Rebel Yid on Twitter Rebel Yid on Facebook
Print This Post Print This Post

Welcome to Civilization


From Rick Perry Speaks in London in The Washington Post by Jennifer Rubin


The hatreds of unassimilated radicals only draw further attention to anti-Semitism in general.  It’s a familiar problem in a new time. In Europe it ranges as in times past from thuggish abuse to desecration to commentaries on Israel that cover crude dislike in the veneer of respectable opinion. There is a way to deal with anti-Semitism, and it’s not by smiling politely and hoping that it goes away. The full force of law, when people and property are harmed, is only the most obvious response. Just as important is what Chancellor Merkel did a few weeks ago, to her great credit, when she called this sin by its name. She has stated in confident, unmistakable terms that tolerance ends where anti-Semitism begins. It shaped Europe’s past, in ways that everyone regrets and no nation can afford to let it shape Europe’s future.

But to every extremist, it has to be made clear: We will not allow you to exploit our tolerance, so that you can import your intolerance. We will not let you destroy our peace with your violent ideas. If you expect to live among us and yet plan against us to receive the protections and comforts of a free society while showing none of its virtues or graces then you can have our answer now:  No, not on our watch! You will live by exactly the standards that the rest of us live by. And if that comes as jarring news then welcome to civilization.

tips to Instapundit

Print This Post Print This Post

Sensitivity to Contradiction


from The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown by Judith Curry in The Wall Street Journal


Human-caused warming depends not only on increases in greenhouse gases but also on how “sensitive” the climate is to these increases. Climate sensitivity is defined as the global surface warming that occurs when the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles. If climate sensitivity is high, then we can expect substantial warming in the coming century as emissions continue to increase. If climate sensitivity is low, then future warming will be substantially lower, and it may be several generations before we reach what the U.N. considers a dangerous level, even with high emissions.

We also estimated what the long-term warming from a doubling of carbon-dioxide concentrations would be, once the deep ocean had warmed up. Our estimates of sensitivity, both over a 70-year time-frame and long term, are far lower than the average values of sensitivity determined from global climate models that are used for warming projections. Also our ranges are narrower, with far lower upper limits than reported by the IPCC’s latest report. Even our upper limits lie below the average values of climate models.

Our paper is not an outlier. More than a dozen other observation-based studies have found climate sensitivity values lower than those determined using global climate models, including recent papers published in Environmentrics (2012),Nature Geoscience(2013) and Earth Systems Dynamics (2014). These new climate sensitivity estimates add to the growing evidence that climate models are running “too hot.” Moreover, the estimates in these empirical studies are being borne out by the much-discussed “pause” or “hiatus” in global warming—the period since 1998 during which global average surface temperatures have not significantly increased.

The sensitivity of the climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is a central question in the debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.

Continuing to rely on climate-model warming projections based on high, model-derived values of climate sensitivity skews the cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon. This can bias policy decisions. The implications of the lower values of climate sensitivity in our paper, as well as similar other recent studies, is that human-caused warming near the end of the 21st century should be less than the 2-degrees-Celsius “danger” level for all but the IPCC’s most extreme emission scenario.

This slower rate of warming—relative to climate model projections—means there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably. It also allows us the flexibility to revise our policies as further information becomes available.


Reliance on models has created a delusional sense of urgency.  When so much effort has been devoted to models for so long it is human nature for the designers of the models to develop defensiveness to facts that contradict them.

Print This Post Print This Post

Kovacevich on the Financial Crisis

Richard Kovacevich writes for Cato,  The Financial Crisis: Why The Conventional Wisdom is Wrong

PDF file

Print This Post Print This Post

Shaming the Kennedy Legacy

from The National Review Larry Kudlow writes None Can Call it Treason



A couple of weeks ago at New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, several hundred people went to their feet to applaud a speech delivered by David H. Koch. The occasion was the opening of the Met’s new façade on Fifth Avenue. It runs four city blocks, and is complete with new fountains, paving, lighting, landscaping, and seating areas for visitors. Mr. Koch contributed the entire $65 million cost of the project, which took years to complete.

And the people kept applauding. For several minutes. They wouldn’t stop in their gratitude for Koch’s generosity toward New York and one of the world’s great museums.

Now, contrast that with the arrogant, intolerant, petulant, radical-left environmentalist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Last week, at the People’s Climate March in New York, he accused the Kochs of polluting our atmosphere. He said, “Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous? Yes, I do.” He added, “I think they should be enjoying three hots and a cot at The Hague with all the other war criminals.”

Let’s turn back to David Koch. His extraordinary philanthropy illustrates how America’s free-enterprise system creates massive wealth, which is then channeled to the public good by civic-minded people who have their hearts in the right place.

Koch has contributed roughly $1.3 billion to charity for medical research, education, culture, the arts, and policy studies. It’s an incredible story. Besides the Met museum, he just announced a $100 million donation to New York Presbyterian Hospital. He’s given $185 million to MIT, and another $100 million to Lincoln Center. The list goes on and on.

At the end of that speech at the Met, David Koch said he hoped his legacy would be that he “did his very best to make the world a better place.” That legacy is firmly in place.

Robert Kennedy Jr. should be ashamed of himself. Blissfully unaware of the scientific facts and existing solely in his self-centered world, he insults one of America’s great benefactors and stains the greatness of his uncle, John F. Kennedy, and his father, Robert F. Kennedy.

Print This Post Print This Post

The Futility of Political Consensus

kevin williamson

“The concepts of legitimacy and consent are the foundation of the moralistic view of politics, which converts government from a machine for doing things into a directorate for telling us what to do. This happens on the presumption that there is some valid, underlying moral theory behind politics, based on an ethical standard to which we all implicitly consent. That is the nature of what political theorists call the “social contract.” But it’s a funny contract: Nobody can quite agree what is in it, and, since it was never written down, we have only arguments based on assumed principles—but nobody agrees on what those are, either.”

“We disagree about how to achieve the good life because we disagree about what constitutes the good life. Political crusaders are constantly telling themselves and their partisans that if only they could make their opponents hear reason, then their opponents would cease to be opponents and become allies. If only political candidates would say the right things in the right way, this fairy tale goes, then we could all agree on what needs to be done. A variation on this is the belief that if we could only educate the voters about the issues, then we could agree about what needs to be done. We have centuries’ worth of practical experience in democracy proving that this is not so, but the delusion remains. People have different beliefs about values in politics for much the same reason that they have different taste in music, different feelings about family, and different beliefs about God: because we are not all alike and never will be. All political arguments based upon abstractions regarding justice, fairness, liberty, equality, and other principles are doomed to futility, because we all operate from different precepts and different first principles. If you believe that liberty is the paramount political good, then you probably will be some sort of libertarian; if you believe that socioeconomic equality is the highest political good, then you will not. But there is no way of proving that liberty or equality or some other abstraction should be paramount. These disputes are metaphysical, meaning that they are, by definition, beyond resolution through logic or through any process rooted in empirical evidence. Unless you are a professor paid to do so, engaging in metaphysical speculation is almost always fruitless. No valid process of reasoning can take us from the evidence of our senses to transcendent truth. Your conception of justice may be valid or it may be invalid, but there is no way to prove it in either case. We have spent ten thousand years devoted to such discussions, and we have made no progress. This distinction is less of a burden in small and homogeneous countries such as Denmark or Sweden; in large and diverse countries such as the United States or India, it is a brick wall.”

Excerpt From: Kevin D. Williamson. “The End Is Near and It’s Going to Be Awesome.” HarperCollins, 2013-05-01. iBooks.

This material may be protected by copyright.

Check out this book on the iBookstore:


Is political debate just meaningless? While persuasion may seem difficult we could also conclude that coercion may be a greater problem.  The reason there seems to be such a great dissatisfaction with our politics is because we depend on the government to do far more than it is capable of without ultimately resorting to coercion.