Jan 112018
 

The Know Ledge

At what point does it become necessary to actually “know” things about certain issues or topics? When is it ok just to leave the details to the “experts“? It’s a practical question that is fundamentally based on individual responsibility.

It is also a question that has bedeviled Professor Christopher Essex, theoretical physicist and mathematician with the Department of Applied Mathematics at Western University. As one of the pioneers of climate change computer modeling, his skepticism about the political climate that has arisen around this field of study has fallen mostly on deaf ears.

Understandably, when it comes to the details of science and technology, most people will defer to the experts. But there comes a point when leaving it to the experts may in fact be quite detrimental to those affected.

Having reached the point at which the responsibility to know falls squarely on those who need to know, a decision must be made. Shall we continue to rely on opinions and “expertise” that does not seem to be consistent or realistic, or shall we finally take the leap from the ledge of ignorance and embrace the technicalities of knowledge? Continue reading »

Sep 142017
 

greenhouse defect

Inconvenient truths about the ‘climate change’ debate

We call it the “Greenhouse Defect.” Take it literally. Take it figuratively. Works both ways.

In the politically driven debate about “fighting climate change,” the actual “science” surrounding climate and the earth’s environment is simply not relevant.

Just ask Chris Ballard, Ontario’s Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. In his Sept 9 letter to the editor disputing a column by Lorrie Goldstein, Ballard wrote the following:

“As Ontario’s independent environmental Commissioner said in her annual report, ‘putting a price on carbon by itself would not be enough to achieve Ontario’s reduction targets… Ontario needs complementary emission reduction measures.’ Continue reading »

Aug 142017
 

Bob and Robert were invited to attend the Annual General Meeting of the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship held at Western University on May 13th.

Here is our recorded presentation of Jan Narveson, Emeritus Professor of philosophy at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Narveson used the current controversy surrounding climate change to speak on “When Science is Political.”

Jul 062017
 

FNN

He’s the master of insults,” says our in-studio guest Salim Mansur, “and that is a good thing.” US President Donald Trump has pioneered the social media of Twitter in a way that resembles “the Haiku of American politics,” notes Salim. He predicts that in the future we should not be surprised at the emergence of “a serous and academic discussion on tweeting.”

No doubt, Donald Trump would have to be the primary subject of that serious and academic discussion. Trump has successfully taken control of the “news reports” surrounding his presidency by mastering the art of tweeting, and in so doing, has amassed a following on Twitter that dwarfs that of the “established” media news outlets.

What have been called “outbursts” and “undignified comments” etc., penned by Trump’s tweets, are, upon closer examination, very calculated and effective methods of communicating with the public at large. Once again, Trump towers above his media opponents in every respect – from being effective at getting his message across, to the size of the audience following him on Twitter. It is an unprecedented revolution.

But that’s only half the story. As repeated experience has been demonstrating, it turns out that it is Trump, and not the media, who appears to be the guy who’s telling it like it is to the American public. Continue reading »

Jul 062017
 

FNN

He’s the master of insults,” says our in-studio guest Salim Mansur, “and that is a good thing.” US President Donald Trump has pioneered the social media of Twitter in a way that resembles “the Haiku of American politics,” notes Salim. He predicts that in the future we should not be surprised at the emergence of “a serous and academic discussion on tweeting.”

No doubt, Donald Trump would have to be the primary subject of that serious and academic discussion. Trump has successfully taken control of the “news reports” surrounding his presidency by mastering the art of tweeting, and in so doing, has amassed a following on Twitter that dwarfs that of the “established” media news outlets.

What have been called “outbursts” and “undignified comments” etc., penned by Trump’s tweets, are, upon closer examination, very calculated and effective methods of communicating with the public at large. Once again, Trump towers above his media opponents in every respect – from being effective at getting his message across, to the size of the audience following him on Twitter. It is an unprecedented revolution.

But that’s only half the story. As repeated experience has been demonstrating, it turns out that it is Trump, and not the media, who appears to be the guy who’s telling it like it is to the American public. Continue reading »

Feb 022017
 

oil well

When it comes to climate, one theory holds that there’s a fifty-fifty chance that we’ll be unable to adapt to climate change 90% of the time. For the other 10% of the time there’s still a fifty-fifty chance that our odds will remain even. Of course, it depends on which side of the C02 / carbon tax issue you’re on, and on which political party you support.

Sound confusing? Confusing us is the whole point of playing the percentages warns Dave Plumb, who joins us today for a continuing discussion about both the science and politics of climate change.

Here’s a 100% certainty: CO2 production is a natural and healthy occurrence. You could even say that efforts to rid our planet of CO2 are unnatural and unhealthy.

Playing the percentages is just one of the ways politicians justify “fighting climate change” by taxing CO2 production.

Citing man-made CO2 production as a reason for “fighting climate change” – and in turn using the “fight against climate change” as a premise for taxing man-made CO2 – is a circular and fraudulent way to impose a new tax that will neither reduce world CO2 levels nor prevent climate change. Continue reading »

Dec 292016
 

AI

As 2016 draws to a close, we would like to thank you, our listeners, for making 2016 Just Right’s greatest single year in audience growth. 2016 was Just Right’s first year as an independent weekly radio broadcast and podcast, free from the constraints of the politically-correct university environment in which the show originated.

Our on-line listener statistics for the 2016 tell a remarkable story: Over the past year alone, visits to our web site have increased from a few hundred per day in 2015 to an average approaching 2000 per day. “Unique visitors” to our site have increased from an average of 2000 per month to 15,000 per month. And with each passing month, thousands more are added to these numbers.

Considering that Just Right is produced only once a week, the growth in the number shows downloaded over the past year is significant. In 2015 Just Right’s bandwidth traffic of 848 gigabytes represents approximately 12,110 show downloads, while in 2016, bandwidth traffic (to Dec 21) of 4.6 Terabytes represents a minimum of 65,242 show downloads. That’s a growth rate exceeding 500% over the past year alone, and the numbers show no signs of slowing down. Continue reading »

Dec 222016
 

circuits for a brain

Is “artificial intelligence” (AI) really an artificially stupid topic? Is there even such a thing as “artificial” intelligence, or are we just playing with words?

The answers are not as straightforward as one might at first glance assume. Indeed, assumptions may well determine the outcome of a tautology that would have us chasing our own tales of intelligence.

Join us for a real intelligence gathering, together with our in-studio guest Professor Christopher Essex of Western University’s Department of Applied Mathematics. It’s a discussion about the pitfalls and promises of what has come to be called “artificial intelligence,” and why the discussion itself has as many pitfalls as its subject.

The circular debate between “real” and “artificial” intelligence may simply be caused by assuming that the latter refers to some form of “artificial human.” It cannot. “Intelligence,” however defined, is an unreal concept when used in the attempt to distinguish between man and machine. Continue reading »