Men tend to focus more on quietly enduring suffering, and they rarely speak up when they have been hurt. That’s why we get excited when women speak up for us. But it’s rare for a woman to see what men’s plans and motivations are. Rarer still to see who is standing in opposition to those plans and motivations. And rarest of all is to speak up to defend men from their opponents.

So, this post is about a woman doing all three. And not just any woman, but famous conservative woman Miranda Devine, who recently wrote the book “Laptop from Hell: Hunter Biden, Big Tech, and the Dirty Secrets the President Tried to Hide“, which is all about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and how Big Tech and the Biden administration tried to cover it all up.

Anyway, here is her article in the New York Post:

We pathologize manly virtues and bow to the tyranny of identity politics that seeks power by overthrowing a make-believe patriarchy. We raise boys in a soup of ­reproach and negativity that tells them their intrinsic nature is ­diseased.

“Traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful,” the American Psychological Association declared in 2019. These were the masculine attributes it listed as diseased: “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, aggression, anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk and violence.”

The only acceptable man now is a man who wants to be a woman. We celebrate “pregnant men” and “chestfeeding” men.

[…]We ignore the crisis that sees men commit suicide at ever increasing rates or succumb to drug abuse and porn addiction while savvy young women graduate from college in disproportionate numbers. Trained from childhood to be entitled and unrealistic about relationships, their fertility and the sacrifices and joys of motherhood, many become bitter and blame men for their confusion.

I’ll be writing an article for Friday about the unrealistic expectations of young feminist women.

But for now, here’s more Miranda, and quoting C.S. Lewis:

Along the way, we emasculate the institutions that were necessarily masculine for our protection, notably the military. As an example, on Wednesday, the US Marines celebrated Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex Pride Month by tweeting a picture of a combat helmet adorned with rainbow-colored bullets.

So, what do men do? They recoil and retreat. They leave the stage for hysterical epsilon men like Beto O’Rourke who whine and posture but can’t protect a thing.

Then when we need a strong, quick-thinking Gary Cooper to save us from outlaws, he’s nowhere to be found.

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise,” C.S. Lewis foretold in his dystopian 1943 book “The Abolition of Man.”

“We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

Maybe men have had it with being screeched at, so no more protecting and providing? (or leading, but nobody wants the leading anymore) Society can’t spend all of their time attacking masculinity, then demand men perform male roles just when it suits them.

You would expect to see men retreating from traditional masculinity precisely in the states that attack traditional masculinity as “toxic”.

The American Thinker notes:

On May 28, Sky News Australia posted a video titled “New York bearing signs of ‘societal decay.'”  The video shows a man (who seems as if he is on drugs) entering a train car and sitting next to a young woman.  He then touches her without consent, grabs her, drags her around a bit, and generally is an extremely unpleasant nuisance.

[…]During the video, the young woman is seen looking at other passengers, with obvious worry in her eyes, begging somebody to please “help me.”  Nobody tries to help her.

Where were the men? The author speculates:

If I had to guess, they were standing in their place, checking their male privilege, toning down their toxic masculinity, and coping with how their Time’s Up.

[…]My guess is that none of the men watching wanted to become the next George Zimmerman.  We all saw the emotional toll Kyle Rittenhouse suffered for defending himself.

The article notes New York’s laws against self-defense:

New York has a duty to retreat, after all.  Besides, New York has been in the habit of arresting those who defend themselves.

New York is a very feminized state. Male nature is suspicious – something for the government to outlaw and restrain by force. But when videos like this emerge, they reverse themselves and ask “where are all the good men?”

Matt Walsh has been talking about how the effeminate, weak Prime Minister of Canada just recently announced that there is no right to self-defense in Canada. No castle doctrine. No stand your ground. No use of force at all is allowed to defend yourself (or your family) from criminals.

Daily Wire reported:

Guns are for hunting and target practice, but never for self defense, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this week, continuing his crusade against firearms.

Trudeau, who is pushing a sweeping measure aimed at freezing the sale, purchase, or transfer of handguns in Canada, told the Pod Save America podcast his country takes a completely different view of firearms than its southern neighbor. No one in Canada has a right to defend themselves, their family or their property with a firearm, Trudeau declared.

“We have a culture where the difference is: Guns can be used for hunting or for sport shooting in Canada – and there are lots of gun owners, and they’re mostly law-respecting and law-abiding – but you can’t use a gun for self-protection in Canada,” Trudeau said. “That’s not a right that you have in the Constitution or anywhere else.”

Matt noted on his show that this doesn’t just apply to guns. It applies to every form of self-defense, e.g. – pepper spray. The victim of a criminal is more likely to run afoul of the “law enforcement” in Canada than the actual criminal. For Trudeau, to lift up evil, and to stamp down good, is “compassionate”. He’s very compassionate.

It makes you wonder why anyone would live there, doesn’t it? I mean, especially men. Why would a man live there, and pay taxes there, knowing that the clown in charge makes it illegal for him to defend himself, or defend others? But Trudeau won re-election, so they must believe he is a good Prime Minister, and that his view of male nature is accurate and good.

Most people who disagree with the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming have their doubts about official temperature record collection. But unless you are really following the issue closely, it might be hard for you to find peer-reviewed papers that question the majority view. Let’s take a look at some recent peer-reviewed papers that will help skeptics make their case.

This article is from the Epoch Times. They sometimes hide their articles behind paywalls, but this out is available to all. Just in case, I found an archive of it.

It says:

Temperature records used by climate scientists and governments to build models that then forecast dangerous manmade global warming repercussions have serious problems and even corruption in the data, multiple scientists who have published recent studies on the issue told The Epoch Times.

[…]Problems with temperature data include a lack of geographically and historically representative data, contamination of the records by heat from urban areas, and corruption of the data introduced by a process known as “homogenization.”

I already know about that problem of measuring stations being located in areas of high ambient heat, like busy streets, industrial areas, solar panel farms, etc. But I had not heard about homogenization.

I looked up homogenization, and it’s referring to the need to remove the impact of “non-climatic changes” on the temperature data. That could be changes caused by changing sensor technology, moving the weather station, or other factors unrelated to climate.

The article says:

For instance, if a temperature station was originally placed in an empty field but that field has since been paved over to become a parking lot, the record would appear to show much hotter temperatures. As such, it would make sense to try to correct the data collected.

That was an interesting point. So, the warming would be actually caused by increased heat from cars, buildings, Sun reflections, etc. as the sensor got surrounded by civilization. It’s readings would change, but not because of changes in the climate.

But there’s a problem with the way that scientists have been adjusting the raw data:

Virtually nobody argues against the need for some homogenization to control for various factors that may contaminate temperature data.

But a closer examination of the process as it now occurs reveals major concerns, Ronan Connolly, an independent scientist at CERES, said.

“While the scientific community has become addicted to blindly using these computer programs to fix the data biases, until recently nobody has bothered to look under the hood to see if the programs work when applied to real temperature data,” he told The Epoch Times.

Since the early 2000s, various governmental and intergovernmental organizations creating global temperature records have relied on computer programs to automatically adjust the data.

Mr. Soon, Mr. Connolly, and a team of scientists around the world spent years looking at the programs to determine how they worked and whether they were reliable.

One of the scientists involved in the analysis, Peter O’Neill, has been tracking and downloading the data daily from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and its Global Historical Climatology Network since 2011.

He found that each day, NOAA applies different adjustments to the data.

“They use the same homogenization computer program and re-run it roughly every 24 hours,” Mr. Connolly said. “But each day, the homogenization adjustments that they calculate for each temperature record are different.”

This is “very bizarre,” he said.

“If the adjustments for a given weather station have any basis in reality, then we would expect the computer program to calculate the same adjustments every time. What we found is this is not what’s happening,” Mr. Connolly said.

These concerns are what first sparked the international investigation into the issue by Mr. Soon and his colleagues.

Because NOAA doesn’t maintain historical information on its weather stations, the CERES scientists reached out to European scientists who had been compiling the data for the stations that they oversee.

They found that just 17 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were consistently applied. And less than 20 percent of NOAA’s adjustments were clearly associated with a documented change to the station observations.

“When we looked under the hood, we found that there was a hamster running in a wheel instead of an engine,” Mr. Connolly said. “It seems that with these homogenization programs, it is a case where the cure is worse than the disease.”

For me, that is the take home lesson for the whole article.

Well, how much of a difference do these problems make for climate change models?

It’s a huge problem:

The flaws are so significant that they make the temperature data—and the models based on it—essentially useless or worse, three independent scientists with the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES) explained.

The experts said that when data corruption is considered, the alleged “climate crisis” supposedly caused by human activities disappears.

Instead, natural climate variability offers a much better explanation for what is being observed, they said.

I waited a few days to blog this article, so that I could check up on the studies. Here is one, and here is another. There are a lot of authors on these studies, and they are from good journals: Climate and Atmosphere. The authors are from a variety of academic institutions from different countries, like Germany, Ireland, Hungary, Austria, Sweden, Italy and the Netherlands.

If you like to debate climate change like I do, then you might want to bookmark this article. To me, this is another new, peer-reviewed piece of evidence that argues against the catastrophic man-made global warming view. And we have to be guided by evidence.