DaTechGuy on DaRadio, Tip O’Neill and Lord Monckton

This weeks’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio featuring Zack Freeman of the college conservative is now available online here.

During the show the subject of being graded on your political beliefs came up. I have heard college kids talk to me about this but at Union College in Schenectady, New York via Meep at the conservatory we saw a rather distinct example of the mindset it during a speech by Lord Monckton on the subject of Climate change.

After his devastating presentation the Q & A provided an interesting example showed that it was the university that needed Climate Change:

The professor then asked the students in to raise their hands if they agreed with him that the IPCC’s use of the statistical technique questioned by Lord Monckton was correct. Dutifully, fearfully, about two-thirds of the hands in the room went up. Lord Monckton turned to the professor and told him he should not have done that. He then turned to the students who had raised their hands and asked them how many of them were statisticians. Just one student began to raise his hand and then – apparently realizing that admitting he was a statistician was to admit he had knowingly raised his hand to endorse a manifest statistical falsehood – slowly lowered it again, blushing furiously.

Think about that for a second. A professor using his students to try to buttress an argument he was losing, how many students from that professor’s class or others put up those hands for fear of their GPA’s of their scholarships?

Another true believer asked the figured he would turn the tables

Another student asked, in that shrill tone beloved of environmental extremists everywhere, whether Lord Monckton was a statistician. No, he said, and that was why he had taken care to anonymize the data and send them to a statistician, who had confirmed the obvious: since the same technique, applied to the same data, could produce precisely opposite results depending upon a careful choice of the endpoints for the multiple trend-lines that the IPCC’s bureaucrats had superimposed on the perfectly correct graph of 150 years of temperature changes that the scientists had submitted, the technique must be defective and any results obtained by its use must be meaningless.

That’s when he dropped the bomb (all emphasis mine):

Lord Monckton, sternly but sadly, told those who had raised their hands: “You know, from the plain and clear demonstration that I gave during my lecture, that the IPCC’s statistical abuse was just that – an abuse. Yet, perhaps out of misplaced loyalty to your professor, you raised your hands in denial of the truth. Never do that again, even for the sake of appeasing authority. In science, whatever you may personally believe or wish to be so, it is the truth and only the truth that matters.

That pin, if you had dropped it, could have been heard again. Many young heads were hung in shame. Even their professor looked just a little less arrogant than he had done throughout the proceedings. Quietly they shuffled out into the darkness.

And that is what has happened to the conservation. The “consensus” argument of the left shows they have forgotten their own lessons of classical liberalism. A lesson once learned by Tip O’Neill the hard way as he tells on page 190 of his autobiography Man of the House:

I made a big mistake that day by not voting my conscience, Politically, of course (Speaker John) McCormack may have been right. Had I been the only member of the House to vote against the resolution, I might have become highly unpopular among my colleagues. But that’s no excuse for voting the wrong way. Since that time I’ve often looked back and wondered what, if anything, would have happened differently if I had followed my instincts and opposed the president’s request, which opened the door to our full-scale involvement in Vietnam.

That resolution was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. As O’Neil put it

I was free to vote my conscience, I just didn’t have the courage.

There was a time when liberals stood up to mobs for the sake of truth, now they have become the mob but the reaction of those students show there is still hope.

Now that’s what I call a proof of the existance of God

Roxeanne DeLuca is going to have mixed feeling on this one

This will help people understand that contraception is for women and men, because men enjoy the benefit of women making their own choices about when and if they want to get pregnant.

Once congress and insurance agencies agree to cover contraception, we will then resume having sex. Until then men will have to be content with their left hand.

Via Glenn where a reader asks:

“Aren’t they just employing the aspirin joke?”

My first thought being my age is the old SNL Weekend update bit with Jane Curtain and Bill Murray. Curtain made the same pitch (concerning a particular type of sex) for the ERA and Murray reminded her that it goes both ways and the look on Curtain’s face was classic.

But the real irony is this. All of this came from a single 30 something trying to force a Catholic College to cover contraception and their endgame is to not have sex?

I’m sure the prospect of single women choosing not to have sex is really going to upset Catholic institutions and Catholic Bishops to no end.

When they said the Lord works in mysterious ways, they weren’t kidding!