Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Fri, 31 Aug 2018 11:58:07 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

A blog reader clued me in to a chapter of Mike Vanderboegh's book, Absolved, that I had missed, since it wasn't in Codrea's index. I added it, and named it Chapter X: Wolverines.

Add comment Edit post Add post

GOV 2018 Vermont Candidate Report

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 15 Jul 2018 13:37:10 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

Gun Owners of Vermont has published their 2018 Vermont Candidate Report, rating each candidate running for election in November on their stance on guns. For us one-issue voters, it makes the choices very simple.

I saved a copy here.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Stopping School Shootings

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 28 Mar 2018 10:59:11 GMT  <== Politics ==>   <== RKBA ==> 

Want to stop school shootings? Cold? A gun locker at every high school, secured by the local national guard. Daily classes for every student with parent permission, and guard approval, preparing them for armed response.

Twenty trained, rifle-wielding 17-year-olds could stop even a team of invaders.

Bill St. Clair

Add comment Edit post Add post

Gun Control Is Treason!

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 24 Mar 2018 15:55:04 GMT  <== RKBA ==>   <== Politics ==> 

The Nature of Science

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 11 Mar 2018 06:54:22 GMT  <== Politics ==>   <== Science/Technology ==> 

Most people have no idea what science is. NOTHING is ever certain to a scientist. Scientific models are ALL theories. They claim causality in certain domains to specific tolerances, until somebody proves otherwise.

Science is NEVER settled, and consensus matters not, only repeatability of experiments.

If you're attempting to force somebody to go along with you by saying, "science says", you do not understand science. That's politics, not science.

Scientists are always uncertain, always looking for holes in their theories, always looking to make their theories better. They always know that no matter how good a scientific theory, it is still only a meager approximation of reality.

-Bill St. Clair

1 comment Edit post Add post

St. Clair's Corollary to Godwin's Law

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Wed, 28 Feb 2018 14:02:25 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

As an online discussion between statists and anarchists grows longer, the probability of a statist inviting an anarchist to move to Somalia approaches one.

-- Bill St. Clair, 28 February 2018

Alternate name: The Move to Somalia Canard

Add comment Edit post Add post

Why I Hate Cops

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Mon, 13 Nov 2017 15:08:31 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

I wrote a short screed, entitled Why I Hate Cops. It's not at all nice.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Another 2A Screed

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 15 Oct 2017 21:46:28 GMT  <== Politics ==> 

In response to this Slate article, I wrote another 2A screed. Nothing new here, for me, but a for-some-reason necessary reiteration of the obvious.

I won't pretend that this comment will change the author's mind. He's stuck in progressive wonderland, where words mean what he wants them to mean. But it may embolden some lurkers.

Unlike much of the slime that oozes out of DC these days, the Constitution was written in plain language. "Shall not be infringed" is the strongest restriction on state power in the entire document. It means exactly that. The state may place no limitations whatsoever on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means every single gun control statute ever passed, federal, state, or municipal, is unconstitutional on its face, hence null and void. The National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1968 Gun Control Act (GCA), the 1986 machine gun ban (FOPA, so-called Firearm Owners' Protection Act), the Brady Bill, Feinstein's new "Automatic Gunfire Protection Act", all of them, null and void.

The militia clause means that infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? Treason is a capital offense.

But it doesn't even matter. The Bill of Rights does not create any rights. It simply highlights important pre-existing rights, and attempts to remove them from the domain of legislation. A right is supposed to be something that no legislation may impede. But one of the fears of that time has occurred, and many, even those who support particular amendments, see the Bill of Rights as the source of those rights, not merely a high wall telling legislators, in impossible-to-misunderstand-unless-you're-a-lawyer language, "Thou shalt not venture herein."

As a living being, I have a right to defend my life, and the lives of my loved ones, using whichever tools I find useful for that purpose. I have a right to defend my life from aggressors of all stripes; badges and titles make no difference. A gun is the most useful tool invented to date for that defense. If you would deny me access to guns, any guns, you are denying my right to life. How dare you.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Real Climatologists

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 16 Sep 2017 11:51:03 GMT  <== Politics ==>   <== Science/Technology ==> 

Real Climatologists: "If Global Warming Is Irrefutable, It's Not Science, It's Religion"


Their Principles page says something I've been saying for a long time. Climate is a complex non-linear system far from equilibrium. You cannot predict such a system, long-term, you can only watch it and see what it does.

From the About Us page:

We are the most qualified real climatologists to ever come out as global warming skeptics, including even more than Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry, and Dr. Roy Spencer, although we acknowledge their courage. We only came out after President Trump was elected because before that it seemed futile.

Unlike most scientists counted in the scientific consensus on global warming we are real climate scientists. Our graduate careers included numerous courses in climate and we have done extensive research in climate, including climate modeling and climate proxies (past climates). Doing both is unusual. Not only have we actually used and run climate models but we have actually programmed them and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses. Unlike many we don't just ignorantly use the climate proxy data produced by others but we have taken courses and done research on climate proxies and so fully understand their (huge) weaknesses.

For those, mostly non-scientists, who are foolish enough to believe (and espouse) that peer review means that what is written is true, every word one of us writes is actually read by the other before publication. Scientists today often don't have time to even scan the current literature, never mind carefully read papers for peer review. Often a peer reviewer simply looks at the reputations of, or if he is friends with, the paper's authors to decide on whether the paper should be published. This is especially true for scientists who are non-native English speakers since English is the language of science and reading English carefully is a tedious task.

We don't get paid by the oil companies or anyone else to question global warming. We are not disgruntled employees. We just think climate science is one of the most fascinating sciences there is and to turn it into a lie for career advancement and political purposes is unconscionable.

Add comment Edit post Add post

Buh Bye AGW

Submitted by Bill St. Clair on Sun, 04 Jun 2017 12:22:32 GMT  <== Politics ==>   <== Science/Technology ==> 

Say goodbye, warmists. Your jig is up. The "science" your politics is based on is complete bunk.

Principia Scientific outlines two new studies showing that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas and not only does CO2 not cause warming, it's not even clear that human creation of it effects its concentration in the atmosphere.

I haven't yet read the papers themselves, and I doubt i'll understand them any better than I understand the warmist papers. The same goes for 99.999% of humanity. Warmism is a religion. Rationality and science have nothing to do with it.

I saved a copy at billstclair.com/bunk. My copies of the PDFs of the two studies are linked via "local copy".

The authors, who are experts trained in higher-level physics and chemistry, painstakingly apply a fresh eye to the convoluted and often contradictory assertions made by ill-trained researchers in the infant science of climate studies. It was discovered that due to deficiencies in understanding of the tougher concepts of thermodynamics, the poorly-trained generalists within the tight-knit climate community had overly relied on 19th century half-baked and simplistic interpretations.


"Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmospheric CO2."

The studies:

1 comment Edit post Add post