefløjsere. Pinligt som det er ikke at have forstået virkeligheden, som vi andre let kan se, så er der på højrefløjen tale om enkeltstående og skiftende fejlagtige ideer, som begavede mennesker vælger at tro på fordi de forveksler deres kreative og fantasifulde del af hjernen med den seriøse del, der har knoklet for at skaffe dem en gloværdig karriere. Og så optræder de tossede ideer som ganske private forestillinger og ikke som mission.

På venstrefløjen er det derimod helt galt og det er herfra truslen mod ikke blot ‘videnskaben’ kommer, men mod hele den rationelle tankegang. For venstrefløjens angreb på videnskab er blot en del af deres angreb på viden og det er et systemisk angreb som del af en større mission. Det er venstrefløjen der dyrker postmodernismen og relativismen. Det er venstrefløjen der opponerer imod videnskab med henvisning til æstetik og moralisme. Det er venstrefløjen der vil indskrænke tanke-, tro- og ytringsfriheden ved enhver given lejlighed. det er venstrefløjen der er forfalden til økologisme og klimateori, hvor konsensus og internetafstemninger fejer målinger af bordet. Det er venstrefløjen der vil politisere videnskaben og gøre den samfundsgavnlig, venstrefløjen der mener at samfundet omvendt og sært skizofrent skal indrettes videnskabeligt og som ophøjede Marx og efterkommeres -istiske teorier til videnskab, hvad kostede 100.000.000 myrdede civile og komplet nedbrudte samfund uden at venstrefløjen synes at kunne drage nogen klar konklusion af det eksperiment. Det er venstrefløjen som omfavner nødvendigheden af multikultur, som masserne flygter fra sekteriske stridigheder. Det er venstrefløjen der vil omskrive historien, så den passer en køns-race-kultur-genus… det er venstrefløjen der opfinder ord som genus.

Af sted til USA, hvor det står helt galt til på universiteterne, som på alle læreanstalter. Rick Moran skriver for Pajamas Media

White privilege. It’s everywhere, I tell you. You can’t escape its smothering influence — even at one of the finest (and most expensive) schools in the land.

Take the case of this poor, wilting flower. Nissy Aya is now in her fifth year of undergraduate study at Columbia University. She was supposed to graduate last year with the rest of her class, but finds herself — totally not her fault — on track to graduate next year.

Ms. Aya says that she has experienced much angst and anguish while taking Columbia’s Core courses, studying the greatest, the most powerful, the most tolerant civilization in the history of the human race — Western civilization. It seems that Ms. Aya has feelings of inadequacy when reading all these books by dead white males.

Daily Caller:

Aya attributed some of her academic troubles to the trauma of having to take Columbia’s current Core Curriculum, which requires students to take a series of six classes with a focus on the culture and history of Western, European civilization. Aya says this focus on the West was highly mentally stressful for her.“It’s traumatizing to sit in Core classes,” she said. “We are looking at history through the lens of these powerful, white men. I have no power or agency as a black woman, so where do I fit in?”

As an example, Aya cited her art class, where she complained that Congolese artwork was repeatedly characterized as “primitive.” She wanted to object to that characterization but, in the Spectator’s words, was “tired of already having worked that day to address so many other instances of racism and discrimination.”

Roosevelt Montás, Columbia’s associate dean for the Core Curriculum, didn’t exactly offer a spirited defense, instead saying Aya was showing the troubling racism that may lurk inside the Core.

“You cannot grow up in a society without assimilating racist views,” he said, according to the Spectator. “Part of what is exciting about this conversation is that it’s issuing accountability for us to look within ourselves and try to understand the way that racism shapes how we see the world and our institutions.”

This isn’t the first time students have complained about the mental anguish of studying the Western canon. Last spring, four students published an editorial for the Spectator complaining that a student was triggered by having to read Ovid, and proposed replacing his offensive works with those of Toni Morrison.

Heather Mac Donald læser UCLAs engelskstudie sørgelige dødsattest

What in the world happened to the liberal arts? A degree in the humanities used to transmit the knowledge and wisdom imbued in the works of great Western artists, writers, musicians and thinkers like Shakespeare and Mozart. But today, that same degree stresses Western racism, sexism, imperialism, and other ills and sins that reinforce a sense of victimhood and narcissism. So, what happened? Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute explains.

“It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not!”

I Middelalderen grundlagdes universiteterne, som Quora skriver

These new centres of learning took the scholarly framework of the old cathedral schools’ curriculum based on the “seven liberal arts” but combined it with the structure of craft and merchant guilds (which is where the name universitas came from as well).  As in the guilds, students had to choose to work under the guidance of a “Master” and serve a long, structured and scrutinised apprenticeship and then pass a series of tests and oral examinations before being judged a “Master” himself and finally going on to become a “Doctor” or teacher.  This structure, hierarchy and rigorous testing made the Medieval university very different to similar-seeming schools in the Islamic world or the academies of ancient Greece.

The other radical and crucial novelty in the university system was the way advancement and prominence in this system was not gained merely by mastering material from key texts, but by disputation and debate using set rules of formal logic.  Masters and doctors maintained their positions and their reputations (and therefore their incomes from students) by their ability to win debates, often throwing open the floor to all comers.  And brilliant students could rise quickly in reputation and renown by taking on these masters and beating them.  At least twice a year a university would hold a quodlibeta - a multi-day tournament of rigorous logical disputation where anyone could propose and defend any position on any subject at all.  Often highly radical, controversial, paradoxical or even heretical idea were presented and participants had to defend or attack them using logic and reason alone. The idea of a rational free-for-all where the finest minds of the time used reason alone to bat around ideas like “God is in fact evil” or “the universe had no beginning in time” certainly does not fit most people’s ideas of the Middle Ages, yet this was a regular event in Medieval universities.

I det miljø ‘opfandt’ Benediktinermunken Roger Bacon den moderne videnskab og Guillaume de Conches hypotiserede darwinistisk at alt levende opstod fra ursuppen og udviklede sig over til det det er i dag - på Guds initiativ. Det er lang tid siden at man beflittede sig med rationalisme på universiterne og de fleste andre læreanstalter. Atlantic beskriver den sørgelige sag, da et akademiker-ægtepar sagtmodigt frasagde sig at rådgive de studerende om Halloween-kostymer og blev mødt med krav om bortvisning for deres manglende forebyggelse af potentiel krænkelse. Daily Caller ridser det sørgelige optrin op, hvis man ikke har hjerte til at se den lille video nedenunder

The conversation is at first tense but calm, but it escalates rapidly after a student accuses Christakis of creating an “unsafe space” at Yale.

“I did not-,” Christakis attempts to reply, but a student aggressively interjects.

“Be quiet!,” she screams. Then, voice quavering with emotion, she continues. “[In] your position as headmaster, it is your job to create a place of comfort and home for the students who live in Silliman.”

Christakis attempts to dissent, saying “No, I don’t agree with that,” unleashing a torrent of shrieks from the student.

“Then why the fuck did you accept the position? Who the fuck hired you?,” she cries, drowning out any attempt by Christakis to explain himself (Christakis never raises his voice, except to be heard by the crowd).

“You should step down! If that is what you think of being headmaster, you should step down! It is not about creating an intellectual space! It is not!”

Another student, a male, joins in, shouting “You’re supposed to be our advocate!”

The student continues the attack, saying that students will transfer out of Yale because of its failure to be a “safe space” for them. As she continues, one passing student yells out “Retweet!,” apparently to endorse her attacks.

“You should not sleep at night!,” she says to finish the verbal assault. “You’re disgusting!”

Som man kan se er konflikter nogle gange sort/hvide. Den unge dames hysteri udgør et studie i sig selv. Selvretfærdigheden, berettigelsen, selvoptagetheden, aggressionen, den manglende empati for andre mennesker, manglende selvrefleksion og den grundløse foragt for andre meninger. Og ingen sans for værdighed. Som et udtryk for venstrefløjen er der kun emotioner, et mentalt barn forkælet til den rene narcissisme. Men det får vente, for her er endnu et eksempel på venstrefløjs ideologiske emotioner fra Missouri State universitetet, hvor nogen demonstrerer imod noget strukturelt undertrykkende noget

After desperately trying to gin up media coverage of student protests at the University of Missouri, one of the school’s media professors is now furiously trying to “muscle” the press off campus to prevent them from covering student protests that rapidly spiraled out of control Monday.

Mizzou president Timothy Wolfe announced his resignation on Monday after members of the school’s 4-5 football team announced they would boycott team activities unless the school acceded to certain demands surrounding racial equality. Unsurprisingly, Wolfe’s resignation did little to quell the mob.

On Monday afternoon, activists who had demanded Wolfe’s resignation abruptly demanded that media stop covering their activities on the public campus of the taxpayer-funded university. At the center of those demands was Melissa Click, an assistant professor of mass media within Mizzou’s communications department.

In the video below, you can see Click ask for “muscle” to help her bully a Mizzou student into not covering the ongoing mob protests:

Det kræver en beundringsværdig mangel på ironis sans at holde en demonstration inden i et ’safe space’. En god ven spåede at professor Clicks bemærkning “I need some muscle over here!” kan blive en ikonisk kommentar; “Al safe/inclusive/cis/gyn/LGBT/postmodernisme-BS er hermed udstillet og demaskeret”. Det er sandt for dyden en stjerneparade i eksempler på venstrefløjens selvforståelse. Journalistens argument om de grundlovssikrede rettigheder, der beskytter ikke blot ham men også demonstranterne, hvorfor de ikke kan tvinge ham væk,, som han ikke kan tvinge dem, verfes af med “Forget a law. How about for humanity?”. Eller sætningen “Sir, I’m sorry, these are people too. You need to back off!”, som virkeligt kræver en indforstået præmis om moralsk overrettighed for at give mening. Og så er der unødvendige journalister, som der er unødvendige mennesker…

Breitbart ridser tendensen på amerikanske universiteter, der også mærkes i resten af den vestlige verden, op, for som venstrefløjens børn tydeligvis ikke kan rumme den virkelighed, som venstrefløjen har beredt dem, så kan venstrefløjen heller ikke rumme sine egne børn

Similar incidents have happened before, on other campuses. Oberlin College was recently the scene of astonishing protests at the visit of former philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers, who was deemed to be too “triggering” for some students. But it is deeply worrying to see this happen at Yale, where undergraduates typically go on to become business leaders, senators and even Presidents.

The footage was published by Greg Lukianoff, the President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), one of the organisations that monitors and seeks to address the disturbing rise of intolerance on U.S. campuses. Lukianoff recently co-authored an influential essay, The Coddling of the American Mind, which describes the disturbing rise of campus zealots like the ones in this video.

Students of history will notice an alarming similarity in the video above to the “struggle sessions” of Maoist China, a form of public shaming in which perceived enemies of the Party would be surrounded in a public place by Red Guards, Mao’s most zealous supporters. The Red Guards would hurl abuse at their target until they confessed to their crimes.

Uninformed critics might argue that the Red Guards were a weapon of the Communist state, and not a genuine grassroots movement, but they’d be wrong: the Red Guards started out as a student movement, on Chinese campuses. Afraid yet?

College staff finally are. Earlier this year, Vox published an essay from a liberal professor who confessed that the zealotry of his own students frightened him. Earlier this month, Salon published an article from a black feminist film studies lecturer, describing her “disastrous” attempt to accommodate her students’ strangely aggressive emotional fragility. It seems the left, and especially the academic left, has finally woken up to the Frankenstein’s monster that they’ve constructed.

Daniel Greenfield ser også parallelen til rødgardisterne, men trøster sig med at i de frie lande har flertallet stadig noget at skulle have sagt og unge mennesker er generelt ikke så rædselsfulde

These aren’t an entire generation. They’re trained radical left-wing activists who have been encouraged to emote, to act out and throw tantrums as activism. It’s not unique.

(…)

What is happening now is a perfect storm with several causes, one of the biggest of these is the Obama era in which major social transformation and the craziest campus stuff have backing from the White House.

There are assorted generalizations about millennials in the workplace. But your typical campus screamer won’t be working a real job. They’ll be in academia, diversity consulting or something even dumber and more useless. Millennials serve in the military and members of that generation have won the Medal of Honor.

Washington Posts Wendy Kaminer går nogle årtier tilbage

You can credit — or blame — progressives for this enthusiastic embrace of censorship. It reflects, in part, the influence of three popular movements dating back decades: the feminist anti-porn crusades, the pop-psychology recovery movement and the emergence of multiculturalism on college campuses.

In the 1980s, law professor Catharine MacKinnon and writer Andrea Dworkin showed the way, popularizing a view of free speech as a barrier to equality. These two impassioned feminists framed pornography — its production, distribution and consumption — as an assault on women. They devised a novel definition of pornography as a violation of women’s civil rights, and championed a model anti-porn ordinance that would authorize civil actions by any woman “aggrieved” by pornography. In 1984, the city of Indianapolis adopted the measure, defining pornography as a “discriminatory practice,” but it was quickly struck down in federal court as unconstitutional. “Indianapolis justifies the ordinance on the ground that pornography affects thoughts,” the court noted. “This is thought control.”

So MacKinnnon and Dworkin lost that battle, but their successors are winning the war. Their view of allegedly offensive or demeaning speech as a civil rights violation, and their conflation of words and actions, have helped shape campus speech and harassment codes and nurtured progressive hostility toward free speech.

The recovery movement, which flourished in the late ’80s and early ’90s, adopted a similarly dire view of unwelcome speech. Words wound, anti-porn feminists and recovering co-dependents agreed. Self-appointed recovery experts, such as the best-selling author John Bradshaw, promoted the belief that most of us are victims of abuse, in one form or another. They broadened the definition of abuse to include a range of common, normal childhood experiences, including being chastised or ignored by your parents on occasion. From this perspective, we are all fragile and easily damaged by presumptively hurtful speech, and censorship looks like a moral necessity.

These ideas were readily absorbed on college campuses embarking on a commendable drive for diversity. Multiculturalists sought to protect historically disadvantaged students from speech considered racist, sexist, homophobic or otherwise discriminatory. Like abuse, oppression was defined broadly. I remember the first time, in the early ’90s, that I heard a Harvard student describe herself as oppressed, as a woman of color. She hadn’t been systematically deprived of fundamental rights and liberties. After all, she’d been admitted to Harvard. But she had been offended and unsettled by certain attitudes and remarks. Did she have good reason to take offense? That was an irrelevant question. Popular therapeutic culture defined verbal “assaults” and other forms of discrimination by the subjective, emotional responses of self-proclaimed victims.

This reliance on subjectivity, in the interest of equality, is a recipe for arbitrary, discriminatory enforcement practices, with far-reaching effects on individual liberty. The tendency to take subjective allegations of victimization at face value — instrumental in contemporary censorship campaigns — also leads to the presumption of guilt and disregard for due process in the progressive approach to alleged sexual assaults on campus.

Universiteterne var måske en religiøs opfindelse, til at begribe Gud og forstå hans skaberværk. Måske fordi Gud er ubegribelig, kunne et studievære en søgen, mens uden Ham, kan vi kun prøve at begribe os selv og vores selvretfærdighed? Hvem ved, denne ateist er ikke mindre rådvild, når teisme ligner det bedste værn mod religiøs dogmatik.

Europa på kanten

Mens Helle Thorning Schmidt søger nyt arbejde som eksportør af muslimer, flygtningehøjkommisær hedder den egentlige titel, til Europa, de muslimer som hun under Folketingsvalget lovede at dæmme op for, går det efterhånden op for flere og flere gode mennesker at indvandringen er uholdbar også for de gode menneskers visioner. “[S]elv Bundeskansler, Angela Merkel, nu taler om en decideret flygtningekrise - et begreb, hun ellers indtil for ganske nyligt har undgået at bruge” kan man læse i Ekstra Bladet, der fortæller hvorledes tyske sikkerhedseksperter advarer om et kommende kaos i Tyskland

- Den store tilgang af mennesker fra andre verdensdele vil medføre ustabilitet i Tyskland, siger en kilde advarende til Welt am Sonntag.

Kilden, der på grund af frygt for repressalier er anonym, fortsætter:

- I forbindelse med den enorme tilvandring skabes der ekstremisme. Den centrumborgerlige midte radikaliseres fordi, de i modsætning til den politiske elite, ikke ønsker masseindvandring. Vi vil se, hvordan flere og flere vil vende forbundsstaten ryggen på den baggrund, siger han.

(…)

‘I stedet importeres Islamisk ekstremisme, arabisk antisemitisme, nationale og etniske konflikter, samt ikke mindst en helt anden rets- og samfundsmæssig forståelse’.

Sådan lyder det blandt andet i et internt skriv, der cirkulerer mellem centralt placerede figurer i de tyske sikkerhedsorganer. Skriveriet indeholder følgende klare advarsel:

‘De tyske sikkerhedsmyndigheder er ikke - og vil ikke være - i stand til at løse de problemer, der følger med de importerede sikkerhedsproblemer. Det gælder desuden reaktioner fra den tyske befolkning’.

Om det er for sent? Daniel Greenfield skriver i Frontpage Magazine om det absurde i at se indvandringen som en tiltrængt arbejdskraft. Muslimerne kommer ikke til at tage sig (kærligt) af os i vores alderdom. Istedet udskydes pensionsalderen for europæeren som muslimernes pres på de offentlige kasser øges

European leaders talk about two things these days; preserving European values by taking in Muslim migrants and integrating Muslim migrants into Europe by getting them to adopt European values.

It does not occur to them that their plan to save European values depends on killing European values.

The same European values that require Sweden, a country of less than 10 million, to take in 180,000 Muslim migrants in one year also expects the new “Swedes” to celebrate tolerance, feminism and gay marriage. Instead European values have filled the cities of Europe with Shariah patrols, unemployed angry men waving ISIS flags and the occasional public act of terror.

European countries that refuse to invest money in border security instead find themselves forced to invest money into counterterrorism forces. And those are bad for European values too.

But, as Central European countries are discovering, European values don’t have much to do with the preservation of viable functioning European states. Instead they are about the sort of static Socialism that Bernie Sanders admires from abroad. But even a Socialist welfare state requires people to work for a living. Maine’s generous welfare policies began collapsing once Somali Muslims swarmed in to take advantage of them.

(…)

The Muslim migrants are meant to be the retirement plan for an aging Europe. They’re supposed to keep its ramshackle collection of economic policies, its welfare states and social programs rolling along.

But they’re more like a final solution.

Mohammed is Fritz’s retirement plan. But Mohammed has a very different type of plan. Fritz is counting on Mohammed to work while he relaxes. Mohammed relaxes and expects Fritz to work.  Fritz is not related to him and therefore Mohammed sees no reason why he should work to support him.

European social democracy reduces society to a giant insurance plan in which money is pooled together.  But insurance is forbidden in Islam which considers it to be gambling. European social democracy expects him to bail it out, but to Mohammed, European values are a crime against Islam.

Mohammed’s Imam will tell him to work off the books because paying into the system is gambling. However taking money out of the system is just Jizya; the money non-Muslims are obligated to pay to Muslims. Under Islamic law, it’s better for Mohammed to sell drugs than to pay taxes.

That’s why drug dealing and petty crime are such popular occupations for Salafis in Europe. It’s preferable to steal from infidels than to participate in the great gamble of the European welfare state.

Mohammed isn’t staking his future on the shaky pensions of European socialism. He invests in what social scientists call social capital. He plans his retirement by having a dozen kids. If this lifestyle is subsidized by infidel social services, so much the better. And when social services collapse, those of his kids who aren’t in prison or in ISIS will be there to look after him in his golden years.

As retirement plans go, it’s older and better than the European model.

(…)

Europe is slowly killing itself in the name of European values. It’s trying to protect its economic setup by bankrupting it. European values have become a suicide pact. Its politicians deliver speeches explaining why European values require mass Muslim migration that make as little sense as a lunatic’s suicide note.

Islamic values are not compatible with European values. Not only free speech and religious freedom, but even the European welfare state is un-Islamic. Muslims have a high birth rate because their approach to the future is fundamentally different than the European one. Europeans have chosen to have few children and many government agencies to take care of them. Muslims choose to have many children and few government agencies. The European values so admired by American leftists have no future.

Europe is drinking rat poison to cure a cold. Instead of changing its values, it’s trying to maintain them by killing itself. The Mohammed retirement plan won’t save European Socialism. It will bury it.

Bret Stephens skrev et par dage tidligere i Wall Street Journal mere om de europæiske værdier, som den europæiske elite og de snakkende klasser ikke vil være ved

Europe is dying because it has become morally incompetent. It isn’t that Europe stands for nothing. It’s that it stands for shallow things, shallowly. Europeans believe in human rights, tolerance, openness, peace, progress, the environment, pleasure. These beliefs are all very nice, but they are also secondary.

What Europeans no longer believe in are the things from which their beliefs spring: Judaism and Christianity; liberalism and the Enlightenment; martial pride and capability; capitalism and wealth. Still less do they believe in fighting or sacrificing or paying or even arguing for these things. Having ignored and undermined their own foundations, they wonder why their house is coming apart.

What is Europe? It is Greece not Persia; Rome not Carthage; Christendom not the caliphate. These distinctions are fundamental. To say that Europe is a civilization apart is not to say it is better or worse. It is merely to say: This is us and that is you. Nor is it to say that Europe ought to be a closed civilization. It merely needs to be one that doesn’t dissolve on contact with the strangers it takes into its midst.

(…)

There are 75 million Turks, whose per capita income doesn’t match that of Panamanians. The country is led by an elected Islamist with an autocratic streak, prone to anti-Semitic outbursts, who openly supports Hamas, denies the Armenian genocide, jails journalists in record numbers, and orchestrates Soviet-style show trials against his political opponents. Turkey also has borders with Syria, Iraq and Iran. These would become Europe’s borders in the event of Turkish membership.

This is the country Ms. Merkel proposes to bring into the bosom of Europe. Her apologists will say she’s being disingenuous, but that only compounds the disgrace of her overture.

It also compounds the danger. Could Europe’s liberal political traditions, its religious and cultural heritage, long survive a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, in the order of tens of millions of people? No. Not given Europe’s frequently unhappy experience with much of its Muslim population. Not when you have immigrant groups that resist assimilation and host countries that make only tentative civic demands.

And not when a heedless immigration policy, conducted in fits of moral self-congratulation, leads to the inevitable reaction.

Den kristne europæiske arv rejste sig på baggrund af en folkevandring og overløb af barbarer. En mindre primitiv folkevandring end den nuværende islamiske, der ikke ejer aspirationer om at forbedre sig selv eller noget som helst. Ikke desto mindre, kristendommen stod i middelalderen mere end fødselshjælper til ideen om Europa med alle de ideer om det rationelle univers og den moderne videnskab,ideer  der i dag antages for universelle værdier. Tim O’Neill skriver i Quora om Middelalderen

By the Fifth Century the administrative division between the Latin-speaking Western Empire and the Greek-speaking Eastern Empire became permanent and then became a political divide.  The weaker, poorer and more vulnerable Western Empire did not even survive the century, with its final collapse coming in 476 AD after another century of civil wars, invasions and spiralling decline.  What followed was centuries of invasions, fragmentation and chaos, with few brief periods of stability and centralised authority.  The faltering intellectual tradition, which had already been in decline since the late Second Century, languished to a low ebb.

The institution which managed to keep this faltering tradition from dying out altogether during these centuries of barbarian invasion and disintegration was actually the one the Enlightenment myth (wrongly) blames for causing the decline in the first place.  The Christian church came to hold political power when the decline in learning in the west had been under way for over a century, and so could not have been its cause.  Initially Christianity was ambivalent toward Greek philosophy and learning, but prominent Christian thinkers who had been trained in philosophy could see it as something to be embraced.  God, they argued, was a rational intelligence and had created the universe along rational lines.  It made sense, therefore, that humans could and should use reason to understand his creation.  Clement of Alexandria argued that just as the Jews had been given a divine gift of special religious revelation, so had the Greeks been given a gift of rational analysis.  Both were to be embraced and used.

So when the Western Empire collapsed, the Church had long since come to terms with Greek philosophy and science and found ways to incorporate both and reconcile them with their religion.  And it was Christian scholars who saw that the decline of Greek literacy in the west meant much of the original works of Greek learning were being lost.  Cassiodorus and Boethius both tried to preserve key works by translating them into Latin.  Boethius was executed before he could complete an ambitious plan to translate all the works of Aristotle, but he did manage to translate most of the key works on logic - something which meant that logic and therefore reason took a central role in early Medieval education, even in the darkest centuries of the chaos.  The seeds of the Medieval revival of science lay in that stroke of luck.

The Medieval Enshrining of Reason

One writer has compared the long road back from the intellectual catastrophe of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire on learning in western Europe to people after a nuclear holocaust trying to revive modern science with nothing but a few volumes of the Encyclopaedia Britannica and a copy of Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything.  Scholars in the Eighth or Ninth Centuries had just enough fragments of information to know that they had barely anything at all but not enough to begin reconstructing what had been lost.  What is interesting is what they did with the bits they had - they revered them.  These ancient writers, mostly pagans, were held up as all-knowing authorities and what elements of their works did survive were studied with immense reverence and painstaking scrutiny.

(…)

By the Eleventh Century the waves of Avar, Magyar, Saracen and Viking invaders had begun to recede, Europe had recovered economically and stabilised politically and was actually on the brink of a period of outward expansion. At the same time there was an expansion of literacy and interest in learning and an increasingly acute awareness of the loss of ancient learning and what scholars of the time lamented as Latinorum penuria (”the poverty of the Latins”).  Exactly how intellectually poor the Latin west was is illustrated by an exchange of letters between two early Eleventh Century scholars, Ragimbold of Cologne and Radolf of Liege, about some mathematical problems that would not bother a high school student today.  Here were two clearly intelligent men who were seen as leading scholars of their day (the letters were copied and widely circulated) competing to solve some basic geometry problems but being forced to do so using scraps of geometry from old Roman surveying manuals and from a Sixth Century encyclopaedia that did little more than define a few terms.  It’s an illustration both of how much had been lost in the cataclysm and how eager people were to recover lost learning.

The idea that the cosmos was rational and could be analysed via reason was certainly resisted by some conservatives, but a new guard of scholars came increasingly to the fore, including William of Conches, Honorius of Autun, Bernard Silvester, Adelard of Bath, Thierry of Chartres and Clarenbold of Arras.  William of Conches wrote with scorn of those who were suspicious of this worship of reason and rational analysis:

Ignorant themselves of the forces of nature and wanting to have company in their ignorance, they do not want people to look into anything; they want us to believe like peasants and not ask the reason behind things …. But we say the reason behind everything should be sought out!
(William of Conches (c. 1090-1154 AD), Philosophia mundi)

Intellectuals like William were increasingly attracting communities of students and gathering together with these students to share ideas, laying the foundations of the schools that were to become universities.  The stage was set for a genuine revival and flowering of learning, all Europe still lacked were the lost books of the Greeks and Romans.

The New Learning and the Universities
By the early Eleventh Century European scholars were not just aware of how much western Europe had lost, but they were also aware that many of these works survived and could be regained.

Måske en slutning. Måske et håb om en genfødsel? Men jeg tror ikke det kommer så langt at Europa vil lade sig overløbe. EU bryder sammen, volden vil eksplodere her og der, flere stater vil stramme grebet om friheden og måske slå ned på egen befolkning for at hindre et nationalt selvforsvar. Det bliver slemt. Men vi skal nok klare det.

Koranen i Birmingham II

Akademia, Arabere, England, Kristendom, København, Muslimer, Uddannelse, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on September 2, 2015 at 5:25 am

Spencer fik ret i sin antagelse, Koranen i Birmingham, er ikke gode nyheder for islam. Midt på sommeren havde man i gamle arkiver i Birmingham i England fundet nogle gamle koran pergamenter, som man med en kulstof-14 metode kunne datere til Muhammeds egen tid. Men, viser det sig, endda lidt før Muhammeds tid, skriver Breitbart

Historian Tom Holland told the Sunday Times that evidence was now mounting that traditional accounts of Islam’s origins are wrong.

“It destabilises, to put it mildly, the idea that we can know anything with certainty about how the Koran emerged — and that in turn has implications for the historicity of Muhammad and the Companions [his followers],” he said.

Other very old Korans also seem to confirm that written texts were circulating before Mohammed’s death.

Needless to say, Muslim academics have disputed the claims. Mustafa Shah of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) said: “If anything, the manuscript has consolidated traditional accounts of the Koran’s origins.”

Meanwhile, Shady Hekmat Nasser from the University of Cambridge said: “We already know from our sources that the Koran was a closed text very early on in Islam, and these discoveries only attest to the accuracy of these sources.”

Dr Keith Small, a Koranic manuscript consultant at Oxford’s Bodleian Library, admits the carbon dating applies to the parchment, not the ink, while the calligraphy is characteristic of a later style.

Nevertheless, he believes the dates are probably correct and could raise serious questions for Islam.

“If the [carbon] dates apply to the parchment and the ink, and the dates across the entire range apply, then the Koran — or at least portions of it — pre-dates Muhammad, and moves back the years that an Arabic literary culture is in place well into the 500s.

“This gives more ground to what have been peripheral views of the Koran’s genesis, like that Muhammad and his early followers used a text that was already in existence and shaped it to fit their own political and theological agenda, rather than Muhammad receiving a revelation from heaven.

“This would radically alter the edifice of Islamic tradition and the history of the rise of Islam in late Near Eastern antiquity would have to be completely revised, somehow accounting for another book of scripture coming into existence 50 to 100 years before, and then also explaining how this was co-opted into what became the entity of Islam by around AD700.”

Man kan godt unde Robert Spencer lidt hoveren

The implication is that the text existed before it became part of the Qur’an — which would completely demolish the Islamic claim that the Qur’an was delivered in perfect form through Gabriel from Allah to Muhammad, and wasn’t based on any source texts at all.

On July 22, I wrote this about the same Qur’an manuscript: “So if this is a fragment of the Qur’an as it now stands…and yet it could date from as far back as 568, two years before Muhammad is supposed to have been born, it might not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. It could instead be a portion of some source that later became part of the Qur’an…”

On July 27, I wrote that “this could be a portion of a pre-Islamic source for the Qur’an.”

Glad to see the academics catching up.

Det akademiske miljø, ser nu ikke ud til at indhente det forsømte, da Det Teologiske Fakultet ved Københavns Universitet fra januar næste år går den modsatte vej og udbyder en såkaldt fleksibel master i islamisk teologi, som kan lede til en egentlig ‘dansk’ imam-uddannelse skriver Kristeligt Dagblad. Første mand som underviser er Naveed Baig, om hvem Katrine Winkel Holm skrev

Baig har en fortid i Minjah-ul-Quran og gjorde sig i 90′erne bemærket ved offentligt at referere en opfordring til drab på frafaldne. “Hvis han ikke beder om tilgivelse eller lærer af sine fejl, har man ret til (pligt til) at dræbe ham”. Det var en gæste-imam, der udtalte denne shariabaserede opfattelse, som Baig omhyggeligt videregav - uden at distancere sig fra udsagnet. Da episoden i 2006 kom offentligt frem, nægtede Baig, der i mellemtiden har studeret ved et islamistisk studiecenter i Leicester, at tage afstand fra den.

To kommentarer fra gode venner: “At pergamentet er ældre end Mo er ikke det samme som at skriften på det også er. Der kan udmærket være tale om en palimpsest - koranblade skrevet på ældre pergament, hvor den oprindelige skrift er skrabet af.” - “Det væsentlige her er at islam fremstår som skrøbelig, og at dens egne lærde tvinges til ad-hoc-argumenter, fordi religionens integritet er så afhængig af ahistorisk mytologi.”

Tom Holland, ham med Islam - The Untold Story, forklarede sidste år, hvorfor han ikke anser den islamiske historie for valid og hvorfor det muslimske kleresi har gjort alt for at beskytte islam mod kritik (modsat kristendommen, der altid har været forundret over de fire Evangelier)

8. Planned Parenthood video

Etik, Forbrydelse og straf, Videnskab — Drokles on August 31, 2015 at 7:19 am

Den ottende video om den amerikanske familierådgivningsorganisation Planned Parenthoods lemfældige omgang med menneskefostre, eller ‘intact cases’ som de også kaldes.

The eighth video in the ongoing controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal body parts shows the CEO of StemExpress, LLC, a major buyer of fetal tissue from Planned Parenthood, admitting the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough, and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.o…

StemExpress is a for-profit biotech supply company that has been partnered with Planned Parenthood clinics across the country to purchase human fetal parts since its founding in 2010. StemExpress’ Medical Director, Dr. Ronald Berman, is an abortion doctor for Planned Parenthood Mar Monte.

In the video, actors posing as another human biologics company meet with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer, plus Vice President of Corporate Development and Legal Affairs Kevin Cooksy, and Procurement Manager Megan Barr. StemExpress and the actors are discussing a potential partnership to supply extra fetal body parts to each other.

“So many physicians are like, ‘Oh I can totally procure tissue,’ and they can’t,” expresses Dyer, seeming to indicate that abortion doctors must do the procedure in a special way to obtain useable fetal parts. Federal law requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

“What about intact specimens?” asks one of the actors. “Oh yeah, I mean if you have intact cases, which we’ve done a lot, we sometimes ship those back to our lab in its entirety,” replies Dyer. “Case” is the clinical term for an abortion procedure. An “intact case” refers to an intact abortion with a whole fetus. “The entire case?” asks an actor. “Yeah, yeah,” says Dyer. “The procurement for us, I mean it can go really sideways, depending on the facility, and then our samples are destroyed,” she explains past botched fetal dissections, “so we started bringing them back even to manage it from a procurement expert standpoint.”

Feticidal chemicals like digoxin cannot be used to kill the fetus in a tissue procurement case, so a fetus delivered intact for organ harvesting is likely to be a born-alive infant.

“What would make your lab happy?” asks one of the actors. “Another 50 livers a week,” says Dyer. “We’re working with almost like triple digit number clinics,” Dyer explains, “and we still need more.” She later notes, “Planned Parenthood has volume, because they are a volume institution.”

Dyer also agrees that payments to abortion clinics for fetal body parts should be financially beneficial to them. “Do you feel like there are clinics out there that have been burned, that feel like they’re doing all this work for research and it hasn’t been profitable for them?” she asks. “I haven’t seen that.” StemExpress publishes a flyer for Planned Parenthood clinics that promises “Financial Profits” and “fiscal rewards” for clinics that supply aborted fetal tissue. It is endorsed by Planned Parenthood Mar Monte Chief Medical Officer Dr. Dorothy Furgerson: http://www.centerformedicalprogress.o…

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). The Sacramento Business Journal reported in June that StemExpress has an annual revenue of $4.5 million.

The video is the eighth released by The Center for Medical Progress in its investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts. “StemExpress is the ‘weakest link’ that unravels Planned Parenthood’s baby parts chain–they readily admit the profit-motive that Planned Parenthood and their proxies have in supplying aborted baby parts,” notes David Daleiden, Project Lead for CMP. “Congress and law enforcement should immediately seize all fetal tissue files from StemExpress and all communications and contracts with Planned Parenthood. The evidence that Planned Parenthood profits from the sale of aborted baby parts is now overwhelming, and not one more dime of taxpayer money should go to their corrupt and fraudulent criminal enterprise.”

Femte Planned Parenthood video: Dissecting intact fetal cadavers

Etik, Forbrydelse og straf, Videnskab — Drokles on August 5, 2015 at 12:48 am

Den amerikanske familieplanlægningsinstitution Planned Parenthood har en skødesløs omgang med de menneskefostre, der aborterer. Det dokumenterer Center For Medical Progress’ videoer optaget med skjult kamera. Her er den femte i rækken, der, som man nok kan forestille sig fra den opadgående spændingskurve, er den mest chokerende. Center For Medical Progress skriver på deres Youtube kanal

HOUSTON, Aug. 4–The fifth undercover video in the controversy over Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby parts shows the Director of Research for Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Melissa Farrell, advertising the Texas Planned Parenthood branch’s track record of fetal tissue sales, including its ability to deliver fully intact fetuses.

In the video, actors posing as representatives from a human biologics company meet with Farrell at the abortion-clinic headquarters of Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast in Houston to discuss a potential partnership to harvest fetal organs.

“Where we probably have an edge over other organizations, our organization has been doing research for many many years,” explains Farrell. When researchers need a specific part from the aborted fetus, Farrell says, “We bake that into our contract, and our protocol, that we follow this, so we deviate from our standard in order to do that.”

Asked specifically if this means Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast can change abortion procedures to supply intact fetal specimens, Farrell affirms, “Some of our doctors in the past have projects and they’re collecting the specimens, so they do it in a way that they get the best specimens, so I know it can happen.”

The investigators ask Farrell how she will frame a contract in which they pay a higher price for higher quality fetal body parts, and she replies, “We can work it out in the context of–obviously, the procedure itself is more complicated,” suggesting that “without having you cover the procedural cost” and paying for the abortion, the higher specimen price could be framed as “additional time, cost, administrative burden.”

Farrell finally summarizes her affiliate’s approach to fetal tissue payments: “If we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, we can make it part of the budget that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this. It’s all just a matter of line items.

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison or a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2). Federal law also requires that no alteration in the timing or method of abortion be done for the purposes of fetal tissue collection (42 U.S.C. 289g-1).

Farrell also indicates to the investigators over lunch that the specimen sales from her department contribute significantly to Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast’s overall finances: “I think everyone realizes, especially because my department contributes so much to the bottom line of our organization here, you know we’re one of the largest affiliates, our Research Department is the largest in the United States. Larger than any the other affiliates’ combined.” In a Texas Senate hearing on July 29, former Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast clinic director Abby Johnson estimated that the affiliate had previously made up to $120,000 per month off of aborted fetal tissue.

The video is the fifth by The Center for Medical Progress documenting Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “This is now the fifth member of Planned Parenthood leadership discussing payments for aborted baby parts without any connection to actual costs of so-called tissue ‘donation.’ Planned Parenthood’s system-wide conspiracy to evade the law and make money off of aborted fetal tissue is now undeniable.” Daleiden continues, “Anyone who watches these videos knows that Planned Parenthood is engaged in barbaric practices and human rights abuses that must end. There is no reason for an organization that uses illegal abortion methods to sell baby parts and commit such atrocities against humanity to still receive over $500 million each year from taxpayers.”

Klima: Hvis man har en hypotese…

Diverse, FN, Historie, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on August 4, 2015 at 9:56 pm

Weekendavisens Frede Vestergaard har et glimrende interview med professor emeritus ved Fysisk Institut på Aarhus Universitet Jens Ulrik Andersen om klimaspøgelset

»I de sidste 15-16 år har der ikke været nogen signifikant global opvarmning, uanset hvilken af de forskellige temperaturserier du kigger på, og hvad enten de er jordbaserede eller satellit-baserede. De viser med lidt variation en stort set uændret global middeltemperatur, og det er i stærk modstrid med de modelbaserede forudsigelser, som IPCC er kommet med. Så meget mere som CO2-koncentrationen i atmosfæren er steget hurtigere end forventet i 1990erne.

En gang imellem gøres der forsøg på at afvise, at der er en pause. Senest for et par uger i en artikel fra folk tilknyttet NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), der havde justeret på tidligere års målinger, så pausen forsvandt,« siger Jens Ulrik Andersen og påpeger, at nogle af de ældre klimaeksperter, såsom tysk klimaforsknings grand old man, professor Hans von Storch fra Hamburg, mener, at problemet med global opvarmning overdrives for at skabe opmærksomhed.

»Hans von Storch pegede for et par år siden på, at den globale middeltemperatur ifølge modellerne skulle være steget med 0,25 grader celsius i de foregående ti år, mens den kun var steget 0,06 grader over de sidste 15 år. Der er en kras modsætning mellem modeller og realiteter. Von Storch er en mainstream klimaforsker, og han mener fortsat, at global opvarmning er et problem, men også at udviklingen viser, at det ikke er i sidste øjeblik at handle, hvis ikke verden skal gå under. Vi har god tid til at vente, og derfor skal vi ikke tage alt for voldsomme skridt her og nu.«

(…)

Hvis man har en hypotese, der kan forklare alt, uanset om det går den ene eller anden vej, er den hypotese ikke meget værd. Så kan man aldrig modbevise den.

Det er kernen i videnskab. Hvad er så klimapanelets hypotese? Reasons Ronald Bailey har set på klimapanelets rapport fra 1990, der definerer hvor meget atmosfæres temperatur skal stige førend vi kan sige at menneskets påvirkning kan skelnes fra naturens støj (mine fremhævninger)

8.4 When Will The Greenhouse Effect be Detected?

The fact that we have not detected the enhanced greenhouse effect leads to the question when is this likely to occur? As noted earlier, this is not a simple yes/no issue. Rather it involves the gradual accumulation of evidence in support of model predictions, which in parallel with improvements in the models themselves, will increase our confidence in them and progressively narrow the uncertainties regarding such key parameters as the climate sensitivity. Uncertainties will always remain. Predicting when a certain confidence level might be reached is as difficult as predicting future climate change – more so, in fact, since it requires at least estimates of both future signal and future noise level.

Nevertheless, we can provide some information on the time-scale for detection by using the unprecedented change concept mentioned briefly in Section 8.14. This should provide an upper bound to the time of detection since more sophisticated methods should produce earlier results. We take a conservative view as a starting point namely that the magnitude of natural variability is such that all of the warming of the past century could be attributed to this cause. (Note that this is not the same as denying the existence of an enhanced greenhouse effect. With such a noise level the past warming could be explained as a 1°C greenhouse effect offset by 0.5°C natural variability.) We then assume, again somewhat arbitrarily that a further 0.5°C warming (i.e., a total warming of 1°C since the late nineteenth century) is required before we could say with high confidence, that the only possible explanation would be that the enhanced greenhouse effect was as strong as predicted by climate models. Given the range of uncertainty in future forcing predictions and future model-predicted warming when would this elevated temperature level be reached?

Detection WarmingIPCC

The answer is given in Figure 8.5. [Basically, the upper curve is assumes a fast warming rate and the lower one a slow warming rate. If fast, warming will be detected by 2002; if slow no detection until 2047.]

Figure 8.5 Text: If a further 0.5°C warming were chosen at the threshold for detection of the enhanced greenhouse effect then this would be reached sometime between 2002 and 2047.

On the basis of this simple analysis alone we might conclude that detection with high confidence is unlikely to occur before the year 2000. If stringent controls are introduced to reduce future greenhouse gas emissions and if the climate sensitivity is at the low end of the range of model predictions then it may be well into the twenty-first century before we can say with high confidence that we have detected the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Professor Phil Jones definerede 3 varmeperioder i moderne tid (hvor forskerne sætter lid til termometermålinger) til BBC

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-08-04-kl-214259

Jones forklarer selv på klimapanelets vegne at kun opvarmningen efter 1950′erne kan være påvirket af menneskets udledning af CO2. Det vil sige at naturlig støj, som Bailey skriver, kan sættes til 0,163 grader/årti. Inden 1990′erne var ovre stoppede temperaturen med at stige. Vi er på vej mod to årtier uden temperaturstigninger.

‘De’ er på sporet af os

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, Greenpeace, Historie, IPCC, Information, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on July 30, 2015 at 5:36 pm

Daily Mail skriver at et hold psykologer under ledelse af Stephan Lewndowsky mener at kunne godtgøre at klimaskeptikere ofte er konspirationsteoretikere.

They found around a fifth of the comments about the research ‘can be considered conspiracist’.

It builds on a previous survey that the researchers conducted, which found up to 40 per cent of those who are skeptical about global warming use imagery that invoked conspiracy theories.

This includes the use of words like ’scam’ and repeated references to faked data and collusion between scientists and governments to deliberately conceal evidence.

Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, an experimental psychologist at the University of Bristol who led the work, said: ‘These results add to a growing body of research on the nature of internet discourse and the role of the blogosphere in climate denial.

‘It also confirms that conspiratorial elements are readily identifiable in blogosphere discourse’

The paper, which is published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology, provides a damning view of skeptical bloggers and those who comment on their websites.

Og det kommer fra de, der dyrker allehånde teser om , Big Oil, Big Kooch, republikanere, kapitalister og gamle, hvide, protestantiske mænd. Som titlen på Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt praler med, så er hele debatten om klimaet skabt og holdes kunstigt i live af skumle interesser. Læs blot Al Gores et als anbefalinger

- Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway have demonstrated what many of us have long suspected: that the ‘debate’ over the climate crisis–and many other environmental issues–was manufactured by the same people who brought you ’safe’ cigarettes. Anyone concerned about the state of democracy in America should read this book. (Former Vice President Al Gore, author of An Inconvenient Truth)

- The real shocker of this book is that it takes us, in just 274 brisk pages, through seven scientific issues that called for decisive government regulation and didn’t get it, sometimes for decades, because a few scientists sprinkled doubt-dust in the offices of regulators, politicians and journalists … Oreskes and Conway do a great public service. (Huffington Post)

Merchants of Doubt, by the science historian Naomi Oreskes and the writer Erik Conway, investigates a sort of reverse conspiracy theory: ecoterrorists and socialists are not the ones foisting dubious science upon us; rather it is deniers who are running their own well-funded and organized long-term hoax. Several previous works have ably illuminated similar themes, but this one hits bone…[Merchants of Doubt] provide[s] both the historical perspective and the current political insights needed to get a grip on what is happening now. (OnEarth)

Merchants of Doubt might be one of the most important books of the year. Exhaustively researched and documented, it explains how over the past several decades mercenary scientists have partnered with tobacco companies and chemical corporations to help them convince the public that their products are safe - even when solid science proves otherwise…Merchants of Doubt is a hefty read, well-researched and comprehensive…I hope it sells, because what it has to say needs to be heard. (Christian Science Monitor)

- Ever wonder how the terms liberty and freedom got all tangled up in fake science, how industry friendly think-tanks got their start, or what motivates scientists to sell out beyond the obvious? (Austin Science Policy Examiner)

Merchants of Doubt udkom også som film. Jeg kunne benytte lejligheden til at tale om Climategate, den store email-lækage fra East Anglias klimaenhed, hvor man sorte på hvidt kunne læse hvorledes nogle af FNs klimapanels mest centrale forskere aftalte manipulation af data og metoder, obstruerede offentlighedens tilgang til date, truede kollegaer og påvirkede fagbladsredaktører, manipulerede fagfælle processen, skændtes og udtrykte stor tvivl. Men ikke mindst inddelte verden i de der var for og imod ‘tha cause”, ’sagen’. Men når det nu handler om, hvad der er man synes at se i skyggerne, der ikke er der vil jeg hellere slå ned på en skandale ud i klimadebatten, der hurtigt blev døbt Fakegate.

Den fremtrædende klimaforsker og videnskabsetiker Peter Glieck, der havde vundet international berømmelse på frasen “debatten er ovre” kunne nemlig i 2012 afsløre den klimaskeptiske tænketank Heratland Institute’s skumle strategi til nedbrydelse af skolebørns tro på videnskab. Sponseret af oliepenge og Big Koch (som James Delingpole med infantil fornøjelse elsker at kalde dem) var det Heartlands velsmurte kampagnemaskine, der var skyld i at tiltroen til FN’s klimapanels fortælling dalede kraftigt i offentligheden.

Glieck havde fra en anonym kilde, som påstod at være tilknyttet Heartland Institute, modtaget hemmelige papirer fra Heartland om bl.a. deres finansiering. Med i dokumenterne var det saftigste bevis på at klimaskeptiscisme blev drevet frem af onde hensigter, nemlig det hurtigt berømte strategimemo. Og det var i strategimemo’et at alle sandhederne om, hvorledes Heartland lavede disinformationskampagner, hyrede forskere,  der tidligere havde benægtet sammenhængen mellem rygning og cancer og udarbejde taktikker til at skræmme amerikanske lærere fra at undervise i videnskab. Klimaredaktionerne på alverdens etablerede medier sprøjtede over med ekstatisk forargelse.

Men festen blev kort. Hurtigt gik det op for journalister, der besad den gamle vane at tjekke kilder, at Heartland Institute havde en god pointe i deres påstand om at strategimemo’et var et falskneri. Strategimemo’et var skrevet i et andet format end resten af dokumenterne og med en anden sproglig stil med en særegen brug af parenteser og binde-streger(!), der til forveksling lignede Glieck’s eget sprog. Og ifølge Atlantics Megan Mcardle lignede dets indhold noget der var forfattet i en tegneserie skurkegrotte - af en praktikant. Strategimemo’et svarede ifølge Mcardle på ingen måde til skeptikernes selvforståelse som en David i kamp for sandhed mod Goliat.

Mens Strategimemo’et var et falskneri var resten af dokumenterne, om bestyrelsesmedlemmer og samarbejdspartnere og deres adresser osv, samt Heartland budgetter ægte. Men de ægte dokumenter afslørede intet fordækt. Faktisk kunne man se at Heartland var en meget lille tænketank med et beskedent budget, hvoraf klimaet kun var en af fire områder, som Heartland havde interesse i. Deres store betydning for klimadebatten kunne alene tilskrives deres flid og dygtighed samt måske det faktum at det er billigere at tale sandt fremfor at betle skræmmescenarier og som en anden alkoholiker at bruge stadigt flere ressourcer på at holde styr på alle sine mange små løgne igennem daglidagen.

Peter Glieck måtte hurtigt indrømme at han var manden der selv havde fremskaffet de ægte dokumenter ved at foregive at være et medlem af Heartlands bestyrelse. Dette havde han endda gjort kun få dage efter at han havde takket nej til en invitation, som debattør på en af Heartlands klimakonferencer, hvor han ville have mulighed for at præsentere sin sag og gå i kødet på sine skeptiske modstandere. Men Glieck fastholdt en tid at strategimemo’et var blevet ham tilsendt af en anonym person i dagene mellem han skaffede sig Heartlands fortrolige dokumenter og til han offentliggjorde det hele.

Sådan kan det gå. Men vi skal tale om sølvpapirshatte for selv om Glieck gik over stregen og forfalskede den virkelighed han gerne ville se var han ene om sin udåd. Men reaktionerne fra fremtrædende medier og forskere afslørede til gengæld at hans konspiratoriske univers var fast forankret bredt i den klimaalarmistiske højadel. New York Times havde f.eks. under overskriften “Leak Offers Glimpse of Campaign Against Climate Science” følgende vurdering af strategimemoets ægthed EFTER at Heartland selv havde påpeget at det var et tydeligt fremmedelement

Heartland did declare one two-page document to be a forgery, although its tone and content closely matched that of other documents that the group did not dispute.

Som jeg refererede ovenfor så skilte det falske dokument sig på alle måder ud fra det ulovligt rekvirerede materiale og matchede ikke i tone og indhold de andre dokumenter. Et mildt ord for New York Times stykke research er “confirmation bias”, det at man søger bekræftelse for sin tro. Og det New York Times her tror bekræftet er altså en paranoid forestilling om oliefinansierede konspirationer mod videnskaben til menneskehedens store fortrydelse. Men det har pinligt intet med sandheden at gøre. Den mastodont, som de ser true deres fortælling er intet andet end en undseelig tænketank kun bevæbnet med saglig interesse og gode argumenter - Kan en god sag være bange for det?

BBC’s miljøskribent Richard Black havde kun sympati for Gliecks handlinger og resonnerede således

As the old saying goes, “news is something that someone somewhere doesn’t want you to know” - and here was information about a significant player in climate politics that it certainly didn’t want you to have.

In saying one of the documents was a fake, the institute also signified that the rest were genuine.

Ja, det er rigtigt at Heartland på den måde inddirekte bekræftede de andre dokumenters ægthed (og senere blev de direkte bekræftet da Heartland ganske fornuftigt havde sikret sig at der ikke var manipuleret med dem). Men ved at forfalske et dokument udtrykker man også at de ægte dokumenter ikke indeholder noget belastende. Og dette er jo netop den åbenlyse pointe som BBCs Black overser! Man havde selv ved bedrag ikke kunnet afsløre noget som helst sinistert. Forfalskningen udtrykker netop, hvor stærkt argumenterne imod FN’ Klimapanels forløjede konsensusteori er - og derfor også, hvor svagt klimabevægelsen ikke blot står, men også føler sig. Derfor måtte en bizar ondskab fabrikeres og tilsættes for at forklare, hvorledes det kan gå til at de forkerte vinder en debat om rationaler.

Også Time leverede et forvrænget billede af virkeligheden da de indledte deres referat af sagen således

For advocates of climate action, the Heartland documents offered a rare glimpse into the world of the conservative power players who work to cast doubt on climate science and delay action on global warming — the same people authors Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway called the “Merchants of Doubt” in their 2010 book by the same name.

Saglig debat forveksles med økonomisk overlegenhed - et budget, som end ikke kunne betale huslejen for Geenpeace’s frivillige medarbejdere ses som en “power player”. Dog skal det retfærdigvis med, kunne Time se at løgne ikke er vejen frem for noget konstruktivt. Det havde Guardians fremtrædende klimakommentator George Monbiot sværere ved og sprang lige ud i det og erklærede

I see Peter Gleick, the man who obtained and leaked the devastating documents from the Heartland Institute, as a democratic hero. I do not think he should have apologised, nor do I believe that his job should be threatened. He has done something of benefit to society.

Det er, må man nok sige, den slags udtalelser, som slider på troværdigheden når man sammenholder at Glieck gennem amoralsk adfærd har afsløret at Heartland har rent mel i deres meget lille pose. Eller, hvad med dette filosofiske spørgsmål fra økoetikeren James Barvey i samme Guardian

Are his actions wrong just because he lied?

(…)

You can see where I’m headed. Gleick’s intentions matter when we try to work out whether he was wrong to lie. It’s worth noticing that he wasn’t lying for personal gain. What resonates for me, though, are the consequences of his action. If Gleick frustrates the efforts of Heartland, isn’t his lie justified by the good that it does?

Når man stiller sig selv et så ledende spørgsmål er det nemt at svare på især hvis man er fascist

What Heartland is doing is harmful, because it gets in the way of public consensus and action.

Så er der vel ikke mere man sige. Også Information havde en artikel om sagen, som de lystigt kaldte “Klimaskeptikere smager egen medicin”, der i bedste fald kan betragtes som et afskrift af Desmogblogs første blogpost om sagen. Såøh, sølvpapirhatte er mere udbredt blandt alarmister, der jo i udgangspunkt tror mennesket står bag vejrliget. Derfor er det heller ikke så overraskende når man læser i Daily Mail, at en professor Peter Wadhams ved Cambridge tror at ‘dem’ går og slår hans forskerkollegaer ihjel, blandt ved hjælp af lynnedslag - ja, vi kontrollerer jo vejret

Professor Peter Wadhams insists Seymour Laxon, Katharine Giles and Tim Boyd could have been murdered by someone possibly working for the oil industry or within government forces.

The trio had been studying the polar ice caps - with a focus on sea ice - when they died within a few months of each other in 2013.

Professor Laxon, 49, a director of the Centre for Polar Observation at University College London, was at a New Year’s Eve party in Essex when he fell down a flight of stairs and died.

Meanwhile oceanographer Dr Boyd, 54, was out walking his dogs near his home in Port Appin, Argyll, western Scotland, in January 2013 when he was struck by lightning and killed instantly.

Just months later in April, Dr Giles, 35, was cycling to work at UCL where she lectured when she was hit by a tipper truck in Victoria, central London, and died.

(sammenfatningen om Fakegate er sammenklistret af nogle tidligere posteringer om sagen)

Abort

Diverse, Forbrydelse og straf, USA, Videnskab, venstrefløjen — Drokles on July 26, 2015 at 12:18 pm

Et ufødt.. undskyld, et menneske-foster har indtil 12. uge ingen værdi i sig selv og man kan få det fjernet som en nedgroet tånegl. Men sælges det i løsdele bliver det en helt anden sag. Fra Youtube

New undercover footage shows Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s Senior Director of Medical Services, Dr. Deborah Nucatola, describing how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted fetuses, and admitting she uses partial-birth abortions to supply intact body parts.

In the video, Nucatola is at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. As head of PPFA’s Medical Services department, Nucatola has overseen medical practice at all Planned Parenthood locations since 2009. She also trains new Planned Parenthood abortion doctors and performs abortions herself at Planned Parenthood Los Angeles up to 24 weeks.

The buyers ask Nucatola, “How much of a difference can that actually make, if you know kind of what’s expected, or what we need?”

“It makes a huge difference,” Nucatola replies. “I’d say a lot of people want liver. And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance, so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps. The kind of rate-limiting step of the procedure is calvarium. Calvarium—the head—is basically the biggest part.”

Nucatola explains, “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

“And with the calvarium, in general, some people will actually try to change the presentation so that it’s not vertex,” she continues. “So if you do it starting from the breech presentation, there’s dilation that happens as the case goes on, and often, the last step, you can evacuate an intact calvarium at the end.”

Using ultrasound guidance to manipulate the fetus from vertex to breech orientation before intact extraction is the hallmark of the illegal partial-birth abortion procedure (18 U.S.C. 1531).

Nucatola also reveals that Planned Parenthood’s national office is concerned about their liability for the sale of fetal parts: “At the national office, we have a Litigation and Law Department which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now,” she says. “But I will tell you that behind closed doors these conversations are happening with the affiliates.”

The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue is a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000 (42 U.S.C. 289g-2).

A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”

The video is the first by The Center for Medical Progress in its “Human Capital” series, a nearly 3-year-long investigative journalism study of Planned Parenthood’s illegal trafficking of aborted fetal parts. Project Lead David Daleiden notes: “Planned Parenthood’s criminal conspiracy to make money off of aborted baby parts reaches to the very highest levels of their organization. Elected officials must listen to the public outcry for Planned Parenthood to be held accountable to the law and for our tax dollars to stop underwriting this barbaric abortion business.”

Planned Parenthood Dr. Anne Davis fra Physicians for Reproductive Health forsvarede ifølge katolske Church Militant nonchalant salget af forster-dele med at det sponserede videnskaben og videnskaben var godt ipso ergo ogger. Men støtten til trods udtrykte Planned Parenthood alligevel ængstelse for nye og mere explicitte afsløringer, ifølge Life News

Planned Parenthood thinks CPM has video of at least two of its conferences as well as PP staff dissecting babies for organs, expressing a preference for black babies, sniffing – if not taking – the bait on large kickbacks for baby parts, admitting (which has already happened twice) to illegally manipulating abortions to retrieve intact organs and body parts, and much, much, much more about which it has no idea.

Det er absurditeter som disse, der får National Reviews David French til at tro at venstrefløjen er ved at overspille sine kort

The Social Justice Warriors forgot that most Americans just don’t like mean people. And in one two-week span of American life, millions of SJWs helpfully and unmistakably labeled themselves with their rainbow profile pictures, then proceeded to act like hectoring, condescending, arrogant scolds — loudly and publicly, day after day. They were mean. They mocked Christians, celebrated the plight of a Christian baker’s family as it faced financial ruin for refusing to facilitate a gay wedding, and kept pointing at the Supreme Court and the White House as if they represented some sort of cosmic scoreboard — as if the only response for conservatives was to take their ball, slink away, and go home.

I’m reminded of the way that the first great wave of political correctness was brushed back. A generation ago, colleges were passing speech codes and proudly calling them speech codes. This was the time when the term “politically correct” was considered a compliment — when the hostility to conservative speech was so profound that conservatives were shouted down in class, sometimes even by the professors themselves. For a while, the angry Left was ascendant. Many students believed — at least for a time — that extreme measures were necessary for the sake of the marginalized and historically oppressed. But then, people just kept being mean. Over time, moderates — including more moderate liberals — rejected the extremes, and by the late 1990s colleges became almost unrecognizably civil. Even today, with a new wave of repression surging across campuses, they still haven’t reached the depths of the Bad Old Days.

A generation ago, the social-justice Left tried its best to silence the pro-life movement — to treat the very utterance of pro-life sentiment as an affront against women. They failed, utterly. Pro-life speech is still of course constitutionally protected, and the pro-life movement is arguably stronger than it’s ever been. Indeed, it’s just received an incalculable boost through videos that show Planned Parenthood being Planned Parenthood. Unable to learn, the social-justice Left is going back to the old, failed playbook of the 1990s — trying its best to silence cultural conservatives on marriage – and in so doing they are once again showing their totalitarian colors. Once again, they’re being mean. Americans don’t like mean.

I 6. uge færdigudvikler et ufødt.. undskyld, menneskefos…, undskyld embryoet sit eget, eller nogen andres om man vil, lille funktionsdygtige hjerte.

Koranen i Birmingham

Akademia, BBC, England, Historie, Muslimer, Pressen, Videnskab, islam, muhammed — Drokles on July 23, 2015 at 3:31 am

Der er grund til at antage er islam er en arabisk efterrationalisering. Muhammeds navn forekommer kun 4 gange i koranen. Første gang i 3. kapitel, hvor det på engelsk hedder “Muhammed is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (3:144). Men inden armene ryger i vejret hedder det senere “the Messiah, the son of Mary, is nothing but a messenger; messengers have passed away before him” (5:75). Dette lægger mening til at man har fundet en mønt i Palæstina fra 640?erne viser en figur, der holder et kors, men har navnet Muhammed.

Den tidligste kilde til Muhammeds liv stammer fra Ibn Ishaq og er skrevet i 750, mere end 120 år efter Muhammeds død. Men Ishaq arbejde eksisterer ikke og vi har kun Ibn Hishams redaktion som er kommet til 60-70 år senere. Historierne om Muhammeds liv og levned (hadith) er blevet samlet op af kæder af vidner der har fortalt hinanden historierne (isnader). Hadith er således samlinger på baggrund af isnader der anses for troværdige. Problemet er at ingen holder vand under moderne metoder.

Ifølge islamisk lære er det kalif Uthman, der i 653 samler koranen i et standardværk og får alle andre versioner destrueret. Men mønter fra Kalif Muawiya (661-680) viser Muawiya med et kors samt en halvmåne. Og Muawoyas efterfølger Kalif Yazid (680-683) er også præget på mønter med et kors. På Klippemoskeen i Jerusalem slås det fast at Muhammed har er tjener for Gud og hans profet og at Messias, Jesus søn af Maria, er Guds eneste profet.

Men nu har forskere fundet nogle meget gamle korantekster i den engelske by Birmingham, som de mener kan dateres tilbage til muslimernes grundlægger Muhammeds egen tid. Berlingske Tidende skriver

En gruppe britiske forskere har ved hjælp af nye teknologier dateret en koran til at være blandt verdens ældste, skriver CNN.

Koranen stammer fra mellem år 568 og år 645. Det blev slået fast i en Kulstof 14-undersøgelse foretaget af forskere fra Universitetet i Birmingham.

Det betyder, at de skrevne ord og bogen stammer fra den tid, hvor profeten Muhammed menes at have levet.

Man anslår generelt, at han levede mellem år 570 og år 645.

De to pergamenter, der udgør den såkaldt meget gamle koran, mener at indeholde vers 18 til 20, og det er skrevet med blæk i en gammel arabisk skrifttype ved navn hijazi.

Men selvom teksten er så gammel, minder indholdet meget om det, der står i de moderne udgaver af koranen, siger professor David Thomas.

»Det støtter vores opfattelse af, at den koran vi har nu minder ufattelig meget om koranen, som den blev skrevet i de første år af islams levetid,« siger han til CNN.

Det lægger håb til at koranen er en valid og fortællingen om Muhammed er ‘ægte’. Men Robert Spencer skriver på Jihad Watch, at “the more one looks at this curious story, the less there is to see”.

The article is riddled with academic and journalistic sloppiness. We’re told that the radiocarbon dating shows, “with a probability of more than 95%, the parchment was from between 568 and 645.” Very well, but does the ink date to that time as well? We are not told. Parchment was often reused in the ancient world, with the earlier text erased and written over, and so if a parchment dates from 645, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the text does.

However, it is impossible to discover any more details from this shoddy BBC presentation. The best photo of this manuscript that the BBC provides shows clear traces of another text underneath the main text. It is not clear from the photo whether that is the text from the other side bleeding through on the photograph, or even if there is any text on the other side; nor does the BBC tell us whether or not the parchment shows signs of having been a palimpsest — that is, a parchment that was used more than once for different texts. There is also some red ink in the top lines of the manuscript in the photo but not in the succeeding lines. Has the red ink faded from the other sections, or is it itself evidence of the ink fading? Or is it a later hand filling in areas that had faded away (and possibly altering the text)? The BBC doesn’t tell us, yet this is an extremely salient point. Another recently discovered and much-touted fragment of the Qur’an, now in Germany and dated from between 649 and 675, shows clear signs of alteration, raising the possibility that the Qur’anic text was altered over time. If this is a possibility also for the University of Birmingham manuscript, the BBC should tell us so. But it doesn’t.

What’s more, if the text along with the parchment really dates from between 568 and 645, it may not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. The Qur’an, according to Islamic tradition, was compiled in its definitive form in the year 653 by the caliph Uthman, who ordered all variant texts burned and the canonical version distributed to all the provinces within his domains. As I show in my book Did Muhammad Exist?, however, there are numerous reasons to doubt this story. The principal one is that if the entire Islamic world had copies of the Qur’an by the mid 650’s, why is it that not until the latter part of the seventh and early part of the eighth century do mentions of the Qur’an begin to appear? The Dome of the Rock inscriptions date from 691; they are made up of many Qur’an verses, but out of their Qur’anic order and some with notable changes in wording. Who would have dared to change the words of Allah? And the first clear reference to the Qur’an as such occurred around the year 710—eighty years after the book was supposedly completed and sixty years after it was supposedly collected and distributed. During a debate with an Arab noble, a Christian monk of the monastery of Beth Hale (of which there were two, one in northern Iraq and the other in Arabia; it is not known in which one this monk lived) cited the Qur’an by name. The monk wrote, “I think that for you, too, not all your laws and commandments are in the Qur’an which Muhammad taught you; rather there are some which he taught you from the Qur’an, and some are in surat albaqrah and in gygy and in twrh.

(…)

So if this is a fragment of the Qur’an as it now stands (and what portion of the Qur’an is it, anyway? Neither the BBC nor its quoted academics tell us), and yet it could date from as far back as 568, two years before Muhammad is supposed to have been born, it might not be a fragment of the Qur’an at all. It could instead be a portion of some source that later became part of the Qur’an, as did Surat al-Baqara.

Professor David Thomas, also without telling us what exact portions of the Qur’an this manuscript contains, raises even more questions when he says: “These portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today, supporting the view that the text has undergone little or no alteration and that it can be dated to a point very close to the time it was believed to be revealed.” This is a very strange statement. The BBC, and apparently the University of Birmingham, are advertising this as an ancient fragment of the Qur’an. Presumably when Thomas says that “these portions must have been in a form that is very close to the form of the Koran read today,” he means that the larger whole of which they once formed a part was “very close” to the Qur’an. But how close is “very close”? Mainstream Muslims maintain that the Qur’anic text has undergone no alteration at all since it was first “revealed.”

Man får let følelsen, som også Spencer indikerer, at der blandt koran- og islamforskere eksisterer en, skal vi sige pro-islamisk dagsorden. At man ønsker at folk skal få en forståelse af at islams kilder er mere faste end virkeligheden tilsiger. Bent Jensen har tidligere i Jyllands-Posten undret sig over koran- og islamforskernes besynderlige forhold til deres forskningsfelt

Koranen er angiveligt Guds rene og fejlfri lære, formidlet som nævnt via englen Gabriel til Muhammed i begyndelsen af 600-tallet. Men hvorfor indeholder bogen da så mange sproglige og historiske fejl, og hvorfor er dele af teksten uforståelig? Og hvad skal moderne muslimer i det 21. århundrede stille op med de mange udsagn om drab på vantro, kvinders henvisning til en lavere samfundskategori, slavehold og andre barbariske ting? Altså hvis man ikke er eller ønsker at blive hellig kriger.

Ifølge Pressburg tyder intet på, at Muhammed har eksisteret. Han er en litterær eller mytisk konstruktion. Ja, navnet Muhammed fandtes slet ikke, da Muhammed levede. ”Muhammed” var oprindeligt ikke et navn, men en titel, der betød ”den udvalgte” eller ”lovpriste”. Og denne udvalgte og lovpriste var – hold på hat og briller – Jesus Kristus. Titlen findes på mønter og i inskriptioner, som er forsynet med et kors og fremstillet af kristne arabiske herskere. Pressburg bygger på Christoph Luxenbergs banebrydende filologiske studier. Ifølge Luxenberg (også et pseudonym) er det simpelthen grammatisk umuligt, at Muhammed var et navn. Arabisk har ligesom hebraisk kun konsonanter, og det i sig selv har givet anledning til store problemer med at forstå mange passager i Koranen. Det er Luxenbergs store fortjeneste at have forklaret flere af disse dunkle eller uforståelige passager. Luxenberg mener, at Koranens kernestykke er en assyrisk kristen tekst, skrevet med arabisk skrift, men på aramæisk, som i sin tid var et udbredt kultursprog i Mellemøsten. Den MHMD (MuHaMeD), der omtales, betyder altså Guds lovpriste udsending, Jesus Kristus. Først flere hundrede år efter Muhammeds angivelige eksistens blev de fire konsonanter misforstået og gjort til navnet Muhammed.

Bogen har et særligt budskab til de hellige muslimske krigere, som tror, at de kommer i Paradis og dér bliver forsynet med 72 evigt unge, barmfagre jomfruer. Der er tale om en alvorlig misforståelse på grund af en fejllæsning; ”martyrerne” får i virkeligheden kun stillet vindruer og frugtsaft i udsigt. De unge drenge, som også ifølge traditionen skulle stå til rådighed for de himmelfarne, viser sig at være kølige frugter. Jomfruerne og drengene er til dels et resultat af oversætternes egen fantasi og forhåbninger.

Pressburg har som motto og ledestjerne for sin bog videnskabsteoretikeren Karl Poppers maksime: »Vi kan ikke bevise sandheden. Men vi kan bevise usandheden og dermed tilnærme os sandheden.« Alle forsøg på at bevise personen Muhammeds eksistens har været forgæves. Der findes ikke et eneste stik- og håndfast vidnesbyrd, der bekræfter den, ikke et eneste spor efter denne mand. Den såkaldte Klippemoské i Jerusalem fra slutningen af 600-tallet er ifølge muslimske myter bygget over det sted, hvor Muhammed red til himmels på en hest. Men der er i virkeligheden tale om en kristen helligdom – det viser hele dens ottekantede syrisk-byzantinske arkitektur, men også den 240 meter lange indskrift, der pryder dens indre.

Klippehelligdommen blev bygget af den kristne arabiske hersker Abd al-Malik på det sted, hvor den israelske kong Salomons tempel havde stået, og hvor Kristus forventedes at ville komme igen. Indskriften udtrykker derfor en kristen trosbekendelse. Først senere blev den kristne kirke omdannet til en muslimsk helligdom – og i allernyeste tid gjort til en moské.

Uffe Elbæks visionsboble

Det burde fortælle alt om Uffe Elbæk og hans Alternativet at roser strømmer fra David Trads. Elbæk er en kompetent politiker i Trads øjne, trods hans ministertid fra alle andres hold beskrives som inkompetent. Sympatisk er Elbæk måske, men det er mere tvivlsomt om man, som Trads påstår, kan sige, at Alternativets fokus på klima optager mange vælgere. Med mindre disse vælgere er klimaforskere - hvilket siger alt om klimaforskere. Og Alternativet!

Det er sikkert et rimeligt gæt, at Alternativets vælgere er fra den samme grød, der stemte Radikale Venstres ultimative krav ind med imponerende 17 mandater og ud af politisk indflydelse. Og hvad værre var, en afmytologisering af Radikale Venstre som et midterparti, hvis ophøjede opgave er at balancere de uudholdelige fløjes tåbeligheder ud mod hinanden til det mindre ubærlige. Partiet overlevede med Vestagers naturlige nedladende udstråling dog afskalningen til Ny Alliance, sådan var det bare.

Og Alternativets vælgere er sikkert også de samme mennesker, der bar Villy Søvndal ind i den første regering, der endeligt demaskerede Socialistisk Folkeparti som en forening af moraliserende drømmere uden evne til realiteternes ansvar. Mennesker, der mener at staten skal harmonisere andre menneskers arbejdstid, sammensætte deres kost og være personligt ansvarlige for vejrliget. Det er en destruktiv bølge af begejstrede vælgere venstrefløjen skal vare sig for at ride på, men måske det vil være en fordel, nu de har et helt parti designet til netop dem? Med David Trads, klimaforskere og en canadisk rigmand bag sig.

Jyllands-Posten besøgte Elbæk i hans Vision of Dome, hans lille univers, hvor han talte om sine erfaringer og sine visioner. Stolt viser han rundt i sin lille boble af drømme om det kreative, det nye og det anderledes og om sit tilvalg af homoseksualitet, mens Muren faldt. Det eneste man får at se ud over grønne planter er en gruppe musikere, på vej til at lukke sig helt om sig selv i fælles fordybelse i musik med takt og toneart. Man hører service klirre ivrigt fra Dome-café’en, men ser intet til andre kreative mennesker udvekslende ideer på tværs af fagskel om Danmarks fremtid.

skc3a6rmbillede-2015-06-10-kl-195242

Repræsentanter for det kreative, musikere i en hestesko, på vej til at lukke sig i en cirkel.

Sørine Gotfredsen skriver i Berlingske Tidende at Elbæk…

….er den, der fortæller menneskene, at der findes noget at tro på, der rækker ud over den ubønhørlige verden. Og at vi sammen kan dyrke utopier om stedet, hvor der findes ly for alt det, der bare synes at tromle afsted omkring os.

Den alternative bevægelse udfylder således en ledig plads i en tilstand af nød og samler en masse af de forvildede følelser, der er på spil i et fællesskab, hvor så mange tror på så lidt. I et fællesskab, hvor man i frygt for stigende konkurrence og mindre tryghed har brug for at høre, at der trods alt et sted findes frelse. Hvis danskerne i højere grad hvilede i en seriøs religiøs bevidsthed og kunne mærke livsfylde ved at yde deres bedste i forhold til det højeste, ville fornuften og dømmekraften også være større. Følelseslivet ville ikke på så overfladisk vis lade sig påvirke, for med troen på at man er sat i verden med et formål og en pligt at efterleve, står man på et tidløst fundament og er ikke i samme grad til fals for forføriske skikkelser. Det er jo ikke tilfældigt, at kristendommen gennem historien er blevet forbudt i totalitære systemer. Den – ikke mindst i den lutherske udgave – gør mennesket mere modstandsdygtigt overfor manipulerende kræfter, og man kan ikke lade være med at overveje, hvorfor Helle Thorning-Schmidt ikke er blevet grinet ud på grund af det opstyltede fremstød, vi har oplevet i de seneste måneder. Ligesom man aner en vis forbindelse mellem Alternativets succes og den danske længsel efter bare et eller andet at tro på. Det er tankevækkende, at et folketingsvalg muligvis skal afgøres af den slags kræfter.

Mennesket er et længselsfuldt følelsesvæsen. Det vidste vi godt i forvejen, men denne valgkamp har kraftigt understreget det. En ting er den lange føljeton om Lars Løkke Rasmussens troværdighed, der mest har lignet en nøje orkestreret menneskejagt til massernes underholdning. Noget andet er, at mekanismerne også i dansk valgkamp synes at blive mere primitive i deres stræben efter at ramme mennesker på de bløde punkter. Socialdemokraternes kampagnemaskine har med imponerende vedholdenhed og ganske simple virkemidler fået skabt et billede af Helle Thorning-Schmidt som en blanding af moder og førerskikkelse i en stil, jeg ikke havde troet ville virke i dette land. Statsministeren er blevet afbilledet med små søde børn i favnen, storsmilende med en hjemløs og sammen med friske sygeplejersker, og hun er overalt. Uanset hvor man går på gaden, eller hvilken avis man åbner, toner Helle Thorning-Schmidt frem, og metoden ser faktisk ud til at virke.

Mikael Jalving beskriver i Jyllands-Posten

Alternativet, den nye komet på stjernehimlen, vil som bekendt indføre obligatoriske vegetardage, give kontanthjælp uden nogen som helst krav og tvinge folk til at arbejde minimum 20 pct. mindre, dvs. max. 30 timer om ugen. Alene det sidste vil ifølge forsigtige beregninger koste samfundet i omegnen af 300 mia. kr. om året og hurtigt medføre drastiske forringelser af den offentlige sektors service og på længere sigt indføre græske tilstande.

Partiets ordfører for finanser, økonomi og andre petitesser, en kvinde med det pikante navn Josephine Fock, udtaler, at det af hensyn til vor kollektive livskvalitet er nødvendigt at sikre, at folk får »færre penge mellem hænderne til at gå ud og forbruge«.

Det er vistnok især fladskærme og Yankiebarer med lakridssmag, vi ikke må købe. Folk vil dog fortsat kunne »betale deres husleje, deres brød og mælk«, men ikke kød. Kød tæller ligesom ikke rigtig med.

»Vi har alle de ting, vi skal bruge – vi kan ikke finde på mere – så nu er det lige præcis oplevelser, der tæller«, forsikrer partiets ordfører.

Niels Lillelund beskriver i Jyllands-Posten (9/5, ikke online) det småbizarre optrin de de skuespilleren og intertaineren Jytte Abildstrøm sang for Alternativets partileder Uffe Elbæk

En ung, kvindelig studievært tager imod partilederne, og aftenen før grundlovsdag var det Uffe Elbæk, til hvem man endog havde beredt en lille kærlig overraskelse i form af en hemmelig gæst, vores allesammens Jytte Abildstrøm.

Hun er med i Alternativet, hvor hendes officielle titel er god karma-ambassadør og partife.

Iført en miniatureharmonika og en stemme så slidt, at den fik Frank Sinatras sidste afskedskoncerter til at virke overbevisende, ankom hun afsyngende “Jeg gik mig over sø og land”, og efter længere tirader om solnedgange i Hjørring med særlig hensyn til næstekærlighed, vedvarende energi og Storm P’s nervøst anlagte onkel fik hun studiet til at synge med på omkvædet »Jeg har hjemme i klappeland.

« Og alle dem, som klappe kan osv., og det kunne de sandelig, for der stod de og klappede, og det var en fest, en rus, idel gammen.

»Det er fantastisk,« sagde den henrykte studievært, der var én stor flækket træsko af jubel og livsglæde, som var dette kulminationen på hendes journalistiske karriere.

Lars Løkke må sidde derhjemme og drømme sødt om en dag at møde sådan en journalist, der bare vil kramme og klappe.

Og han konkluderer

Forleden kunne Radio24syv oplyse, at gruppen af indvandrere på kontanthjælp er vokset med 37 pct., siden Helle Thorning-Schmidt (S) overtog regeringsmagten i 2011. Helt nøjagtigt var 42.465 indvandrere sidste år på kontanthjælp, langt de fleste fra ikke-vestlige lande.

Det koster penge. Rigtige penge. Ikke ord og signaler, men rigtige penge, som kunne have været brugt på noget sjovere. men den slags kendsgerninger interesserer ikke rigtigt journalisterne.

Svend Brinkmann klapper i Berlingske Tidende om “Landet der holdet op med at give mening” og spørger “Hvor mange asylbørn går der på en kræftbehandling?”. Det er »In-stru-men-ta-li-se-ring.«, ideen om at intet gøres for sin egen værdi, men for at opnå noget andet. Børnene dyrker gymnastik i skolen for at blive bedre til matematik og vi bygger mobiliserbare netværk for at kunne klare os i konkurrencestaten. Men regnestykket flygtninge kontra hospitalsudgifter er ikke instrumentaliseret i den forstand at danskeres ve og vel opfattes som en legitim modstilling til import af flygtninge. Det er danskerne selv der er blevet instrumentaliseret, så meget at de er usynlige i denne debat, som Klaes Kastholm skriver

Hidtil har ingen spurgt, hvad der er rimeligt set fra borgernes synspunkt. Er det rimeligt, at en asylansøger får mere end en dansk folkepensionist? Er det rimeligt, at en kontanthjælpsmodtager, der intet laver, modtager mere, end en borger, der har arbejdet hele sit liv? Er det rimeligt, at de offentlige ydelser er så generøse, at gevinsten ved at arbejde er ikke-eksisterende eller meget beskeden for titusinder af mennesker?

Elbæk er den fødte projektmager, en besnakker af politikere og fonde til sponsering af morgendagens bon-ord og floskler. Ud over bøsse-parader er hans største præstation det sekteriske Kaos-Pilot projekt. Erfaringen kom fra Next Stop Sovjet, hvor Elbæk fandt ud af, at man manglede en uddannelse, der gav een kompetencer til både at forhandle med KGB og lave konfliktløsning med den russiske mafia. Hvis Alternativets vision om åbne grænser bliver en realitet kommer den slags kvaliteter i høj kurs.

Forskning og kvinder

Det er lang tid siden Frederik Den Vise og Wilhelm Humboldt. I dag er det masseuniversiteter underlagt taxameterordningernes konstante underminering af faglige standarder. Som fagligheden forsvinder låner universiteterne sin opsparede prestige til stadigt mere ilde maskerede ideologiske dagsordner der paraderer som forskning. “Den britiske modtager af Nobelprisen i Fysiologi eller Medicin, Tim Hunt, er blevet tvunget til at forlade sin stilling på University College London” skriver Ugeskrift

Det sker, efter at den 72-årige biokemiker ved en konference for journalister i Sydkorea i tirsdags kom under beskydning for sexistiske bemærkninger – og for en efterfølgende undskyldning, der kun gjorde tingene værre.

Hunt modtog i 2001 prisen for sin forskning om “cellecykluskontrol” sammen med sin landsmand Paul M. Nurse og amerikaneren Leland H. Hartwell. IPå konferencen i Seoul sagde han ifølge forbes.co.uk:

”Nu skal jeg fortælle jer, hvad der er problemet med piger. Man forelsker sig i dem, de forelsker sig i én, og når man kritiserer dem, græder de!”, skriver

Hunt luftede angiveligt også det synspunkt, at laboratorier burde være kønsopdelte.

Hunt undskyldte senere i BBC Radion 4-programmet Today og sagde her: ”Jeg beklager, at jeg sagde, som jeg gjorde. Det var meget dumt med alle de journalister til stede”. Han stod dog ved meget af, hvad han havde sagt:

”Det er rigtig vigtigt, at man kan kritisere folks ideer uden at kritisere dem. Hvis man bryder ud i gråd, er man mere tilbøjelig til at holde igen med at få den absolutte sandhed frem. Videnskab handler udelukkende om at finde sandheden, og alt, hvad der kommer i vejen for det, trækker efter min mening videnskaben ned”.Se hele Tim Hunts forelæsning på Panum 21. april i år (videoklip)

Folkeskolen.dk skrev i forrige nummer om to kvindelige forskere, Malou Juelskjær og Dorthe Staunæs der klagede til deres universitets ledelse over at få deres arbejde kritiseret af en mandlig forskerkollega.

Det hele begyndte med, at Rømer på folkeskolen.dk og i sin blog skrev en kritisk analyse af en forskningsartikel af Staunæs og Juelskjær, »Klasseledelse - all inclusive: Læringscentreret ledelse af sanser, affekter og rytmer«.

Rømer opfatter artiklen som et eksempel på en aktuel tendens i skoleforskningen, som han er optaget af: »nemlig spørgsmålet om, hvordan dansk Foucault-inspireret tænkning, den såkaldte neo-strukturalisme, som jo normalt opfatter sig selv som en kritisk bevægelse, er havnet i en situation, der ikke blot accepterer, men ligefrem radikaliserer accepten af den i forvejen radikale tænkning, som ligger i skolereformen«, skriver han indledningsvist i sin analyse af Staunæs’ og Juelskjærs artikel.

»Klasseledelse handler dermed om, at hele børnelivet og faktisk også familielivet, herunder fritiden og søvnen, underlægges et læringsmaksimeringskrav. Det hedder ligefrem: ‘Intet er for småt til læringscentreret klasseledelse. Det er klasseledelse all inclusive’. Fuldstændigt totalitært efter min mening, men der er ikke den mindste reservation i Staunæs’ og Juelskjærs tekst undtagen et lille bitte besværgende skvulp til allersidst, hvor de spørger: ‘Hvad er så faren?’ uden at give antydningen af et svar«, skriver Rømer videre i sin analyse.

“I deres klagebreve til ledelsen kommer Staunæs og Juelskjær ikke med konkrete eksempler på fordrejning af deres forskning” og klagen blev afvist, men dekanen lovede “…at han vil have fokus på arbejdsmiljøet”. Godt arbejdsmiljø er at lade dilletanter våse videre til de får held til at lukke munden på kritisk tænkning.

Havspejlet er ikke stigende - mere end det plejer

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab, miljø, venstrefløjen — Drokles on June 5, 2015 at 4:11 pm

Du har muligvis gennemlevet de varmest måneder siden man begyndte at måle temperaturen, føler Think Progress sig nødsaget til at gøre sine læsere opmærksomme på. Ingen havde åbenbart lagt mærke til det. Muslimer med sympatier til kalifatet mener at oversvømmelserne i Texas er Allahs straf for Pamella Gellers tegn Muhammed konkurrence skriver Gateway Pundit. Den Allah-skabte oversvømmelse afløser den menneskeskabte tørke, så synder ophæver hinanden. De australske vælgere tror hverken på at Allaheller mennesket påvirker klimaet i nævneværdig grad og i USA har både George Cloonys klimafilm Tomorrowland. Samme skæbne led klimadokumentaren Merchants of Doubt.

I forrige måned citerede jeg her på Monokultur fra Frede Westergaards artikel i Weekendavisen om Månens effekt på havspejlet og om, hvorfor det ikke stiger så dramatisk, som FNs klimapanel vil have os til at tro. Climate Change Dispatch er mere ublu i deres udtryk og kalder det et stykke svindel

Climate alarmists put forth scary scenarios saying that carbon dioxide induced global warming is causing unprecedented and accelerating sea level rise which will drown our coastal cities and wipe out South Pacific Islands.

(…)

A conclusion from the Scafetta paper has implications for climate model predictions: “at scales shorter than 100-years, the measured tide gauge accelerations are strongly driven by the natural oscillations of the climate system (e.g. PDO, AMO and NAO). At the smaller scales (e.g. at the decadal and bi-decadal scale) they are characterized by a large volatility due to significant decadal and bi-decadal climatic oscillations. Therefore, accelerations, as well as linear rates evaluated using a few decades of data (e.g. during the last 20-60 years) cannot be used for constructing reliable long-range projections of sea-level for the twenty first century.”

About those South Pacific Islands:

You may recall several years ago much press about Tuvalu and other South Pacific islands being endangered by rising sea level. For an example of some of the hype, see my October, 2011, post: “University of Arizona Dances with Sea Level.”

The Australian government has been monitoring sea level on Pacific islands with modern instruments since 1992. In the case of Tuvalu, they state, “If the depression of the 1998 cyclone is ignored, there was no change is sea level at Tuvalu between 1994 and 2009: 14 years. (See report of studies by Vincent Gray here.)

Finally, new research by Kench et al. (2015) finds that these same South Pacific islands, rather than sinking beneath the waves, have in fact been growing.

Og lad os derfor få et par ord fra Nils-Axel Mörner

Hvem gider arbejde?

Hvad der kan svare sig er en subjektiv vurdering. Vil man bruge 37 timer for at øge sin månedlige indkomst med 2.000,-? 1.000,-? 500,-?

Hvis man vil have en 3F’er til at arbejde udover den aftalte 8 timers arbejdsdag, koster det 50% ekstra de første 3 timer. Derefter stiger timelønnen 100%. Det vil altså koste 754,- oveni de normale 1.328,- at få en 3F’er til at tage en ‘dobbelt-vagt’. 2.084,- for 8 timer. Ellers kan det ifølge 3F ikke svare sig.

»Der er der en række andre erhvervsfolk, der er stået frem, bl.a. på jeres egen kanal (TV2, red.), Allan Agerholm fra Crown Plaza, med meget meget konkrete eksempler på, at der ikke er rimelighed nok i tingene, når visse mennesker er i den situation, at tager man højde for alle de meromkostninger, der er ved at gå på arbejde og de tillæg og andet, der falder bort, så forsvinder gevinsten mellem folks fingre,« sagde Lars Løkke Rasmussen til TV2 News.

Det fortalte Løkke Rasmussen til TV2 ifølge BT. BT havde under overskriften “Nyt Løkke-eksempel pilles fra hinanden” citeret analysechef ved Arbejderbevægelsens Erhvervsråd Jonas Schytz Juul

»Det er farligt at tage udgangspunkt i enkelte eksempler, når vi taler om gevinsten på arbejde, fordi det bliver så forsimplet på nogle punkter, at det er direkte misvisende

Et par dage tidligere havde BT sået tvivl om det første eksempel, nemlig ‘Panorama-manden’. ‘Panorama-manden var en ansat ved rengøringsvirksomheden Panorama, der havde fortalt sin chef Morten Broager, at det på grund af differencen på løn og offentlig forsørgelse for ham ikke kunne svare sig at arbejde. Måske eksisterede han slet ikke, spekulerede BT på baggrund af at Jobcenterchef i Høje Taastrup Kommune ikke havde set den anonyme Panorama-mand i ledighedskøen. “Mysteriet fortsætter… følg med her på BT” sluttede de artiklen. Dagen efter udspillede sig en af de sørgeligste scener for danske tv-stationer da TV2 og Danmarks Radio nærmest faldt over hinanden i forsøget på at få Panorama chef Morten Broager til at afsløre mysteriet om Panorama-manden. Selv om Løkkes historie således var vandtæt troede medierne ikke på ham og den virkelighed han forsøgte at beskrive.

Kasper Støvring skrev på Berlingske Tidende at tilliden til Løkke Rasmussen er svækket. Pressen tegner et billede af beruset frås  og antager at hvert et ord er en potentiel løgn, der kan afsløres i et faktatjek. Men måske har Løkke fat i den lange ende, måske spiller Løkke sit bedste kort ved at udfore pressen, Socialdemokratiet og fagforeningerne på troværdighed. Det er let at forestille sig at Løkke har draget en vigtig lektie af både personsager og formandsopgør, nemlig at være yderst præcis med sine udtalelser. At han ved at der står en kø af erhvervsfolk, der drypvis vil bekræfte, hvad man godt ved i folkehavet; at lønnet arbejde ikke synes at kunne svare sig for mange danskere. Og at de mange tusinde nye job derfor går til  østeuropæere, der ikke hæger sentimentalt om ‘den dansk model’. Det kan meget vel blive mere end en kameramand, der falder over sine egne ben.

Det er nemlig mere forsimplet og misvisende at tage udgangspunkt i de regneark, som fagbevægelsen fodrer pressen med på Socialdemokratiets vegne, når de mange enkelte eksempler, hver med deres udgangspunkt, vejer, hvad der kan svare sig for dem i deres liv. I Information kom Iben Nørup således Løkke Rasmussen til hjælp - ufrivilligt og bagvendt selvfølgelig - da hun gjorde op med ideen om det saliggørende i arbejde

Videnskabeligt er der nemlig ikke noget belæg for at tro, at arbejde er det altafgørende for vores sociale trivsel og liv. Mine egne forskningsresultater, der udkom i december 2014, giver på baggrund af omfattende statistiske analyser på et meget omfattende datamateriale et ganske entydigt og klart svar.

Analyserne baserer sig på Region Nordjyllands store spørgeskemaundersøgelse Sundhedsprofilen, der er besvaret af godt 25.000 personer. Disse besvarelser er koblet sammen med Danmarks Statistik-registre, hvor der bl.a. er trukket forskellige helbredsoplysninger og oplysninger om uddannelse og indkomst samt med Beskæftigelsesministeriets DREAM-database, der bl.a. indeholder oplysninger om forsørgelsesgrundlag, beskæftigelse og deltagelse i eksempelvis aktivering. Resultaterne af samtlige analyser viser, at det at stå uden for arbejdsmarkedet ikke i sig selv medfører lavere trivsel, dårligere sociale netværk eller mindre deltagelse i alt muligt andet, f.eks. fritidsaktiviteter eller foreningsliv.

Faktisk viser resultaterne, at personer, som ikke arbejder, er knap så stressede, har lidt bedre sociale relationer til f.eks. venner og familie og deltager mere i alle mulige forskellige typer fritidsaktiviteter, end personer, der arbejder. Resultaterne viser også, at personer, der arbejder er mindre tilfredse med, hvor ofte de ser deres familie og venner, end personer, der ikke arbejder.

Kilde til stress

Betragter man særskilt de personer, der er meget begrænsede af helbredsmæssige problemer, sygdomme eller handicaps, peger resultaterne på, at presset for at præstere på arbejdsmarkedet får ganske omfattende og negative konsekvenser for trivsel, stressniveau og socialt liv. For disse mennesker er det – set ud fra et socialt og livskvalitetsmæssigt perspektiv – langt fra lykken, at få lov til at bruge deres sidste rest af overskud og energi på at arbejde. Resultaterne viser således det stik modsatte af, hvad vi går og bilder os selv ind – endda med stor statistisk sikkerhed. De fortæller os en historie om, at arbejde ér en væsentlig kilde til stress. Og at det at leve op til de forpligtelser, der følger med at have et job, tager tid fra andre vigtige ting i vores liv.

Hvis ikke der er den store forskel i indkomst, hvorfor så slide sig ned i rotteræset? “Arbejde er for langt de fleste en afgørende kilde til en indtægt” forsikrer Nørup og glemmer i bedste Informationsånd at arbejde er den afgørende kilde til indtægt for alle: Hvis ikke ens eget arbejde så andres arbejde.

Racismens komplekse fortælling

Da en ung mand, Freddie Carlos Gray, mistede livet i Baltimore politis varetægt under besynderlige omstændigheder udbrød der uroligheder. Den unge mand var sort, vanekriminel ganske vist, men sort, eller i hvert fald mørk nok til at tælle med til de afroamerikanske, og mistanken om endnu en racistisk drab var derfor nok til en konklusion. Baltimore er styret af Demokraterne og har været det længe og har en sort borgmester. Politiet er 60% sort. Men da Trayvon Martin for et par år siden også blev dræbt af en hvid, eller snarere en latino og i selvforsvar, så var der et mønster.

Og dette mønster blev kun forstærket da den hvide betjent Darren Wilson dræbte den 130 kg lette teenager Michael Brown, der blidt havde skubbet den lokale asiatiske købmand omkuld og røvet en kasse cigarer. Ganske vist prøve Brown at overmande Wilson mens han truede med at slå ham ihjel, men da utroværdige vidner løj om at han havde hænderne oppe, afmægtigt appellerende “Hands up, don’t shoot!” så var det bedre en bevisets stilling. Alle løgne beviser den samme fortælling, at sorte ulykke intet har med deres adfærd at gøre, men er resultatet af et racistisk jerngreb som selv ikke Obama har kunnet hele.

“What’s weird is that it never happens to white kids” mente komikeren Chris Rock, skønt en hvid teenager var blevet skudt og dræbt at to sorte betjente nogenlunde samtidig med Freddie Gray. Michael Moore krævede på Twitter at “every African-American currently incarcerated for drug ‘crimes’ or nonviolent offenses released from prison today” og “Disarm the police. We have a 1/4 billion 2nd amendment guns in our homes 4 protection. We’ll survive til the right cops r hired”. Højrefløjen bliver aldrig træt af at minde om, at en af Moores mange livvagter er blevet anholdt for ulovlig besiddelse af et skydevåben. Identiteten med at være undertrykt neger spredte sig til forskellige byer i USA og endda helt til Israel, hvor der opstod uroligheder i den venstredrejede(!) højborg Tel Aviv. Diversitet fører grundlæggende blot til øget segregering og mistro til naboer, samfund og myndigheder.

Thomas Sowell skriver i National Review

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Anyone who is serious about evidence need only compare black communities as they evolved in the first 100 years after slavery with black communities as they evolved in the first 50 years after the explosive growth of the welfare state, beginning in the 1960s.

You would be hard-pressed to find as many ghetto riots prior to the 1960s as we have seen just in the past year, much less in the 50 years since a wave of such riots swept across the country in 1965.

We are told that such riots are a result of black poverty and white racism. But in fact — for those who still have some respect for facts — black poverty was far worse, and white racism was far worse, prior to 1960. But violent crime within black ghettos was far less. You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Murder rates among black males were going down — repeat, down — during the much-lamented 1950s, while it went up after the much celebrated 1960s, reaching levels more than double what they had been before. Most black children were raised in two-parent families prior to the 1960s. But today the great majority of black children are raised in one-parent families.

Such trends are not unique to blacks, nor even to the United States. The welfare state has led to remarkably similar trends among the white underclass in England over the same period. Just read Life at the Bottom, by Theodore Dalrymple, a British physician who worked in a hospital in a white slum neighborhood.

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

Non-judgmental subsidies of counterproductive lifestyles are treating people as if they were livestock, to be fed and tended by others in a welfare state — and yet expecting them to develop as human beings have developed when facing the challenges of life themselves.

One key fact that keeps getting ignored is that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits every year since 1994. Behavior matters and facts matter, more than the prevailing social visions or political empires built on those visions.

Som ingen fakta tilsyneladende rokker ved følelsen af identitet, rokker ingen identitet ved fakta. Anklagemyndigheden endte med at rejse tiltale mod Den mordsigtede betjent er sort, som to af de tre sigtet for manddrab, som man kan læse på Daily Mail.

a-complex-tale-of-white-supremacy

Ja, det giver unægteligt racismefortælling et lag af kompleksitet

Judith Curry gør op med et konsensus

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 10, 2015 at 9:04 pm

En af de mest sejlivede myter i klimadebatten er myten om det videnskabeligt konsensus. Ofte citeres en undersøgelse, der påstår at 97% af alle relevante klimaforskere er enige i fortællingen om global opvarmning. Men, som Larry Bell forklarer til Forbes, har undersøgelsen en lang række gravende fejl, som den kun måler på to udsagn; 1) er temperaturen steget siden forrige århundrede? 2) Har mennesket indflydelse på klimaet?

FNs klimapanel blev nedsat med det formål at formulere et konsensus, således at politikerne havde lettere ved at orientere sig. Men selv om politiseringen af den videnskabelige debat ganske udadtil har skabt en illusion om konsensus så eksisterer uenighederne og tvivlen desuagtet. Judith Curry forklarer her hvorledes offentlige forskningskroner fordrejer klimaforskningen til at passe med konsensus

Og på Master Resource er der et sammendrag af hendes ponter, som de kom frem ved en høring for House Committee on Science, Space and Technology

Bias from Climate Change Orthodoxy

The censure of scientists disagreeing with the IPCC consensus was particularly acute during the period 2005-2010. As revealed by the Climategate emails, there was a cadre of leading climate scientists that were working to sabotage the reviews of skeptical research papers (and presumably proposals for research funding). Further, scientists challenging climate change orthodoxy are subjected to vitriolic treatment in news articles, op-eds and blogs, damaging the public reputation of these scientists. I have heard from numerous scientists who are sympathetic to my efforts in challenging climate change orthodoxy, but are afraid to speak out or even publish skeptical research since they are fearful of losing their job.

Since 2010, things have improved somewhat especially in Europe; I think this has largely been due to reflections following Climategate and the fact that disagreement about climate change is not as starkly divided along the lines of political parties (i.e. the issue is somewhat less politicized). In the U.S., with President Obama’s recent pronouncements about climate denial and climate deniers (as anyone who does not agree with the consensus) has increased the toxicity of the environment (both academic and public) for scientists that question the IPCC consensus on climate change.

Climate Model Overwarming/Problems

Particularly for the past decade, climate models have been running too hot, predicting more warming than has been observed (refer to the figure on page 6 of my testimonyhttp://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/comparing-cmip5-observations/.

The discrepancies between observed surface temperatures and climate model simulations indicates that climate models are not useful for predicting climate on decadal time scales (out to 20 years) or for regional spatial scales. If the so-called warming hiatus continues for another few years, then the observations will be completely outside of the envelope of climate model predictions.

I have argued that climate models are not fit for the purpose of simulating decadal scale and regional climate variability. Climate models are mainly useful for scientific exploration of mechanisms in the climate system. Whether they are at all useful for projections of century scale climate change remains to be seen, but I am doubtful.

Lower-Sensitivity Modeling?

For the main climate models used in the CMIP5 simulations for the IPCC AR5, climate sensitivity is an emergent property and not one that is easily tuned. For simpler climate models, such as MAGICChttp://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/, climate sensitivity can be tuned, seehttp://www.cato.org/blog/002degc-temperature-rise-averted-vital-number-missing-epas-numbers-fact-sheet

10553515_10152287856623869_8189818733335583637_n

Temperaturskandale 3

Diverse, IPCC, Klima, Pressen, Videnskab — Drokles on May 9, 2015 at 4:43 pm

Jeg henvist for et par måneder siden til Christoffer Booker, der skrev at der var blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Paraguay til Patagonien så de understøttede en fortælling om stigende temperaturer. Varmen kommer gerne, hvor ingen oplever den, hvorfor der nu også advokeres for den er sprunget i dybhavet. Et par uger senere viste det sig tilsyneladende at der også er blevet fiflet med temperaturdata fra Arktis. Nu skriver Christopher Booker i Telegraph opfølgende om den sære og stadigt stigende diskrepans mellem jordbaserede målinger, hvor vi hele tiden slår nye varmerekorder og så satellit målingerne

My cue for those pieces was the evidence multiplying from across the world that something very odd has been going on with those official surface temperature records, all of which ultimately rely on data compiled by NOAA’s GHCN. Careful analysts have come up with hundreds of examples of how the original data recorded by 3,000-odd weather stations has been “adjusted”, to exaggerate the degree to which the Earth has actually been warming. Figures from earlier decades have repeatedly been adjusted downwards and more recent data adjusted upwards, to show the Earth having warmed much more dramatically than the original data justified.

So strong is the evidence that all this calls for proper investigation that my articles have now brought a heavyweight response. The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) has enlisted an international team of five distinguished scientists to carry out a full inquiry into just how far these manipulations of the data may have distorted our picture of what is really happening to global temperatures.

The panel is chaired by Terence Kealey, until recently vice-chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His team, all respected experts in their field with many peer-reviewed papers to their name, includes Dr Peter Chylek, a physicist from the National Los Alamos Laboratory; Richard McNider, an emeritus professor who founded the Atmospheric Sciences Programme at the University of Alabama; Professor Roman Mureika from Canada, an expert in identifying errors in statistical methodology; Professor Roger Pielke Sr, a noted climatologist from the University of Colorado, and Professor William van Wijngaarden, a physicist whose many papers on climatology have included studies in the use of “homogenisation” in data records.

Their inquiry’s central aim will be to establish a comprehensive view of just how far the original data has been “adjusted” by the three main surface records: those published by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss), the US National Climate Data Center and Hadcrut, that compiled by the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (Cru), in conjunction with the UK Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction. All of them are run by committed believers in man-made global warming.

For this the GWPF panel is initially inviting input from all those analysts across the world who have already shown their expertise in comparing the originally recorded data with that finally published. In particular, they will be wanting to establish a full and accurate picture of just how much of the published record has been adjusted in a way which gives the impression that temperatures have been rising faster and further than was indicated by the raw measured data.

Already studies based on the US, Australia, New Zealand, the Arctic and South America have suggested that this is far too often the case.

But only when the full picture is in will it be possible to see just how far the scare over global warming has been driven by manipulation of figures accepted as reliable by the politicians who shape our energy policy, and much else besides. If the panel’s findings eventually confirm what we have seen so far, this really will be the “smoking gun”, in a scandal the scale and significance of which for all of us can scarcely be exaggerated.

Overdrivelser har der været nok af. Så lad os se de seneste tal fra satelliterne ved Dr Roy Spencer

uah_lt_1979_thru_april_2015_v61

En større gennemgang kan ses hos Climate Depot.

Global opvarmning bliver nok alligevel ikke skyld i mange fremtidige jordskælv

Diverse, Klima, Videnskab — Drokles on May 5, 2015 at 8:09 am

“[A] series of life-threatening “extreme geological events” – earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis – is predicted by a group of eminent geologists and geophysicists” kan man læse i Newsweek Europe. Årsagen er: Klimaforandringer. Visse steder er forkastninger i jordskorpen særligt følsomme overfor relativt små ændringer i det tryk, som afsmeltning af større gletchere eller havspejlsstigninger foresager. “These stress or strain variations – just the pressure of a handshake in geological terms – are perfectly capable of triggering a quake if that fault is ready to go,” fortælles der. Undersøgelsen er foretaget ved hjælp af computermodeller.

The disappearing ice, sea-level rise and floods already forecast for the 21st century are inevitable as the earth warms and weather patterns change – and they will shift the weight on the planet. Professor McGuire calls this process “waking the giant” – something that can be done with just a few gigatonnes of water in the right – or wrong – place.

“These stress or strain variations – just the pressure of a handshake in geological terms – are perfectly capable of triggering a quake if that fault is ready to go,” he tells Newsweek.

Uha, og så lige i kølvandet på et jordskævl. Man bliver jo helt bekymret om ens livsstil nu også er helt forsvarlig. Og det er den helt sikkert ikke, men af så mange andre grunde end at bilen står i tomgang natten over. Klimamodeller er nemlig ikke helt så sikre, som deres advokater advokerer for. FNs klimapanel slog i deres 2001 rapport fast (h/t Nir Shaviv) at forskellige modeller kan give forskellige projektioner af det samme

“Different models may give quite different patterns of response for the same forcing, but an individual model may give a surprisingly similar response for different forcings. The first point means that attribution studies may give different results when using signals generated from different models. The second point means that it may be more difficult to distinguish between the response to different factors than one might expect, given the differences in radiative forcing.”

Dette diagram viser hvor forskelligt de klimamodeller FNs klimapanel benytter opfører sig.

cmip5-73-models-vs-obs-20n-20s-mt-5-yr-means1

Et argument for klimamodellernes pålidelighed er deres evne til ‘hind-casting’, at kunne rekonstruere fortidens klima. Ideen er at, hvis modellerne kan rekonstruere, hvad vi ved, der er sket (med eller uden ishockey-stav?) har de demonstreret deres grundlæggende forståelse af klimaets komplicerede dynamikker og bestået den afgørende test for også forudsige fremtidens klima. Men, som man kan se, er der så mange forskellige bud på fremtidens klima, at de tilsammen negerer den påstand.

Og Daily Mail skrev forleden at ifølge et studie ved Duke University er de eksisterende klimamodeller (der er udviddede vejrmodeller) påviseligt ude af stand til at gennemskue naturlige variationer indenfor årtier

The team examined whether climate models, such as those used by the IPCC, accurately account for natural chaotic variability that can occur in the rate of global warming.

To test these, created a new statistical model based on reconstructed empirical records of surface temperatures over the last 1,000 years.

‘By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,’ Brown said.

‘Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.’

‘Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,’ Brown said.

‘Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.’

Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 per cent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said.

‘That matches up well with what we’re seeing.’

There’s no guarantee, however, that this rate of warming will remain steady in coming years, Li stressed.

‘Our analysis clearly shows that we shouldn’t expect the observed rates of warming to be constant. They can and do change.’

Modellernes fejlbarlighed gælder også for der de beflitter sig med temperaturudviklingen i dybhavet, som Roy Spencer skriver. Og det er jo havet, som en vandmasse underforandring det skulle handle om med sin evne til at udløse jordskælv før tid. I Weekendavisen skriver Frede Vestergaard nemlig, at der ifølge ny dansk forskning ingen påviselig effekt er mellem menneskeskabt global opvarmning og havspejlsniveauet. De målte ændringer skyldes Månens effekt på tidevandet og det går imod FNs klimapanels argumentation.

Herved skaber de fem oscillationer de svingninger, der observeres på målestationerne.

Disse såkaldte kvasi-oscillationer har en maksimal bølgehøjde på 70-140 millimeter.

Én af dem begyndte omkring 1970, og det har skabt den opfattelse, at der siden 1970 er sket en menneskeskabt havstigning. Men nej, siger de tre forskere efter deres analyser. Det er månen, der spiller ind.

Én af de fem oscillationer hænger sammen med månens styring af tidevandet i nord-sydlig retning.

Månens (og solens) tyngdefelt skaber nemlig ikke kun en øst-vest-bevægelse omkring Jorden ved samspil med Jordens rotation. Månen har også en nord-syd-bevægelse i forhold til Jorden, der strækker sig over cirka 35 breddegrader. Det er noget, som kun få er opmærksomme på, siger Jens Morten Hansen.

Denne bevægelse kaldes månens nodal-oscillation.

Længden er 18,6 år, og den giver i sig selv en bølge på 70 millimeter i havene omkring Danmark. Månen skaber altså en tidevandsbølge, der varer 18,6 år, og som løber nord-syd i modsætning til det daglige tidevand, der løber øst-vest. Ligesom højden af det daglige tidevand er højden af nord-sydbølgen afhængig af lokale, geografiske forhold.

Nord-syd-bølgen styrer og spiller sammen med fire andre bølger. Den nordatlantiske oscillation er en svingning på ca. 60 år, der styres af forskelle i lufttrykket mellem f. eks. Azorerne og Island. Den viser sig som en bølge i havniveauet på 22,7 millimeter og som følge af synkronisering med den måneskabte nord-syd-bølge får den en nøjagtig tre gange så lang periodelængde (55,8 år).

Den atlantiske multidekadale oscillation er en periodisk svingning på 70-80 år, der styres af havoverfladens vandtemperatur. Bølgehøjden er 35,5 millimeter, og som følge af synkronisering med månens nord-sydbølge får den en periodelængde på nøjagtig fire gange måne-perioden (74,4 år). Dertil kommer to små, periodiske svingninger i havniveauet med periodelængder på hhv. nøjagtig 1,5 og 6 gange månens periodelænge på 18,6 år. Deres bølgehøjder er hhv. 8,5 og 8,0 millimeter.

De fem bølgesvingninger påvirker altså hinanden og skaber flere forskellige bølgebevægelser med en længde på op til 60-80 år, hvor den daglige tidevandsbølge løber Jorden rundt en gang i døgnet.

Og modtagelsen af denne interessante opdagelse, der kan have stor betydning for, hvor mange og hvor vi kaster penge hen til kystsikring? Ikke ligefrem begejstring

Jens Morten Hansen kalder opdagelsen »ubehagelig for IPCC, fordi den viser, at man ikke kan finde menneskeskabt påvirkning af verdenshavets højde og havstrømme - og at Jordens klima primært styres af en række velkendte, naturlige svingninger.

Forskningsresultater, der peger i den retning, forties eller underbetones af kredsene omkring det internationale klimapanel, IPCC. Det tolker konsekvent forskningsresultater i én bestemt retning uden at belyse andre muligheder«. Publiceringen Én ting er opdagelsen af disse sammenhænge. En anden er problemerne med at få artiklen om den omtalt i et videnskabeligt tidsskrift. Det har taget flere år og flere afslag, selv om man måske skulle tro, redaktørerne ville gribe begærligt efter en artikel med denne opdagelse. Først forsøgte forskerne at få deres artikel optaget i tidsskriftet Nature.

»Det er det bedste sted at få banebrydende forskningsresultater omtalt. Vi har påvist, at der ikke i de sidste årtier er noget tegn på menneskeskabt påvirkning af havniveauet omkring Danmark og i Østersøen, og at de udsving, der faktisk sker, foregår i samme takt som i de sidste 160 år og styres af månens nord-syd bevægelse i forhold til Jorden.

Det - synes vi - er et så vigtigt resultat, at det har stor international interesse for klimaforskningen. Og der er særlig opmærksomhed om den forskning, der omtales i tidsskrifterne Nature og Science«, siger Jens Morten Hansen.

»Men vi fik artiklen tilbage - uden nogen som helst seriøs bedømmelse. Jeg tror ikke, at Nature’s redaktion kunne lide vores opdagelse. Vi var godt klar over, at Nature er meget tilbageholdende med at optage artikler, hvis resultater strider mod det billede, som FNs klimapanel, IPCC, tegner. IPCC bygger på de satellitmålinger af havoverfladen, der begyndte i 1993, og som derfor kun registrerer den kvasi-oscillation, der begyndte omkring 1970. Men over de blot 22 år optræder de 56-og 74-årige oscillationer ikke med en fuld svingning og kan derfor ikke udskilles.

Vores resultater rokker afgørende ved IPCCs udsagn om stigende havniveau. De er ikke klimapolitisk korrekte.« Jens Morten Hansen fortæller, at artiklen siden blev sendt til Nature Geoscience. Her fik den i første omgang to faglige bedømmelser. Den ene var positiv, den anden negativ, men uden at vurderingen forholdt sig til substansen i artiklen. En tredje reviewer blev herefter sat på, også denne bedømmelse var ifølge Jens Morten Hansen negativ uden dog at forholde sig til artiklens metoder og resultater.

Derefter blev artiklen sendt til tidsskriftet Nature Climate, som blot sendte en mail tilbage om, at man ikke ville bringe den. Også et andet tidsskrift i Nature-familien (Earth Science Reviews) blev forsøgt, men redaktøren her svarede, at man ikke ville bringe artiklen, fordi den burde kulegrave alt, hvad der er skrevet om tidevand - en nærmest livslang opgave.

»Endelig sendte vi artiklen til et tidsskrift uden for Nature-familien, tidsskriftet Journal of Coastal Research, hvor vi dels fik to meget positive vurderinger og et begejstret brev fra redaktøren, der også gerne så flere forskningsartikler fra vores hånd. Alt i alt har artiklen været godt fire år undervejs, efter at den blev færdig. Måske skulle vi være begyndt med Journal of Coastal Research, men den ville givetvis have fået mere opmærksomhed, hvis den var publiceret i et mindre specialiseret tidsskrift. Jeg kan oplyse, at vi også uden held to gange har forsøgt at få en omtale i Videnskab. dk. Det er trist, at forskningsformidling og politisk korrekthed er blevet så stærkt sammenblandet, som tilfældet er på klimaforskningens område.

Man kan få fyldig omtale af stort set hvad som helst, blot det ikke rokker ved IPCCs politiske dagsorden.

Forleden dag fik jeg dog en henvendelse fra Aktuel Naturvidenskab, der gerne vil have en større omtale.«.

Så hvis dine kaffekopper klirrer, så er det nok helt naturligt.

Virkeligheden mod institutionerne

“Verden er efterhånden ved at vågne op til klimaforandringernes dilemma, og det er ikke et øjeblik for tidligt” skriver Duncan Clark i Information. Amerikanerne er i så fald ikke en del af den verden ifølge PEW

pew-bekymring-over-global-opvarmning

Og det er til trods for at ingen miljøsag har fået så megen promovering, som klimaet. Hysteriet toppede omkring 2006, hvor Al Gore fik en Nobel pris for filmen En Ubekvem Sandhed. I 2009 lækkede nogen interne emails fra en gruppe centrale klimaforskere tilknyttet East Anglia Universitetet i England. Angiveligt var det medvirkende til at man ikke opnåede enighed ved klimakonferencen i København nogle uger senere. Ifølge Watt’s Up With That har lande som Kina, Indien, Canada, Australien og Rusland endnu ikke besluttet sig for om de gider deltage i klimakonferencen i Paris til december i år.

Ifølge satellit målingerne er atmosfærens temperatur ikke steget de seneste 18 år. Den udvikling, sammen med andre historier som diskrepansen mellem modller og virkelighed, har man først for nyligt indrømmet og da kun med en lang række forbehold. Klimaet ser bare ikke ud til at være så påvirkeligt, eller følsomt, som det hedder indenfor den videnskabelige disciplin, som forskerne selv. Greg Jones skriver i Climate Change Dispatch at de træge modvillige indrømmelser fra klimahysteriets konsensus følger Kübler-Ross modellen for en psykologi konfronteret med det uafvendelige.

Now, after a roller coaster of emotions and barrage of media tantrums, it seems the issue is settled, sort of. In a recent paper in the journal Science, a team of researchers actually acknowledges the pause and attempts to explain it.

(…)

“The Pause in Global Warming is Finally Explained,” Scientific Americanassures us; “The global warming slowdown is real—but that’s no reason to question climate science,” sneers the Washington Post; “Scientists now know why global warming has slowed down and it’s not good news for us,” proclaims a recent headline on Quartz.com.

As is often the case with predicting the climate, however, the certainty proclaimed in the headlines is anything but certain. This isn’t the first time researchers have attempted to explain what they have previously denied. To date, there are more than 52 scientific theories attempting to solve the pause that doesn’t exist, from a lazy sun to trade winds to the wrong types of El Niño’s. But for some reason Mann’s explanation is the one; 53 is apparently the magic number.

(…)

Mann’s paper encapsulates perfectly the issue between skeptics of climate change and the hard-core believers: something in the models is always missing that is later found. What was wrong last time has been corrected, even though last time nothing was wrong. The same models that are considered gospel always come up short, only to be revised as gospel yet again.

Everyone understands that climate change research is tricky; countless variables constantly interacting with one another at ever-changing time and distance scales. And studying the Earth’s climate is indeed a worthwhile pursuit. But there is nothing scientific about denying actual, physical data, in this case the global average temperature over two decades. And nothing is academic or open-minded about demonizing an entire portion of the population pointing out the obvious by labeling them “deniers” as if they doubt the Holocaust.

(…)

Don’t expect full acceptance anytime soon, however. In fact, a recent Nature paper defends the accuracy of the very models that failed to predict the very pause that didn’t exist that now does exist but only because the models were wrong. No, this is not a Zen koan: it’s modern climate science.

Klimahistorien har haft det svært, men trods dens lunkne opbakning er den stadig hos os. Måske fordi de n er blevet to big to fail, spekulerer Paul Driesen ligeledes i Climate Change Dispatch

Lockheed Martin, a recent Washington Post article notes, is getting into renewable energy, nuclear fusion, “sustainability” and even fish farming projects, to augment its reduced defense profits. The company plans to forge new ties with Defense Department and other Obama initiatives, based on a shared belief in manmade climate change as a critical security and planetary threat. It is charging ahead where other defense contractors have failed, confident that its expertise, lobbying skills and “socially responsible” commitment to preventing climate chaos will land it plentiful contracts and subsidies.

As with its polar counterparts, 90% of the titanic climate funding iceberg is invisible to most citizens, businessmen and politicians. The Lockheed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.

The multi-billion-dollar agenda reflects the Obama Administration’s commitment to using climate change to radically transform America. It reflects a determination to make the climate crisis industry so enormous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as computer models and disaster claims become less and less credible – and even if Republicans control Congress and the White House after 2016. Lockheed is merely the latest in a long list of regulators, researchers, universities, businesses, manufacturers, pressure groups, journalists and politicians with such strong monetary, reputational and authority interests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail.

Above all, it reflects a conviction that alarmists have a right to control our energy use, lives, livelihoods and living standards, with no transparency and no accountability for mistakes they make or damage they inflict on disfavored industries and families.

Selv om temperaturen holder ‘pause’ fortsætter debatten. Lawrence Solomon skriver i Financial Post at den russiske forsker Habibullo Abdussamatov

His latest study, published in Thermal Science, delivers this week’s second whammy. It continues the analysis he has long pursued, which consistently arrives at the same conclusion: Earth is now entering a new Little Ice Age, Earth’s 19th Little Ice Age, to be precise. Abdussamatov has been quite confident of his findings for what might strike some as odd reasons: His science is based on that of the giants in the field — astronomers like Milutin Milankovitch, who a century ago described how tilts in its axis and other changes in the Earth’s movements determine its climate, and William Herschel, who two centuries ago noticed an inverse correlation between wheat prices on Earth and the number of sunspots generated by the Sun’s cycles. (Hint: the more energy from the Sun that Earth gets, the more warmth Earth receives, the more abundant the wheat crops, the lower the price of wheat; the less energy from the Sun, the less warmth, the more wheat crop failures, the higher the wheat price.)

Greenhouse gases — CO2 and water vapour — play a role in this drama but the gases come not from SUVs and other man-made activities but from the oceans, which contain 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere. As the oceans warm or cool because of the Sun, they release or absorb these gases, whose greenhouse effect is secondary and relatively minor.

Abdussamatov’s model incorporates the Sun’s 200-year cycles and the feedback effects from greenhouse gases released by the oceans, and sees how they acted on Earth’s previous 18 Little Ice Ages. “All 18 periods of significant climate changes found during the last 7,500 years were entirely caused by corresponding quasi-bicentennial variations of [total solar irradiance] together with the subsequent feedback effects, which always control and totally determine cyclic mechanism of climatic changes from global warming to Little Ice Age.”

If the 19th Little Ice Age follows the pattern of the previous 18, Earth slipped into an ice age in the winter just concluded and will become progressively colder over the next 50 years, reaching its depth around 2060. Another half century, taking us to the 22nd century, and we’ll arrive back at today’s temperatures.

Mens Joe Romn i Think Progress betror os at pausen er slut

We may be witnessing the start of the long-awaited jump in global temperatures. There is “a vast and growing body of research,” as Climate Central explained in February. “Humanity is about to experience a historically unprecedented spike in temperatures.”

A March study, “Near-term acceleration in the rate of temperature change,” makes clear that an actual acceleration in the rate of global warming is imminent — with Arctic warming rising a stunning 1°F per decade by the 2020s.

Scientists note that some 90 percent of global heating goes into the oceans — and ocean warming has accelerated in recent years. Leading climatologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research explained here in 2013 that “a global temperature increase occurs in the latter stages of an El Niño event, as heat comes out of the ocean and warms the atmosphere.”

In March, NOAA announced the arrival of an El Niño, a multi-month weather pattern “characterized by unusually warm ocean temperatures in the Equatorial Pacific.”

How much of a temperature jump should we expect? Last month, Trenberth explained to Living on Earth:

I interviewed Trenberth this week, and he told me that he thinks “a jump is imminent.” When I asked whether he considers that “likely,” he answered, “I am going to say yes. Somewhat cautiously because this is sticking my neck out.”

Trenberth explained that it’s significant the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) “seems to have gone strongly positive” because that is “perhaps the best single indicator to me that a jump is imminent.” During a PDO, he explains, “the distribution of heat in the oceans changes along with some ocean currents.”

“Through it all, Gallup will be describing the public’s opinion of global warming.” slutter Lawrence sit indlæg.

Mindre vold på grund af Oplysningen?

Lingvisten Steven Pinker har haft stor succes med at minde os om, hvor heldige vi er i forhold til generationerne før os. Trods indtrykket man kunne få fra nyhedsstrømmen bevæger historien sig stadigt længere væk fra vold. I 2012 kunne man læse et interview med Pinker i Reason

Just a couple of centuries ago, violence was pervasive. Slavery was widespread, wife and child beating were acceptable practices, heretics and witches were burned at the stake, pogroms and race riots were common, and warfare was nearly constant. Public hangings, bearbaiting, and even cat burning were popular forms of entertainment. By examining collections of ancient skeletons and scrutinizing contemporary tribal societies, anthropologists have found that people were nine times as likely to die violent deaths in the prehistoric period than in modern times, even allowing for the world wars and genocides of the 20th century. Europe’s murder rate was 30 times higher in the Middle Ages than it is today.

What happened? Human nature did not change, but our institutions did, encouraging people to restrain their natural tendencies toward violence. In more than 800 pages of data and analysis, Pinker identifies a series of institutional changes that have led to decreasing levels of life-threatening violence. The rise of states 5,000 years ago dramatically reduced tribal conflict. In recent centuries, the spread of courtly manners, literacy, commerce, and democracy have reduced violence even more. Polite behavior requires self-restraint, literacy encourages empathy, commerce changes zero-sum encounters into mutually beneficial exchanges, and democracy restrains the excesses of government.

Nogen mener endda at kunne bekræfte Pinkers teorier matematisk. John Gray er ikke sikker i på at det forholder sig så ligefremt med volden, som Pinker hævder. I Guardian peger han på flere forskellige faktorer, der også har indflydelse på nedgangen af vold, som eksempelvis kernevåben. De holder stormagterne i skak, mener han, og reducerer deres konfrontationer til proxy-krige. Derudover sætter han også spørgsmålstegn ved opgørelsen af ofre for konflikt kun skal tælles på slagmarken. Der var flere civile ofre under 2 Verdenkrig end Napoleonskrigene eksempelvis. Og hvor mange år af sit liv skal man miste førend man tæller med som offer (cancertilfælde efter Hiroshima osv).

Og så er der spørgsmålet om, hvad vold er. Korporlighed er helt klart trængt i baggrunden, men volden kan tage andre former. Var 1700 tallets gabestok værre end nutidens isolationsfængsel? Krige har ændret væsen og vi har ændret vores syn på vold. Men det betyder ikke nødvendigvis at vi er stoppet med at udøve vold, vi konfronteres blot sjældnere vores ofre. Modus operandi til side, så er Obamas droner og Kalifatets halshugninger krigsførelse, men blodet på hænderne er kun konkret i det sidste tilfælde. Alt sammen interessante akademiske indvendinger og nuanceringer, som jeg kun kan anbefale at man læser.

Men jeg vil hæfte mig ved den åndelige side af Pinkers teori, ideen om Oplysningens saliggørende effekter, thi disse antager løgnagtige former. Gray forklarer at arven fra Oplysningstiden ikke er et tag-selv bord af gode intentioner humanistiske idealer. Oplysningstiden satte mennesket i centrum, med alle dets implikationer til følge

Among the causes of the outbreak of altruism, Pinker and Singer attach particular importance to the ascendancy of Enlightenment thinking. Reviewing Pinker, Singer writes: “During the Enlightenment, in 17th- and 18th-century Europe and countries under European influence, an important change occurred. People began to look askance at forms of violence that had previously been taken for granted: slavery, torture, despotism, duelling and extreme forms of punishment … Pinker refers to this as ‘the humanitarian revolution’.” Here too Pinker and Singer belong in a contemporary orthodoxy. With other beliefs crumbling, many seek to return to what they piously describe as “Enlightenment values”. But these values were not as unambiguously benign as is nowadays commonly supposed. John Locke denied America’s indigenous peoples any legal claim to the country’s “wild woods and uncultivated wastes”; Voltaire promoted the “pre-Adamite” theory of human development according to which Jews were remnants of an earlier and inferior humanoid species; Kant maintained that Africans were innately inclined to the practice of slavery; the utilitarian Jeremy Bentham developed the project of an ideal penitentiary, the Panopticon, where inmates would be kept in solitary confinement under constant surveillance. None of these views is discussed by Singer or Pinker. More generally, there is no mention of the powerful illiberal current in Enlightenment thinking, expressed in the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks, which advocated and practised methodical violence as a means of improving society.

Like many others today, Pinker’s response when confronted with such evidence is to define the dark side of the Enlightenment out of existence. How could a philosophy of reason and toleration be implicated in mass murder? The cause can only be the sinister influence of counter-Enlightenment ideas. Discussing the “Hemoclysm” – the tide of 20th-century mass murder in which he includes the Holocaust – Pinker writes: “There was a common denominator of counter-Enlightenment utopianism behind the ideologies of nazism and communism.” You would never know, from reading Pinker, that Nazi “scientific racism” was based in theories whose intellectual pedigree goes back to Enlightenment thinkers such as the prominent Victorian psychologist and eugenicist Francis Galton. Such links between Enlightenment thinking and 20th-century barbarism are, for Pinker, merely aberrations, distortions of a pristine teaching that is innocent of any crime: the atrocities that have been carried out in its name come from misinterpreting the true gospel, or its corruption by alien influences. The childish simplicity of this way of thinking is reminiscent of Christians who ask how a religion of love could possibly be involved in the Inquisition. In each case it is pointless to argue the point, since what is at stake is an article of faith.

There is nothing new in the suggestion that war is disappearing along with the “civilising process”. The notion that the human capacity for empathy is expanding alongside an increase of rationality owes its wide influence to Auguste Comte, an almost forgotten early-19th-century French Enlightenment thinker. Comte founded the “religion of humanity”, a secular creed based on the most advanced “science” of the day – phrenology. While Pinker and Singer don’t discuss Comte, his ideas shape their way of thinking. For one thing, Comte coined the term “altruism”. Like Pinker and Singer, he believed that humankind – or at any rate its most highly developed portions – was becoming more selfless and beneficent. But he was also a sharp critic of liberalism who believed the process would end in an “organic” way of life – a “scientific” version of the medieval social order that, despite his hostility to traditional religion, he much admired. It was Comte’s virulent anti-liberalism that worried John Stuart Mill, another Enlightenment thinker who was in many other ways Comte’s disciple. Mill went so far as to suggest that the propagation of the species would in future become a duty to humanity rather than a selfish pleasure; but he feared that a world in which this was the case would be one without liberty or individuality. Mill need not have worried. Human beings continue to be capable of empathy, but there is no reason for thinking they are becoming any more altruistic or more peaceful.

It may be true that the modern state’s monopoly of force has led, in some contexts, to declining rates of violent death. But it is also true that the power of the modern state has been used for purposes of mass killing, and one should not pass too quickly over victims of state terror. With increasing historical knowledge it has become clear that the “Holocaust-by-bullets” – the mass shootings of Jews, mostly in the Soviet Union, during the second world war – was perpetrated on an even larger scale than previously realised. Soviet agricultural collectivisation incurred millions of foreseeable deaths, mainly as a result of starvation, with deportation to uninhabitable regions, life-threatening conditions in the Gulag and military-style operations against recalcitrant villages also playing an important role. Peacetime deaths due to internal repression under the Mao regime have been estimated to be around 70 million. Along with fatalities caused by state terror were unnumbered millions whose lives were irreparably broken and shortened. How these casualties fit into the scheme of declining violence is unclear. Pinker goes so far as to suggest that the 20th-century Hemoclysm might have been a gigantic statistical fluke, and cautions that any history of the last century that represents it as having been especially violent may be “apt to exaggerate the narrative coherence of this history” (the italics are Pinker’s). However, there is an equal or greater risk in abandoning a coherent and truthful narrative of the violence of the last century for the sake of a spurious quantitative precision.

I The Week tilslutter Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry sig stort set John Grays indvendinger og mener at det egentlige skifte er at vi er blevet mere sarte eller sippede når vi konfronteres med vold og andres ubehag. Og at vi derfor her fjernet os fra realiteternes verden (også ifølge Sean Penn). Vi konfronteres nødigt med processen bag vores vacuum pakkede kød for at tage et dagligt eksempel. Hitlers og Stalins grusomheder blev begået i fjerntliggende lejre og endda benægtet osv. Men Gobrys pointe er at hvis der overhovedet er tale om en nedgang i vold “it is due to Christianity”

By now, mainstream historians are slowly waking up to the realization that almost everything we like about the Enlightenment, from the rule of law to the scientific method to capitalism, had its roots in the extraordinary civilization of the Middle Ages.

Why is it that we modern persons are so much more squeamish, so much more likely to be stirred by the idea of harm?

One answer might be that our civilization had, for a millennium, at the center of its moral imagination, the battered and broken figure of a slave hanging from a gibbet, condemned to die by all rightful authorities and abandoned by his friends.

And it is worth noting that the increase in squeamishness in the West dates back from the takeover of the Roman Empire by Christianity.

A key indicator of cultural squeamishness is how a society treats children. As the historian O.M. Bakke shows in the tellingly-named book How Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity, Pagan society considered children as little more than objects, with consequences of — to us post-Christians — astonishing cruelty. The practice of abandoning newborns was widespread and not frowned upon. While most abandoned infants died, those who did not were typically “rescued” into child sex slavery, which was a legal and thriving industry. The sources report that sex with castrated boys, in particular, was considered very titillating, and there are reports of babies castrated to serve that purpose. These were all practices that Christians famously condemned, and Bakke nicely traces how phrases by Jesus holding children up as examples and insisting on care for the “least of these” caused emerging civilization, for the first time in the history of the West, to regard children as full human beings endowed with rights.

Another good indicator of squeamishness is the treatment of slaves. While only by the High Middle Ages was slavery over in the West — the first time in all of human history that a culture had abolished slavery — as soon as Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire rafts of unprecedented laws were passed to reform the institution of slavery, typically “squeamish” laws such as banning sexual relations between slaves and masters, making it illegal to break up slave families, banning the branding of slaves (first on the face, and later anywhere). The first condemnation of slavery as an institution in all of recorded history was made by the Catholic bishop and Church Father Gregory of Nyssa, in strikingly “squeamish” terms, exhorting his congregation to see in their slaves the same image of God that dwells in them, and to free them.

Because human hearts are so hard and crooked, this rise in squeamishness was infuriatingly slow and incomplete (and still is), but if there is one starting point one could name, it would be the rise of Christianity. If the Enlightenment did anything, it was only to accelerate a process that had been ongoing for centuries.

3. The modern age doesn’t look so hot when you count abortion.

Abortion is a typical “squeamish” issue, where mere squeamishness leads us astray. It’s harder to get squeamish about a “clump of cells” than a live baby, even though there is no conceptual difference between the two. When it comes to disabled children in the womb, we all too often get squeamish in exactly the wrong way: we get squeamish about the pain they will endure, instead of getting squeamish about the idea of snuffing out innocent life. “Care/harm” makes us empathize more with those we recognize as our alter egos, but make us empathize less about those we do not include in our circle of fellowship.

According to the U.S. Abortion Clock there have been 55 million abortions in the United States since abortion was legalized in the U.S., and more than one billion abortions worldwide since 1980. One billion. If abortions are counted as homicides then the modern age sure doesn’t look so hot.

4. The dark side of the Enlightenment.

The one true sleight-of-hand practiced by Steven Pinker in his account of the decline of violence (which, as I have said, has a lot of truth) is that he tries to erase the inherently modern phenomenon of totalitarianism from the legacy of the Enlightenment, so that they don’t get put on the Enlightenment’s balance sheet.

But totalitarianism is an inherently modern phenomenon that would have been impossible without the Enlightenment. Late 18th century French society got squeamish about the public torture of Jean-François Damiens — and just a few decades later, they used the hygienic innovation of the guillotine to murder people in the name of Enlightenment values on a scale that would have been unthinkable in the Ancien Régime. Communism was inherently a modern phenomenon: atheistic, pseudo-scientific, and pseudo-rationalistic, driven by a post-Christian and “squeamish” concern for the fates of the working poor, universal in scope and ambition. And while Nazism got mileage out of reactionary rhetoric, it is also inseparable from roots in the movements of “scientific racism” and eugenics which argued for treating human genetics as a kind of technology and fixing it (with the power of the state if need be).

I make this point because I am a person who believes the Enlightenment is a very good thing, but that it also has its dark side. The modern age included a laudable squeamishness against tyranny, but it also included a nice dose of utopian hubris, and the special horrors of the modern age are incomprehensible without this Enlightenment idea. The Enlightenment is a glorious thing, but it is also a dangerous thing — it must always be rescued from itself. The first way to do it is to refuse to whitewash its true legacy.

Som en lille eftertanke vil jeg også nævne Quodlibetas Humphreys kritik af Pinkers oppustning af middelalderlige mordstatistikker, for at hamre hans pointe hjem i Oplysningens navn (en god ven indskød at der qua gennemsnitslevetidens stigning er flere ældre mennesker i dag og altså gennemsnitligt færre unge brushoveder til at begå vold). Ikke så meget for at hakke på Pinkers arbejde, men på grund af følgende anekdote

In 1355 in what became known as the ‘St Scholastic’s Day riot’ an argument in a tavern became a pub brawl which went on for the next 3 days. It began when a group of students at an inn near Carfax disapproved of the wine they were served. The inn-keeper having given them ‘stubborn and saucy language’ the clerks ‘threw the wine and vessel at his head’. The townspeople then seized the opportunity to arm themselves with bows and arrows and attack scholars. Gangs of academics and citizens clashed in the streets and academic halls were burned. Six students and scholars were killed.

st_scholastica

Dengang fandt folket sig ikke så let i elitens svigt.

« Previous PageNext Page »

Monokultur kører på WordPress