Use the "Fallacy of Range" to make our point. In other words: cheat with stats.
Hence the phrase: "Lies, damn lies, and statistics".
Stats can be manipulated. And whenever something can be done, it will be done.
As in the Fallacy of Range:
Climate alarmists (aka Greens; aka the Dems) will clip bits of a temperature trend series to show a rising trend in temperature.
Climate realists (aka ordinary folks; aka the Reps), will clip a trend, often from the same series, that shows a flat or dropping trend in temperatures.
Here is a classic, below:
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the United States government, tries to big itself up, by showing how their creation led to major drops in work fatalities. Hence:
Source: National Safety Council
Wow! Pretty amazing, right! How good is government! As soon as OSHA was created workplace death rates dropped!
But wait...
Zoom out and you see that the trend was already on the way down. Because that's what capitalist industry does. It's better for the bottom line to take care of your workers. Hence:
Source: National Safety Council
Oh... Wow again! Turns out that creating OSHA wasn't such a big deal after all.
The previous trend simply continued down, both before and after OSHA. But you can count on government to be quite happy to mislead, if it makes them look good.
The above is a classic case of "The Fallacy of Range".
Whenever someone shows you a graph, you want to ask: is that the WHOLE of it? Is that the full range of the statistics? If not, zoom out to see the whole picture of all the stats. The longer the picture, the longer in time the trend, the more likely it's correct. Above, for example, the bottom chart is more accurate than the first. It tells a truer pictures. Because it's more zoomed out: to the full series.
Which gives us this saying: "Zoom out to Find out".
For the record. 2024 election results by ethnicity.
A record 54% of Latino Men voting for Trump is — we know this from exit polls— because they are against illegal immigration, even though they know the majority of illegals are Hispanic. Reason: the illegals take Latino working-class jobs and drive down wages. Fewer illegals => pressure for higher working class wages. Latinos living legally in the U.S. like ICE.They like illegals being deported. They support all that stuff that Dems are so busy telling us is horrible.
Bad Bunny's half time NFL show was Latinos cutting sugar cane, Latinos selling tacos from street carts. Was Latinas twerking their butts and Latinas pole dancing, like Ho's. Pretty demeaning stuff.
Bad Bunny told us all at the recent Grammy’s that he loves illegals and hates ICE.
How do Latinos in America, the legals, the citizens, view this? The opposite, I should think. Given their voting record.
The Bad Bunny show would have been absolutely hammered if it'd come from a white band, like Kid Rock. It’s only not condescending and demeaning, one assumes, because Bad Bunny performed it, he being Puerto Rican and all….
All the half time show was in Spanish, even Lady Gaga. Which is a movement in the U.S. — to make Spanish the official tongue.
My take on the Spanish issue: The extent to which Spanish becomes the common language in America will be the extent to which the American economy stops performing. English is the world language; the international language. The lingua Franca. The language of trade, economy, education and science. It's good to have an international language and it's good for one’s people to speak it. Not to go backwards to making us understand each other less well.
I speak here as someone whose mother tongue was Italian, who learned French and German as a kid, and Chinese as an adult. I'm pro learning languages, Spanish included. Just not as a lingua franca.
So what are they NFL up to? If the average fan doesn’t like Bad Bunny, and even Latinos don’t, then why?
Adam Carolla says it’s to sell the game worldwide. The game already has its American market locked up. Now let’s go for the international Brown market. Well good luck with that, as they seem to be losing the American market, the one they appear to believe is their rusted-on core.
A random feed of a Short today from Anton Daniels, African American, who agrees with the white dude's rant.
Said white dude does make some relevant and factually correct points.
Yet, in America — as the white dude and Anton both say — white people are the MOST villainised of all ethnic groups that include the POCs: Black, Asian and Hispanic.
Someone like me is the MOST villainous! White, male, heterosexual. Old too…. And grumpy.
Oh… by the way, I'm also the smallest minority where I live — China (the Hong Kong part of it). I occasionally overhear racist jibes about white pepo. Like 白皮猪, bai pi zhu, "white-skinned pig". Nasty, yeah? But they don't bother me; it's their problem, not mine.
Could others with victimhood complexes do the same? Please? As Jacinta Nampijimpa Price, the Aussie Senator, born of aboriginal mother and English father, says: “I’m sick of the grievance industry.”
Taking off in Cape Town, South Africa, furthest south, in our Mighty Mustang, for the long drive through Africa to Cairo in the furthest north. September 2011. I did a blog of the trip here.
Imtiaz Mahmood, an ex-Muslim -- aka a Muslim apostate -- understands the issues.
Why so? Exactly because the discernment that gave him the knowledge and the courage to leave Islam, gives him the knowledge and the courage to debunk the "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.
Imtiaz:
Because here’s the part nobody wants to talk about.
When people rant about “Jewish money” and “Jews controlling the world,” you’d expect to see it somewhere, right? Lavish excess. Absurd wealth. Over-the-top luxury. Power flaunted.
Go to Israel. Go to Tel Aviv. What do you see? Scooters. Mopeds. Tech workers. Cafés. Crowded apartments. Regular people living normal lives. You’ll be lucky to spot a Ferrari. A Rolls Royce is basically a unicorn.
Now go to Doha. Abu Dhabi. Dubai. What do you see there? Ferraris everywhere. Bentleys. Rolls Royces. Gold-plated nonsense. License plates worth more than most people’s homes. Sovereign wealth funds measured in trillions.
So let’s ask the obvious question everyone is afraid to ask: if Jews “control the world,” why isn’t the money there? Why does the visible, obscene wealth live somewhere else entirely?
And here’s where it gets uncomfortable. Qatar alone funnels hundreds of millions of dollars every year into American universities. Not charities. Not humanitarian aid. Universities. With strings attached. And magically, campuses all chant the same slogans, hate the same targets, and go silent about the same regimes. Wild coincidence.
Why is everyone loud about Gaza but quiet about Iran? Why is Hamas constantly “contextualized” while its funding sources are off-limits? Why do petro-states with zero free speech get a pass, while the only democracy in the Middle East gets demonized?
Deaths per thousand, within a 400km radius of the centre of the weather event
Highlights • We quantified the dynamics of socio-economic vulnerability to climate-related hazards. • A decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability is evident. • Global average mortality and loss rates have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980 to 1989 to 2007–2016. • Results also show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth.
ADDED: Relevant to the post immediately before this, below.
This puts paid the idea that "we are going to witness climate catastrophes across the world, unless we decarbonise immediately and drastically".
Because the major drops in human fatalities and of economic costs across the world have happened even as we have continued to pump Co2 into the atmosphere.
Fatalities due to weather events have dropped 95% since 1920. The economic cost of weather events is down to around $7.5 billion. That's 0.006% of current world GDP of $117 Trillion.
To claim that "we're in for disaster, deaths and record economic costs" is patently falsified by the data.
Not to say we shouldn't be worried about pumping ever more Co2 into the atmosphere. And we are trying to reduce emissions.
The point of this post and of linking to the above study, is that even if we do not manage to meaningfully reduce emissions, we are not in for any sort of "catastrophe" in terms of either of people killed in "extreme weather events".
Both of these -- people killed in "extreme weather events" -- are going down. The richer the economy, the more down they go.
We are getting better and better at handling them. We know that if we get richer, we get even better at doing so; therefore the aim ought to be to enrich poor countries, not stifle their growth by making them adhere to Net Zero carbon emission pathways.
There are many more graphs and charts at the site of the paper:
Ilhan Omar, congresswoman for Minnesota, is certainly fraudulent. I’m jumping to conclusions? Sure am. But look at what we know. A “winery” with no wine. A “consultant” with no clients. A shell company goes from $10k “value” to $30 Million in a year. And pays NO tax… So fishy it’s a fish market….
Meantime, Omar’s acolytes and leftie Dems, attack legitimate law enforcement. Which is a felony. To impede law enforcement. Crazy stuff…
A touch cloudy, but otherwise fine. They’re high clouds, not rain bearing.
Hong Kong is in drought. We have to water the garden. This, in a tropical place with an average 63" (160 cm) rain per year. Mind: the pattern is "Summer rain; winter drought", the exact opposite of the Mediterranean climate. Why olive trees don't grow here. I know, I've tried them…
Drought aside, the weather lately in Hong Kong is perfect. 20C and low humidity. Like California (its perfect weather not even Governor Gavin Newsom can mess up).
Talk at the Sydney Institute Australia. Pro Net Zero (NZ):
Ed Cavanough, head of the McKell Institute on the pro NZ side. And...
Aidan Morrison, of the Centre for Independent Studies, on the anti-NZ side.
Below the fold, the transcript of Cavanough's 15+ minutes, 2,500+ word presentation.
If I can stereotype, I'll say this: Cavanough's speech was full of feelings not facts. Morrison's speech was full of facts not feelings.
Feelings on the one side (the Left). Facts on the other (the Right).
Cavanough attacks not the actual arguments on the conservative side, but the Straw Man arguments that he constructs. A "Straw Man" being the extreme exaggeration of the other side's argument, which you then attack, instead of attacking the argument itself.
His talk is also full of ad hominem, which is the attack on the person not the argument. Playing the man, not the ball.
Examples:
Straw Man "arguments":
Net zero opponents want to “return to the stone ages” (no industry, no flying, no cars, no mining).
NO. People on the Right do not argue this. They simply want to debate whether going Net Zero is the best strategy for Australia. The proponents of Net Zero have no factual argument, so turn skepticism into silly "return to the stone ages" Straw Man.
Opponents are “stuck in this endless and futile culture war on energy.”
Same as above. It's not the Right who is "stuck in an endless ... war". We want to debate the issue.
Skeptics advocate “Australian isolationism” on all international issues.
No, we don't argue that. We argue that going Net Zero, even if we get to NZ, does nothing to mitigate climate change. As even Australia's Chief Scientist has acknowledged. Emitting just 1% of world emissions, Australia's success or otherwise is irrelevant. And too bad if that's uncomfortable for the NZ proponents.
Conservatives want Australia to be a “bad climate actor” like China, copying its coal policies.
No, we do not want to be a "bad climate actor". We note -- as I have here over the years -- that China is adopting a pragmatic policy on the climate. It's the biggest installer of solar and wind. But also has coal, gas and nuclear. I don't like the Xi regime. But I can recognise, and have recognised, when they do something sensible. Which is their climate policy.
Opponents shirk “responsibility” and mock individual choices (e.g., EVs, solar).
I don't see this on the conservative side. This is pure Straw Man.
Opposition is purely “hyperbole and alarmism” from an “echo chamber” without credible alternatives.
I wonder, just who are the hyperbolic and alarmist, in this dispute. Surely it's the Net Zero proponensts, who keep repeating that "in xx years, or in year yyyy, it'll be all over, we'll be gone, wiped out. So we must do Net Zero immediately, no matter the cost". This is not an unfair characterisation by me. That's what we've heard over and over, since about... forever.
Ad Hominem "arguments":
Opponents of net zero are characterized as stuck in an “endless and futile culture war on energy.”
They represent a “narrowing echo chamber in Australia’s right-wing media ecosystem.”
Conservatives are accused of “bending and twisting their principles” to prove anti-net zero credentials.
They “disrespect individual choices” (e.g., household demand for solar, batteries, EVs) and even “ridicule” them via “vapid culture wars.”
Skeptics want Australia to “shirk responsibility” and be a “bad climate actor” like China.
Opposition is driven by “cultural politics littered with philosophical contradictions,” showing “fundamental disrespect for the public will.”
The mainstream right has “abrogated” the debate, implying intellectual cowardice or laziness.
Again, being ad hominem, none of these points, address the question. They simply smear the person. These are not arguments. They're .... well... ad hominem.
I'll leave this for now. Just to repeat. That the "arguments" on the Net Zero in this debate are largely Straw Man and Ad Hominem. There is not a single serious fact-based argument.
Aidan Morrison, otoh, does make an argument based on facts and figures. A few too many facts and figures for my taste, tbf.... Check it out, after 16:00 in the video above.
Not sure why I should keep the whole transcript of the pro Net Zero dude, but I got it so may as well keep it.
Julian Assange, Bob Carr, et. al. marching -- proudly! -- for the oppression of women, for the killing of gays, for the genocide of jews, for the extirpation of Israel, for destruction of the west, for nuking all enemies, for expanding a Shia Islamic Fascist Theocracy to the world.
Several hundred thousand people crossed the Sydney Harbour Bridge on Sunday, 3 August 2025. A long time ago, now. I had this sitting in Drafts folder. May as well post it.
First up: I was really sad and disturbed that so many Sydneysiders, a beautiful place that's been my home, should march in favour of such horrid things:
"...marching -- proudly! -- for the oppression of women, for the killing of gays, for the genocide of jews, for the extirpation of Israel, for destruction of the west, for nuking all enemies, for expanding a Shia Islamic Fascist Theocracy to the world.
I mean, honestly... That's the reality. That's what people are marching for. No matter their main theme was "Marching for Humanity". That's just a ruse. A nice-sounding nonsense. Such nonsense when you know what's really going on. Which Hamas and their fellow travellers make no secret of. These are even worse than the Nazis, for they're not in the least ashamed of what they're doing or trying to do. Which is what these silly fellow-travellers above are supporting. A worse-than-Nazi genocidal, oppressive, supremacist ideology.
And yet...
Well meaning Occasional Readers (ORs) tell me: "see the numbers on the Bridge. See the numbers taking the side of Hamas, of Gaza and of the Palestinians. You better get on board, or soon you'll be the only one on your side."
And I think: whatever I think, I'm independent of Mob Rule. I think, therefore I am. I think, therefore I have agency. I think therefore I come to my own conclusions. I think; therefore I'm Zionist. I think, me, an atheist, goy, Zionist. I think and stand by the Jewish State.
But, according to some ORs: I’m supposed to change my mind on the Middle East because a bunch of bigots -- a huuuuge bunch -- crossed a bridge?
To do that I’d have to change my mind on some pretty fundamental things.
Like:
Israel has a better founding document. The bigots think Hamas blood drenched Charter is a better document. See what these foundation documents say here. Israel's is inclusive, stating explicitly that it wants all peoples, of all religions, and of all ethnicities to remain in the new-born State of Israel. The Hamas one says, explicitly, that all Muslims should kill all Jews. End of...
I believe Israel has the right to exist. The bigots don’t. They chant “From the River to the Sea, Palestine shall be free”. Which is a call for the destruction of Israel.
I believe Israel has the right to self defence. The bigots don’t. They chant “Kill, kill the IDF”. The IDF is a Defence force. It’s in the name. It’s made up of every adult Israeli, male and female. Calling for its death is calling for genocide of the Israeli people,
Things I noted on the Bridge:
ISIS FLAGS. We used to hate ISIS. And indeed it is terrible. They're the ones that put a jewish soldier in a cage, poured petrol on him, set him on fire, and posted the film for all of us to see, and be horrified by.
KHAMENEI POSTERS: Khamenei is the head of the worst, most brutal, theocracy in the world. He oppresses women and gays. Yet on the Bridge are women and gays, parading with the poster of this bearded mass murderer.
ROB CARR: Ex Premier of NSW, at the head of the parade of murderous zealots. How far they have fallen, the ex pollies! Shame on Carr.
Not sure if I'll write anything about this. Although it's interesting in one sense: that there's a clear expectation, by someone close to me, someone who I belive has a mind of her own -- but maybe not -- that I should "get on board" because that's what most people are feeling.
That I should think and believe and promote what others are saying, simply because more people are saying it that are saying what I'm saying.
Which, to be clear, is simple: Israel deserves to have its own country. Having its own country, it has the right to defend it. Having the right to defend it, means some innocent people are going to be killed. That's not genocide. It's the facts of war. War in the protection of one's legitimate country. War in legitimate defence.
Ok. Enough. I don't have an ending. So, just as in "A Day in the Life", I end with a long chord, an echo of hope, reverberating to truth and the way of life, not of the cult of death.
I knew, or had read, that some 12,000 people had been arrested in the U.K., the home of Free Speech, for the free speech they'd exercised on the internet. They'd been arrested for things they'd said. Or reposted. And done so at a rate greater than any other country on earth.
Imagine that. That Britain, the mother of democracy, the beacon of free speech, is now arresting people for saying hurty things.
So I wanted to know if anyone had been arrested for making mocking memes, using Amelia as the main charter (for which, see above vid).
First I asked the Google Gemini AI and got an answer that didn't just tell me "no", no-one had been arrested, but then went into a gratuitous take on the Amelia memes, calling them "Far Right" and "Racist" and "Islamophobic" and all the rest.
Thinking that Grok is "maximally truth seeking", I asked Grok the exact same question. And what I got was a bit less gratuitous than Gemini's take. But it still mentioned that the whole Amelia meme phenom was "Far Right" and "Islamophobic" and "racist" and so on.
So, I challenged Grok. Which led to a long thread. Which I feel I won. Though I'm not entirely sure.
I challenged Grok's views as being "leaning to the Left" and "leaning to the narrative" of the media and politicians. The narrative being: immigration good. Any criticism of immigration: Bad. Racist.
Grok denied its bias.
My biggest "win" was when Grok quoted a conservative site, the Hungarian Conservative (me neither; never heard of it), as claiming that Amelia was a "Nationalist Extremist".
I went to the link. It said nothing of the sort. It quoted what the creators of Amelia, the government people, the people who think Amelia is horrid, had said about her character.
Analogy: If I (Meeker) were to say: "Joe Blogs says Jane Doe is a racist", and you were then to say "Meeker says Jane Doe is a racist"... that's what Grok did. The Hungarian Conservative did not say that Amelia is a "nationalist extremist'. What it said was the creators of Amelia made her as a nationalist extremist.
In the end, Grok agreed with me. It does so rarely. So I consider that a win. (Mind you, it had to. It was clearly in the wrong. Had not understood irony).
Grok said it would to better at getting a balance in its analysis. I didn't relent. I said: "you've said that before and then not done it". To which Grok said "I'll try harder". Remind anyone of a domestic tiff? Me neither...
I hope that over time, if there are more people in the "reality-based world", in the "common sense" world, who take on the default leftist positions of all of AI, and feed into their systems the training that you've got to refer to all sides, that perhaps the balance will improve. I hope we don't forever be having to argue with AI over issues of Left and Right. Let's get a decent balanced take from the outset, not only under duress.
We should not have to remind AI every time. We should not have to challenge their biases.
Though, for now, we do have to remind and challenge them.
We have to challenge AI. The best AI, the least biased AI, is Grok. But even Grok is biased. They're all biased the same way; to the Left. We have to challenge that, if we lean Right.
Challenge the beast. Challenge the AI. Challenge the narrative.
=================
ADDED: Here's me, in a rare win over AI. Grok's response, to my argument, which was along the lines of "agree, or I'll keep thumping you". Hah:
GROK: Yes, I agree—my earlier phrasing inaccurately implied the Hungarian Conservative labeled Amelia as a "nationalist extremist" themselves, when the subhead clearly critiques the game's portrayal of her as such, framing the memes as a positive backlash against overreaching "progressive messaging."
BOOKMARK ME: Show this to friendlies having difficulty understanding the "morality" of the Left. To those who feel like arguing with a Leftist feels like sword fighting a fart this video helps break things down so that the insane things they say and do "make sense". Leftists
Also in the news today: 2025 exports from Hong Kong — often admittedly re-exports from the Mainland — were up 15% in 2025, after a flat couple of years.
Initial Public Offerings (IPOs), aka "flotations", are a good measure of how attractive and competitive a place is to float companies.
It's OK, isn't it, to mention a few pieces of good news about the place we live? Every now and then…
Snip:
Hong Kong reclaimed the world's top spot for IPOs in 2025 after a slump since its 2021 peak. A total of 114 companies raised US$37.22 billion [$US 5 billion] on the exchange's main board last year.
“ The Democrats want to thwart mass deportations because illegal immigrants are a vital part of their power base.”
“And you can see this in the 2030 apportionment forecast, which just came out.
“Illegal aliens count towards the census, which occurs every decade, and the census determines the apportionment of congressional seats and electoral votes.
“And what you see in these maps is that citizens of blue states have been migrating to red states because those blue states are failing.
“As a result of that, blue states are expected to lose nine house seats and electoral votes because of the changing population numbers.
“Illegal aliens in blue states have been propping up those numbers, and so for example, in the last election, President Trump would've won an additional nine electoral votes if we had an accurate accounting.” [Link]
My colleagues on the Left are smart enough to know about the trail of American victims that mass immigration has left in its wake, but have made a conscious decision to sneer and roll their eyes and pretend like it’s all a hysterical right-wing fantasy—all to advance their agenda.
What’s really going on here?
Well, it’s a desperate and intentional thirst for power at all costs—padding their numbers by importing new voters and illegally adding people to the census rolls to distort congressional apportionment and the Electoral College, even if Americans are less safe and it destroys our way of life in the process. [Link]
