Tuesday, August 2, 2022

Don's Tuesday Column

THE WAY I SEE IT   by Don Polson   Red Bluff Daily News   8/02/2022

Can’t fix problems lied about

Likewise, you can’t fix stupid. Whether it’s economic problems, climate change, gun violence, election integrity or the latest so-called health emergency, “monkeypox,” there are acceptable narratives, guided by—of course—political correctness and “woke” mentality.

First, monkeypox; squeamish readers can rejoin the column later. Medical fact: it constitutes a “zero” emergency, or even a concern, to anyone not attending parties, gatherings and festivals devoted to the male homosexual proclivity to “celebrate” by physical contact, including, you know, “the thing.” These rave-type events have proliferated in Europe, and “circuit” parties where literally “anything goes.”

In “Political Correctness helped turn monkeypox into a global emergency,” by David Kaufman (nypost.com), the biggest threat over the disease, to leftists: ignorant, bigoted people spreading “homophobia” (scare quotes to scare you). There is no risk to women in lesbian relationships; men in, shall we say, monogamous pairings; the general population of heterosexual men and women. Bisexual men may have some worries; I write this as a service to public health awareness.

“Few things are more predictable than progressives blaming racism and homophobia for a public ill, but the monkeypox outbreak takes this to confounding new levels. Just as with other ‘woke’ obsessions such as gun violence or the transgender debate, the insistence on placing politics above data and science has led to confused messaging — and very few solutions.” Actually, solutions are clear and simple: no orgiastic sex among men.

Welcome back for normal controversies like gun violence. Unfortunately, dishonesty about the frequency of “mass shootings” drives duplicitous discussions. Before vilifying this writer, look up “Mass Shootings in US Are Rare, Despite Increased Attention,” by Emily Miller, theepochtimes.com.

Apparently, data collected by the FBI doesn’t paint a dire enough picture of a lethal problem that comes down to men—with murderous natures, who already violate numerous laws by simply possessing, holding or being in proximity to a gun—disregarding laws and the lives of innocent citizens.

The preferred response of the gun-grabbing, 2nd Amendment-hating crowd is to change the definition of “mass shootings” to fallaciously create an artificially high number: “309 mass shootings in America so far this year…CNN reported that U.S. mass shooting are on pace to match last year—the worst ever.”

“The way in which politicians who want more gun control bills deliberately scare people about mass shootings is by citing a made-up definition and using statistics from an unofficial database called the Gun Violence Archive. ‘Obviously, they are trying to broaden the definition to get as large a number as they can to scare the public,’ said Alan M. Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation.

“But the public cares more about stopping these incidents before they happen. The way to prevent them is not to take away people’s Second Amendment rights, but to make sure those people don’t get the guns to start with—and that is where we are failing.” Most “lone wolf” mass shooters are “known wolves” to authorities.

Even from reliable, non-agenda-driven sources, numbers vary but pale in comparison to things that kill massively, like automobiles and diseases. Congressional Research Service: 78 public mass shootings that claimed 547 lives—over 30 years. Average: less than 3 shootings, 20 victims/year.

Department of Justice, quoting the National Institute of Justice and “The Violence Project”: 176 mass shootings from 1966 to 2021 with a total of 1,259 people killed—averaging 23 victims of mass shootings annually over 55 years. Spare me rhetoric blaming law-abiding gun owners and their weapons.

Witness the fallacious attempt to redefine the traditional, accepted economic term: “recession.” Media shills, Democrats-with-bylines, thinly veiled political hacks, and administration flacks and mouthpieces performed mental and verbal gymnastics to say, essentially “who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?”

Most folks seethe over inflation at the gas pump (they’re not buying happy talk over recent price declines; they know it’s doubled since Biden started) and grocery aisle (double digit increases in every category). They know their take-home pay is dropping; consumer confidence is at historic lows. So, instead of acknowledging the obvious—2 quarters of negative GDP equals a recession—we’re given gobbledygook: it’s ok, nothing to see here, move along. Democrat leaders promise it’ll be great after this painful “transition”.

 “As Career Physicists, Science Demonstrates there is no Climate Related Risk Caused by Fossil Fuels and CO2, Thus No Scientific Basis for the [SEC] Rule and, if Adopted, [it will lead to] Disastrous Consequences for People Worldwide and the U.S,” by physicists Richard Lindzen, Ph. D, and William Happer, Ph. D.

They definitively disprove the erroneous, misapplied climate-related disclosures proposed by an SEC rule. Section titles: A) There is no urgency to act now; B) Today’s 415 ppm CO2 level is near a record low, not dangerously high;

C) 600 million years of CO2 and temperature data contradicts the theory that high levels of CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming; D) Two recent warming periods show increased CO2 doesn’t drive major temperature increases;

E) The IPCC CMIP and other models fail to reliably predict temperatures; F) The IPCC is government controlled and only issues government dictated findings;

G) The endangerment findings and national climate assessments rely on IPCC findings; H) The social cost of carbon TSD estimates are scientifically invalid; I) “Net Zero” worldwide emissions would have a trivial impact on temperatures; J) Climate science is awash with manipulated data;

K) NAS ‘Valuing Climate Damages’ is based on peer review and consensus, not scientific method; L) Climate Science publishing is dominated by one-sided, paid-for studies with no disclosure…All of which provide no reliable scientific evidence to support the [SEC] proposed rule.

Read the 28-page paper at: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-10-22/s71022-20132171-302668.pdf


No comments:

Post a Comment