Support
Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!
Contact
Top Headlines
Labour Spin: This was just about Brexit, not a referendum on our precious socialism or our antisemitic leader Jeremy Corbyn
So you admit the will of the people is in favor of Brexit, finally? Forced to choose between Remain and Socialism, you decide that Socialism must be saved?
Talking head says that antisemism was in fact a factor in Labour's huge 71 (projected) seat loss. I'm sure they picked up a lot of votes due to their antisemitism, too, but they lost more
BBC live coverage here
Pound surges on Tory win
I wonder if it is finally beginning to dawn on the media that We the People absolutely, viscerally despise them and they no longer influence us, except to the extent we do the opposite of what they demand, just to denigrate and reduce them further.
Liberal Dems blame their own lame performance on Jeremy Corbyn, claiming that he is so reviled by the public that Liberal Democrat voters chose to vote Conservative to keep Corbyn out of office
That's spin, of course. This was generally an anti-left and anti-Remainer vote. But it's interesting that they're throwing their antisemite, pro-terrorist leader overboard. What do they say afterwards? "Hey guys, we gave 1930s-style Jew hatred a go and it didn't work out for us. Now we're going to just roll up our sleeves and get back to basics." I mean, that only works for Ilhan Omar (Nur).
This doesn't mean much to me, but someone despised by all right-thinking people, Lib Dem Jo Swinson, is expected to lose her seat to the SNP.
Lindsey Graham has a 99% Lifetime Conservative Record on Fox & Friends, but only a 28% record in the actual Senate
Lindsey Graham has a 99% Lifetime Conservative Record on Fox & Friends, but only a 28% record in the actual Senate
Anita Sarkesian needs money and has a new, get this, fundraising venture to sell! And it has to do with, get this, Toxic Men in Gaming!
And it's basically just Bullyhunters 2, and you know that Bullyhunters really needed a sequel.
Forgotten 80s Mystery Click
It's Gary Numan. But no, it's not Cars.
He did this song originally under the band name "Tubeway Army."
Forgotten 60s Mystery Click
Hints: Based on Russian folk song; sounds like some kind of 1910's cabaret drinking song; produced by Paul McCartney for Apple Records
When Paul McCartney was driving George and Ringo crazy trying to get Maxwell's Silver Hammer exactly right, because McCartney thought it could be a single -- "It could never be a single," Harrison said, "it's so fruity" -- Harrison suggested that McCartney just dump Maxwell's Silver Hammer on this artist
Forgotten 70s Mystery Click
"You never fail, to satisfy"
Much higher quality recording substituted for the old one
Why read the IG Report when you can pontificate on matters of life and death? It won't be long before he tells us what is better, pads vs. tampons. [Mis. Hum]
423 So, wife works from home. She gets a call on her work phone.
I look over, and she has her video feed on, with me walking around in my underwear.
Come on, woman. I ain't giving it away for free.
Posted by: flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner
Always remember who it was in the alleged "conservative" media who swore up and down for the absolute, unquestionable integrity of their Deep State friends and sources and booty-calls, as well as for the Christ-like truthfulness of their ally Adam Schiff.
And remember the people who were open to doubting the alleged LG Paladins of the Deep State.
And make your news and commentary consumption choices based on that knowledge.
Also note that some people in the actual conservative media, like Mollie Hemingway, Sean Davis, Lee Smith, and Julie Kelly, actually read primary documents, whereas most people in the Fake Conservative, Inc. corporate-funded media only read Twitter and Jake Tapper's snarky chyrons. So all the Fake Conservative Media can report to you is what their liberal friends are saying about the primary documents (and by the way, their liberal friends didn't bother reading the primary documents either).
There is not just a profound lack of conservatism among the alleged conservative intellectual class, but also a profound lack of the basic habits of intellectualism, such as reading primary documents and, I don't know, getting the fuck off Twitter a couple of hours per day to do some actual work.
But hey, the paychecks from Paul Singer and Charles Koch keep coming, so everything's fine in Conservatism, Inc. land.
But here's the problem, fellas: You're being paid for access to an audience. You're being paid, just like a TV network is paid, for a bunch of eyeballs your sponsors can advertise their political agendas to, and you are the undisclosed pitchmen for their political products.
They paychecks are still coming, yes. But what happens when your sponsors realize that your audience has abandoned you?
Proudly offered by today's National Review: "Trump Defenders Continue to Push Ukraine Conspiracy Theories," by liberal corporate-owned propagandist Jonah Goldberg
I realized that I never even think to click on National Review anymore. I never read an article that comes out of the thing, even in the increasingly-rare case that someone sends one to me telling me it's good. So I clicked over to see what I was missing.
I think my decision to treat National Review as lower-production-value CNN is vindicated in full.
Glad to see that AEI sponge Ramesh Ponuru is still there, not disclosing his actual donors.
Seriously: If an allegedly "independent" commentator is receiving significant streams of money from deep-pocketed donors with specific ideological/financial aims, why on earth is not ALREADY a requirement that such writers routinely disclose the big-money agenda-drivers putting cash in their pockets? Why does conservative media get away with just ignoring the most basic protocols about transparency and honesty? This infects the entire Conservatism, Inc. system -- most of them are being paid money by some outside player, and yet none of them ever seem to do the most basic, elemental disclosure stating that they are receiving money from someone with interest in the subject matter they're writing about.
AEI is basically a corrupt pass-through organization whereby Big Money donors can purchase commentators/unacknowledged corporate spokesmen, but the commentators don't have to disclose they're being paid by, say, Charles Koch, because the shell-corporation AEI is supposedly the person paying the commentator.
When in fact it's actually the donor, who launders his donation through AEI. The donor gives them money to AEI, supposedly -- but it's "earmarked" for a specific recipient.
The recipient knows who gave him the money, who's endowing their "chair" or their "fellowship;" the donor, obviously, knows that he gave the commentator money.
The only people who don't know who's being paid by who are the general public these "independent" commentators supposedly serve.
Why don't we know? And why aren't we demanding disclosures on these matters?
I wonder why it's so important to keep that information hidden from the public.
Recent Entries
Exit Polls: UK Conservatives Absolutely Crush Labour, Projected to Win an Outright Majority of House Seats
Virginia Democrats: We're Coming For Your Guns, and We'll Mobilize the National Guard to Take Them
White Interlopers: Local Residents and The Wall Street Journal Blame Jews for Their Own Slaughter, Wondering What They're Doing Invading a Black Neighborhood
Who Is Case Agent 1?
Kentucky Judge Accused of Having Threesomes in Judge's Chambers, Pressuring Subordinates Into Having Sex
"Case Agent 1" Was a Major Driver of Fraud and Abuse in Crossfire Hurricane, "Primarily Responsible" for "Most Significant" Abuses, and Yet, Of Course, Remains an FBI Employee
Rashida Tlaib on Black Hebrew Israelites' Targeting and Slaughter of Jews: "White Supremacy kills"
The Morning Rant: Minimalist Edition
Mid-Morning Art Thread
The Morning Report - 12/12/19
Recent Comments
Sooner: " SNP is treating to secede if Brexit happens, and ..." [view]

Grump928(C): "[i]This calls for a spot of tea.[/i] The bu ..." [view]

Fritz: "You don't know how lucky you are, boyBack in the U ..." [view]

Catch Thirty-Thr33: "lol.. always been my motto. Just pointing out that ..." [view]

Moron Robbie abridged: "Was it the National Guard that burned up all those ..." [view]

flounder, rebel, vulgarian, deplorable, winner: "How dare You!!! Posted by: Greta Thunderthi ..." [view]

Hotgas VIP Member: "Scotland had a referendum to leave the U.K. in 201 ..." [view]

Hesco Gypsy: "A friend just texted me from London that the good ..." [view]

RichardWindsor: "Drudge Report appears to have been sold: See http ..." [view]

Bert G: "[i]Except for that time in 2005 where that exact t ..." [view]

Diogenes at remote site: " They will still come up with a way to not do BREX ..." [view]

Anna Puma: "The Green Party will ban the song One Is a Lonely ..." [view]

Vendette: "SNP is treating to secede if Brexit happens, and h ..." [view]

The ARC of History!: "[i]At least this didn't happen during the reign of ..." [view]

Hollow Log: "263 The left lokes to mock the gun owners as fat, ..." [view]

Search


Bloggers in Arms

Talk Of The Town with Steve Noxon
American Digest
The Anchoress
Belmont Club
Betsy's Page
The Bitch Girls
BizzyBlog
Blackfive, Paratrooper of Love
Blonde Sagacity
California Conservative
Chicago Boyz
Classical Values
Cold Fury
The Country Store
Cowboy Blob
Cranky Neocon
Da Goddess
Daily Lunch
Daily Pundit
The Daily Recycler (Vidblog)*
Daleks Weblog
Daly Thoughts
Ilyka Damen
Damn the Man
Dave Munger
Dave's Not Here
Dawn Eden
Day by Day (Cartoon)
DefenseTech
Demure Thoughts
EduWonk
Enter Stage Right
Eternity Road
Dean Esmay
The Fat Guy
File It Under
FloridaCracker
Ghost of a Flea
Grim's Hall
Hell in a Handbasket
Victor Davis Hanson
Hugh Hewitt
The House of Payne
IMAO
Instapundit
Iowahawk
JamieR (Classics)
JihadWatch
Just One Minute
Kausfiles
Le Sabot Post-Moderne
Lileks/The Bleat
Likelihood of Confusion Law Blog
Michelle Malkin
Memeorandum (Metablog) Mind of Mog
My Pet Jawa
Oh, That Liberal Media
Outside the Beltway
Patterico's Pontifications
The Perfect World (Discussion Forum)
The People's Cube
New Hampshire Review
Powerline
Protein Wisdom
The Pundit Guy
Q & O
RedState
Reliapundit
Riehl Worldview (Carnivorous Conservative)
Say Anything Blog
Scrappleface
Seraphic Press
Roger L. Simon
Six Meat Buffet
Slublog
Ten Fingers Six Strings
Traction Control/US Citizen
Two Crackas in My Soup
Twisted Spinster
An Unamplified Voice (Music/Opera)
Velociworld
Viking Pundit
The Wardrobe Door
White Pebble (Politics/Poetry)
Whitney Gaskell (Author)
Michael Williams/Master of None
WizBang
Faces From Ace's
The Rogues' Gallery.
Archives
Syndicate this site (XML)

Powered by
Movable Type 2.64

Obama Advisor Valerie Jarrett Mistakes 4-Star General For Waiter, Asks Him For a Glass of Wine | Main | Ronald Reagan At 100
February 06, 2011

Charles Krauthammer: "If Godzilla Appeared On The National Mall, Al Gore Would Say It's Because of Global Warming"

Because of, you know, "the spores."

Al Gore's explanation is a lie. The same lie was offered last year. It's basically "well of course it's snowy because all this extra warm air coming up from the equator is loading the air with moisture and so it snows."

Except it's not just snowy. It's also cold. Al Gore's hot-air-causes-precipitation explanation can be used to explain precipitation -- but heat cannot be so used to explain cold.

And it is cold. Colder than the global warmistas predicted, of course, but who cares, that's Old School Science where you make predictions which are then either proven true or false, which in turn either provides or removes confidence from your working model. The New Science is It just is; we have said so; now shut up.

Clown Nose On, Clown Nose Off: That's how Treacher described Jon Stewart's very selective stance as to whether he was "just a comedian" and it therefore didn't matter if he was saying nonsense or whether he was a sage outsider commentator on political affairs.

The global warmistas have a similar tactic. When asked to explain why their predictions keep failing, they will say "Well, the environment is a very complicated thing and of course we don't have a perfect model of it yet."

But when their core claims are challenged, they claim the exact opposite: They have a perfect model of everything, with all variables perfectly weighed in the equation (that's why they know, to a moral certainty, that the sun has no more than a trivial effect on changing climate), so shut up, we got this, all of this.

Well which is it? They seem to toggle between Perfect Confidence in Our Perfect Modeling and Of Course All Models are Incomplete and Inaccurate as often as, well, as often as the weather changes, don't they? If the weather does anything congruent with their model, toggle on Perfect Confidence mode; if the weather does anything incongruent with their model, toggle on High Number of Variables That Of Course No One Can Perfect Model.

These are incompatible, of course. If it is true (as it is true) that they really have a very poor, shaky, and incomplete model of the climate, then they cannot have such confidence in their (almost always in error) predictions.

They can't admit that, of course. Same as charlatans claiming they can bring the rain to a droughted land can admit Shit, Boss, I really don't know why it rains or why it doesn't. The Charlatan's position at royal court depends on him being able to convince the king he knows what's going on, despite never being able to actually demonstrate an accurate working knowledge of what's going on.


posted by Ace at 12:41 PM