NASA’s Mars “Plan”

Anatoly Zak has a report on Gerstenmeier’s recent announcement.

I’d say it’s more a delusional long-term vision than a plan. As I quoted Dale Skran in my anti-Apolloist screed from last summer:

…the NRC report is based on the unstated assumption that over the entire period considered, all the way out to 2054, there will be essentially no progress in rocketry other than that funded by NASA exploration programs, and that for the entire period the SLS as currently envisioned will remain the preferred method for Americans to reach space. It is difficult to imagine a more unlikely foundation for the planning of future space efforts than this. [Emphasis added]

And yet NASA continues to do so, because it has no choice, because Congress refuses to let it do it sensibly.

They are proposing a 20+ year plan. As I’ve noted in the past, even Mao never tried for more than five. Think back to 1996. Who would have predicted that, twenty years later, we’d have Internet billionaires building and flying vertical reusable launch systems? Or plans for private space facilities? Or the beginning of assembly of large structures in space? The notion that any plan for human exploration of the solar system that NASA has will survive contact with technical and budgetary reality of the next twenty years is ludicrous. But Apolloism marches on.

The Supreme Court Oral Argument

…that cost Democrats the presidency:

At oral argument in the Obergefell same-sex marriage case, there was the following colloquy:

Justice Samuel Alito: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-­exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same­-sex marriage?

Solicitor General Verrilli: You know, I­, I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is ­­it is going to be an issue.

With the mainstream media busy celebrating the Supreme Court’s ultimate recognition of a right to same-sex marriage, this didn’t get that much attention in mainstream news outlets. But in the course of researching my book, “Lawless,” I noticed that Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.’s answer was big news in both the conservative blogosphere and in publications catering to religiously traditionalist audiences. The idea that Regent University or Brigham Young University or the local Catholic university or the many hundreds of other religious schools — and potentially other religious organizations — could be put at a severe competitive disadvantage if they refused on theological grounds to extend the same recognition to same-sex couples as to opposite-sex couples struck many as a direct and serious assault on religious liberty.

In short, many religious Christians of a traditionalist bent believed that liberals not only reduce their deeply held beliefs to bigotry, but want to run them out of their jobs, close down their stores and undermine their institutions. When I first posted about this on Facebook, I wrote that I hope liberals really enjoyed running Brendan Eich out of his job and closing down the Sweet Cakes bakery, because it cost them the Supreme Court. I’ll add now that I hope Verrilli enjoyed putting the fear of government into the God-fearing because it cost his party the election.

Yes, and it’s why evangelicals were willing to support Trump, despite his boorishness and obvious lack of religious belief. They knew that she would continue the culture war on them, and that with him, they at least had a chance.

[Update a few minutes later]

This seems related: Trump won because of the overblown reactions from the Left to actual (as opposed to nonsensical, like new gun laws) common-sense proposals from the sane.

[Update a few more minutes later]

#WhyTrumpWon

Baby, It’s Rape Outside

I’m glad that these people don’t seem to have the slightest understanding of how sex works; at least it means they won’t procreate.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I agree with the comment over there that it’s annoying to have non-Christmas songs like this (and Over The River And Through The Woods, which I think is a Thanksgiving song) being substituted for actual ones, that actually talk about, you know, Christ and stuff.

“Fake News”

The primary purveyors of it are those complaining the most:

John Nolte of the Daily Wire helpfully points out that the media has been totally fine spreading fake news in the past, such as the false narrative that Ferguson teen Michael Brown held up his hands and asked a white police officer not to shoot him. The “hands up, don’t shoot” narrative was a lie, but some in the media and on the left still parrot the claim, even after forensic evidence proved it wrong.

Nolte notes that the media narrative of racist white police officers (or black police officers with internalized racism) out to get unarmed black men has resulted in the targeting of innocent police officers. So yes, fake news can be dangerous, but until now the media has been more than okay in spreading it.

There are several additional, high profile examples of the media promoting the spread of fake news, though these examples thankfully have not resulted in physical harm.

I don’t want to hear anything about “fake news” from the people who defended Dan “Fake But Accurate” Rather.

The Future Of Space

As we mourn the loss of a pioneer, it’s important to note that it lies with the billionaires, not NASA or other government programs:

“One [path] is that we stay on Earth forever and then there will be an inevitable extinction event,” [Bezos] told the audience of scientists and engineers. “The alternative is to become a spacefaring civilization, and a multi-planetary species.”

Ashlee Vance, longtime tech journalist and author of Elon Musk: Tesla, Space, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future, thinks these ambitions are driven by a mix of entrepreneurial curiosity, altruism and a dash of egotism. “The guys who are rulers of the universe now are the nerds,” he says. “They were all geeks raised on science fiction and the vision of space we had in the 1960s and 70s. Now they have the money to make this a reality.”

Yes.

The “Consensus” On Climate Change

Scott Adams explains why he accepts it, even though it’s probably wrong:

when it comes to pattern recognition, I see the climate science skeptics within the scientific community as being similar to Shy Trump Supporters. The fact that a majority of scientists agree with climate science either means the evidence is one-sided or the social/economic pressures are high. And as we can plainly see, the cost of disagreeing with climate science is unreasonably high if you are a scientist.

While it is true that a scientist can become famous and make a big difference by bucking conventional wisdom and proving a new theory, anything short of total certainty would make that a suicide mission. And climate science doesn’t provide the option of total certainty.

To put it another way, it would be easy for a physicist to buck the majority by showing that her math worked. Math is math. But if your science depends on human judgement to decide which measurements to include and which ones to “tune,” you don’t have that option. Being a rebel theoretical physicist is relatively easy if your numbers add up. But being a rebel climate scientist is just plain stupid. So don’t expect to see many of the latter. Scientists can often be wrong, but rarely are they stupid.

…I accept the consensus of climate science experts when they say that climate science is real and accurate. But I do that to protect my reputation and my income. I have no way to evaluate the work of scientists.

If you ask me how scared I am of climate changes ruining the planet, I have to say it is near the bottom of my worries. If science is right, and the danger is real, we’ll find ways to scrub the atmosphere as needed. We always find ways to avoid slow-moving dangers. And if the risk of climate change isn’t real, I will say I knew it all along because climate science matches all of the criteria for a mass hallucination by experts.

It does indeed.

[Late-evening update]

The Scott Adams post was via Judith Curry, who has related links from other “heretics” (i.e., they “believe” in AGW, but aren’t hysterical about it) Roger Pielke and Matt Ridley:

The truly astonishing thing about all this is how little climate heretics – such as myself, Roger Pielke, and Matt Ridley – actually diverge from the consensus science position: RP Jr. hews strictly to the IPCC consensus; Matt Ridley is on the lukewarm side of the IPCC consensus, and I have stated that the uncertainties are too large to justify high confidence in the consensus statements.

RP Jr and Matt Ridley provide appalling examples of the personal and arguably unethical attacks from other scientists, journalists, elected politicians and others with government appointments.

Scott Adams provides some genuine (and as always, humorous) insights into the psychology behind the dynamics of the climate debate.

As to the question: to be or not to be a climate heretic?

I’m planning a climate heretic blog post shortly after the first of the year. After seeing RP Jr’s title, perhaps I will title it ‘Happy Heretic’ (stay tuned). Here’s to hoping that the Age of Trump will herald the demise of climate change dogma and acceptance of a broader range of perspectives on climate science and our policy options .

I’ll personally be looking forward to it.

The Hard Left’s Violent Tantrums

Comey’s FBI should investigate them.

True. But then, there are other things that Comey’s FBI should have properly investigated, like Hillary Clinton’s and her aide’s felonies and corruption.

[Update a while later]

Related: The Left’s coming counterattack:

We sent our offspring to them for an education, and they sent them back to us, spitting with hatred for the way of life that enabled their ease. “You dare defy us? Our soldiers are your own flesh and blood!”

They threw them at us like grenades – warped, misguided and misinformed, filled with explosive fury and lit by an impossibly short fuse. Wave after wave, they sent them into the streets to burn, to riot, and to cloak their debauchery of liberty with the fresh face of a new generation.

And we backed down, knowing we had been gravely molested but unwilling to challenge the perpetrators for fear of ensnaring our own children in the fray.

We held elections. We elected majorities who then refused to fight. We listened to our “leaders,” who told us to appease the gnashing beast because the world was changing and we had to remain “relevant.”

Now, after a great while and innumerable offenses, we have elected someone who sees no value in the bureaucrat’s mantra of “that’s the way we’ve always done it.” We explored unfamiliar electoral terrain and found someone who respects the origin of our ideals as embodied in our founding documents. A man who brusquely (and entertainingly!) dismissed the circus-mirror image of America peddled by the left and their fawning, complicit media. Tired of being beaten about the head and shoulders while those we elected to defend us stood by holding the coats of our abusers, we elected a brawler of our own.

I wish that he “respects the origin of our ideals as embodied in our founding documents,” but I continue to see no evidence that he’s ever even read them. But one goes to war with the army one has.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!