Did a Racist America vote for a Black President and 12 Years a Slave?

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

On a recent Daily Show they did a skit about racism in America.  A lot of people say there is no more racism in this country.  So they showed how racist people were in their little sketch.  But with a black president one has to ask themselves is there structural racism in the United States?  Or were they finding racism where there really wasn’t any?  Perhaps we can ask a higher authority (see Oscars: ’12 Years a Slave’ puts spotlight on Hollywood’s approach to race by John Horn posted 3/4/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

Was it ultimately a race about race?

The best picture Oscar is meant to honor the year’s greatest achievement in film, and “12 Years a Slave” had no shortage of supporters before winning the top honor Sunday. But for all the film’s artistry, the undercurrent of many “12 Years a Slave” conversations hinged on race and how Hollywood has for decades given short shrift to one of the most inglorious chapters in the nation’s history…

All the same, two Oscar voters privately admitted that they didn’t see “12 Years a Slave,” thinking it would be upsetting. But they said they voted for it anyway because, given the film’s social relevance, they felt obligated to do so…

Though most Oscar ceremonies carry a bit of suspense, the tension inside the Dolby Theatre on Sunday night was palpably different.

Would “Gravity,” an apolitical thriller about a space accident, return to earth with the best picture? Or would Oscar voters endorse “12 Years a Slave,” a film that many feared was so unsettling they put off viewing it until the last moment, if they watched it at all? Or as DeGeneres said in her opening monologue, “Possibility No. 1, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins best picture. Possibility No. 2, you’re all racists.”

Well, there you have it.  The movie 12 Years a Slave won.  Therefore, we are not racists.  It’s good to have settled that once and for all, isn’t it?

Imagine the poor filmmakers whose movies didn’t have to win the best picture Oscar to prove America wasn’t racist.  But I’m sure they’ll get over losing eventually.  I mean, what’s winning when there is the greater good to serve?  Besides, how important is winning an Oscar anyway?  It’s not like they have an annual ceremony where people are overwhelmed by emotion and have better career prospects after being honored by the Academy.  Well, come to think of it, there is.  So apparently winning an Oscar is a big deal.  Unless, that is, there is a social statement to make.  Then it means nothing to the people who lose even if they had a better picture.  While at the same time meaning everything to the winner.  Even if it’s only a social statement made with a potentially inferior film.

Of course we’ll never know what film was the best film.  Not when people vote for a film they’ve never watched because they felt it was the right thing to do.  Gee, do you think that’s how President Obama won both of his elections?  For it sure looked like people voted for him without ever looking at his record.  I mean, even the Nobel people awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama even though he didn’t do anything yet to earn it.  It was for the peace he was going to make.  A bit risky giving out awards for future achievement.  As we can see by the world becoming a less peaceful place during the Obama years.  Unrest in the Middle East.  Two uprisings in Egypt.  Civil War in Syria.  Al Qaeda in Iraq.  Air strikes in Libya.  Four dead Americans in Benghazi.  Drone strikes killing innocent civilians.  Iran working on a nuclear program.  North Korea testing rockets.  Russia invading Crimea.

Perhaps the Nobel people will ask for their Peace Prize back.  For unlike an Academy Award where the judging is subjective events on the ground are objective.  And real.  Whatever the Nobel people thought President Obama was going to do it is clear he didn’t do much to advance peace.  Making it look like the Nobel people voted for President Obama the same way some of the Academy members voted for 12 Years a Slave.  Because it seemed like it was the right thing to do.  Making a decision based solely on race.  Hmmm, making a decision based solely on race?  That reminds me of something.  I think there is a word for that.  What was that?  I can’t recall.  It just slipped my mind.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The War on Coal to Fight Global Warming is actually Contributing to Global Warming

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 27th, 2013

Week in Review

Al Gore became filthy stinking rich by scaring people about global warming.  He even won an Academy Award for his movie An Inconvenient Truth about how global warming was coming to kill us.  He and his fellow leftists throughout the world jumped onto the global warming bandwagon to do things they’ve always wanted to do.  Regulate and tax businesses to transfer as much wealth from the private sector to the public sector they controlled.  Giving them the power they so covet.

And they used that power to further regulate businesses and change the way we live our lives.  Launching wars on oil and coal.  And pouring billions of taxpayer money into green energy initiatives that they and their crony capitalist friends control.  All based on some data they gathered in the Nineties.  That they then put into their flawed climate models.  And laugh with all-knowing condescension at anyone who dares challenge them on the facts.  And belittles them.  Even punishing them where they can.  With further regulatory controls.  Legislation that favors their competition.  Or a brutal colonoscopy performed by the IRS or local and state tax authorities.  Just as a reminder of who has the power.  And who belongs to the privileged class.  The American nobility.  The new aristocracy.  Just like the old aristocracy.  The ruling class.  The federal government.

Well, it turns out they were wrong.  And the deniers had good cause to not believe in man-made global warming.  Because their models were flawed.  Based on temperatures from a natural warming period.  A warming caused not by man.  But by the planet (see Global warming less extreme than feared? by Bård Amundsen/Else Lie (translation: Darren McKellep/Carol B. Eckmann) posted 1/24/2013 on The Research Council of Norway).

Policymakers are attempting to contain global warming at less than 2°C. New estimates from a Norwegian project on climate calculations indicate this target may be more attainable than many experts have feared…

After Earth’s mean surface temperature climbed sharply through the 1990s, the increase has levelled off nearly completely at its 2000 level. Ocean warming also appears to have stabilised somewhat, despite the fact that CO2 emissions and other anthropogenic factors thought to contribute to global warming are still on the rise…

A number of factors affect the formation of climate development. The complexity of the climate system is further compounded by a phenomenon known as feedback mechanisms, i.e. how factors such as clouds, evaporation, snow and ice mutually affect one another.

Uncertainties about the overall results of feedback mechanisms make it very difficult to predict just how much of the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature is due to manmade emissions. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) the climate sensitivity to doubled atmospheric CO2 levels is probably between 2°C and 4.5°C, with the most probable being 3°C of warming.

In the Norwegian project, however, researchers have arrived at an estimate of 1.9°C as the most likely level of warming…

For their analysis, Professor Berntsen and his colleagues entered all the factors contributing to human-induced climate forcings since 1750 into their model. In addition, they entered fluctuations in climate caused by natural factors such as volcanic eruptions and solar activity. They also entered measurements of temperatures taken in the air, on ground, and in the oceans.

The researchers used a single climate model that repeated calculations millions of times in order to form a basis for statistical analysis. Highly advanced calculations based on Bayesian statistics were carried out by statisticians at the Norwegian Computing Center…

The figure of 1.9°C as a prediction of global warming from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is an average. When researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.

This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:

“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now…”

The project’s researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates.

Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming.

Some things to take away from this.  Climate is very complex.  And climate models require a boatload of assumptions.  Guesses.  Not even educated guesses.  But politically-driven guesses.  Also, they based their models on the temperatures in the Nineties being the new normal when the Nineties was in fact a natural warming period.  Where temperatures were temporarily above normal temperatures.  Volcanic eruptions and solar activity also influence climate.  And that sulfur actually causes global cooling.  Which is why volcanic activity causes global cooling.  Because volcanoes release sulfur particles into the atmosphere.  Just as burning coal does.  So the war on coal to fight global warming is actually contributing to global warming.

When you remove the politics from climate science you can arrive but at one solution.  Al Gore needs to return his Academy Award for An Inconvenient Truth.



Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,