A ‘Statist’ is an individual who supports the power of the State over the rights of the Individual. Fascism, Socialism, Communism, State Capitalism are all forms of Statism – control by the State over the free association of Individuals to pursue one’s own economic best interests.
During the Progressive era, one of the single largest leaps forward in the growth of the American State was the 17th Amendment to the Constitution which enabled of the federal government to directly tax the citizens. Many progressives were socialists, such at Upton Sinclair. Others like John D. Rockefeller, Jr. are harder to pigeon hole. Henry Ford certainly tried to run the lives of his workers both on the clock and off. If any word summed up the Progressives, it would be Paternalism. It was the State’s responsibility to be the wise parent to the citizen-child.
As most scientists know, the Earth emits as much radio energy as a small star and with the advent of WiFi, Bluetooth and the iPhone, we as a society are continually emitting ever increasing amounts of electromagnetic (EM) transmissions. These EM emissions are interacting with the solar wind, forcing it back upon itself and therefore interfering with the Sun’s ability to generate sunspots. This is predicted by peer-reviewed models showing ever lower solar cycles in the future and is proven by the delayed start of cycle 24.
There is a scientific consensus that humanity is emitting ever larger amounts of EM radiation. It is this radiation that is the cause of Anthropogenic Solar Cooling (ASC) – a major threat to not only the Earth, but life on Mars and Venus as well. The science is settled as almost every solar specialist with whom I have spoken on this issue agrees with the ASC hypothesis (there is one exception to the consensus, a Leif Somebody, but we ASCer’s write him off as a skeptic, a crank and a neer’do’well).
One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
from Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine.
I have been reading a lot of the debates that inevitably follow any MSM story on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). In this story at the NewScientist, one of the comments stood out as a vivid example of the polarization that has developed between the those of us who are skeptical of AGW and those of us who believe in AGW.
Fri Sep 12 19:15:22 BST 2008
The difference in response between skeptics and scientists is easily explained as the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning. Skeptics look for evidence to prove their conclusion and ignore any that does not fit what they believe. This makes it possible for them to believe in revealed religion and ignore anything that disputes it. I guess inductive reasoning can best be classified as deliberate ignorance. My condolences to practitioners of inductive thinking for your lack of logical ability. You don’t know what a pleasure it is to be able to think things through.
Teach children the path to follow, and even when they are old, they will not stray from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Childhood indoctrination. It’s a dirty word. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. It can never happen here in the free world, now can it? Of course not.
In the past few days, I have had a couple of disturbing conversations about AGW with the younger generation, including my own daughter. Particularly striking is the one I had with the 12-year old daughter of a friend.
(Warning: The following transcript may incite anger in libertarians and parents).
Dee: So, do you believe in Global Warming?
Melissa: Oh, yes!