As IF Times

link There’s a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts.

If this article is accurate, it makes you wonder about the label “expert”.  If the “experts” are generally proven wrong, why would they be called upon for advice?   It’s as if the place kicker for the New York Giants missed all of his field goal tries.  Is he an “expert” place kicker?  Why should the world listen to this lone voice, Piers Corbin, on his forecasts for weather patterns and probabilities when he is endowed with only a computer, a telescope and lots of historical data?  He is up against the accepted mainstream of meteorological thinking with unlimited resources.  I can think of one compelling one:  he’s been right.  According to the article:

“…He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it?  He studies the Sun.  He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles…”

Hmm, now there’s some frizzy haired theory, the sun exerts more influence on the earth’s climate then people driving SUV’s.  It’s amazing he hasn’t been locked up in a padded room.  Daring to provide forecasts that go against the popular groupthink scientific culture, he manages to best them all with his forecasts.  Maybe he’s a witch.  Rational people, much less scientists, should be assessing Mr. Corbin’s  methods since they seem to track reality a little better than the alarmists’ forecasts which inconveniently are the opposite of what is observed in real life.  Rational people could have come to the same conclusion of course by merely observing who was spreading the global warming fertilizer in the first place.  A lawyer cum politician cum environmental evangelist.  They could assess the braintrust supporting the apocalyptic forecasts of the GW crowd,  which includes such as the soon to be ex Governor of California, The Terminator himself, Arnold Schwarzennegger.  Recently, our hero invoked a statement in support of his interest in working as an environmental czar for the Obama administration.   He said:

“..I’m a big believer in environmental issues,” Schwarzenegger said, who added that he wanted a post where he could use his “celebrity power … knowledge and experience” to impact public policy. “I’ve traveled the world. … I’m very familiar with the world…”

This from a guy whose grocery getter is a Hummer H1 and who commutes to work by private jet.  As far as ” very familiar with the world”, I’m sure it will get the same notoriety as Sarah Palin’s alleged ” I can see Russia” comment.  Not.

I would think it behooves people in the policy making racket to pay attention to Mr. Corbin with his 85% accuracy record as opposed to the Celebrity and Political glitterati with their somewhat less impressive 0% accuracy record.  But that’s coming from a numbers guy.  If only Corbin’s forecasts weren’t such an inconvenient truth.

link  Wis. Postal Worker Delivers Mail In The Buff « CBS Minnesota – News, Sports, Weather, Traffic, and the Best of Minnesota.

I get asked all the time as to why I write about American experiences when I live up here in Canada.  The short anwer is, because of articles like this.  In the Excited States of America can be found the entire range of human behaviour, beliefs and experiences and a huge collection of nuts.  It is a nation full of extreme opposites, rich and poor, brilliant and vapid, selfless and selfish.  Opinions can be extreme and passions run high.  It is still a nation where individuality matters and is prized.   In the parlance of market statisticians, it is a nation tracing out a huge bell curve with very fat tails.  Canada, on the other hand, having a much smaller population, traces out a much narrower, taller bell curve with very thin tails. 

For other than the 3 of you who knows what that means, it only postulates that we in Canada don’t have the extremes of personalities up here as compared to the U.S.. Despite protestations to the contrary, pressure to conform is much greater here than in the far flung and diverse population of the U.S.  Because we are a smaller population, the influence of the media is much more influential in shaping opinions and values.   As Canadians should realize, if they paused at all to think about it, there really is no variance in the opinions of media outlets, one of which is the nationally owned one.  We don’t have anything similar to a Fox News in Canada.  They’re all variants of the same PC themed formats.  

That’s not to say that we take ourselves too seriously, in fact, it’s the opposite.  The trademark Canadian humor is portrayal of our own dufusness.  Think Bob and Doug Mackenzie of days gone by.  Think Jim Carrey.  Think Dana Carvey.  Think John Candy.  They’re funny, but it’s all the same shtick.

What some may refer to as ‘da Canadian values’ can more realistically be characterized as group think.  Certain behaviours are programmed into people so that they become  a natural reflex.  Recycling for example.   Deference to ‘green’ initiatives, no matter how inane, are universally accepted as inviolable social mandates.  Throw a plastic water bottle into the trash at a party and you become an instant pariah.  Mention that seals are good eats and notice the horrified stares.  Mention that multiculturalism leads to balkanization and watch people moving to distance themselves from you like you had 3 heads. 

Canadians are programmed to fit into the mainstream.  Americans on the other hand seem to have a much larger number of eccentric nuts in their population, people more willing to march to their own drummer,  more willing to do their own thing and express themselves.  Canadians are individualists too some may say.  True, but in a me too kind of way.   Perhaps that in a small way explains the success of so many Canadian entertainers who make their fortune and fame in the U.S..  Someone else can write a PhD thesis on this, my only take is that the American experience is a much richer one when it comes to culture, despite conventional opinion to the contrary.  As much as Canadians smugly claim the banner of tolerance, I think that the Americans by far have a more tolerant population.  As a politician up here, try to address any issue of universal entitlement and you will get  the standard knee jerk charge of  insulting  ‘da Canadian values’ of tolerance, compassion, yada yada yada. 

In the U.S., you can exhibit all kinds of anti mainstream behaviour and not be accused of  insulting American values, unless of course, you are.  Up here, the worst thing you can accuse someone of is not being a recycler.  Americans have no problem criticizing something,  deserved or not.  In Canada, it is considered impolite to criticize anyone.  In the U.S., they call a spade a spade.  In Canada, it’s possibly a shovel, but maybe a rake or can be a small wheelbarrow, whatever the owner thinks it is, is fine.  Canadians are too polite eh.  We hate to rock the boat.

Or are we?  As I referenced earlier on, there are very few media groups controlling all of the product that we see from news to entertainment.  The view that Canadians have of themselves is shaped not so subtly by the values imparted by the influential media.  It’s an homogenized vision of niceness and tolerance.  It’s my opinion, that most people don’t subscribe to the idealized version of  ‘da Canadian values’.  It’s my contention that people collectively groan at the exhortations of media and politicians who purport to reflect ‘da Canadian values’.  It’s just that most people would rather live their lives than be bothered with the chest thumping posturing of the usual publicity gluttons.  I mean really, Michael Ignatieff represents Canadians?  Does everyone agree with David Suzuki?

Case in point.  Only recently, after an extended run as Premier of BC, the leader of the Liberal Party, Gordon Campbell was forced to step down due to sinking popularity.  How could that be?  By most measures, he had managed the Province well and the recent Winter Olympics was his crowning achievement.  The answer is that over the years, numerous contentious policies were enacted into law which satisfied his own ideological bent but which did not have the support of the public.  The public meekly went along and did not voice enough protest.  The final straw was an outright 180 degree turn on a tax policy which was imposed despite explicitly denying it during an election.  On top of all the green taxes, land giveaways and scandals over the years, people finally had enough.  Contrary to what the media says, it wasn’t just the tax that sealed his fate, it was resentment over years of unpopular  ideologically driven policy decisions.  It wasn’t fickleness. If there was popular support for all that he had done in the past, he would have survived the single issue of the tax mis-step.  Obviously there was not.

Canadians will lose their milquetoast reputation when they stop believing the media’s representation of who we are.  We can take a page from the U.S. experience and turf those from office who pretend to know our values and perhaps consider  those with differing voices from the supposed mainstream.  Strong voices and strong opinions.  Then I’ll have some fun things to write about.