Connect with us

Science and Tech

Why big corporations love Net Neutrality

Published

on

Steven Crowder is not arguing for or against Net Neutrality; however he is posing a question. Why is there selective outrage against evil corporations? Facebook, Google, and Twitter love Net Neutrality however they are all just as bad as the ISPs everyone is calling evil. In fact while Net Neutrality sets regulations for ISP’s treatment of data, these giants are free to throttle data as they see fit. I believe Steven Crowder is presenting a perspective that gets us one step closer to finding a real solution to pressing internet concerns.

People assume that critiquing Net Neutrality is inherently in favor of corporate data throttling and slower internet, but it’s not the case. Net Neutrality has its positives, but doesn’t protect the free internet like people suggest. Under Net Neutrality, the large tech giants have done more censorship and data throttling of content than any ISP ever did before. People need to hear both sides of an issue. Net Neutrality is an issue where both sides are making reasonable arguments(which is becoming rare). So actually discuss it and not panic like all these liberals are doing on Twitter.

Advertisement

0

Media

Press ignored the shade Greta Thunberg threw at Green New Deal

Published

on

Press ignored the shade Greta Thunberg threw at Green New Deal

The meteoric rise of teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has been latched onto by both sides of the political aisle. The left is trying to use her as a beacon of hope to compel other young people to buy into their climate change political plans. The right is using her as an example that indoctrination in schools by political scientists is pushing kids to embrace climate change alarmism like a new religion. But Thunberg has been surprisingly resistant to both attempts to use her.

In fact, she doesn’t seem to be a big fan of the Green New Deal, the Democrats’ economic plan covered in a facade of climate change “solutions.” For that, she deserves a great deal of credit. She has met with enough people and heard enough sales pitches to realize this is truly an economic piece of legislation, not one driven by science or solutions.

The way she characterized the Green New Deal was nothing short of “throwing shade,” but mainstream media generally ignored it:

“Wherever I go I seem to be surrounded by fairytales. Business leaders, elected officials all across the political spectrum spending their time making up and telling bedtime stories that soothe us, that make us go back to sleep. These are ‘feel-good’ stories about how we are going to fix everything. How wonderful everything is going to be when we have ‘solved’ everything. But the problem we are facing is not that we lack the ability to dream, or to imagine a better world. The problem now is that we need to wake up. It’s time to face the reality, the facts, the science. And the science doesn’t mainly speak of ‘great opportunities to create the society we always wanted’. It tells of unspoken human sufferings, which will get worse and worse the longer we delay action – unless we start to act now. And yes, of course a sustainable transformed world will include lots of new benefits. But you have to understand. This is not primarily an opportunity to create new green jobs, new businesses or green economic growth. This is above all an emergency, and not just any emergency. This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.”

Granted, she didn’t seem to oppose the Green New Deal directly, but she clearly sees that it is not primarily focused on addressing climate change issues. It’s an economic proposal to fundamentally transform this nation into one dependent on Modern Monetary Theory, a true existential threat to the U.S. and world economies. Even one of its architects was so bold as to openly admit it was not a climate change plan.

Saikat Chakrabarti: The Green New Deal isn’t about climate change

https://noqreport.com/2019/07/12/saikat-chakrabarti-green-new-deal-isnt-climate-change/To say the Green New Deal is about fixing the environment is like saying the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was about helping workers. Just as workers were a means to an end for the Nazis, so too is the environment a means to an end for the holistic, top-down approach to completely transforming America, which is the end goal of the Green New Deal.

Ending climate change is simply a theme of the proposal, and a minor one at that.

The heart of the Green New Deal is an economic upheaval that turns the U.S. government into the primary employer and economic force in the nation. I’m not just talking about increasing the number of government jobs. The Green New Deal would encompass most jobs and put entire industries completely unrelated to climate change under one gigantic Washington DC umbrella.

One does not have to agree with Greta Thunberg’s activism to appreciate that she’s not buying into the political and economic side of the Green New Deal. She is discerning enough to see climate change being used as a political ploy by Democrats.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Opinions

Debunking the religion of ‘settled science’

Published

on

Once upon a time there was a government that actually listened to the scientific community…

Nope. Never happened.

What actually happens is a lot more mysterious than the twists and turns of scientific inquiry. You see, those bits of information come from squinty-eyed lab coats that ask uncomfortable questions and get answers even they don’t like. But I digress.

In the 1950s some researchers had found that a diet rich in animal fats seemed to raise serum cholesterol. Ancel Keys firmly believed that this led to more heart attacks, so he studied diet and health in seven countries from 1958-1964. He chose not to include France and Switzerland, two countries likely to contradict his theory. Instead he used Greece, Italy, and Yugoslavia, countries that were undergoing massive dietary changes due in part to post World War II economic changes. In Finland 992 men per 10,000 died of heart attacks. In Crete only 9 of 10,000 did. It had to be the olive oil on Crete instead of the animal fats in Finland that made the difference.

True scientists would note that Keys didn’t prove anything about animal fats and heart attacks. First, his “selection bias” led to an experiment designed to support his beliefs. Second, East Finland had three times as many heart attacks as West Finland, in spite of all other factors being equal. But let’s leave the terrible design of the Seven Countries Study for the moment.

In The Big Fat Surprise, Nina Teicholz tells about Vilhjalmur Stefansson, a Harvard trained anthropologist who lived with the Inuit in the Canadian arctic in 1906. He lived their life style, with 70-80% of all calories from animal fat. Red meat was dog food. Vegetables were added only when they were unsuccessful at hunting. (“Vegetarian” is an Inuit word for “bad hunter.”) During the polar night, light was so poor that they could not do much outside safely, so they didn’t even exercise much. Yet, in Stefansson’s 1946 book Not by Bread Alone, he noted that the Inuit were the “healthiest people I had ever lived with.” They had no obesity and almost no disease.

In 1928, Stefansson and a colleague, under rigorous supervision, ate nothing but meat and water for a full year. After the year, the two men were carefully examined, and found to be fully healthy. They didn’t even get scurvy, since they ate the whole animal, including bones, liver, and brain, which have Vitamin C. So thirty years before Ancel Keys, we already knew that he was wrong.

The problem is simple. There’s no such thing as “settled science.” But anyone who wrote contradicting Keys got such a tongue-lashing in the journals that they tucked their tails between their legs and slunk away.

“Science” is not an answer, it’s a method. First, a researcher sets up a test designed to prove his theory wrong. You read that correctly. Every good piece of science is set up to show that the researcher’s idea is bad. Only good ideas can survive that sort of inquiry. Then, when the first researcher says, “My study showed that the ‘null hypothesis’ is wrong,” another researcher sets up a different way to prove the idea wrong. Only when the experimental hypothesis is confirmed by repeated experimentation can we have real confidence in our answer. By the way, most studies can’t be confirmed.

As a physician, I have lived this process for decades. There are many ideas in medicine that have been promoted as “gospel truth,” just to be disproved later. But this kind of uncertainty is simply not good enough for the political class.

The Political Prime Directive is “Do Something!” It doesn’t have to work. In fact, you don’t really have to do anything. You just have to look busy. That will tell gullible voters that you are “fighting for them.” Reality is unimportant.

In the case of diet, we find that the McGovern Committee of the Senate created in response to an overhyped 1967 CBS “documentary” titled “Hunger in America” was the prime mover. The Committee pushed for federal guidelines on nutrition best exemplified by the “food pyramid.”

Food Pyramid

The “bread, cereal, rice, and pasta group” makes up half of the dietary recommendation. If we add fruits, which have lots of sugar, that portion increases. Add in “use fats and oils sparingly,” and we have the High Carb/Low Fat modern dietary recommendations. And as Dr. Jason Fung shows in The Diabetes Code, high carbohydrate intake causes Type II Diabetes. The only cure is a High Fat/Low Carb diet with intermittent fasting. When I titled my YouTube video on the subject Your Government is Out to Kill You, I meant it. Let’s consider the facts.

Scientific inquiry is never finished, and even such simple ideas as Newton’s three Laws of Motion are never fully explained. Quantum theory continues with more and more detailed understanding, at times contradicting what was proposed before. We thought that general relativity required time dilation at high speeds, but now we believe that space itself may be able to move through space. And if that’s confusing, then imagine how legislators must feel when they consider scientific questions.

Most legislators are trained in law, not science. So when a “scientist” comes to them with an apparent answer to a supposed problem, they are, like most gullible people, ready to buy into the proposed solution. After all, they’ve been hired to “do something,” and when someone with the right letters after their name comes to the Emerald City, the Great and Powerful Oz must follow their recommendations.

There are many others with proper academic credentials who present information that contradicts the High Priests of Carbohydrates. But those researchers don’t represent farmers who “need” protection from crop failures and can contribute to political campaigns. So our benevolent CongressCritters vote for wheat and sugar subsidies that kill us with obesity and Type II Diabetes in exchange for a never-ending stream of money for them. All this is justified under the General Welfare clause of the Preamble to the US Constitution.

Not surprisingly, wheat and sugar subsidies result in more wheat and sugar being grown. To prevent a glut in these commodities, Congress passed various bills to limit the acreage devoted to them. So now farmers could get paid for not growing crops. A series of “fixes” has followed, but no one seems willing to challenge the wisdom of promoting crops that kill us. Or for that matter, promoting anything from DC.

And that brings us to another imagined pending apocalypse. We’ve been serenaded by a chorus claiming that 97% of scientists agree that we are facing a man-made crisis in our climate. The carbon dioxide we make as a by-product of fossil fuels is somehow turning the earth into an oven. Alexandria Airhead-Cortez has declared that we have only twelve years left, and every Democrat Presidential Candidate has taken up the refrain.

Rather than debunk of the 97% myth again, let us simply realize that it is “a lie of epic proportions.” So is almost everything else about “global warming.” Remember the nature of science. It makes predictions. If the UN IPCC predictions fail, then the ideas that support those predictions are scientifically wrong.

Certain facts are abundantly clear. Our current global temperature is cooler than it was during the Roman Climate Optimum or the Medieval Warm Period, yet the prophets of climate doom deny this fact to create a “hockey stick” graphic supposedly showing a catastrophic warming trend. They use this “garbage in, garbage out” starting point to create a set of computer models that predict massive warming if we did not reduce our CO2 output.

Temperature Anomoly

But the recent path of temperatures hasn’t been so supportive of their predictions. Since 1998, there has been no net warming. The UAH (light green) graphic is the gold standard of the data, and its average (dotted line) is flattening. Ditto for the HadCrut data.

IPCC Predictions

In short, the IPCC has been crying “Wolf!” And when we plot actual global temperatures, we find that they have nothing to do with CO2.

Geological Timescale

In particular, the medieval warm period ended in the Little Ice Age about 1250AD. And it was only one of several warm periods unrelated to industrial activity or burning of fossil fuels. In short, something bigger is going on.

Average Near-Surface Temperatures

Is that big thing solar cycles? El Nino/La Nina? Cloud dynamics? Ozone holes? Volcanic activity? Cow farts? There are so many factors and so many possibilities that no one has anything close to a complete understanding. About the only thing we can be sure about is that CO2 isn’t a problem. The Gospel of Man-Caused Global Warming is a religion, it’s not a scientific truth.

The current level of atmospheric CO2 is far below the level easily identified in ancient times. And life was flourishing then, just as it is now. If CO2 levels were to rise, as greenhouse operators do artificially, plants would grow better. And they would use less water, making sub-Saharan Africa into a garden. If CO2 falls by a third, most plants would die. Then what would all those carbon-free vegans eat?

CO2 isn’t even a potent greenhouse gas. It’s easily outstripped by methane, which is utterly dwarfed by water vapor. In short, the tiff over CO2 is about as important as worrying about what Congress will do when it isn’t in session. If you want to control the earth’s temperature, control its clouds.

But we have a spectacle every few weeks where uninformed and overexposed Democrats blather on about a non-existent catastrophe that has been perpetually just around the next corner. New York and Miami are about to be flooded by a rising sea level. Reality simply can’t enter their bubble for the same reason that crop subsidies don’t die. “Climate Change” creates massive donations to political campaigns. Once elected those ignorant legislators create subsidies to their favored researchers and businesses who return the favor with more money and alarmist projections.

The Law of Subsidy is again proven. When you subsidize climate hysteria, you get more of it. It becomes more expensive because its rent-seekers promote rules that cost you and me money through CAFE standards, eagle-killing windmills, and loan guarantees to Solyndra. There are lots of Tesla cars on the road because the Feds gave Tesla over $700 million in subsidies, just in the third quarter of 2018. (Who said Elon Musk wasn’t smart?) The possibilities are endless. As Ronald Reagan said, “The closest thing to immortality is a federal program.” The reason is simple. The Law of Subsidy creates harmful and perverse incentives.

Subsidies create financial gains for donors and power for those inside the Beltway. If Congress were to eliminate subsidies to climate hysteria or agriculture, CongressCritters would lose mutually beneficial relationships with those donors. What’s not to like?

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

California’s touted background checks yielded ZERO impact on gun deaths

Published

on

Californias touted background checks yield ZERO impact on gun deaths

As California goes, so too does the progressive side of the nation. California is where radical ideas are tried out and, in the vast majority of cases, fail miserably. Undeterred, progressives tend to look at these failures as successes waiting to happen eventually, so they beat the drum for whatever leftist legislation the state is able to pass. Such is the case with universal background checks which are now being pushed nationwide after California’s “groundbreaking” attempt to make them work.

They didn’t work. In fact, they can be chalked up as being a monumental failure to anyone who is honest. Sadly, the radical progressives of the Democrats Party are not honest, which is why they keep pushing these background checks as if they demonstrated some measure of success.

Many patriots already knew this. The non-partisan study into the effectiveness of background checks in reducing gun deaths told us late last year that they didn’t work. But that study has been suppressed, ignored, or “debunked” by leftists with a gun control agenda. They refuse to allow facts to get in the way of their agenda.

So, we’ll revisit it…

Johns Hopkins Study: California’s Background Check Law Had No Impact on Gun Deaths – Foundation for Economic Education

https://fee.org/articles/california-s-background-check-law-had-no-impact-on-gun-deaths-johns-hopkins-study-finds/A joint study conducted by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the University of California at Davis Violence Prevention Research Program found that California’s much-touted mandated background checks had no impact on gun deaths, and researchers are puzzled as to why.

In 1991, California simultaneously imposed comprehensive background checks for firearm sales and prohibited gun sales (and gun possession) to people convicted of misdemeanor violent crimes. The legislation mandated that all gun sales, including private transactions, would have to go through a California-licensed Federal Firearms License (FFL) dealer. Shotguns and rifles, like handguns, became subject to a 15-day waiting period to make certain all gun purchasers had undergone a thorough background check.

It was the most expansive state gun control legislation in America, affecting an estimated one million gun buyers in the first year alone. Though costly and cumbersome, politicians and law enforcement agreed the law was worth it.

The legislation would “keep more guns out of the hands of the people who shouldn’t have them,” said then-Republican Gov. George Deukmejian.

“I think the new laws are going to help counter the violence,” said LAPD spokesman William D. Booth.

More than a quarter of a century later, researchers at Johns Hopkins and UC Davis dug into the results of the sweeping legislation. Researchers compared yearly gun suicide and homicide rates over the 10 years following implementation of California’s law with 32 control states that did not have such laws.

They found “no change in the rates of either cause of death from firearms through 2000.”

Take note that researchers were “puzzled.” It’s as if they did the study expecting it to yield tremendous results through which they could tout gun control. These American universities are not the NRA. They weren’t commissioned to prove gun control in general or universal background checks in particular are ineffective. They wanted gun control to be proven effective, and when the data didn’t support that premise, they were puzzled.

Here’s the reality: Gun control adversely affects law abiding citizens while criminals, who are wont to break such laws, are not affected. If anything, gun control measures aid in the rise of crime, as we’ve seen in Chicago and other cities with obtuse gun control measures already in place.

The 2nd Amendment defends an armed citizenry because our ability to protect ourselves from oppression is the cornerstone of what America represents. Whether against criminals or tyranny, the 2nd Amendment empowers Americans to stay safe and strong.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending