Lion of the Blogosphere

Religion and gluten

At Salon (a few weeks ago), an interview with religion professor Alan Levinovitz and author of Gluten Lie. His argument is that fad diets are quasi-religious beliefs.

Over two thousand years ago, there were these proto-Taoist monks in China who advocated strongly for a grain-free diet. [They claimed that] you could live forever. You could avoid disease. You could fly and teleport. Your skin would clear up.

I saw this countercultural rejection of grains, and then I saw almost the exact same thing, with the same kinds of hyperbolic claims, happening again with books like Grain Brain and Wheat Belly. And I thought to myself, you know, it’s funny, people are trying to debunk these fad diets with scientific evidence, but what they’re not realizing is that really these beliefs aren’t scientific at all. They’re wrapped in scientific rhetoric, but ultimately they’re quasi-religious beliefs that are based on superstition and myth.

Global warming, now called “climate change” is also a quasi-religious belief that is based on the same set of luddist assumptions of most fad diets, that modern technology is bad for us. (Anti-glutenism is sort of an exception because man has been eating wheat as a staple food for thousands of years, however the thinking is that wheat farming is a Neolithic invention, and anti-glutenism is an offshoot of the Paleo diet.)

We’re so afraid, and rightfully so, of judging ourselves better than other people, that now we have proxy words like “healthier” or “longer-lived” to stand in for the desirable moral judgment that we are superior to others.

That’s a very important observation, although the professor is afraid to disagree with the predominant SWPL/bobo philosophy of non-judgmentalism. It would actually be a lot better for society if rich people would indeed judge poor people for their bad behavior like having children out of wedlock, instead of only judging their diet.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

July 26, 2015 at 10:08 AM

Posted in Religion

140 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Quasi-religions are dangerous and yet very few people bother to look at them. As my PhD advisor once said “all those -isms are quasi-religions”. He was referring mostly to Marxism, but same might be said about Libertarianism.

    Quasi-religions also have their prophets and dead saints – for example, Deepak Chopra and Martin Luther King.

    WRB

    July 26, 2015 at 11:08 AM

  2. Global warming, now called “climate change” is also a quasi-religious belief that is based on the same set of luddist assumptions of most fad diets, that modern technology is bad for us.

    Whenever I read something like this from HBDers, I argue, who has more to lose monetarily: professors of climatology making $70,000 a year at a local university, or billion dollar oil companies?

    It would actually be a lot better for society if rich people would indeed judge poor people for their bad behavior like having children out of wedlock, instead of only judging their diet.

    Doubt that’ll happen anytime soon, and I’m not sure it would make any difference.

    Lion of the Judah-sphere

    July 26, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    • Billion-dollar oil companies don’t have as much clout as you think they do. They are hated by the MSM and thus try to keep a low profile and not rock the boat. The 70,000 professor has a lot more to lose, which is his entire livelihood and reason for existence.

      • A tenured professor will lose his livelihood? The hostility to AGW is a hostility to the solution: government intervention. There’s just no contest over who is more disinterested and objective in the debate.

        I wish human activity did not alter climate, but wishes don’t come true.

        Vince

        July 26, 2015 at 12:47 PM

      • Plus, you have to multiplythat $70K (actually more like $130), by zeveral thousand like-minded mediocrities.

        sid storch

        July 26, 2015 at 3:19 PM

      • The 70,000 professor has a lot more to lose, which is his entire livelihood and reason for existence.

        Possibly, but that professor can still probably get a job in another field that compensates him just as well if not better.

        Lion of the Judah-sphere

        July 26, 2015 at 3:34 PM

      • Thank you. It has always irritated me that AGW (a subject about which I’m still on the fence) theory proponents pretend that nobody has anything to lose by breaking ranks with the consensus when they know good and damn well that naysayers are all but run out of town.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 4:41 PM

      • That AGW is treated like a religion in which infidels must be destroyed, should key you into the fact that it’s not science. The very foundation of science is skepticism.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 26, 2015 at 4:56 PM

      • Your reactionary position against AGW is just as, if not more, quasi-religious. Arguing billion dollar oil companies don’t have clout? C’mon!

        anon

        July 27, 2015 at 5:10 AM

      • They have more clout than me, but less clout than Mark Zuckerberg. And less clout than liberal college professors who have the mainstream media on their side. They can pay people to lobby Congress and they do, but they are afraid to publicly come out as AGW skeptics.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 27, 2015 at 6:50 AM

      • Lion is right of course. Federal spending on Climate Change includes $2.5 billion/yr on science, another $8 billion/year on clean tech. It’s absurdly out-sized compared to other science fields, and every researcher in the field needs that gravy train to keep chugging along. Grant money means you don’t have to teach as much, you can build up your lab and prestige, you can get tenure and a higher salary. When it comes to clout, nobody comes close to the EPA and other regulators, and the EPA turns to academia to justify the “do good!” regulation they want. Government agencies, academia and green interest groups work together to gain power and influence. The more serious the problem is made out to be, the more justification there is. That’s why the predictions become ever more dire, and everything bad now seems to be blamed on climate change.

        steve@steve.com

        July 27, 2015 at 9:45 AM


      • The 70,000 professor has a lot more to lose, which is his entire livelihood and reason for existence.

        Possibly, but that professor can still probably get a job in another field that compensates him just as well if not better.

        Oh lets get clear- most of these climate “scientists” are unemployable outside of the Environmental Industrial Complex.

        They arent engineers, and they are only vaguely familiar with science. It not like they are going to move over cell phone chip design if things fall through.

        The actual scientists in their departments got all the funding, patents and aclaim. Now thanks to Global Warming they get to take long paid junkets to the jungle with earnest co-eds, there are paid conferences in exciting locations, showered with government grants so they look like heros to their university.

        And of course that holy grail for professors- they get quoted in the media and people act like they are important. They get to publish dire warnings that they can never get called on.

        Without Global Warming, a job counting fish would have gotten you none of that.

        Lion of the Turambar

        July 27, 2015 at 11:56 AM

      • “Possibly, but that professor can still probably get a job in another field that compensates him just as well if not better.”
        You obviously aren’t a STEM person. Have you ever looked at the list of titles and backgrounds on a list of people who signed some petition claiming they believe in AGW?
        They could NOT “get a job in another field that compensates them just as well”
        Not even close.

        Copperhead Joe

        July 31, 2015 at 2:27 PM

      • Right, the only way they could get a job is if they learn something useful like computer programming, and most corporate jobs in computer programming suck compared to the prestige and autonomy of being a professor.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 31, 2015 at 2:37 PM

      • most corporate jobs in computer programming suck compared to the prestige and autonomy of being a professor

        Yes, in fact most jobs suck, because they don’t entail any form of self actualization, which is a mix of pleasure and work.

        Despite Mick Jagger being a rock musician, who appears to have a hedonist lifestyle, it is believed he has a strong work ethic. He is known to be a very disciplined musician, who is always practicing his craft. People who work at their corporate cubicle, separate work from play.

        JS

        July 31, 2015 at 4:55 PM

    • And where will you find more tendentious ideologues — in the departments where professors research climate change or in the D.C. think-tanks where you can find “intellectuals” roaming the halls of the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc?

      Vince

      July 26, 2015 at 12:42 PM

      • Two words: research grants.

        CorkyAgain

        July 26, 2015 at 4:11 PM

      • There’s a big difference. You know up front that conservative think tanks are bought off. “Departments” aren’t supposed to be. I don’t donate to the Heritage Foundation, but my tax dollars are confiscated to pay the clearly biased ideologues in state universities.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 4:45 PM

      • “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”

        Interesting paper. It certainly blows the “97%” claim out of the water.

        In the meantime, how did we get on this subject? Is there a Godwin’s Law for AGW arguments? Will every Pinterest thread on tasty cornbread recipes eventually evolve into an argument over AGW?

        J1

        July 29, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    • “Whenever I read something like this from HBDers, I argue, who has more to lose monetarily: professors of climatology making $70,000 a year at a local university, or billion dollar oil companies?”

      That’s not the right question to ask if you want to actually think clearly about the subject. First you should be asking what exactly is meant by the phrases “global warming” or “climate change.” Then you can ask what position the oil companies take on the subject, followed by what position various university professors take on the subject (note that they do not think alike).

      Then, and only then, can you start to think about which parties should be given more credence.

      But that’s only if you want to think clearly about the subject. I would guess that in your case, sloppy thinking is acceptable; that you believe in “global warming” primarily to gain a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority; and to get a sense of identity and cameraderie with other people.

      Which is exactly the point — when it comes to religions and quasi-religions, people adopt beliefs based more on a sense of identity and emotional needs than on actual facts or evidence or rational arguments. Those are secondary.

      sabril

      July 26, 2015 at 2:17 PM

      • “Then, and only then, can you start to think about which parties should be given more credence.”

        Why would you attach ‘credence’ to a party? It’s the argument which determines credibility, not the party making the argument.

        I would stipulate that both parties are ‘interested’ parties. The $70K climatology professor is probably leveraging his capabilities to their maximum extent, just as the $1B oil company is. Neither of them have any better options, so in that respect each is 100% committed to their position.

        If you don’t look at the alternatives available to participants in a debate (in this case, financial. it’s not as if the climatology professor has any realistic chance of becoming a CEO making millions of dollars/year), the analysis doesn’t really cover everything.

        BS Inc.

        July 26, 2015 at 3:45 PM

      • Then you can ask what position the oil companies take on the subject, followed by what position various university professors take on the subject (note that they do not think alike).

        University professors largely agree that climate change is inducing global temperatures rises that will have catastrophic consequences.

        But that’s only if you want to think clearly about the subject. I would guess that in your case, sloppy thinking is acceptable; that you believe in “global warming” primarily to gain a feeling of moral and intellectual superiority; and to get a sense of identity and cameraderie with other people.

        Nope, not all. I’m just interested in the truth, especially as it pertains to issues that concern humanity. Keep in mind, I’m a black guy that agrees with most of the basic tenets of HBD (I know one can debate the definition of ‘HBD’, but I’m mostly talking about racial differences in IQ and behavior being genetic in origin). I don’t believe stuff just to make friends.

        I’m baffled that almost no ‘pro-science’ HBDers take climate science seriously. As in, they all consider the possibility of AGW to be completely laughable. Then I realize that many of them are nearly as ideological as the liberals they like to criticize, and adopt positions purely based on what Tyler Cowen likes to call “mood affiliation” (ironically). So they never give the climate change argument a fair chance.

        On a tangentially related topic, I really like this recent post at Slate Star Codex about the General Factor of Correctness: http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/07/23/the-general-factor-of-correctness/

        I’m guessing someone with high GFC will be high IQ with both conservative and liberal beliefs.

        Lion of the Judah-sphere

        July 26, 2015 at 3:50 PM

      • “University professors largely agree that climate change is inducing global temperatures rises that will have catastrophic consequences.”

        The same professors agree that we need more immigration and that HBD is false and racist.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM

      • It’s global warming. It’s pretty simple: More greenhouse gases create a hotter planet. That’s what it’s all about. “Climate Change” is just some bullshit term that was cooked up later for the purpose of manipulating public opinion. I’m not really sure why they did it. Scientists continue to claim (and I’m not saying that they’re wrong) that the climate has warmed and continues to do so, so I”m not sure why global warming believers get so hung up on climate change vs global warming.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 4:54 PM

      • ” It’s pretty simple: More greenhouse gases create a hotter planet.”

        Not that simple at all. 99% of people who believe in AGW couldn’t explain how heat is transferred through gases.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 26, 2015 at 5:15 PM

      • “Nope, not all. I’m just interested in the truth, especially as it pertains to issues that concern humanity.”

        “University professors largely agree that climate change is inducing global temperatures rises that will have catastrophic consequences.”

        Then please show me proof of this claim. Please don’t show me proof of a different claim, even if it’s similar. And don’t tell me to go do the research myself. If you can do it, I will re-think my own position.

        Your claim is that (1) university professors; (2) largely agree; that (3) “climate change” is (4) inducing global temperature rises; that (5) will have catastrophic consequences.

        Please show me proof. Otherwise, I will know that you are lying (probably to yourself) when you claim that you are “just interested in the truth.”

        sabril

        July 26, 2015 at 5:16 PM

      • “It’s global warming. It’s pretty simple: More greenhouse gases create a hotter planet”

        No, it’s not that simple. Because if it were just a matter of greenhouse gases increasing the greenhouse effect, the resulting rise in temperature would not be sufficient to cause serious problems.

        To get around this problem, global warming alarmists hypothesize that there will be positive feedback which will greatly magnify the amount of warming. There is very little evidence, let alone proof, to support this hypothesis. And the alarmists don’t like to publicize that their pet theory rests on a very slender reed.

        sabril

        July 26, 2015 at 5:21 PM

      • There’s also theory about “radiative forcings” in the upper atmosphere causing more heat retention that would otherwise be explained by a simple model of carbon dioxide absorbing infrared radiation. A theory that was invented to explain global warming, making it a very suspect theory.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 26, 2015 at 5:55 PM

      • I’m not sure I could explain it in detail, either, other than to say that methane and carbon dioxide are very good at retaining the heat generated by solar radiation.

        If it weren’t for the melting ice caps and receding glaciers, I would dismiss the whole idea and never think twice about it.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 5:40 PM

      • “To get around this problem, global warming alarmists hypothesize that there will be positive feedback which will greatly magnify the amount of warming. ”

        I guess you’re referring to the methane apocalypse foretold by Guy McPherson and his ilk. As the ice caps melt and the permafrost thaws, huge plumes of methane (much better than co2 at retaining heat) will be released, increasing temperatures by twenty degrees F or more.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 5:44 PM

      • “I guess you’re referring to the methane apocalypse foretold by Guy McPherson and his ilk. ”

        No, I’m referring to water vapor feedback. That’s pretty much the central issue in the entire dispute.

        sabril

        July 26, 2015 at 6:10 PM

      • “Why would you attach ‘credence’ to a party? It’s the argument which determines credibility, not the party making the argument.”

        I agree that it’s generally better to look at the underlying evidence and arguments, as opposed to the credibility and reputation of the person making the argument or presenting the evidence. But in the case of global warming, it’s not even necessary to reach that point. Because Judah-sphere is flat out wrong when he implies that university professors as a group are predicting catastrophe while oil companies are denying the same.

        I’m pretty confident that he will not be able to substantiate his claim and that he will either (1) disappear; (2) insist that it’s my burden to go searching for evidence to support his claim; or (3) weasel by producing evidence for a different claim than the one he made.

        sabril

        July 26, 2015 at 6:50 PM

      • I don’t know where the 70K figure comes from. That’s probably the average salary for a tenure-track assistant professor in humanities departments, but STEM professors are paid significantly more.
        Judith Curry is a well known heathen in the climatology field – she made $229K in 2014. See open.georgia.gov

        This is significantly above average because Curry a distinguished professor with administrative duties, but it is by no means unheard of. I looked up a few other random professors from her department – Huber 100K, Ito 114K, Paty 116K, Webster 235K. This is good money for Atlanta..

        TheyreNotThatPoor

        July 26, 2015 at 6:57 PM

      • Oh. I see. I thought you were referring to the cycle of warming causing the release of methane, which causes more warming, which causes the release of more methane, which causes more warming,…..

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 7:25 PM

      • The same professors agree that we need more immigration and that HBD is false and racist.

        1) is true under prevailing political conditions: one must unrestrict both capital and labor, not either one or the other, 2) is also correct by all current “evidence.”

        HBDers have probably never even heard of the redlegs. that is, the white minority in Barbados who are, by any indication, stupider than the black majority. commonalities with US blacks? a history of servitude, and continued efforts to thwart their upward mobility, high unemployment, high criminality, horrible education outcomes. seems that there are environments and histories that even the mighty white man can’t overcome!

        swank

        July 26, 2015 at 9:36 PM

      • Genetically low-IQ white people have genetically low-IQ white children. This proves HBD. The redlegs are Irish, and poor Irish have been known to be a problem white population.

      • Vice versa most partisans ready to call bs on atmosphere PhDs can’t explain how rainbows work.

        Meanwhile, don’t say you don’t believe in global warming-just say you don’t believe in thermometers. The data is just temperature data! It’s like creationists calling fossils the devils work.

        Ears Thyrel

        July 26, 2015 at 10:43 PM

      • and poor Irish have been known to be a problem white population.

        Right. In the 70s the Irish scored as low as American blacks and almost all of them were poor. Today they score the same as white British or higher and are richer! And the Redlegs aren’t Irish. They’re Scottish.

        Edumacate yo’self Lion.

        Another thing the achievement gap between blacks and white British in Britain is now ZERO!

        Can’t be ‘splained by selective immigration. Immigration has become less selective yet blacks used to score much lower. The same goes for Bengali British.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 27, 2015 at 12:17 AM

      • Why did you change your pseudonym from Selecao?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 27, 2015 at 6:46 AM

      • The Irish lads of the FDNY (NYC’s Firefighters) to be somewhat on the dumb side when it comes to socialization, and their impulse control are often troublesome, similar to that of NAMs.

        JS

        July 27, 2015 at 11:31 AM

      • HBDers have probably never even heard of the redlegs. that is, the white minority in Barbados who are, by any indication, stupider than the black majority.

        White slaves in the Americas

        They are only “white” by Latin American rules. Here they would be AA under one-drop-rule.

        Toad

        July 27, 2015 at 2:34 PM

      • Another thing the achievement gap between blacks and white British in Britain is now ZERO!

        No it’s not.

        Toad

        July 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM

      • maybe he wanted you to do this whenever you saw one of his comments from now on:

        swank

        July 27, 2015 at 2:39 PM

      • The highly suggestive propaganda coming from our US politicians, are just as potent and deadly, as Khan’s parasitic eels that mind control his victims.

        JS

        July 27, 2015 at 6:17 PM

      • “the white minority in Barbados who are, by any indication, stupider than the black majority”

        Who says they’re “stupider” than the black majority? Here are some considerations.

        * Irish slaves sent to the caribbean probably weren’t the cream of the Irish crop to start with.

        * The best emigrate to more prosperous islands or the US. That’s a very common phenomenon called “self selection bias”. Whites have been leaving the caribbean since the mid 19th century. So their population has been selecting for the worst for 200 years.

        * Poor conditions probably suppress the average of everyone living there. If conditions improved, everyone’s IQ would increase. But it wouldn’t increase the same for everyone. I suspect the white population’s IQ is more suppressed because they’re more susceptible to tropical diseases. I also suspect that if the conditions improved that the white IQ would improve more because they had a higher potential to start with.

        destructure

        July 27, 2015 at 11:34 PM

      • black slaves probably weren’t the cream of the black crop either, but it hasn’t stopped everyone from declaring them and the descendents as representative of their “race.”

        and if conditions improving would produce unequal gains for everyone, with those at the bottom experiencing the most gains, why not the same for blacks in America who live in conditions that have been shown to lower IQ; why not improve their conditions?

        native Americans are mongoloids and occupied the same evolutionary latitude as E. Asians….yet they approximate U.S. blacks in criminality, poverty, and IQ. what do NA, US Blacks, and the Redlegs have in common? histories of oppression and deprivation. it seems to have the same effect on all the major races!

        and let the handwaving begin…

        swank

        July 28, 2015 at 5:48 PM

      • Jews have a history of oppression too. Enough of your nonsense, please.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 28, 2015 at 6:45 PM

      • @sabril:

        Read this:

        Click to access 1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf

        Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature

        Lion of the Judah-sphere

        July 28, 2015 at 8:29 PM

      • One of the key tactics used by the Warmists is that they want to make you feel bad for not being part of a “consensus.”

        There is no such thing as a neutrally scientific climate “scientist” because all they do is study global warming and wouldn’t have a job without it. And all other scientists don’t have the expertise to weigh in, unless they are physicists who are experts in how heat moves through gases. The whole “consensus” argument works even on so-called scientists.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 28, 2015 at 8:33 PM

      • The planet is getting hotter because of human emissions of greenhouse gasses. There is ample, very clear evidence that this is the case.

        Sagi Is My Guru

        July 29, 2015 at 10:41 AM

      • “and if conditions improving would produce unequal gains for everyone, with those at the bottom experiencing the most gains, why not the same for blacks in America who live in conditions that have been shown to lower IQ; why not improve their conditions? “

        I didn’t say those at the bottom would experience the most gains. I said those whose IQ had been suppressed the most would experience the most gains. For example, if the redleg and black caribbean potential are 90 and 80 respectively then harsh conditions might reduce them to 80 and 75 respectively. If conditions improved then the redlegs IQ would increase more because it had been suppressed by a higher percentage. My reasoning is that the population with the higher potential would lose more points due to harsh conditions. Therefore, it would increase more as conditions improve.

        Just because someone isn’t living in a mansion and driving a BMW doesn’t mean conditions are suppressing their intelligence. The things that suppress intelligence are malnutrition and disease. Particularly, serious and repeated bouts of malaria, dysentery, etc or foods lacking proper nutrients. The US has vaccinations, water treatment facilities and vitamin enriched/fortified foods that make those non-issues. Height is also a pretty good indicator of disease and malnutrition since the same things that stunt height usually stunt the brain. The height of blacks in America isn’t stunted so it’s unlikely IQ’s are.

        “native Americans are mongoloids and occupied the same evolutionary latitude as E. Asians….yet they approximate U.S. blacks in criminality, poverty, and IQ. what do NA, US Blacks, and the Redlegs have in common? “

        Your reference to “evolutionary latitude”, suggests hypotheses regarding the effects of colder climes on head size and IQ, There may be some correlation but I’m not really a fan of those hypotheses. Correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation. I think there are other more important factors.

        Native Americans aren’t exactly mongoloids. Regardless, Amerindians separated from Eurasian populations approximately 12K years ago. That’s a long time to be separate. During that time, Old World populations underwent several thousand years of civilization which selected for intelligence and less aggression. There was some civilization in the New World but it was limited. Most natives remained more primitive hunter/gatherer and, therefore, weren’t subjected to the same evolutionary conditions. Sub Saharan Africans similarly had a more primitive hunter/gatherer society.

        In addition to the evolutionary pressures, civilization tends to stratify society. Without civilization, black Africans remained unstratified i.e. hunter gatherers, subsistence farmers, etc which means they were all pretty much the same. Those who became slaves were neither more nor less intelligent than the others. Ireland hadn’t exactly been a fount of civilization either. But there was some which is why they have a higher potential than primitive societies as well as (in spite of) coming from the bottom rungs of society.

        destructure

        July 29, 2015 at 7:43 PM

      • “Read this”

        @Judah-Sphere

        Please quote the paper you cite where it asserts or even implies that: (1) university professors; (2) largely agree; that (3) “climate change” is (4) inducing global temperature rises; that (5) will have catastrophic consequences.

        I doubt you will be able to do that because I think you are flat out lying.

        sabril

        July 30, 2015 at 1:24 AM

      • “University Professors” includes every professor. English professors, women’s studies professors, etc. I bet the majority do agree as they have the same politics as other liberals.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        July 30, 2015 at 8:50 AM

      • STEM professors should have a different political ideology than those of the fluff subjects (who usually tread very liberal).

        However, I think many Classics Professors are somewhat on the racist side. Years ago, there was a professor by the name of Martin Bernal who wrote a book called Black Athena, stating that Egyptian civilization was a direct influence to the Greeks. Many were up in arms about the idea and called it shoddy scholarship. Imagine if someone writes about how sub-saharan blacks are responsible for the glories of Ancient Greece!

        JS

        July 30, 2015 at 10:22 AM

      • “‘University Professors’ includes every professor”

        That’s true, but I would be willing to concede defeat even if it’s limited to STEM professors. It doesn’t matter, because Judah-sphere is very likely lying.

        See, it’s the “motte and bailey” doctrine at work. The “motte” is the claim that there is wide agreement that global surface temperatures have increased; that mankind has played a role; and that the increase might pose some kind of problem for mankind. The “bailey” is the claim that mankind is causing temperature increases which, if unchecked, will have catastrophic consequences and that there is widespread agreement about this claim.

        The first claim is defensible but not terribly consequential. The second claim? Vice versa. The rhetorical strategy is to conflate the two claims.

        sabril

        August 1, 2015 at 6:19 AM

      • Actual science professors are the MOST likely to be AGW skeptics.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        August 1, 2015 at 9:38 AM

    • I argue, who has more to lose monetarily: professors of climatology making $70,000 a year at a local university, or billion dollar oil companies?

      The professor is poorer because he hasn’t, yet, attained his goal seizing control of energy production.

      And regardless of who is richer, the facts are actual climate temperatures do not support the existence of global warming, therefore these academics should be out of a job if not in prison for financial fraud.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 26, 2015 at 3:47 PM

      • But they do. You’ve confused air temperature with the temperature of the whole world. Water has a very high specific heat, and the oceans HAVE warmed.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 26, 2015 at 5:41 PM

      • Personally, I don’t know, but what makes the whole thing sound like scamola is that it develops over time. I remember a more innocent time when sea level increases were all we had to worry about. Now, they tell us that the methane apocalypse is nigh and that we’ll be extinct in ten or fifteen years.

        Stealth

        July 26, 2015 at 5:50 PM

      • Yes, climate professors are hellbent on global domination.

        Lion of the Judah-sphere

        July 26, 2015 at 6:35 PM

      • Of course the Earthis currently in an Ice Age and has had much higher levels of CO2.

        That is the problem, if there is one, is the pace of change, NOT the change itself.

        For most of Earth’s history glaciers existed only atop the highest mountains.

        The DEEP problem which no politicians talk about is too many people on a finite planet. TFR is below replacement in the developed world, so the appologizers say the problem will be solved when the whole world is developed. They ignore that this may be impossible, and even if possible will mean much higher population densities and the end of Nature altogether. The Schwartzwald vs the Amazon? A joke.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 26, 2015 at 8:16 PM

    • Ideology/religion is a much more powerful motivator than financial gain. An oil company faces a loss of profit; an AGW fanatic faces a direct attack on their religious belief, which is a much bigger deal. Ask a suicide bomber.

      J1

      July 27, 2015 at 9:44 AM

  3. The Sailerian take on this would be that the professor can get away with this because he’s Jewish.

    sid storch

    July 26, 2015 at 12:10 PM

    • Like Zimmerman could get away with self-defense because people assumed he had a Jewish last name. No.

      • You’re being far too sensitive. The observation that anti-glutenism is a form of gaia religion is so obvious that the question immediately arises, “how come the first person to be given a platform to (tentatively) question it is a member of a tiny minority (3%) group?” The answer must be something like, the Cathedral (NPR) is only comfortable with a Jewish person, like most of themselves, mouthing it. Your analogy to Zimmerman fails because in having to stand trial despite the police initially finding no crime, he obviously couldn’t be viewed as having “gotten away with” anything. Also, his pic was immediately available, and nobody nobody who saw it ever thought of him as Jewish.

        sid storch

        July 26, 2015 at 12:46 PM

      • Because Jewish people have higher IQs and are more likely to make the connection. Did you expect a brilliant observation like that to come from a welfare recipient int he ghetto?

        And the fact most certainly is that at the beginning of the Zimmerman/Martin brouhaha, the press assumed Zimmerman was a white Jewish person.

      • The observation that anti-glutenism is a form of gaia religion is so obvious that the question immediately arises, “how come the first person to be given a platform to (tentatively) question it is a member of a tiny minority (3%) group?”

        He’s not the first doctor to question gluten free. There are other skeptical articles where it’s mentioned less than 1% of the country truly has celiac disease.

        The Sailerian take on this would be that the professor can get away with this because he’s Jewish.

        Of course it’s easy to turn everything a Jew says or does – even a comment on fad diets – into something malevolent when you’re stupid.

        Btw, Trump like nearly every other successful anti-immigration politician is pro-Israel*.

        * Donald Trump ‘Good Friend of Israel, Unlike President’

        http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/169805

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 26, 2015 at 3:42 PM

      • You’ve confused air temperature with the temperature of the whole world. Water has a very high specific heat, and the oceans HAVE warmed.

        Stop moving the goalposts.

        Yes, climate professors are hellbent on global domination.

        You think they don’t? How do you reach a greater than 50% reduction in world carbon emissions by means short of a world dictatorship more tyrannical and genocidal than any in history. They call themselves globalists for a reason.

        If you still dispute this, you need to own up to the fact that whatever warming there has been (if there was any) is too statistically insignificant to support a strong causal relationship between carbon and AGW.

        Regardless of their intentions their theory is proven false by experimentation, a theory which, mysteriously, is used as justification for ever endless more power and money.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        July 26, 2015 at 10:48 PM

  4. Disagree with you on whether ‘Gluten free’ is a religion. It’s a way for SWPLs to benefit from an Atkins-like diet without officially following Atkins (because Atkins is prole). And unlike Global Warming, gluten free diets are useful; they’re obesity reducing, stealth low-carb lifestyles.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    July 26, 2015 at 12:12 PM

    • Good point and interesting theory. Personal experience says that low carb diets work for fat reduction. Start eating a high carb diet and start gaining weight and constantly feel hungry. Eat low carb lose the hunger and lose weight.

      XVO

      July 26, 2015 at 8:14 PM

    • Personal experience says that low carb diets work for fat reduction. Start eating a high carb diet and start gaining weight and constantly feel hungry. Eat low carb lose the hunger and lose weight.

      SWPLs have tried it, or some variance of it, and see low carb’s effectiveness for themselves.

      But to admit to eating chicken wings? Never. Atkins must be called something other than Atkins.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      July 26, 2015 at 10:50 PM

  5. I don’t think rich people telling proles how to live has any effect whatsoever. Charley Murray bases his book “Coming Apart” on this very subject, and although a very good read, is very naïve in its assumptions. For years back in Victorian England the upper classes cast judgment on the poor for being drunks and wastrels and it had no real positive impact on their condition. In reality, it was only changes in public policy and not religious moralizing that improved their neighborhoods.

    In a way the left is even more race/hbd realist than the right. They don’t EXPECT the minority poor to improve their own lives. They treat them like the peasants they are and merely give them sustenance level charity through welfare. They have already come to terms with this. It is conservative Republicans like Jack Kemp and Rand Paul who continue to make fools of themselves in thinking that they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

    There is also an interesting paradox when it comes to those who like to pass moral judgments. I have found that the liberal Bobo crowd is far more morally and fiscally responsible in their own lives than the evangelical proles who think they convert everyone else into decency.

    B.T.D.T.

    July 26, 2015 at 12:45 PM

    • Au contraire, there was a lot of self-improvement during the Victorian age via the Methodist church, which targeted the poorest of the poor in England and Wales in the late 1700s. My great-grandparents were Methodist missionaries in China around 1900, and they and their many progeny were industrious, big-brained and crazily sober! They were so intellectually intense that the next generations basically drove themselves crazy with high aspirations and neurosis, while shedding the faith that got them out of the coal mines in the first place.

      The only thing that will save us is intense, highly focused religious movements, not government programs. Unfortunately most people detest same, and we certainly don’t want the Muslim version here either.

      Mrs Stitch

      July 26, 2015 at 5:41 PM

    • liberals are confident that their policies will do exactly what they say they will do because the policies historically have done so.

      poor whites do not live in concentrated poverty like poor blacks do and thus are better behaved. why? because no one puts up much of a fight when they move to richer neighborhoods. this strategy worked with poor whites, but when it was tried with blacks, well….

      when America inched left during the 60’s, the achievement gap narrowed by a large amount in little more than a single generation until the South regained power in politics and pushed back.

      every single whine about the “good old days with no gays, religion, etc.” coincides with the rise of multiculturalism which could not and would not have happened had the CSA reared its stupid ugly head.

      swank

      July 26, 2015 at 9:42 PM

      • You know, pro-HBD comments are banned at most places, so I would be within my reciprocal rights to ban your comments here, which are off topic and have nothing to do with religion and gluten or with global warming.

      • which are off topic

        but I reply to a post which states:

        In a way the left is even more race/hbd realist than the right. They don’t EXPECT the minority poor to improve their own lives.

        and I just inform the poster that liberals likely are not “race/HBD realists.” they just believe that the policies will work as expected.

        up above, you attacked the credibility of professors generally by criticizing them as holding two other positions that are allegedly “wrong” or “false.” so, I simply argued contra that the points you brought up did not impugn their credibility, then gave the reasons.

        Genetically low-IQ white people have genetically low-IQ white children. This proves HBD.

        but this isn’t what is observed. Low IQ people tend to have Low IQ children. The “genetically” part simply has not been demonstrated. behavioral genetics has failed to produce a single gene for it, even though several environmental factors have been shown to affect it and low IQ people have been shown to disproportionately suffer from those environmental factors. it’s definitely not a “religion” to disbelieve “strong hereditarianism” aka HBD.

        swank

        July 26, 2015 at 11:23 PM

      • Look at the “redlegs” in this video here: http://josefoshea.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-redlegs-of-barbados-irish-slaves.html

        They LOOK retarded. They are obviously not the same genetic stock as normal-IQ whites.

      • That video is a premonition of the future.
        Diversity = United States of Redlegs

        jjbees

        July 27, 2015 at 12:15 AM

      • Paul Wolfowitz looks retarded too.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 27, 2015 at 12:22 AM

      • And the Irish generally were said to look like negroes and come from a different stock than whites. Yet after an influx of wealth the Irish closed their nearly 1 SD IQ gap vis a vis the UK in 30 years.

        swank

        July 27, 2015 at 1:09 AM

      • “liberals are confident that their policies will do exactly what they say they will do because the policies historically have done so. ”

        Nope, read Armin Mohler’s “Gegen die Liberalen” (Against liberals). No idea if it’s available in english, it’s a master piece, though.

        Blomqvist

        July 27, 2015 at 4:36 AM

      • They are obviously not the same genetic stock as normal-IQ whites

        They are clearly partial African.

        Toad

        July 27, 2015 at 3:04 PM

      • They are clearly partial African.

        yes, we have seen and heard all of this before

        swank

        July 27, 2015 at 3:54 PM

      • Those aren’t Redlegs, they’re mulattoes.

        Some Redlegs also have some black admixture but not much and they’re poorer than most black Bajans.

        Some pictures: http://www.candoo.com/surnames/images/1224260948211_1.jpg, http://www.sheenajolleyphotography.com/redesign/showThumb2.asp?jpegName=http://www.sheenajolleyphotography.com/portfolio/images/portfolio/A+Close+Knit+Community.jpg&thumbSize=600, http://www.sheenajolleyphotography.com/portfolio/images/portfolio/Erlene%27s%20sisters%20Joyce%20and%20Nita.jpg.

        I’ve posted under one other name, but it wasn’t “selecao”.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 27, 2015 at 7:07 PM

    • But how do you explain the high level of moral decay that occurred from 1965 to 2015 among poor Whites? It’s not like they’ve gotten poorer.

      jasonbayz

      July 26, 2015 at 11:09 PM

      • Television. Sitcoms, movies, MTV type stuff, etc., without any doubt whatsoever. It is also obvious that this was done purposely.
        I wonder why anyone would ask this actually.

        Copperhead Joe

        July 31, 2015 at 6:01 PM

  6. smartguy trying to get onto the gluten bandwagon by making an anti statement.

    while there is some pseudo religious element in most ‘diets’, he picked the wrong one.

    and for that i wish him a full blown experience dermatitis herpetiformis duhring-brocq.

    imogen

    July 26, 2015 at 1:25 PM

  7. Gluten free is another food marketing gimmick like the organic label. I’ve seen cheese with a label that reads organic, gluten free and lactose free. Only the 3rd listing sounds credible.

    In many ways, proles and NAMs have been covertized by the SWPL agenda, and they’ve won. Everybody now shops at Wholefoods regardless of class. Ironically, SWPLs are more apt to dine in fine restaurants than to cook, so shopping at Wholefoods is more of a prole activity.

    JS

    July 26, 2015 at 2:05 PM

    • Disagree that proles shop at Whole Foods. The nonSWPL’s at WF in my area (NorCal) are mostly mexican, i.e. aspiring bobos. They pick up the habit while remodeling Alyssa’s kitchen.

      Marty

      July 26, 2015 at 3:26 PM

      • A lot of NAMs in NYC shop at Wholefoods. And they also work there. We are becoming a Brazil at least in our city, and like it or not, it seems like many Whites are ok with it or begrudgingly accepting of the fact. I expect White flight to happen once again.

        JS

        July 26, 2015 at 7:56 PM

    • Most people don’t shop at Wholefoods. In fact, I’ve heard several coworkers who make six figures complain that Whole Foods is too expensive.

      Panther of the Blogocube

      July 26, 2015 at 4:38 PM

  8. Most food-related fads come from two problems that cannot be solved: women have poor digestive system AND women think/believe that they are perfect. So, the food is constantly placed on healthy-unhealthy spectrum and we get “healthy diets”.

    MyTwoCents

    July 26, 2015 at 4:43 PM

  9. OT: LA Times, 07/25/15 – Police say suspect’s bounced check led to a woman’s fatal shooting in Hollywood

    http://www.latimes.com/local/crime/la-me-hollywood-shooting-20150726-story.html

    On a Sunday night in early July, as Melvin, 30, walked toward a restaurant near Sunset Boulevard with her boyfriend, someone walked up behind them, aimed a shotgun at her head and pulled the trigger. The gunman fled in a black sedan, police said.

    Following weeks of investigative work, Los Angeles police on Friday arrested the man who they say fired the shot: Ezeoma Obioha. A onetime security guard with a fledgling clothing line and civic ties, Obioha, 31, had contracted with Melvin’s newly launched social media company to market his business, LAPD Lt. John Radke said. A dispute erupted when Obioha wrote her a check that bounced and she threatened to take him to court, authorities said. She never received the several hundred dollars she was owed…More recently, Obioha appears to have focused on his clothing business, trying to launch a luxury shoe line. In a video posted in late 2014 that promotes his “hoodfellas” brand…

    The delightful and attractive Carrie Jean Melvin should have been more cautious of those whom she chose to do business with.

    E. Rekshun

    July 26, 2015 at 4:46 PM

  10. OT: 07/26/15 – Nearly 9 in 10 students drop out of unaccredited law schools in California

    http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-law-schools-20150726-story.html#page=1

    To Omar Medina, a security officer working the graveyard shift, attending Northwestern California University School of Law seemed like the ideal way to fulfill his dream of becoming a lawyer…
    Medina’s first-year class in the fall of 2006 had 414 students; 54 remained by the fourth year, data showed. Of the few who completed classes at the unaccredited law schools, only 1 in 5 ever became a lawyer, according to state records.

    These law schools have flourished because California is one of a handful of states in the nation that allow students from unaccredited institutions to take the bar exam. The 22 schools offer four-year programs and are required to register with the state bar, but they are held to few academic standards…

    “They aren’t even diploma mills, they are failure factories”…

    Medina said he wished he’d known about Northwestern California’s dropout rates before he invested his time and G.I. Bill benefits in the school…Medina went on to get an MBA from the University of Phoenix, another online school…

    About 80% of students who enrolled at Abraham Lincoln dropped out or failed by their fourth year…A former employee said the law school seemed focused on recruiting students even if they had little chance of succeeding. Catherine Maxwell, a former admissions officer, said she was asked to purchase the list of bottom-scoring LSAT students who would probably have a hard time getting admitted elsewhere.

    “They were always aiming at the total bottom of the barrel,” said Maxwell, who worked there from 2011 to 2014…Many appeared to lack the skills to grasp basic concepts and make it through law school…

    These unaccredited law schools are lower then 4th tier toilets!

    E. Rekshun

    July 26, 2015 at 5:07 PM

    • “Medina went on to get an MBA from the University of Phoenix, another online school”

      I guess he didn’t really learn his lesson.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 26, 2015 at 5:14 PM

      • And Uncle Sam paid for that worthless, diploma-mill MBA.

        E. Rekshun

        July 26, 2015 at 5:47 PM

      • What college degree isn’t a ripoff nowadays? Now that Lion tells every STEM induced person that value transference is the bloodsucker that wrings you dry, going to college for a worthwhile degree is null.

        Furthermore, America’s infrastructure is rotting in front of us. How likely are engineers are being put to good use to rectify it?

        JS

        July 27, 2015 at 9:28 PM

  11. Anti-glutenism was popularized by “paleo”. It was picked up by food neurotics and bobos generally as part of the mistaken idea that eating carbohydrates makes you fat. It sort of works as a heuristic: if you avoid grains and sugar you can’t eat the foods that most people habitually overeat.

    Incidentally, a NIH researcher named Kevin Hall recently came up with a useful mathematical model showing how energy intake impacts body weight. The composition of what you eat matters so much less than how much you eat in terms of energy intake. Body weight is one of the most significant modifiable determinants of health. Yet if you read the Internet or look at what sells on Amazon, you would think it’s the carbs or glutens.

    Here’s a talk explaining Hall’s formula: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPi1LQHBWBk

    Here’s a calculator using the formula: http://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/at-niddk/labs-branches/LBM/integrative-physiology-section/research-behind-body-weight-planner/Pages/default.aspx

    RP

    July 26, 2015 at 5:14 PM

    • RP,

      But, see, this begs the question. What is it about sugars and grains that causes people to habitually overeat? Paleos insist that sugars and grains spike insulin levels that induce hunger in short periods of time. By removing the grains and sugars, the spiking of insulin no longer occurs, people don’t get hungry, and then they don’t overeat.

      That’s the thing. No one overeats on a paleo diet that is high fat, medium protein and low or no carb.

      map

      July 27, 2015 at 1:36 AM

      • Science seems to have converged on the idea that foods that are highly rewarding to the brain trigger habitual overeating. As you imply, sugar and carbohydrate content are a factor in what makes food hyper-rewarding, so are fat content, mouthfeel, caloric density and other factors. If you take me to Wolfgang’s or Keen’s, I have no problem overeating high fat and medium protein. I grew up middle class without learning early on the restraint of our social betters.

        RP

        July 27, 2015 at 7:42 AM

      • The problem is it’s very difficult to measure something like hunger, which is subjective person to person. I’m a diet controlled type 2 but when I occasionally mess up my BG will spike close to 300 (anything over 130 is abnormal) yet it doesn’t make me feel a speck of hunger. While a non diabetic probably won’t have their BG go over 130 even if they eat three candy bars in one sitting.

        However, studies have found protein rich foods appear to quell hunger (as best as can be measured) but the reasons for this aren’t precisely understood. I would agree with RP that if you cut out grains and sugars, there really isn’t a lot left to go crazy on. Or in the case of paleo, additionally cutting out dairy further restricts gorging possibilities.

        My daughter who is plagued with rashes and joint problems tried going gluten free out of desperation. She stuck to it faithfully for two months and it made no difference. In fact she had some terrible flair ups during that period. Of course, when you tell this to the anti-gluten crowd they say she just didn’t stick with it long enough.

        slithy toves

        July 27, 2015 at 9:58 AM

      • RP,

        You’re argument does not make any sense. You eat to the point of being sates…and then you stop. The problem occurs when you get hungry again and then eat. This problem does not happen on the paleo diet.

        The only issue with paleo is giving up coffee.

        map

        July 27, 2015 at 6:45 PM

  12. By the way, I learned an interesting phrase which describes a line of reasoning which is very common in these quasi-religious discussions:

    “Motte and Bailey Doctrine”

    One writer described it thus:

    __________________

    A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of pleasantly habitable land (the Bailey), which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier, such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible, and so neither is the Bailey. Rather, one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

    For my original purposes the desirable but only lightly defensible territory of the Motte and Bailey castle, that is to say, the Bailey, represents philosophical propositions with similar properties: desirable to their proponents but only lightly defensible. The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed.

    ______________________

    So for example, in race discussions:

    Motte:

    There is no genetic marker which can be used to distinguish one race from another;

    So-called races are far more similar genetically than they are different.

    There is no way to draw a clear line between different racial groups.

    Bailey:

    Any observed difference among racial groups must be cultural in origin.

    ______________

    Or when discussing global warming:

    Motte:

    Global surface temperatures have clearly increased over the last 100 years.

    Mankind’s emission of greenhouse gases can be expected to result in an increase in global surface temperatures.

    Bailey:

    If the West doesn’t drastically curtail its CO2 emissions, climate disaster will result.

    ______________________-

    If you pay attention, you see this same intellectual bait and switch tactic being used again and again.

    sabril

    July 26, 2015 at 5:35 PM

    • Thanks for explaining!

      Jjbees

      July 26, 2015 at 6:34 PM

    • A useful term by Scott Alexander, I believe.

      Most of all, however, I look forward to the populus and lumpenintelligentsia getting free reign in misspelling and misunderstanding it. “It’s a Mutt and Bailey argument, fellow leftoids! And. We. Will. Not. Be. Mutt!”

      Glengarry

      July 27, 2015 at 3:45 AM

  13. They’re wrapped in scientific rhetoric, but ultimately they’re quasi-religious beliefs that are based on superstition and myth.

    Just like hereditism except much much MORE scientific.

    1. Paleo dieters spontaneously consume 30% fewer calories.
    2. The fossil record shows that the advent of agriculture made people shorter, shorter lived, and gave them horrible teeth.
    3. Celiac disease isn’t “all in your head”.
    4. The level of gluten in the diet of a population has a strong correlation with its rate of type i diabetes.

    A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

    July 26, 2015 at 5:38 PM

    • Also, carbs are cheap. Quality, organic protein is not.

      nontoos(formerly1%erbrowngirl)

      July 28, 2015 at 7:59 PM

  14. Lion has it in reverse. Global warmers say old technologies — coal, oil, wood burning — are bad, and new technologies — solar, wind, possibly nuclear — are good. So global warmers are not Luddites.

    Set aside whether global warming is true or false. Global warming could be a highly useful tool to promote HBD. When HBD’ers deny global warming, you undermine our sacred cause.

    Why? Because if global warming is false, then extreme human overpopulation will not cause more global warming, and so will not be an existential threat to humanity.

    But if global warming were true, we could argue that curbing world population growth must be part of the effort to slow or reverse global warming. The left couldn’t call us racists because our reason for curbing world population growth would be based on trying to stop global warming.

    Mark Caplan

    July 26, 2015 at 5:49 PM

    • The left has never required their belief system to lack internal contradictions in order to call people racist.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      July 26, 2015 at 5:59 PM

      • Agreed. Very few people bother arguing that “global warming is real so we need to limit Third-World immigration to the West and slap trade sanctions on China and ramp up our use of nuclear power.” Because the Left will simply ignore it. Or accuse the speaker of racism.

        sabril

        July 26, 2015 at 6:15 PM

    • I like this line of thinking.

      Lion of the Judah-sphere

      July 26, 2015 at 6:32 PM

    • Curbing the world’s population begins with curbing white privilege.

      Glengarry

      July 27, 2015 at 3:47 AM

  15. Global warming is real. The evidence is clear and abundant.

    Sagi Is My Guru

    July 26, 2015 at 5:51 PM

    • “Global warming is real. The evidence is clear and abundant.”

      Only the Motte version of the theory. The Bailey version is essentially a hoax.

      sabril

      July 26, 2015 at 6:12 PM

      • Scott Alexander is a polyamorist psychiatrist and he lives in Detroit. Keep that filth away please.

        A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

        July 26, 2015 at 7:44 PM

      • I had never heard of this motte vs. bailey. Is this you? http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2014/11/12/an-example-of-the-motte-and-bailey-doctrine/

        I think I basically agree with you, with the caveat that all things being equal, chances are better than even that a rapidly warming Earth will lead to undesirable results.

        The oceans are rising, by the way. This is a documented fact. Plan accordingly. (and no, I won’t look it up for you so I can “convince you”. lol. that’s infantile.)

        sagi is my guru

        July 26, 2015 at 8:40 PM

  16. I’m skeptical about climate change because there is so much other bullshit and political correctness coming out of universities. I’m almost at the point where I don’t believe anything that can’t be proven with a formal mathematical proof.

    For example, universities in Canada are teaching that alcoholism among First Nations people is caused by residential schools that closed a generation ago. There is no evidence for this at all and alcoholism is in fact mostly genetic. But this explanation absolves the First Nations people and puts the blame on evil white settlers and that is the only type of explanation that is acceptable.

    Anyone who tried to study the genetics of alcoholism among First Nations people would be shunned and possibly dragged before a human rights tribunal.

    Rosenmop

    July 26, 2015 at 5:59 PM

    • And the evidence is also that alcoholism is NOT heritable.

      A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

      July 26, 2015 at 7:45 PM

      • What about the Irish?

        Toad

        July 27, 2015 at 3:11 PM

  17. Not only is gluten-free a religion, I think most political parties are religion as well.

    ScarletNumber

    July 26, 2015 at 6:35 PM

    • Gluten-free when it means the gluten has been artificially removed is EVEN MORE artificial than the wheat which has been bread for so many generations to have MORE gluten.

      Fake food is the problem, and most of ag output is fake.

      Obese person -> fruit, vegetables, nuts, wild animals -> thin person.

      Try it!

      A. Q. Khan Noonien Singh

      July 26, 2015 at 7:50 PM

      • An obese person would just eat 5000 calories a day in nuts alone.

        CamelCaseRob

        July 28, 2015 at 6:21 AM

  18. Lion, the entire comments section is a shit show. Human impact on climate is too politicized to do anything more than throw insults at one another. What is, in your opinion, the canonical Bell Curve for climate science?

    Abraham Lincoln

    July 26, 2015 at 8:09 PM

    • Abraham Lincoln,

      ” What is, in your opinion, the canonical Bell Curve for climate science?”

      That’s easy: The Communist Manifesto.

      map

      July 27, 2015 at 1:01 AM

    • We have feelings too, Abe.

      Glengarry Wilkes Booth

      July 27, 2015 at 3:49 AM

  19. The fact that salon dislikes and distrusts paleo & gluten free is reason enough to side with paleo & gluten free. lol

    I have a tonnage of personal, anecdotal and research experience to know that gluten poses major risks for anyone with a autoimmune disease such as RA, diabetes, ankylosing spondylitis, etcetc. Anyone with a damaged intestinal mucusa (ie, anyone with a AI diagnose) is taking yrs off his life by eating a standard diet because of immuno-cross reactivity to wheat proteins. There are 1,000s of studies on pubmed that back this up too.

    Karl

    July 26, 2015 at 8:10 PM

    • Interesting, please give some pointers.

      Glengarry

      July 27, 2015 at 3:50 AM

  20. Food and sex both have moral and religious aspects. In their own way, each are critical to survival. A pleasant sight, smell, taste, etc can attract. A foul sight, smell, taste, etc can disgust. Such warn us whether an object is clean or “pure” or whether it’s diseased. People have evolved a natural morality towards food, sex and other things that could make us healthy or sick. And, of course, where there is morality there is religion.

    In some ways, liberal morality towards food parallels conservative morality towards sex. Whereas conservatives want sex to be “pure” (i.e. no promiscuity, adultery, illegitimacy, abortion, homosexuality, etc) liberals want their food to be “pure” (i.e. organic, sustainable, free range, cruelty free, etc.) You can similarly see a desire to impose food morality on others by SWPL attempts to regulate tobacco and soda as well as conservative attempts to regulate alcohol and drugs. I think this can be extended to environmentalism as well.

    Conservatives certainly don’t like animal cruelty or pollution. But, for conservatives, food and environment are as much practical considerations as moral considerations. You won’t find any conservatives who take food and environment to extremes like liberals do i.e. vegans, PETA, ELF, etc. For extreme liberals, however, they’re entirely moral considerations.

    destructure

    July 26, 2015 at 11:39 PM

  21. All this dieting is necessary for people with health problems, I can dig it. But if you are a regular chap, why would you need this meshugasen? Just work out like 1.5 hours a day and eat what normal people would eat a 100 years ago plus all the new good stuff like avocado, yams, Yuca and all the good fruits and vegetable stuff from all over the world. Also, the exotic kosher fish and animals I eat, and why not? Zebu and buffalo and bison are good. I eat them all, but not too much. I wanna get an Orchar to eat. It’s a Tajik mountain goat and my worker praises it to no end. For the Gentile chaps, I’ve heard that an African wart hog is delicious. I think you’ve got to eat them now, because there may be a shortage one day.

    Yakov

    July 26, 2015 at 11:44 PM

  22. About climate “science” and other frauds…

    As a matter of public policy, science can only be trusted at the point when it becomes engineering. If you cannot build a simple machine or a simple physical object out of the scientific principles that you are expounding, then, chances are, those physical principles are wrong.

    The same applies to climate science. Forget about arguing the various points and counterpoints in the debate. Think along simple, practical terms: climate science deals with the creation and testing of statistical models for predicting climate change. Think of how useful something like that would be to all kinds of businesses, everything from agribusiness to trading firms. Wouldn’t a company like Cargill or Archer Daniels Midland employ droves of climate scientists to help them with calling growing seasons correctly, so they know when to plant and when to harvest for optimizing crop yields? Wouldn’t Goldman Sachs have climate scientists on payroll to construct trading models for every commodity on the planet? Wouldn’t natural disasters like hurricanes, droughts, and heat waves be prepared for much better if climate scientists could predict their approach in a more useful way. Yet, you don’t see climate scientists employed in any other area except government. Why is that? I doubt climate science has a better handle on the climate than does the Farmer’s Almanac.

    Then there’s the supposed interest of oil companies vs. climate scientists, as if oil is some evil, alien sludge imported from another dimension just to make white people rich. Oil, in fact, powers the world economy. If the oil suddenly disappeared tomorrow, then we would all be killing each other in the streets within a few weeks. If climate scientists disappeared tomorrow, then nobody would notice. To equivocate between a useful human endeavor and something that resembles a fraud is the height of folly.

    Frankly, the only thing climate scientists are interested in doing is withholding energy from people.

    map

    July 27, 2015 at 12:59 AM

  23. |It would actually be a lot better for society if rich people would indeed judge poor people for their bad behavior like having children out of wedlock, instead of only judging their diet.”

    No, this does not do much. What would work is eugencis. Unfortuntaley, with retards like “swank” (who want more immigration of nature-, aniimal as well as culture-hating third world immigrants who will turn Europe into a third world shithole bereft of anything one could call culture), we will neither get a restriction to immigration (it costs us germans billions — last I checked, of 7,5 million foreigners, only 2 million were working, and most worked such simple jobs that they still take more than they give, apart from their alien [and inferior] “culture” [Islam!]), let alone legalization of negative eugenics. swank will pretend people like me won’t exist: if I had the right environment, I would have turned out a Newton. I think swank is a self-loathing german who preaches diversity but deep down he hates negros just as much as the next guy. So yeah, if you don’t turn out a Newton, your life was _wasted_ and society must make sure that it bristles with Newtons and Einsteins, regardless of what Eysenck said about such a scenario. Galton was right.

    Blomqvist

    July 27, 2015 at 4:51 AM

  24. Lion,
    The analogy between global warming and gluten is really lame. I’m a global warming skeptic, but receptive to the idea that most people should avoid wheat. There is a deep and interesting literature, albeit recent, on this point, which I recommend. You can start with Paul Jaminet, Perfect Health Diet, which sounds like it’s a faddish book, but has fascinating material about biology, anthropology, etc. You can also read Taubes on this general topic; I would begin with Good Calories, Bad Calories. That book shows how absurd the GW/gluten analogy is. In effect, the view was carbs were good and fat was bad was the dominant, well-funded scientific “truth” (like global warming today) until some smart people, Taubes, Jaminet, without axes to grind examined the evidence.

    Alessandra Volta

    July 27, 2015 at 1:36 PM

  25. There’s a decent documentary out called MERCHANTS OF DEATH, which compares global warming denialism to the anti-government activists who claimed cigarettes are not addictive and do not cause cancer (because that was just a liberal ploy to control our bodies).

    One of the two people profiled in the film who comes off really well is Michael Shermer, the publisher of SKEPTIC magazine, and a long-time libertarian.

    Unfortunately, the only way Republicans will ever probably accept global warming is if they can use it as a pretext to bomb the fuck out of China.

    Vince

    July 27, 2015 at 7:39 PM

    • that documentary is called “merchants of doubt.”

      sagi is my guru

      July 28, 2015 at 3:16 PM

  26. Direct link to the pdf that “sagi is my guru” posted above.

    Click to access SHATVO-2.pdf

    CamelCaseRob

    July 28, 2015 at 6:26 AM

  27. Here’s Seth Rogen in “This Is the End” explaining what the word “gluten” means:

    Steve Sailer

    July 28, 2015 at 6:58 AM

  28. Gluten Free is the predictable, mainstream interpretation of paleo dieting. The corporations making billions hawking high-carb/low-fat “health food” had to find a way to continue their grain-based business model while the scientists tried to figure out how to get out of the “Oh-crap-we-gave-everyone-diabetes” quagmire that they got themselves into by religiously believing that cholesterol and saturated fats were the problem.

    Yes, the scientist religiously believed in veganism and that plant-based, high fibre diets were best in the face of mountains of conflicting data.

    Gluten-free is an easy to grasp buzz-phrase and so has caught on with marketers of products that never had gluten and others that are still just junk food with the gluten removed or wheat replaced by rice and other flours (marginally more healthy). Many people are doing well with it because they’ve removed some of the wheat and carbs that were making them fat and inflamed. My repair guy came to fix my stove and I didn’t recognize him. “Low-carb?” I said. “Gluten-free, so, yeah, low-carb.” He lost 80 lbs since the last time I saw him.

    Not everyone needs to be gluten-free. There is a spectrum with wheat allergies and celiac on the far extreme and about 30% who have no problem with wheat and can thrive (varying among populations). If 30% of people have mild reactions to wheat, that means 2/3 of humanity can probably live happily with moderate – large amounts of wheat in their diet. The other 30% probably need to eliminate it except occasionally and 10% can hardly touch it.

    People are not yet ready to accept that bacon and eggs is healthier than oatmeal and a banana for breakfast. Gluten provides a nice villain to play but it is only the beginning of the problems with grain-based diets. This is just a transition towards full-on meat and greens diet that most humans evolved to survive on.

    It would actually be a lot better for society if rich people would indeed judge poor people for their bad behavior like having children out of wedlock, instead of only judging their diet.

    It’s all about self-control. If you can control what you eat, you can control your other appetites.

    culdesachero

    July 29, 2015 at 9:51 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: