What's new
By:

A Place for Conservatives

I mentioned in an earlier comment that we can find examples where opinions contrary to the consensus or ruling paradigm turn out to be right. Thomas Kuhn explained how changes occur in science in his seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Now, the story at this link is not related to the subject of climate change, and the sides lined up on both sides of that issue. But, it is an excellent example, and very recent, of how an esteemed astronomer, with tenure, and therefore "protected" from recriminations when advancing an unpopular idea, can put forth a theory that is met with a firestorm of criticism. This is an excellent example of what happens when a "monkey wrench", "outside the box" idea is tossed into the mix, and the consensus of received opinion reacts with outrage:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...-his-theory/QuWB4VTpYg8LkDvSUaxcPO/story.html
 
The idea that progressive taxes or a concern over inequality are exclusively liberal ideas is false. Adam Smith, the great conservative icon, favored a form of progressive taxation and an economic system that, when properly formulated, would not allow for the huge inequality in wealth and income we see today. Those who try to normalize inequality are more likely right-wing reactionaries or corporate apologists and not historical conservatives.
 
Jonah said:
The idea that progressive taxes or a concern over inequality are exclusively liberal ideas is false. Adam Smith, the great conservative icon, favored a form of progressive taxation and an economic system that, when properly formulated, would not allow for the huge inequality in wealth and income we see today. Those who try to normalize inequality are more likely right-wing reactionaries or corporate apologists and not historical conservatives.
Click to expand...

Last Sunday's 60 Minutes interview of billionaire Ray Dalio was pretty interesting:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ray-da...nequality-is-a-national-emergency-60-minutes/
 
Heathme said:
Great op-ed on climate change: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...ists-prove-man-made-global-warming-is-a-hoax/

The scientist "rebuttal": https://climatefeedback.org/evaluat...dates-human-caused-climate-change-john-nolte/

The original op-ed author's response to the "rebuttal": https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...-to-my-global-warming-op-ed-is-really-stupid/

No, I don't give a crap if it's from Breitbart.
Click to expand...

Ha-Ha, this is no laughing matter, but that Breitbart article was horrible. It made very weak generalizations and oversimplifications of the problem. The difference between now and three million years ago is that CO2 continues to rise because of human activity and human beings weren't around back then, or if they were they were at a different stage of evolution that couldn't compare with us today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top