EckerNet.Com

Sure correlation doesn\’t equal causation but according to gun control activists guns cause crime without any need of human influence.

[H/T Pat]

It\’s a debate tactic that probably goes back further than the concept of debate.  If you have two variations of a concept, one of which is universally acceptable and one which is universally opposed, and you are arguing in favor of the latter, blur the line between the two.

This concept got used ad nauseum during the immigration debate a couple years ago.  Most of the public is opposed to illegal immigration but is generally in favor of legal immigration.  If you\’re supporting illegal immigration how do you win the public debate? Blur the line.  Never refer to \”illegal aliens\” or \”illegal immigrants\”, just \”immigrants\”.  Accuse your opponent of hating immigrants.  Nobody listens to them stammer about how they don\’t hate immigrants, they love immigrants, they just don\’t like illegal immigration because blah blah blah.  It\’s lazy, it\’s disingenuous and it\’s false, but it works and it\’s the last defense of those that have no other recourse.

And it\’s being put to great use in the climate change debate, this time by no other than the Obama White House.

Despite the incident, which rocked international headlines last week, climate science is sound, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs stressed this afternoon, and the White House nonetheless believes \”climate change is happening.\”

\”I don\’t think that\’s anything that is, quite frankly, among most people, in dispute anymore,\” he said during Monday\’s press briefing.

Did you catch it?  It\’s just climate change, not man-made climate change, or anthromorphic climate change.

Sure I think most people accept that climate change is happening.  In the sense that it\’s happened for millions of years, and will continue happening for millions of years, whether we like it or not.  And more importantly even if we make an attempt to stop it, should we so desire.

When your science is exposed as bunk and your leading minds have been revealed to be fraudulent, blur the line.  Take that which is completely defensible and absorb it to defend that which has no defense.

It\’s especially transparent in this situation, because part of the reason why the Climate Research Unit (CRU) was fudging/hiding data in the first place, is because there is an awful lot of it which indicates that climate change may not necessarily by due to mankind\’s activities.

By why invent new hypotheses? Why see if the data supports that hypothesis? Why see if other minds can\’t poke holes in your ideas?  Why see if your results are repeatable? Why….well, follow the scientific method….when you can just blur the line and be done with it.

The science is far from settled, because what you\’re doing isn\’t science.  And at least parts of it are manufactured.

[Crossposted at True North]

At the fundamental level hockey is a pretty simple sport.  Boil away the details and you\’re left with pretty simple steps.  When on offense:

1) Pass
2) Shoot
3) Score

When on defense try to prevent your opponent from doing the above.  If you fail at that, generally the rule is \”Don\’t let them do that\”….to which we apparently should add \”….and don\’t decapitate your goaltender.\”

Last week I wrote on Obama\’s declining popularity and the hidden story the polls tell:

There is something else to the polls besides what they say.  If you look at them together they tell a hell of a story.  Originally only Rasmussen had Obama below 50%.  Then Quinnipiac did and then Gallup did.  Here is why that’s interesting and meaningful.  Rasmussen uses likely voters in it’s polls, making it the most accurate election-wise.  Quinnipiac uses registered voters, less accurate and tends to favor Democrats.  Gallup and others use adults, which heavily favors Democrats and is virtually meaningless to predict what an election will say.  Which means that Obama was already doing poorly where it counted.  The cancer has spread amongst independents and now he’s doing poorly even by measures where he should be heavily favored.   This anti-Obama sentiment is here to stay and it’s spread to independents and moderate Democrats.  Good luck in 2010 Dems.

It\’s not just limited to Obama personally, his policies and agenda are suffering the same downfall.  Rasmussen has ObamaCare at 53% opposed, 41% supporting.  Gallup is tracking it at 49% opposed, and 44% supporting.  Adults are opposed to ObamaCare, likely voters, even more opposed.  When broken down by party, Independents are breaking against the bill, and the trend is growing.  This issue has turned toxic for Democrats.

The amusing part is that support has increased amongst Democrats and from the howling of the hard left, rather than submitting to public opinion, the loony left has dug in.  So Obama is a damned if you do, damned if you don\’t situation.  Move forward and you lose your ass in 2010 and perhaps beyond.  Kill the bill and your base revolts, which as the Republicans should have learned in 2004, 2006, and 2008 is a bad thing to have happen.

How will the Messiah handle this test of leadership.  If the little experience Obama has is any indication, he\’ll bungle it, which would be hilarious if it weren\’t so serious.