Diversity is a weakness

This past summer, July 1st to be exact, Canada Day landed for me like a lead balloon. It went back to January when our Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, announced via Twitter that "diversity is our strength". At the time I had a hard time figuring out what I found so intrinsically wrong with that statement but I do know that my very next thought was that we all have been taught, for good reason, that "united we stand, divided we fall". And "divided" and "diversity" have the same root origin.

All fine and good but when we talk about a nation, no matter it's "diversity" of ethnic origins, the nations strength does not come from we who we were, our origins, but who we ARE! Yes, we may have "diverse" backgrounds, but the only way we can find strength is to find commonalities that help bind us together and that is what makes us strong! And that commonality is We Are Canadians.

As Canadians we all have equal protections for our fundamental rights and freedoms as designated in our constitution. For example "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice". Note that we do not have a diversity of options for these rights; they apply to all of us. Likewise we all have equal access to fundamental freedoms such as conscience and religion; thought, belief, opinion and expression; peaceful assembly; and association. Again these freedoms are shared by all. We may have "diverse opinions" but our strength is that we must respect the opinions of others!

In conclusion the real issue was that our Prime Minister, the leader of our country, rather than trying to unite us instead is trying to break us apart and that we should be proud of that! I'm sorry but I will remain proud to be a Canadian and "diversity" be damned!

Caribou Redux

Here is an article that recently was published in the National Post. I suggest you read it and then I will make comment.

  ==================================================================

CARIBOU

HERDS AND HABITAT ARE AT RISK, SAYS FEDERAL REPORT.

·         National Post

·         1 Nov 2017

·         Bob Weber

Canada’s woodland caribou herds and the habitat they need continue to decline five years after the provinces agreed to develop strategies to preserve them, a federal study has concluded.

And all provinces and territories are on a six- month deadline to lay out plans showing how they will preserve the animal featured on the back of the Canadian quarter. They have already missed one deadline.

“A number of provinces and territories have taken action,” said Liberal MP Jonathan Wilkinson, parliamentary secretary to the environment minister. “That being said, it clearly is not enough.”

But a forestry industry representative said not enough is known about the changing boreal forest to make rules on how much needs to be saved for caribou.

“We can’t be cutting corners to the point where it might be doing nothing for caribou and putting thousands of people out of work,” said Derek Nighbor of the Forest Products Association of Canada.

T he report, released Tuesday, found that none of Canada’s 51 caribou herds is growing. Twenty are in decline and not enough is known about 21 of them to even estimate their population trend.

Ten of those declining herds have fewer than 100 animals —some barely more than a couple dozen — leaving them highly vulnerable to being wiped out.

The old-growth boreal forests the caribou depend on are also deteriorating.

Despite five years of attempts to preserve or rehabilitate habitat disturbed by energy development or forestry, only 19 of 51 ranges met federal requirements to be 65 per cent undisturbed — two fewer than in 2012. Industrial disturbance increased in 29 of the ranges.

Only nine ranges were in better shape in 2017 than in 2012.

Last October, a five- year deadline passed for provinces to file detailed plans on how they were going to restore critical habitat.

Several provinces, including Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, have released draft plans. Others have said some of their plans are expected early next year.

None has completely met the terms of the federal bill.

Under the Species At Risk Act, Ottawa will now take until April 2018 to determine whether the provinces have sufficiently protected critical habitat. If they haven’t, the environment minister is required to ask for a federal order to do it for them.

Wilkinson said the federal government and the provinces believe all 51 herds can still be preserved, although that could change.

but Justina Ray, head scientist for the Wildlife Conservation Society, said some herds could disappear in as few as five years if nothing changes. She said the federal report puts the provinces on notice.

“This is the first shot across the bow,” she said.

==================================================================

As is so typical of articles that deal with the natural environment and that supposedly draw on science this article is full of misinformation and sensationalism. Before I get into more detail let's look at a simple map that shows the range of the caribou in Canada:

This image is from https://www.gov.mb.ca/sd/wildlife/images/borealcaribodistribution.jpg and shows the distribution of Woodland (Boreal) Caribou across Canada. 

Also shown is the Boreal Region, also known as "Taiga", which is  within the sub-arctic and cold continental climate zones and characterized by long, severe winters and short summers. Vegetation is dominated by conifers.

The first point I would like to make is that, with rare exception, there are few major population centres in this region and very little infrastructure. I have tried to find reliable research on Woodland Caribou and unfortunately there is essentially none prior to 2000 and very little since. Yet we get statements such as " Canada’s woodland caribou herds and the habitat they need continue to decline" yet no supporting evidence is given. This is further exasperated by what little "data" is presented: " none of Canada’s 51 caribou herds is growing. Twenty are in decline and not enough is known about 21 of them to even estimate their population trend".

So none are growing? So what? where in the natural world does a species, other than man, continue to have its population "grow" when it is always under stress from disease, weather and predation? A well documented example is the relationship between snowshoe hare and lynx. Thanks to very good records kept by the Hudson Bay Company due to the fur trade we know that snowshoe hare population is not constant and in fact is cyclical between a population peak and collapse. Similarly the lynx population rises and falls in sympathy with the hare population although with a bit of a lag as illustrated below:

(from https://image.slidesharecdn.com/vanettenpopulationecology-090708185127-phpapp01/95/population-ecology-11-728.jpg?cb=1247957107)

Is there a similar relationship between wolves and ruminants such as caribou and wolves? What about predation by black bear? That is the natural world in action and while we have hard data in the case of hares and lynx, we have none for ruminants, especially caribou, other than hearsay.

Farley Mowat became famous in 1952 with his book "People of the Deer". He documented how the inland Inuit suffered extreme hardship due to the inexplicable collapse of the local barren land caribou herd. Again, other than pure speculation, no reason could be determined why the caribou numbers collapsed nor why they eventually recovered.

During this past summer the Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal published a series of articles in their special supplement "The Outdoors Guide" by Tim Timmermann, a retired biologist formerly with MNR, titled "Where Have all the Moose Gone?". It is interesting to read as it documents the change from caribou being the dominant ruminant in Northwestern Ontario around 1900 to them being supplanted by moose. This is based strictly on eye witness reports but what it does establish is that population numbers of wildlife vary and, as no research has been done, only speculation can be made as to the possible reasons. But he does make a good summary statement: "Change is a 'way of life', and little remains the same for any length of time. Such is the case of many wildlife populations that 'ebb and flow' over time. Moose [and caribou] are no exception and densities have and will fluctuate with passing years".

So this begs the question, are people such as Bob Weber and Justina Ray so focused on restoring caribou to their former range they are willing to sacrifice the moose and deer population? Why are people like this who are so narrow minded and ill informed have the ear to people in government such as Jonathan Wilkinson?

So in conclusion we have Federal and Provincial legislation based on no hard evidence calling for re-establishment of population numbers we have no idea what they were or why they changed. Instead all we have is speculation based on the misconception that we are gods in full control of the natural environment and as such have the power to make whole sale changes to "restore" the natural system. The sad part of this hubris is that no concern is given to other creatures such as moose or to their fellow human beings. Especially those of us who live in this hinterland, and whose lives are, and will be, wreaked by this unfounded and illogical desire to fix what isn't broken while they remain in their ivory towers oblivious to the actual facts.

Sources for good commentary and insight do exist!

It has been some time since I have posted anything. It is not because there hasn't been anything happening that deserved comment but rather because I have been concentrating on reading and listening to other views. A favourite of late is Mark Steyn, a Canadian journalist and author who now resides in a small town in New Hampshire. Not only does he do his research but he makes sense and often adds a humorous twist. As a result I check out his web site on a regular basis: https://www.steynonline.com .

Another source of very insightful conversation is that of Dave Rubin and his Rubin Report (http://www.rubinreport.com). He has on a range of guests and typically talks about free speech, religion and politics in a very easy going but still interesting manner. Guests have included Milo Yiannopolous, Guy Benson, Katie Hopkins, Andrew Klavan, Thaddeus Russell, Tommy Sotomayor, Ben Shapiro, Larry Elder and many others. My favourite though of his videos is his "Direct Message" video "The Left in No Longer Liberal" as he explained his angst as a person who considers himself a believer in liberal ideals and how they no longer correlate with those of the Democratic Party and its shift to the left.

Of the guests that I mentioned and have watched his interviews with them, two of my favourites, and Rubin himself, are gay; Milo Yiannopolous and Guy Benson. Just goes to show you that sexual orientation has nothing to do with expressing opinions based on sound arguments and good research or that you automatically must be a liberal or leftist. Milo can be quite over the top both with his language and sexuality but it is so obvious that he does it more for dramatic effect and I think he does it well. Another guest who also is British, but not gay, yet with similar technique and style is Katie Hopkins. Again, very entertaining to listen to and is very thought provoking with sound arguments.

The common thread amongst them all, except for Dave who is a liberal, is that they are labelled as "Conservatives" and that still puzzles me. Why is it only the "conservatives" that a) are willing to not only talk but listen, b) say things that make perfect sense due to well reasoned arguments and c) agree that free speech, including the ability to express a view contrary to your own, is a good thing?

But my favourite medium is the written word and unfortunately there isn't too much in that form worth reading. I did subscribe to "Commentary Magazine" (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/) for a while as they in general did have writers who made good arguments for their case with sound reasoning and excellent research. But I cancelled after about 6 months as I got tired of a) too much about Israel and anti-Semitism and b) some of their more frequent writers play the leftist game of insulting Trump and those who voted for him as their sole justification for their thesis. For the first point I fully support the existence of the state of Israel and wholly disagree with even the concept of anti-Semitism and the last thing I want is to be hammered with the same message to someone who already agrees. As for the second point a sure sign of poor journalism is to slag someone you don't like and use that as the basis for your arguments. If, after citing good reasons you conclude someone is unlikable, fine, but don't start with that nonsense.

So of late I read either Canada's National Post even though it is becoming less and less recognizable as a source of good journalism, or American Thinker (http://www.americanthinker.com/). The latter obviously is about American issues but it does expose and discuss issues that are pertinent to us Canadians. Two issues are "the swamp" or "deep state" whereby the bureaucracy are dominated by leftists and do as much as they can to disrupt the activities of a duly elected government that does not share their political beliefs, and the other is something I have talked about many times before on this blog and that is the leftist media we are saddled with. In order to come to the right conclusions one must have the ability to view any subject from many directions. The media, when it comes to reporting, should be giving us the facts and only the facts and then letting us draw our own conclusions. Similarly when they provide "opinion" such as in the op/ed section they should have a range of divergent views again so that each and every one of us can see who carries an argument best with supporting evidence that not only supports their argument but actually makes sense.

 

To close this brings me to one final observation due to the reading and listening I have been doing the past few months and that is subject of "fake news" and the related "alternate facts". Being a trained scientist with knowledge and expertise in chemistry, physics, computer science and mathematics, including statistics, plus extensive experience in computer modelling as well as sampling theory and practice some topics are obvious as being just that; fake news. As is obvious from a number of my previous posts the main topic these days that fits that description is "Global Warming" or it's alter ego, "Climate Change". If a writer or media source cite human caused global warming or climate change as a "fact" it obviously is false and therefore anything else they have to say is suspect and they are not to be trusted. The only Main Stream Media source I have found that does not provide fake news, believe it or not is Fox, in the States! And we have all been led to believe by our leftist fake news media in Canada that they were ultra right conservative with biased views. Turns out that to is FAKE NEWS!

Trump - a window on Canadian Politics

It has been some time since I last posted to this blog. This has been as a result of two primary reasons; too busy doing other things, such as a major bathroom renovation that is now into its sixth week, and I needed a break as rather than be cathartic it was making me more angry about all the nonsense going on around us.

The news in North America, and especially here in Canada, has been focused on Donald Trump and his failings and weaknesses. I will be the first to admit that he has a personality that doesn’t sit well with me. But a lesson I learned a long time ago is that one should not, as the saying goes, judge a book by its cover. During the election campaign last year I listened and read what it was he was actually saying and noted that quite a bit of it made sense. As a result I was not surprised by him winning the Republican nomination and hoped he would win the Presidential election, which he did. The latter uncertainty is due to the general electorate being a fickle bunch.

Since being elected what I have noted most is the glaring obtuseness of the Main Stream Media and the political left. For well over a decade that has been a complaint of mine of Canadian media sources is that they are so biased to the Liberal left yet I hadn’t been aware that the US media are afflicted in the same way.

But I digress. What I am seeing is a window into our own world through the eyes of another nation. The parallels are both amazing and disgusting. Amazing in that we really do share a lot in common, although due to our proximity to one another, that really shouldn’t be surprising. The disgusting part is that I see the Liberal left in a clearer light and it is not good.

The Liberal left are so full of themselves and talk about “fairness”, “equality” and other feel good adjectives but really are a bunch of hypocrites in that they are poor losers prone to ridiculing others and just plain being mean to the point that I am shocked at their mean spiritedness. I find it especially ironic that many of them consider themselves “good Christians”.

A case in point is the public handling of anything Trump. Take for example Kathy Griffin and her extremely distasteful depiction of a decapitated Trump and thinking that was “funny” and then blaming the negative fallout on him. Similarly the witch hunt to find collusion between Trump and Russia in an effort to discredit his presidency.

Politics should be about trying to convince the electorate that your platform is better. If you lose then come to accept that the platform did not resonate and then rejig, then wait for the next opportunity. But who am I kidding. That “vision” hasn’t held sway for a long time as we have seen here in Ontario for far too long. The Liberal left media have ensured that the electorate are not reminded of all of the past failings of their favourite party and glean up any and every fear mongering detail they can unearth or manufacture for the opposition. Trump found a way around this impediment by going directly to the people through the uncensored world of Twitter. I still find it hard to believe that a social media form that is so aptly named can actually be of practical use.

Regardless of what one thinks of Trump the person, as President he has been true to his word and has done everything in his power to delivery on those promises, no matter how distorted the media reports try to make them. Like fighting back against illegal immigration, jobs and the economy, rolling back regulations that negatively impact the previous objective, getting out of the Paris accord and a long list of others. No hidden agenda here! Compare that to Trudeau who encourages illegal immigration, had a hidden agenda (do you recall any mention of a carbon tax during the election campaign?), tries his best to discourage jobs and weaken the economy, and so on.

In conclusion our society is one dominated by media so caught up in advertising what they think is best for us that they have almost completely lost sight of what they should be doing and why the “freedom of the press” is important; being the watchdog that we so desperately need but no longer have. Each and every government needs to be held accountable so that they do not take advantage of our trust. But that can only be done by media who hold no bias other than digging out and reporting the truth.

A Eulogy for my sister Joanna

Today we had a farewell celebration for my sister Joanna. Below is the Eulogy I presented. She will be greatly missed.

We the Aubut siblings have always been a cohesive group and a strong bond between the older generation and the younger was the one in the middle; Joanna. Today, as the oldest, I will give some words in remembrance of Joanna and I will follow with words from the youngest, Nancy.

People who demonstrate nobility of character are called heroic; heroes. Joanna most certainly has been my hero.

At too young an age she was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis, a progressively debilitating disease where by the body attacks its own central nervous system. Yet she rarely showed sadness or depression and never complained about her lot in life. Always quick with the smile or outright laugh at the joys and foibles of those around her and herself. A very sharp mind trapped in an ever constricting straight jacket yet always had empathy for all of those around her. A guiding spirit of acceptance, love and just being glad to be alive. A noble spirit. A real hero.

I do not recall her ever taking advantage of her condition or of those who supported her over the years. It most certainly helped that the best decision she ever made was finding that perfect soul mate, Hans, who has always been her rock, a real source of strength. And all of us, her family and friends who have been like grains of sand that infiltrate the crevices and made the foundation even stronger. We enriched her life and she enriched ours. A hero.

Her chosen profession was that of a teacher. That is a profession where it is easy to lose touch by just telling yet not listening. Yet Joanna never failed to see that her task was to guide her students along the path of education toward self determination and independence. A special example is her daughter, Amanda, who did and continues to have that active life denied her mother and has always been encouraged to do so by her parents and now encourages her own daughter to do the same. She has passed on the lesson to enjoy life to the fullest, no matter your personal limitations.

We are all very thankful that Joanna was a part of our lives. A beacon to guide us going forward. To embrace what life throws at us yet enjoy to the fullest each and every special moment. She will always be my hero.

My Sister by Nancy

Joanna was my older sister by six years. Just enough of an age gap to allow for very separate paths and lives and yet close enough for sisters to bond as sisters should. 

I have felt panicked over the last few days trying to recall memories of my sister and wondering if I truly knew her. 

My sister was beautiful, this I know. About a year ago we were all gathered and were going through some old slides from Joanna and Hans' early years together. We stumbled upon two amazing photos of Joanna in her youth. I had never seen them before. She was modest and Hans was pleasantly surprised at having rediscovered these memories. I spent the next couple days having copies made for everyone.  One or two of us commented that there was a striking resemblance to Margaret Trudeau. We laughed but there really is a resemblance. In all the photos shared here today, you will find Joanna's beautiful smile and her smiling eyes. Her beauty was without a doubt both inside and out.

She also was smart. Not just 'reach for the top' smart but 'you can't get anything past me' smart. I can't recall how many times our family has gathered for happy hour on a deck or around a dinner table sharing stories or discussing events. Many times we have quibbled over a detail or two. Joanna would more often than naught be the one to turn to Hans and say 'No, that's not right' or 'no, that did not happen'. And she was always right! As long as Joanna could communicate she would let you know you couldn't get anything by her. 

One thing I know for certain and what I admired the most in my sister, was her strength. Many years ago when she was first diagnosed with MS, I was in my late teens, she came with me and two friends swimming at Polly Lake public beach. Joanna almost drowned that day as she was unable to tread water and slipped below the surface as she was a few feet beyond the drop off. Thankfully we were able to pull her up to the shoreline where she coughed and choked and struggled to regain her breathing. Once she had her bearings back she smiled at me, maybe even laughed, reassured me and my friends that she was fine.  We drove home; she was cool as a cucumber, or appeared to be. That's all that mattered to this little sister. 

I guess it really isn't about how well I knew Joanna or how well I think I knew her. I think it's more about the privilege, the privilege to have had her in my life for as long as I did. I am a better person for having that beautiful, smart, strong woman in my life.

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Definition of stupid

1.      a :  slow of mind :  obtuse

    b :  given to unintelligent decisions or acts 

       :  acting in an unintelligent or careless manner

    c :  lacking intelligence or reason :  brutish

2.      Dulled in feeling or sensation :  torpid 

3.      Marked by or resulting from unreasoned thinking or acting :  senseless  stupid

 decision>

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stupid

One thing that continues to puzzle me is how normally intelligent people act so stupid when it comes to politics? A case in point was how Toronto voted en masse to re-elect a corrupt and spend thrift Liberal government with Ottawa and Thunder Bay being two outliers that acted in similar fashion. My first reaction at the time was "are there really that many stupid people in those cities". Then I thought, using the word "stupid" is rather derogatory and so I let it slide.

The recent US election and the reaction by many Canadian's brought that word "stupid" to mind again. So I decided to look up the definition to see if I was being out of place. I was not. The thoughtless comments that Canadian's are making about Trump confirm that they are being stupid. And closer to home the lack of rational reaction to the actions of Trudeau confirms that they are indeed stupid.

How can one explain that people rationalise to themselves why they make stupid decisions by being total hypocrites to the ethics and morals that they typically follow? For example an episode in our national parliament soon after the election in 2015 left me flabbergasted. Justin Trudeau, in his own pompous way, strode across the floor of the legislature and physically grabbed a member of the opposition so that they would sit down and the business at hand could begin. He should not have done that and apologised afterward. But that was not what really bothered me at the time; it was the reaction of the media and people in general. A tsk tsk here and a waggle of a finger there and all was good again. I asked myself, what would have happened if former Prime Minister Harper had done the very same act? Well, all hell would have broken out led by the Liberals and the NDP who would have decried the brutality of the act!

So here we are in early 2017 and the left on both sides of the border continues to show a insipid desire to leave logic and reason aside and instead say and do stupid things that, if the shoe was on the other foot they would find great offence! So Hillary Clinton, a woman, lost the Presidential election? So what? Just because she is a woman people should have voted for her? Do the leftists of this world think others should be as simple minded and vain as them? Obviously they do. Clinton had offered nothing more than being a woman and when she did make promises it was there would be more of the irrational acts that Obama had delivered. If she had presented a logical platform that resonated with the people she likely would have won. Stephen Harper, upon seeing that he lost to Trudeau, said simply that the electorate was right and he accepted that decision without rancor or incrimination.

Trump made much about how the election process is rigged, and he is absolutely correct! With the Main Stream Media so uniformly aligned on one side and the political machines so geared to one method it indeed was rigged. But they never took into consideration that Trump saw the only value in Twitter; the ability to get a message out without it being filtered by the media and skewed as they wanted to skew it. His election showed that there are enough people who aren't stupid, at least in the US. They evaluated the two choices and even though they may have found Trumps personality wanting accepted the platform he presented as being the better choice. He won. People of intelligence and logic normally would shrug their shoulders and do as Harper did; accept the results and wait to try again in another 4 years as that is what elections are all about. Sometimes a poor decision is made by the electorate as they get bamboozled by looks and miss that there is no substance but in time everyone will have the chance to re-evaluate and then take appropriate action. That is the main advantage of a democracy.

The only sad part is that the left, which in Canada are the Liberals, the NDP and the Green's and south of the border are the Democrats, are so convinced that only they should be in charge that they willingly throw away any thought about many of the policies they say they hold so dear, such as equality, fairness, justice and freedom. And if there is one group I just cannot stand it is hypocrites! Magnanimous bastards that want to do onto others those things they don't want to experience themselves. Lets fight discrimination by discriminating! Fight gender bias by being biased to gender! And so on to the point where we are now where they are kind of humble only when they win and threaten anarchy when they lose. Yeah, that is how you demonstrate to the world how democracy should be. No wonder there are so many dictatorships in the world where at heart their leaders are true "socialists" and so see that only a despot can provide them what they deserve.

Why is it that the left is populated by so many normally intelligent people who act in such stupid and irrational ways? I wish I knew!

Why are there so many Believers in Human Induced Climate Change?

Up until recently I have been puzzled by why so many people believe that humans are causing catastrophic changes to climate even though there is ample evidence that the main proponents use outright falsehoods and twisting of the truth allied with denouncing those who have a difference of opinion by calling them names rather than disproving their facts. I think I have a handle now on why this is so as a result of several items I have come across on the internet and through personal experience.

The first example, and one that took me completely by surprise at the time is a brief interview of Christopher Hitchens on the subject of climate change. Many may know of him as he has been a vociferous opponent of religion such as his book "God is not Great". Here is a link to his Wikipedia biography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens . Simply put, and he does present very convincing arguments, religion requires one to have blind faith. Take for example confessing one's sins to ensure you will go to heaven otherwise you will go to hell. That assumes a) that there is an afterlife and b) that no matter how bad a person you are, as long as you "confess your sins" you will be "saved" and will go to heaven. It is this type of thought that Hitchens railed against.

But in one interview he was asked what he thought about "climate change" and here is the transcript of his reply:

"The argument about global warming is not whether there is any warming but whether or not and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. My line on that is that we should act as if it is, for this reason, which I borrowed from Jonathan Schell's book on the nuclear question, The Fate of the Earth: We don't have another planet on which to run the experiment. Just as we don't have a right to run an experiment to run an experiment in nuclear exchange on this planet, we have no right to run an experiment in warming it either. So if it turned out to be that there was no severe global warming threat or that it wasn't man-made, then all we would have done would be make a mistake in analysis - which we could correct from. But if it turned out that there was and we didn't do anything about it, then it would be too late to do anything at all. And that would lead to disaster."

"[W]e should act as if it is"? When the subject is religion he takes the opposite view, which he frequently described eloquently, that one should NOT assume the worst, just in case! That is exactly why confessing one's sins, just in case there is an afterlife is so wrong! So this begs the question how could a learned man such as Hitchens come up with such an idea that is antecedent to his usual line of thought?

This is where a blog entry by Scott Adams' of the cartoon strip "Dilbert" fame recently wrote dealing with what he calls "cognitive blindness": the inability to see the strong form of the other side of a debate (see http://blog.dilbert.com/post/154679929646/watching-the-climate-science-bubbles-from-the). In this post he goes on to say:

" I noticed this phenomenon [cognitive blindness] when I started blogging about climate change. The citizens who side with the majority of scientists in saying climate change is influenced by humans and the prediction models about doom are accurate have – as far as I can tell – never seen the strong versions of the argument on the other side. (I know because I ask about it.) They have only seen the weak versions presented by their own side. And the weak version of the argument goes like this: “The other side are science deniers and quacks.”".

Up to that point I totally agreed with him but then he adds this comment:

"My bottom-line belief about climate science is that non-scientists such as myself have no reliable way to evaluate any of this stuff. Our brains and experience are not up to the task. When I apply my tiny brain to sniffing out the truth about climate science I see rock-solid arguments on both sides of the debate".

What rings so false about this last statement is that everything I have read and heard is that there are no "rock-solid" arguments by the proponents of Climate Change and that rather than defending any criticism  with supportable facts they always fall back on calling those opposed names, such as "deniers" and "quacks".  All people who have had at least a high school education have the means to ask critical questions based on whether or not the information they have been presented coincides with what they have previously been taught. If no inconsistencies can be found then it is reasonable to at the very least assume that the idea presented is plausible. And there lies the problem of why so many accept what others cannot; they do not ask the critical question "does this mesh with what I know to be true"?

This same point I saw presented in another blog called "Manhattan Contrarian" and I found his description more eloquent that mine:

"If you are a reasonably intelligent person, and you are willing to spend a few hours on an issue, there is a very workable method to discern which side of a debate is not playing straight with you.  This method is the same method generally used by judges and juries in deciding which side is going to win a trial.  The method is this:  look to which side has and provides the best answers to the hard questions posed by the other side.  If one side refuses to answer hard questions, or is evasive, or refuses to provide the underlying methodology by which it came up with its answers, then that side has a problem.  And rightfully so." 

Anyone who has read my previous posts that deal with the subject of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming" know that the reason I do not accept the premise is that there are too many disconnects with what I know is reality, in part due to my advanced training but primarily because of the basic learning we have all been subjected to. This includes what is "climate", "photosynthesis", "average" and of course "accuracy and precision". On top of that, as I have worked with computer models for a long time now, I know that it is very difficult to represent complex phenomena with mathematical equations. The more complex the system the less likely they can be modeled with any sort of accuracy. And "climate" is one of the most complex systems we have to deal with on a daily basis and the reason why even forecasting days ahead is typically fraught with error!

In closing I didn't really get on this train of thought until I was talking with a friend and the subject of "climate change" came up. Even though I had explained many times before the weaknesses and errors of the proponents he is still a firm believer. If today is hotter that he remembers for this time of year and the news accentuates that by repeating the same fact less statement and saying we are to blame he remains convinced it must be true thus showing his cognitive blindness.  This I find ironic because like so many others like himself he enjoys summer more than winter, revels in spring coming earlier than usual or fall arriving later. Basks in the sunshine and thanks god for such a blessing but then takes on his shoulder what he believes is his share of the blame for any weather phenomenon that he considers bad; while only god can create good it is man that creates all that is bad and we must own up to that "fact". Such self righteous self conceit I have nick named the "god complex" in that too many people think we have the power of god. While we do have a knack for self destruction we really are at the mercy of nature and to think we can control nature is deplorable!