#endorsement

Scientific American endorses Biden – first time in 175 years

Wow. Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden. This is the first time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in 175 years. We think it may live to regret its move. The magazine has merely exposed the deep partisan bias and confirmed again how much of scientific academia and media leans left. Why?

The editors closed with,

It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”

If we listened to Joe Biden’s ‘Moses and the 10 Commandments’ speech the other day, it was full of unsubstantiated hyperbole about the risks of higher incidences of floods, hurricanes and wildfires if Trump is reelected despite the fact that under the current administration, harmful GHG emissions have fallen by the largest absolute number ever in 2019 according to the IEA.

For a magazine that rests its laurels on “following the data” and “being guided by the science”, perhaps it missed the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) which noted:

…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.

Perhaps the editors missed the questionnaire posted by the UN Interacademy Council committee on its website which invited interested parties to respond to the scientific processes at the IPCC during the compilation of the gold standard climate bibles? These were some of the responses;

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,

The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)

The founders of Scientific American must be rolling over in their graves. If their scientific rigour is as sound as their endorsement then Trump has even more chances to secure reelection.

This should be seen as a rejection of Trump not an endorsement for Biden.

You’ll never guess where Elizabeth Warren believes the backbone of democracy lies

If it wasn’t enough for Julian Castro to guarantee that trans females would have full access to abortions, a fellow nominee in the Democratic Party primaries, Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has willingly hijacked the Native American identity to get ahead over the decades, has taken over the mantle of nosebleed irrelevance to new heights. She is fawning over a group of hateful feminists, 3,400 of them if Twitter followers are a gauge.

Supposedly the backbone of democracy comes from the likes of the BlackWomxnFor (BWF) movement, which states on its own website,

THE SPACES CREATED BY BLACK WOMXN FOR ARE INTENTIONALLY INCLUSIVE OF ALL BLACK FOLKS THAT DO NOT CLAIM MALE IDENTITY.

THIS INCLUDES BLACK TRANS & CIS WOMEN, GENDER NON-CONFORMING FOLKS AND OTHERS.”

So it is really all about exclusion. Just the type of fair-minded individuals that would unite wider America. Think of where the US could be with such delusional people running things. Perhaps BWF has been channelling Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (part of the Squad which includes the other Ringling Sisters Congresswomen Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib and Omar) who said,

We don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice. We don’t need Muslims that don’t want to be a Muslim voice. We don’t need queers that don’t want to be a queer voice.”

If only Warren embraced the spirit of individuality (regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion etc) rather than got behind groups that demand that certain minorities conform to a predetermined stereotype? If CM identified as a black transgender woman, who would BWF be to deny my inclusion?

Looking forward to Warren endorsing two-spirit penguins as the tibia of democracy. How bad does her campaign have to be to embrace this group? Then again at least there is consistency. The far left of the Democratic Party is all about exploiting minority oppression.

No wonder Michael Bloomberg wrote off the current Democratic field yesterday as nowhere near up to the job to win the 2020 election. What a disastrous rabble. Identity politics is pure poison.

What really confuses CM is that if the US is currently such a horrid, racist, nasty, bigoted, oppressive white patriarchy run by an oppressive lawless dictator, as the Dems portray it to be, why are so many illegals still trying to bust their way in?

Democrats doing what Democrats do best

So the Democrats are proposing a bill to pull federal funding for the 2026 World Cup if the US Soccer Federation (USSF) doesn’t fix the gender pay gap between the men’s and women’s teams.

Surely in a country that dominates the world in inflated sports contracts based on performance that these politicians might be on top of the idea that it is driven by the market, not by socialism and equality. The superstars in sports on balance have the edge that many of us do not possess.

If the women’s team was paid more than the men’s team, would Manchin seek to redress the inequality back the other way? Here is betting he wouldn’t say a word. CM has always argued women should be paid more than men should the economics support it.

When it comes to soccer the women’s World Cup generated $131m in revenues vs the men’s World Cup at $6bn. There is a reason for that. If sponsors see that the women’s game is such a great opportunity to market then they’ll flock without the need for legislation.