A petition for a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone would be required (under oath) to tell the truth

From Watts Up With That?: Australians – Please Sign the Petition for a Royal Commission into Climate Science.

Guest announcement by Mike Jonas,

The petition can be signed online at: https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

Only an Australian resident or citizen can sign. Note that signing is a multi-step process, ending with an email signature confirmation.

Alan Kohler (read on) has called for a royal commission to ‘review the evidence’ on Climate and Energy Policies to conduct:

… a review of the evidence on (climate change and energy) in which everyone is required (under oath) to tell the truth.

Alan Kohler is an honourable high profile journalist, investment guru and businessman who believes the evidence of the “97% of scientists” (without questioning truth to power?).

Alan and WUWT readers may differ on what we believe will be revealed in such a Royal Commission, but we do agree that we all need to see the evidence, the impact and the timing, so we can have a better idea of what we all need to do, first for the people of Australia, and for the people of the world.

Please bring this Media Release below to your friends’ and family’s and social media’s attention and if they happen to be Australian – urge them to sign this e-petition.

It could be that a strange and unlikely alliance of alarmists and realists can line up in the same direction, with a common purpose – to have a Royal Commission to get at the truth.

Imagine what this would mean for the CAGW hypothesis if we can get this Royal Commission up.

Imagine the 97% and the 3% of scientists all telling the truth under oath to give everyone assurance that quality due diligence is applied to underlying science-based assumptions, data collection, technological developments and evidence based public policies.

Australians: Please read and sign House of Representatives e-Petition EN1231:

https://www.aph.gov.au/petition_list?id=EN1231

Please note: This post is from a comment by Chris Dawson a few days ago, edited and upgraded to a full post. The original comment is at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/02/11/climate-science-does-an-about-face-dials-back-the-worst-case-scenario/#comment-2914552

Jo Nova has put up the petition on her blog: Petition: Alan Kohler wants a Royal Commission …

There are only a few more than 500 signatures so far. A lot more are needed. Please send this on to everyone you know, alarmists and realists alike.

The Marriage of Figaro at Glyndebourne

A live recording from the Glyndebourne Festival Opera in 1973 with Kiri Te Kanawa, Frederica Von Stade, Ilieana Contrubas, Benjamin Luxon & Knut Skram, and with me sitting in the trombone section of the orchestra as a personal guest of the principal oboist. My personal most ecstatic moment in all my musical listening over my entire life. Well, maybe listening to Pete Seeger on the banjo in 1955 was more memorable and thrilling. Of course, there was also Madame Butterfly which was the first opera I went to with my wife when we were just courting. It was such a magical night that I have never listened to the opera ever since.

Is it really that hard to understand that unproductive public spending lowers productivity?

Is there anyone anywhere who actually believes that the present recovery in the US has anything to do with Obama? Actually there are lots of people just as ignorant as that, amongst whom is Obama himself. I get the same level of irritation when I read how economic “managers” here in Oz wonder why productivity growth is so pathetic and real wages are falling even as they see before their eyes the construction of streetcars in Sydney, trains in Melbourne and the diversion of tens of billions of dollars into preventing a non-heating planet from heating. Anyway, this is Trump v Obama on why the American economy has been rising since Obama left the presidency.

President Trump fired back Monday after former President Barack Obama, in a subtle swipe at the commander in chief, claimed credit for the economic gains in both their terms.

Obama tweeted Monday morning to note the anniversary of his signing the 2009 economic stimulus package.

“Eleven years ago today, near the bottom of the worst recession in generations, I signed the Recovery Act, paving the way for more than a decade of economic growth and the longest streak of job creation in American history,” Obama tweeted, alongside a photo of his signature on the bill.

But, the Trump campaign, in a statement to Fox News, countered that the economy was recovering only because of the actions Trump took to undo his predecessor’s policies.

“President Trump reversed every single failed Obama-era economic policy, and with it, reversed the floundering Obama/Biden economy,” Trump campaign national press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said. “Obama and Biden orchestrated the worst economic recovery in modern history.”

Actually, everyone else did more or less the same as Obama, Australia included, with more or less the same results. Modern macro is about as disastrous as a policy can be, although we may yet see Modern Monetary Theory given a try by one of the socialists now running for President as a Democrat.

“False at every conceivable scale of resolution”

To characterise this line of reasoning as having no basis in real­ity would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.

And just what is so unquestionably false? This is:

The categories male and female exist on a spectrum, and are therefore no more than social constructs. If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favour of a new bespoke “gender identity”.

And where was such a statement made? In The Australian today, in an article titled, There’s no question of our biological sex. You may be amazed to find such a statement made anywhere in the Western world at the present time, but not only was this said, but was said in the middle of the paper in a joint-authored article by a man, Colin Wright, who is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State University and a woman, Emma Hilton, who is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester. Are their careers not now in tatters or are we at the dawn of a new era of free speech?

And on the same day I also found something else: Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably. Surely that’s unsayable in the world today. Lots there to read, but will just choose the following two quotes as an invitation for you to read the rest. First:

In order to calmly debate all ideas, you need to put emotion aside. But females are simply less able to do that than males because they are higher in Neuroticism—feeling negative feelings strongly. Thus, they more easily become overwhelmed by negative feelings, precluding them from logical thought.

Then this:

Ed Dutton, in a video entitled “Do Females Reduce Male Per Capita Genius?” takes this critique of feminism even further. He argues that geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness. This means they are clever enough to solve a difficult problem, but being low in rule-following, can also “think outside the box.” And, being low in Agreeableness, they don’t care about offending people, which original ideas always do.

An aspect of Agreeableness is empathy—being concerned with the feelings of others and being able to guess what they might be. Dutton shows that people who are high in “systematizing” (which males typically are compared to females, with systematizing being vital to problem solving) tend to be low in empathy. Thus, Dutton argues, you don’t get many women geniuses because their IQ range is more bunched towards the mean; and also because they are too high in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.

Universities, traditionally dominated by males, have in essence been about giving geniuses a place in which they can attempt to solve their problems, working at their chosen problems for years on end. But Dutton argues that female academics tend to be the “Head Girl Type” (chief prefect at all-girls schools in the UK) with “normal range” high IQ and high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness—the exact opposite of a typical genius. Accordingly, once you allow females into academia, they will be promoted over genius males because they come across as better people to work with—more conscientious, easier to be around and more socially skilled. But this will tend to deny geniuses the place of nurture they need.

Unbelievable. Not the text, but that either could be published anywhere in the West in a respectable newspaper at this moment in time.

Dealing with the most important issue of our times

It’s not the first time I’ve brought this up. The first time was in 2014: Airplane etiquette. There in part I wrote:

I can understand the fury of anyone already crammed into an economy seat having what room there is taken from them. I think of it as the same as talking on the mobile in a loud voice while sitting on the train (and soon on the plane as well).

My own rule:

No pushing seats back until after the evening meal

I understand that on airplanes people have woken early to catch the 8:00 a.m. flight, and others are connecting from flights where whatever it might say on the local clock, it is still past midnight to them. But it is more than courtesy and a kind of etiquette needs to be developed so that at least we can work out who is in the right before the fights break out.

There was a time you could smoke on airplanes as well. Let us hope for a day in the future when people remember the time when you could put your seat back in the middle of the afternoon which by then they will no longer be permitted to do.

Anyway, it now seems to have become a more general issue: We Need To Come To A National Consensus On Airplane Seat Reclining. And in this contribution to the debate, five rules are proposed. These are the headings of the proposed rules but read the full extension at the link. In fact, read the link, with these as the solution.

1) Seriously Consider Not Reclining

2) If You Feel Compelled To Recline, Be Respectful

3) Sometimes It’s Totally Fine To Recline

4) Balance Health Issues

5) Know The Limits

But there is also civil disobedience as discussed in this post: American Airlines threatened to arrest me, says woman whose seat was continuously punched by man sitting behind her.

As the space between seats becomes smaller and smaller, this will become an issue that grows larger and larger. Beyond everything else, with computer technology as it is, flight time can be productive, but with the seat in front reclining, one can no longer see the screen and the ability to do serious work compromised.

These are my revised rules:

1) Before the trays from the evening meal have been cleared away, passengers must seek approval from the passengers behind them before they recline their seats.

2) The person in the seat behind has the absolute right to refuse.

3) Once the evening meal has been served and the trays have been taken away, passengers have an absolute right to recline their seats until the morning meal is served.

It seems to be a property-rights issue: who has possession of the space between the back of one’s own seat where one is sitting and the back of the seat of the passenger in front at the moment the plane is about to take off? This is not an issue in which spontaneous order seems able to provide a solution.

The deep state discussed before the rest of us found out

On the very first page of a book written by one of my favourite and among the most insightful authors on politics I know, Sheldon Wolin, in his Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism published in 2008, eight years before Donald Trump was elected President, there is this quote at the very top of the page and on its own, which is designed to set the scene:

Robert S. Mueller III [director of the FBI] and Secretary of State Powell read from the Bible. Mr Mueller’s theme was good versus evil. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers of the present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places,” he said, reading from Ephesians 6:12-18. (Wolin 2008: 4 – parentheses in the original]

This was taken from an article in The New York Times published on September 12, 2003, page A-19. And in the preface, Wolin helps explain the point of the book and the reason for quoting Mueller.

The concept of totalitarianism is central to what follows…. References to Hitler’s Germany are introduced to remind the reader of the benchmarks in a system of power that was invasive abroad, justified preemptive war as a matter of official doctrine, and repressed all opposition at home – a system that was racist in principle and practice, deeply ideological, and openly bent on world domination. Those benchmarks are introduce to illuminate tendencies in our own system of power that are opposed to the fundamental principles of constitutional democracy. Those tendencies are, I believe, totalizing in the sense that they are obsessed with control, expansion, superiority, and supremacy.” (Wolin 2008: xvii)

It is exactly this that Donald Trump has exposed.

[In previous forms of totalitarian societies] the revolutionaries gained the leverage necessary to reconstruct, then mobilize society. In contrast, inverted totalitarianism is only in part a state-centered phenomenon. Primarily it represents the political coming of age of corporate power and the political demobilization of the citizenry. (Wolen xvii-xviii)

As with anything like this, even if he has exactly explained what we see, no one will care. But it is interesting all the same to have found this already in print so long before we see it exposed in the way it has now been.

It’s all a matter of perspective

This is all there is at Instapundit, one item lost in the pack.

QUESTION ASKED: Is He Crazy? Mike Bloomberg Considering Hillary Clinton as His Running Mate.

.
And this is what you get at Sludge.


Sources close to Bloomberg campaign tell DRUDGE REPORT that candidate is considering Hillary Clinton as running mate, after their polling found the Bloomberg-Clinton combination would be formidable force... MORE

DRUDGE has learned that Bloomberg himself would go as far as to change his official residence from New York to homes he owns in Colorado or Florida, since the electoral college makes it hard for a POTUS and VPOTUS from the same state... Developing..


EXCLUSIVE: BLOOMBERG CONSIDERS HILLARY RUNNING MATE

With this now added on.


MADAM VP: ‘I never say never because I do believe in serving my country’…
Clinton could get her revenge against Trump…
‘SHE WANTS BACK IN’…
The implausible ticket?
BETTING ODDS SOAR FOR MIKE GETTING NOMINATION…

As for who will eventually get the nomination, no one has a clue since actual policy has almost nothing to do with it. The only bit in common they seem to have is that they would each be a disaster, both domestically and across the world.