As IF Times

link Climate Scientists Warn Opportunity to Prevent Dangerous Warming Is Dwindling | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 27, 2013 | PBS.

And in other news, Harold Camping, the broadcast preacher who famously predicted the end of the world in 2011 has died.  From CNN:

“…When his May 21 prediction failed to pan out, Camping took the radio airwaves to say that he had misinterpreted the nature of the rapture but that the world would still end on October 21.  The following year, Camping admitted he was wrong and said he was getting out of the forecasting business.

“We humbly acknowledge we were wrong,” Camping and his staff members wrote in a letter to supporters posted on Family Radio’s website in March 2012.

“We must also openly acknowledge that we have no new evidence pointing to another date for the end of the world. Though many dates are circulating, Family Radio has no interest in even considering another date.”

Camping founded Family Radio, a nonprofit Christian radio network with about 65 stations across the country, in 1958. It received $80 million in contributions between 2005 and 2009.He first inaccurately predicted the world would end in 1994. Despite his poor track record, he had gathered many followers. Some gave up their homes, entire life savings and jobs because they believed the world was ending…”

Ironically, Camping attempted to predict the world’s end but could not pinpoint his own demise.  Business strategists will note some fatal flaws in his model.  While many elements of his prognostications were sound, including the ability to raise money off of gullible peoples’ irrational fears, a fatal flaw was that there was a specific date (actually 2 specific dates ) attached to his forecasts.  This instantly kiboshed the program once the date came and went.  The other fatal flaw was the inability to rope the government into supporting his cause.  It’s one thing to preach fear as an individual, it’s much more effective if it’s state sponsored.

The Climate Change, nee Global Warming crowd have been much shrewder in their campaign.  While at the beginning, the timeline for the end was stated as “about” 20 years, the more common technique is to now invoke the classic “time is running out” schedule.  They perhaps learned from Camping that predicting the world’s end is a somewhat imprecise science.  In fact, the very reality that global temperatures have not been warming, but apparently cooling have allowed the loonies to now spin this as Climate Change.   Whereas the fanatics try to fix the image of an hourglass with dwindling sand grains in the public’s eyes, the real model they work on is the infinite loop…there is never an end.  This is pure business gold.  Any scenario can be taken as proof of Climate Change.  Snow in Cairo? AH HA!

I have to say, the longevity of the perpetration of this obvious fraud is truly amazing.  Much has to do with the way that stories are presented to the naïve public.  In the linked article for example, it says “scientists” as if to imply solidarity within the scientific community, when actually it means 3 guys: Michael Oppenheimer, the guy interviewed in the article,  Professor Plum and Dr. Irwin Corey, he of the Cadbury caramilk bar secret fame.

It’s also common to refer to observed “changes” in ocean levels, to depletion of arctic ice, to bees counted, to penguins missing etc etc in support of their dire views.  Al Gore doesn’t even rely on those bits of spurious evidence.  He confidently states that global warming is like gravity, it just is.

A guy like Harold Camping passes and the hysteria dies with him.  Sadly this virus of stupidity will not die with the passing of Al Gore or any of his acolytes.  The infection as been spread throughout the education system so that at a very young age, the cult of Climate Change has already lodged itself into the psyches of the next generation.   Years from now, 4 sunny days in a row will cause massive weeping and moaning in schoolyards.  It will be a full generation at least before this sickness gets flushed from the system.

link What happened to Lady Gaga? | New York Post.

The reason that the product of many artists is so revered and timeless is because their works were often poignant reflections of the particular zeitgeist of their era.  Through their respective media, they brilliantly capture and convey their observations and perceptions.  It was the resonance with the audience that would determine the timelessness of their work.  The medium didn’t matter; painting, sculpture, literature or music.  While we know that many works of art were commissioned by patrons during their time, most ‘true’ art has no real correlation with financial value…at least not at the outset.  It’s a fair guess that nobody commissioned Pablo Picasso to create cubist paintings for financial gain.  In fact, when the patron first saw the result, he probably refused to pay.

With the passage of time, the appreciation of high artistic expression has been driven by those who have been  mysteriously appointed as arbiters of value.  Today, works of art are sold through Sotheby’s and Christie’s  for tens of millions of dollars or more because essentially, somebody convinced somebody else of their value.  Music of course is a general exception to this.  If it doesn’t catch on with the masses, its value is truly only esoteric.  Music isn’t better because it costs more.  As far as other forms of high artistic expression, the general public wouldn’t know a Cezanne from a Monet.  Or Walt Whitman from Walt Disney.  The masses are happy with their velvet Elvis’ and their paintings of bulldogs playing poker.

Interestingly, there is an attempt to transplant the high art model into the pop culture business. In the world of pop culture, what passes as artistic is usually overwhelmed by what is marketable and profitable.  No one went broke capitalizing on the very brief lives of teeny pop stars.  From the David Cassidys and Leif Garrets of yesterday to the Taylor Swifts and Justin Biebers of today, the teeny girl demographic will always be a dependable source of pop star mania.  Of course, in order to market the young phenoms, at the very least, they need to have some semblance of talent, however  limited that might be.  The fact is, much of the reason that pop stars become pop stars is because of promotion, not unlike the art auction racket.  Once they begin to market that boy band “A” is the flavor of the day, then the public believes it and the process becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.   If any art or talent is truly involved, it’s a happy coincidence.  Come to think of it, that’s how politics works.  Hmm.

In the case of Lady Gaga, her ascension to pop culture icon status is truly a mystery.  Bereft of any vocal or observable entertainment talent, her shtick seems to be dressing as if her outfits were picked by seeing eye dogs or designed by 3 year olds in art class.  Full credit to her team of promoters, over the past 3 years or so, she has managed to place herself front and center in the pop culture business.   This is exhibit “A” of what happens when entertainment is pursued as a marketing exercise rather than as artistic expression, (Exhibit B being Miley Cyrus).   It’s hard to imagine that years from now, people will listen to a classic Gaga track and then say “hey that’s good, play it again!”

So the question posed in the linked article is, what happened to Lady Gaga, as if some great talent has disappeared.   Nothing has happened to Lady Gaga.  It’s more likely the audience has moved on.  In the absence of talent, the shelf life of weird can only last so long.  Unlike in the high art world, it’s much harder to convince the plain folk that a sow’s ear is a silk purse.  Sometimes weird is just weird.