Sunday, October 16, 2011

Multiple Trustafarians exposed

There are moments that are so phenomenally delicious, so incredibly wonderful, so freakin' great, that I thank The Lord Zhool that I get to be alive for these moments. 

One was the release of the ClimateGate emails that showed the impartial scientists plotting to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed periodicals, hiding declines in warming, and the like. 
Another was when John Kerry got busted for keeping his yacht out of state to avoid paying a ridiculous amount of taxes. 
And how can we forget Warren Buffett's advocacy for higher taxes, while his own Berkshire Hathaway has been in a two-year lawsuit to avoid paying a billion dollars in higher taxes? 

Yesterday I threw up a random video of an incoherent Occupy Wall Street protester. 
It seems I wasn't alone in thinking the guy was hilarious. 

It turns out, he's a Colombia Grad Student.  And what makes it better is that he has a freakin' trust fund set up by his grandfather

Where are all the "Trust Fund Babies Against Capitalism" signs?
Never mind.  I found one on Michael Shanklin's Facebook page. 

Mike's comment:

She needs guns pointed at her to share?!? Not sure why she can't just give her money away to those she feels needs it... it would be more efficient than any government monopoly. Sad, she can't even give charity on her own without government.... pathetic really. She is basically saying that she is too stupid to help people on her own,... and ironically enough, this stupidity extends into the belief that government is somehow efficient at it. What we are witnessing here is multiple stupidity syndrome.

That's the Trustafarian dilemma.  And they have absolutely no idea how the wealth on which they survive is created, and have no interest in learning about it or contributing to the process. 

But they could end their guilt by writing one big-assed check to Uncle Sam. 


Nick said...

Nothing more pathetic than a rich socialist.

Dr Ralph said...

A middle-class oligarch is a close second.

Cedric Katesby said...

...the ClimateGate emails that showed the impartial scientists plotting to keep skeptics out of peer-reviewed periodicals...

Sounds spooky!

Unfortunatly, the global scientific conspiracy made all the evidence magically disappear.

...hiding declines in warming...

Unfortunatly, the global scientific conspiracy made all the evidence magically disappear. In fact, they were so effective in the cover-up that nobody can even speculate how it's even physically possible to hide a decline in global warming.
The cunning fiends.

Second year anniversary is soon coming up. Let's hope somebody creates a list of all the investigations into "Climategate" and explain how each individual investigation was wrong/biased/corrupt/infiltrated by Commies.
That would be a long list. Using the same excuse would be awkward so I'd recomment some creative rationalisations to explain them all away.

A global conspiracy is a contradiction in terms. It just doesn't work.

NASA didn't lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...


"Verification and validation of numerical [i.e. computer] models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always nonunique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic."

Cedric's marxist polemics are summed up beautifully by G.K. Chesterton: "All men that count have come to my conclusion; for if they come to your conclusion they do not count."

Cedric Katesby said...

Cedric's marxist polemics...


When did NASA get taken over by the Communists? Was it before, during or after they helped to win the Cold War?

ΛΕΟΝΙΔΑΣ said...

Hansen's rent-seeking assertions are not "Communist". Cedric's marxist polemics are classic straw man fallacies and he knows it.

Cedric Katesby said...

Hansen's rent-seeking assertions...

Oh stop it you silly old fool.
I'm talking about NASA.
Not Hansen.
Focus and understand the difference.

NASA is an entire scientific community comprising of thousands of scientists and and the Earth Sciences. It's not a vast, super-secret communist plot.
They never got infiltrated by the KGB or whatever.

Cedric's marxist polemics...

Again, you lie.
Recommending that people get their science information from primary sources is not a "polemic".
Nor is it 'marxist".

It's excellent advice.
It's what educated people do.
It's what they teach at universities.

...classic straw man fallacies and he knows it.

Again, you lie.
You are hopelessly unable to support your babbling handwaving.

NASA did not lie to you about the moon landings.
NASA is not lying to you now about climate change.
A global scientific conspiracy is a contradiction in terms.
It doesn't work.

Pogo said...

Calm down! The only references here to "conspiracy" and "moon landings" are your own fevered ravings. Get a grip and read the abstract Leonidas quotes and links to then get back to us with your lie about the "scientific consensus".

Cedric Katesby said...

The only references here to "conspiracy" and "moon landings" are your own fevered ravings.

How dishonest of you.
Referring people to NASA cannot be considered "ravings".
There is nothing "marxist" about NASA.
They have not been infiltrated by "the commies".
Don't you get it?
There is no global scientific conspiracy.
Such a thing is physically impossible. There is no way to make it work. It breaks down the instant anyone tries to even speculate on how to tackle the practical problems you would need to surmout to make it work.

Get a grip and read the abstract Leonidas quotes...

Leonidas is a scientific illiterate. I wouldn't trust his opinion on anything. All he has done is cherry-pick a single paper out of the vast body of scientific literature out there for no apparent reason. The paper does not say what he thinks it says. He's just confused and grasping at straws. He hasn't even read the paper itself. You shouldn't be taken in by such a silly trick.

My standards are higher.
I don't get my scientific information from some guy on the internet.
I don't get my information from one single source.
Neither should you.
If you really want to understand anything about science on any scientific issue then you must use primary sources of information.
I don't cherry pick a single paper and then try to wave it about.
There's no need to.
All of the scientific literature from all of the scientific communities covering all of the Earth Sciences are available.

NASA is a primary source of information.
They are not a Communist conspiracy. Honest.

...your lie about the "scientific consensus".

Don't be so gullible. It's nothing to do with me. I don't control NASA.
If you use primary sources of information then it's really easy to see if there is a scientific consensus on ANY SCIENTIFIC ISSUE.
That goes for cancer research, AIDS research, the age of the Earth, forensic science (hint, hint) and climatology.

I have nothing to do with it.
It's not about me.

You are denying reality.
Ditch the blogs.
They are only secondary sources of information.

Don't let some guy over the internet "helpfully" tell you what the scientific communities are saying. There's no reason to trust me or anybody else for that matter.

NASA and the NAS and the AAAS and the AGU and the USGS and the Royal Society and the RMET and the CSIRO and the British Antarctic Survey and NOAA and the Americal Quaterney Association and the APS and the American Chemical Society and the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences and Royal Society of New Zealand and the National Research Council and the American Institute of Physics and the European Physical Society and the European Science Foundation and the ASA and the EFG and the European Geosciences Union etc
can speak for themselves in plain English.

Every single denialist talking point out there instantly self-destructs upon contact with primary sources of information.

Anonymous said...

This photo is actually of a woman who helped start Resource Generation, an organization that works with people who receive trust funds to give away money - not with a gun pointed to her head, but voluntarily, because it is the right thing to do. Her sign is suggesting that ALL rich people - not just those that choose to participate in resource generation or donate independently - are fairly taxed.