President in Fantasyland

Cattle would like you to read this article

Quite a surprising claim:

If Everyone Ate Beans Instead of Beef

With one dietary change, the U.S. could almost meet greenhouse-gas emission goals

...
Recently Harwatt and a team of scientists from Oregon State University, Bard College, and Loma Linda University calculated just what would happen if every American made one dietary change: substituting beans for beef. They found that if everyone were willing and able to do that—hypothetically—the U.S. could still come close to meeting its 2020 greenhouse-gas emission goals, pledged by President Barack Obama in 2009.

That is, even if nothing about our energy infrastructure or transportation system changed—and even if people kept eating chicken and pork and eggs and cheese—this one dietary change could achieve somewhere between 46 and 74 percent of the reductions needed to meet the target.

Ridiculous conspiracy belief, continued

I'm waiting for someone like Graham Readfearn to write a detailed post about the current Graham Lloyd crap articles in support of Jennifer Marohasy's and Jonova's paranoid conspiracy claims about the weather bureau fudging temperatures.

Lloyd is just the pits as an environment "journalist", and has been for years.   Look at the ridiculous way he frames the matter of one low temperature reading discrepancy noted by a "bush meteorologist": 

BoM strongly rejects any suggestion of manipulation.

Nonetheless, the handling of temperature data is a red-hot issue with claims and counterclaims dogging the world’s premier meteorological agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and NASA in the US, and Britain’s Met Office.

Reports of the latest controversy at BoM have quickly and widely circulated around the world.

Yes, by Right wing culture warrior idiots who believe that deliberate conspiracy within weather bureaus and scientific organisations is a more credible explanation more than CO2 is causing temperature increases.

To disbelieve AGW now is just a special branch of conspiracy belief, and has been for some time.

And why can otherwise functioning people not recognize that they are being conned by a mere handful of contrarian amateurs into believing conspiracy? 

Update:  Nick Stokes made a comment at WUWT, where the foolish are hi-fiving each other about how this is another wound to the climate change  conspiracy:

The greatest Presidency, ever

From a Politico story about the full transcript of a recent WSJ interview with Trump, comes this snippet:

At one point, Trump seemed annoyed that one of The Wall Street Journal reporters in the room called the reaction to his July 24 Boy Scouts speech “mixed.”

“There was no mix there. That was a standing ovation from the time I walked out to the time I left, and for five minutes after I had already gone. There was no mix,” Trump said.

He added: “And I got a call from the head of the Boy Scouts saying it was the greatest speech that was ever made to them, and they were very thankful. So there was — there was no mix.”

The chief of the Boy Scouts subsequently apologized for the political nature of the speech.

At what point does chronic, pathological, ridiculous exaggeration become a sign of a serious disorder rendering someone unsafe for high office?   Because he's been doing this since day one ("biggest inauguration crowd, ever") and there is no sign it is letting up and that reality is sinking in.

Update:  I see someone on Twitter is saying that the Boy Scouts are saying no such phone call was even made.(! if true.)

Nurse!

Urgent sedation needed again for winner of the  Happiest Outback Entertainer of the Year award, who comments regularly at Catallaxy:

So, Tired of the winning yet?
Australia is going down.
What Australians put up with is way beyond what most people do in other countries.

[rant about how bad things are in some remote aboriginal communities - which is probably true, but  the next bit] -

Some people think we should have socialism good and hard to get it over and done with, so we can rebuild.
Looking at Australia, you must come to the conclusion that we will all be living in the violence and condition of socialist oppression that you see in remote aboriginal Australia.
There will be violence and misery on a grand scale, as has been occurring in aboriginal communities for years....

From the aboriginal experience and looking at everything from Marxist indoctrination and the level of totalitarian control already exercised on us, we won’t come back from even a full term of Malcom let alone Shorten.
The insanity and corruption are real and all logical thinking will be replaced by emotions of envy and entitlement.
Countries do come back from socialism.
But only after complete and utter devastation.

 Update:   the happy catastrophist is also discussing the prospect of same sex marriage with a foolish libertarian type who has turned up on Catallaxy to support it:

The gay activism which is Marxist hatred of the west using gays as a victim group, is quite noticeably bringing down our civilisation, which is it’s aim, and with which envy and entitlement (displayed in your first paragraph) is used.
Your blindness to this, due to emotion over maturity and any recognition of what gave rise to the civilisation that gave you so much, will definitely cause our civilisation to collapse, as is starting to happen.
We will then be replaced by a civilisation that will throw you off the top of the nearest building.
Or burn you alive.
You f.....ing entitled idiot.

 "..emotion over maturity..." - lolz, as the kids say.

Conservatives and same sex marriage

I find it hard to believe that the conservatives in the Coalition who are apparently chattering about a challenge to Turnbull's leadership if he allows a conscience vote on same sex marriage think they are on a winner here.

I've said before, I think a plebiscite is a good way to resolve a matter of unusual social and cultural consequence - yet I don't doubt that it will go in favour of gay marriage.   But having achieved it that way does give a clear societal endorsement to the change - and conservatives won't be able to claim it is just a result of elitist, out of touch, politicians (or judges) knowing what's right for society.  From that point of view, I think SSM activists should endorse the policy too.   And I think my view on this is reflected in public support for a plebiscite.

Having said that, all sensible people can see how it is going to pan out if a plebiscite is run at the next election, and as such, why should sensible people lose sleep if a government changes tactic and just says "lets vote on it now - the polling is clear on how a plebiscite will go, and has been for years - it can be a conscience vote, and we can stop talking about it and think about other issues."

Those who think it deserves to be an issue to bring down Turnbull just aren't sensible.   But they are likely to be completely unable to read the evidence on climate change, too, and make sensible responses to that as well.  They just love pushing hopeless causes against the evidence, for culture war reasons.  

I think a conservative push to oust Turnbull on this issue would just backfire on them in a spectacular way - confirming in the public's mind that the Liberals are a party at internal war with itself, just as the Rudd/Gillard wars harmed Labor.

Ethicists and pets

Boy, The Guardian (based as it is in a country renowned for its fondness of dogs) is asking for trouble when it runs a piece in which ethicists question the morality of pet ownership.

(Yes, there are many critical comments following.)

While there are lines in it which appear close to "peak Guardian", some points are valid enough.  In fact, it starts with someone noticing live baby rats on sale in a pet shop being available for snake food.   (I do think there is something inherently strange, cruel and unnecessary about keeping reptiles as pets if they can only be fed live mammalian food.)  Also, despite repeated discussion of the issue in the media, the breeding of dogs with inherent health problems just to match some pedigree "ideal" is pretty ridiculous.

So, I don't doubt that there are ethically questionable issues with some pets.  

But, as my wife said after we lost our first dog a couple of years ago, "dog people" have trouble being happy when they try living without a dog.   And there is no doubt that dogs can have a fantastically comfortable and mutually rewarding life with humans.

But (and I think I have read and perhaps blogged about this before),  attitudes to pet keeping haven't always been the same:

Widespread petkeeping is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 19th century, most animals owned by households were working animals that lived alongside humans and were regarded unsentimentally. In 1698, for example, a Dorset farmer recorded in his diary: “My old dog Quon was killed and baked for his grease, which yielded 11lb.” However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, animals began to feature less in our increasingly urban environments and, as disposable income grew, pets became more desirable. Even as people began to dote on their pets, though, animal life was not attributed any intrinsic value. In Run, Spot, Run, Pierce reports that, in 1877, the city of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River, shoving them into iron crates and lifting the crates by crane into the water. Veterinarian turned philosopher Bernard Rollin recalls pet owners in the 1960s putting their dog to sleep before going on holiday, reasoning that it was cheaper to get a new dog when they returned than to board the one they had.

Actually, I'm a tad skeptical of that last story.  It just doesn't ring that true - or at least, I would expect, would be a pretty rare attitude to find amongst pet dog owners of any era.  

Anyway, worth a read...

Update:   I asked my pet sheepskin at lunchtime what she thought of the article, and she wasn't impressed:

Mosquito reduction by bacteria

Nature reports on a clever, relatively natural, way to reduce mosquito populations.

There is a caution towards the end of the article against killing off mosquitoes everywhere - they are part of a food chain, after all.  

Getting confused by the number of generals

I'm starting to lose track of the reputation of the Generals Trump has appointed around him.

I thought initially that Kelly was the thoughtful, monk like one - but no, that is Mattis.  McMaster has apparently been shouted at by Trump, but apparently convinced him to stick to the Iran deal.  So maybe he's OK?

But Kelly - well, he apparently doesn't doubt intelligence on Russian meddling, and was critical of the Trump firing of Comey, but on the other hand has been using Trumpian style fear rhetoric about immigrants.

I have my doubts he is going to last, somehow...

Ice problems

This article explains how use of methamphetamine is bad for the health, generally.

Cult watch

Do economics students who go to RMIT realise that one of the lecturers has become a full blown cult member?  Steve Kates yesterday, making his undying confidence in Trump and all who surround him very clear:

You know, she may not even have wanted him at the birth. But if you are the kind of loon who thinks we should not be thankful that Trump is president because his Communications Director prioritises his work in the White House over attending the birth of his child then you should drop political commentary....

[After listing various international problem headlines]:

I have no idea how to solve any of this, but I do believe that there is no one I’d rather have thinking these issues through than Donald Trump.

Kates' family members should be thinking seriously about some intervention.

Amongst the fellow cultists at Catallaxy, I see that some are a little bit shaken by the 10 day reign of "The Mooch" .    Kates won't be:  it will all be for the greater good, somehow.

As for the "misanthrope mutual support club" vibe of Catallaxy threads, I see that it's time for confessions from one of the more depressive figures there:

Bizarrely, I think he makes a living as a travelling entertainer in country regions.   Farmers can be a miserable lot at times, maybe that's how it works.

I feel a bit guilty for doing this, as it does feel like mocking people who actually need help.   But  as I argued before, it's doing them harm, the way misanthropes and denialists of various shades are finding comfort in company at that blog.

Cannabis and impairment

One of the issues with legal use of cannabis is the unavailability of any test to reliably test for impairment (for driving, for example) after its use.  It's why some employers (airlines, railways, defence forces) will simply have a zero tolerance of its use.  

This story at NPR notes the problem it presents for policing in Colorado. 

Yet another unwanted movie review

Kong: Skull Island.  

Yes, yes:  reviewers were correct - it's like a cross between Apocalypse Now and ye olde King Kong, with a bit of additional spin (new, unexpected, giant creatures, for one; and Kong doesn't fall for the diminutive woman, thank heavens).   It looks pretty great - a lot of that interesting Vietnamese multi-island-just-off-the-coast scenery features, and the CGI is good.   The script is occasionally quite funny, and the direction is sometimes pretty noticeably clever.

But - it is still a "gigantic creature lives on an island surrounded by constant storm" scenario.   It does get a little gory towards the end.

It's officially:  OK. 

(Partly filmed in Queensland too, but you would never recognise it.)

Lots to worry about

*  North Korea:   how exactly does Trump think China can instantly stop North Korea from lobbing missiles towards the West?   Obama's policy adviser doesn't think it's easy peasy like that:

Ben Rhodes, who was a foreign policy adviser under President Barack Obama, contradicted Trump’s message, writing on Twitter that it “is not at all true” China has the ability to solve the North Korea issue quickly, and warned that the president’s message involves a “very dangerous and destabilizing approach.”

Maybe Trump should be talking more to Putin, too, about his attempts to subvert the US role in the region.

*  Islamic terrorism and aircraft:  it is a worry that there are Sydney based wannabe terrorists trying to come up with plans to take down an airliner.

I would assume this plan was detected via eavesdropping on internet and other communications.   Meanwhile, Australian IPA aligned libertarian  types, I saw last week, are against the government enforcing tech giants to provide a way to unencrypt stuff, because (hey, it's libertarians) - money!

* Both Italy and large parts of  Australia are very dry at the moment.  There is also recent concern about the loss of fertile land in Africa.

Comedy and the public service

I usually watch Utopia, but I've never been 100% sure whether to fully endorse it.  (Well, I did say I was enjoying it back in 2014.  Perhaps my doubts are growing.)

It does have good acting, I think - with the possible exception of Rob Sitch, who has a very limited range - and some lines can be sharp and amusing, if not lol funny.

But the problem with the show is that it's still mainly a satire of Public Service managerialism (and secondarily, of political obsession with spin), but it feels that the heights of faith in managerialism are well in the past, perhaps by two or three decades now.

The result is that I never am sure whether the satire is accurate, or dated.  Certainly, last week's episode, featuring the hoops that the female lead (I don't really remember any character's name) had to go through to get a promotion her boss had promised her struck me as relatively accurate from what I had heard of the public service from a friend in it - back in the 1980's.   (And by the way, the female actor who was the HR person inventing procedural roadblocks was really good in a well written role, I thought.) 

I'm not sure how anyone on the outside, who no longer knows anyone in the public service, finds out how the character of public service life has changed in recent decades.  But I hope it has...   

Back to Dunkirk

After watching Dunkirk, it's good to read some real life accounts about it.  This article at The Conversation is good.

Laffer, Krugman, comedy

I don't watch Full Frontal much, but happened to see it this week, and thought that this story (not by her) was the best bit.

It centres on the puzzling continuing grip of Arthur Laffer on Republican and IPA brains, and also features Paul Krugman.   Worth watching:

 

When even Melanie Phillips understands it's a case of the Right hyperventilating in ignorance...

Gee, it's one of those one in a hundred days on which a link found via a Catallaxy thread is actually worth reading.

The very conservative Melanie Phillips, who is a climate change denialist and therefore of routinely unreliable opinion on anything, is actually quite correct in her take on the Charlie Gard case.  The Right wing campaign, largely emanating from America, in support of the grief stricken parents of Charlie, was entirely ill conceived in virtually every respect.

Of course, the great majority of threadsters at Catallaxy sided with the American Right too, because ignorance and bad judgement loves company.  

Warning sign

In a remarkable series of leaked comments, all the incredible infighting in the Trump administration is set out by that Scaramucci character, whose opinion of Trump turned around even faster than an ex-IPA staffer grabbing a lucrative government job.

But perhaps the biggest sign that he's an annoying idiot - he refers to himself in the third person.

An unfortunate head

Peter Dutton's head, with the additional loss of hair in recent years, seems to have taken on a profound roundness, particularly in the top half:

I have kept feeling that it's reminding me of something, but couldn't put my finger on it.  I think it might be this:

In a dumbed down version, of course.