Can't remember when I last watched the Oscars. It may have been years ago when all the actors showed up either drunk or stoned and demonstrated it. The fuss about Chris Rock emceeing the thing is almost hilarious. The righties and the lefties are weighing in on the con's and pros of Rock. I really don't think anyone whose "humor' is scatalogical, sexual and filled with obscene language is funny. My favorite comedians are those, like Cosby, who can tell great tales, make you laugh at him and yourself, all the while doing it without having to resort to "shock language." Probably makes me one of the red state icons, but who have been the great and memorable comedians of the past 50+ years? Hope, the Allens, Dangerfield, Youngman, Cosby, Robin Williams, etc. Any of them fill the time with blue language. Dick Gregory was funny until he took himself seriously. Carlin is truly funny until he reverts to character.
I've probably missed the intellectual boat. Well, maybe another ship will dock.
Monday, February 28, 2005
The Weather is Different than it use to was
Patrick Michaels, Virginia State Climatologist, had an interesting perspective on the way we view climate. The weather we grew up with is "normal" and any differences from that is not "normal." Hadn't thought of it quite like that. Michael's article was intended to poke a few holes in the global warming fearocracy by pointing out that the weather in central Virginia has changed much since 1895. We are not going through some very unusual warming/cooling. Interesting that the facts get in the way of our perceptions and our fears.
Friday, February 25, 2005
A Consensus of Scientists Believe....
We are now in the age of science by consensus. Do they have meetings and vote on facts, theories and laws of nature? Do they lobby and politic at these conventions?
When I hear "consensus of scientists" I am reminded that a consensus of scientists believed:
a. The sun revolved around the earth
b. The earth was flat
c. In phlogiston (still study it at the University of Netherwallop).
d. Diseases were caused by bad vapors (almost right, but the consensus denied germs).
e. About 1900 the consensus was that all that was knowable was known and, in the future, we could only make slight refinements on this knowledge.
I'm looking for the announcement of the next consensus convention. Maybe I can support candidates for my favorite beliefs. It's certainly easier than going into the lab and doing experiments that can be peer-reviewed.
When I hear "consensus of scientists" I am reminded that a consensus of scientists believed:
a. The sun revolved around the earth
b. The earth was flat
c. In phlogiston (still study it at the University of Netherwallop).
d. Diseases were caused by bad vapors (almost right, but the consensus denied germs).
e. About 1900 the consensus was that all that was knowable was known and, in the future, we could only make slight refinements on this knowledge.
I'm looking for the announcement of the next consensus convention. Maybe I can support candidates for my favorite beliefs. It's certainly easier than going into the lab and doing experiments that can be peer-reviewed.
The "Science" of Global Warming
Slick advertising broadsheet on pollution and global warming. Nice pictures of smokestacks and cars from the early 70's, courtesy of the EPA. Here comes the infamous Hockey Stick from Professor Mann. It still misses the mideval warm period and the little ice age. The publication professes to answer all those nagging questions about global warming, yet it is presented as a slick advertising pamphlet. Once upon a time, if you called yourself a scientist, you presented your theories backed up by experimental observations that could be duplicated by someone adept in the art. Now it is chase the billions to paid for finding global warming and publish your "data" in something that would do Madison Avenue proud. The more I read about it, the more inclined to believe the whole thing is a farce, especially when I see fluff like this.
Global Myths
Interesting comments from Africa Fighting Malaria. WHO attributes 100,000 child deaths to global warming. 75,000 deaths are due to accidents and 25,000 are due to living conditions in poor countries. Global warming death's: zilch. Yet the UN keeps pushing it. The article goes on to hammer the absolutely appalling "Role Back Malaria" that does little to stop the killer of millions and the prevention of the Euro's, the US and the UN (or at least the effort to prevent) the use of DDT in small quantities in houses to prevent it. This use of DDT has been shown to reduce Malaria by 80-90%. In this case Environmentalism=murder, or is it just a racist thing that the Enviro's can kill off Africans?
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Language of the Environment
Environmentalists and the media have a special language. Toxic chemicals stream, spew, into the environment. The Hudson River, thanks to a lot of efforts is cleaner than hit has been in decades. See the article. Yet we are worried about toxic chemicals from runoff, sneaking in. And, oh yes, there are those evil PCB's.
Name a chemical that isn't toxic. Water? An overdose will kill you. Drink too much, stand in 20 feet of it, live in a flood zone and you could die. Exposure to water vapor (steam) creates burns. How about the solid form? How many people die from exposure to ice each year. Is water described as spewing from the sky? Nope. However, other chemicals spew or stream into the environment, particularly those the environmentalists decide they don't like.
Next time you see a news report of toxic chemicals spewing into the air, I bet the camera shows long, lingering shots of a plume of grey to white stuff coming off some rectangular thingies in the back ground. They want to very graphically give you the idea that toxic chemicals are spewing into the environment. They are right. Usually the shot is of a cooling tower and the toxic chemical, and main greenhouse gas, is that evil stuff, water.
New pollution in the Hudson. Caused by people. Solution: move the evil doers to somewhere else.
Name a chemical that isn't toxic. Water? An overdose will kill you. Drink too much, stand in 20 feet of it, live in a flood zone and you could die. Exposure to water vapor (steam) creates burns. How about the solid form? How many people die from exposure to ice each year. Is water described as spewing from the sky? Nope. However, other chemicals spew or stream into the environment, particularly those the environmentalists decide they don't like.
Next time you see a news report of toxic chemicals spewing into the air, I bet the camera shows long, lingering shots of a plume of grey to white stuff coming off some rectangular thingies in the back ground. They want to very graphically give you the idea that toxic chemicals are spewing into the environment. They are right. Usually the shot is of a cooling tower and the toxic chemical, and main greenhouse gas, is that evil stuff, water.
New pollution in the Hudson. Caused by people. Solution: move the evil doers to somewhere else.
Academic Freedom
With all the rage about academic freedom and Ward Churchill, few seem to be looking at the other side of the halls of academe. What happens to the poor student who dares to dispute the wisdom of the prof? Failure. See below
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5346.html
http://www.thefire.org/index.php/article/5346.html
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
Bush in Europe
I listened to two very wise talking heads at noon. One of Kerry's campaign advisors seemed to be saying that we had to kowtow to the Europeans. Frankly, I could care less what the leaders of France and Germany think about the US. I expect leaders of any country to do what they believe to be best for the national interest of their country. I demand that my elected leaders do that for the US. If our beliefs in what is in the national interest of each country are different, so be it. I don't have to like the French, Germans or any other in old Europe and they don't have to like us. The more I read and the more I look at France, the more I respect Eisenhower. If I had to put up with DeGaulle during WWII, I probably would have locked him up in a very dark place. Instead, Ike did an amazing balancing act and kept even their best general, LeClerque, working as part of the team. Hat's off to him. Haven't seen much from the French that convinces me that we shouldn't have let the Germans retain France.
Letters to Soldiers
If I understand the bits and pieces I'm picking up, this little episode of letters from a group of 6th graders to an Army PFC accusing him of killing Iraqi civilians and destroying mosques is a dispicable act of idiocy and cowardice. Providing form letters to be used by children is a dispicable act of cowardice. Then sending them to a soldier on the DMZ in Korea accusing him of destroying mosques and killing innocent civilians is an act of idiocy. One wonders if the leftist's must take an IQ test and not be above a minimum score to be a bone fide leftist. Probably not many mosques or Iraqi civilians in Korea and, if we are destroying mosques and killing innocent civilians in Korea, it is a very well-kept secret. Are we building mosques and transporting Iraqi civilians to Korea? Second, using children to attack a 19-year old is beneath contempt. Anyone who supports this kind of action is pretty damned low. Anyone who buys into this as a "freedom of speech" issue, as the mayor of that New Jersey town did, needs to get public assistance for the mentally challenged.
State of Fear
Crichton's "State of Fear" is an excellent read. The problem is that I found myself correcting minor errors in his discussions of global warming.
Are we in the midst of global warming. You betcha. I lived on a sandbar surrounded by deep holes left by retreating glaciers. The sandbar and one of the holes are fondly called "Michigan" by its inhabitants. I'll be a bit more convinced by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming when the computer models predict accurately the climate in the 20th century.
For those who heard all the horror stories of the great European warm period of the past couple of years and heard all the terrible tales of thousands dying from the heat and the great floods, it wasn't as hot in France as it was in the Carolina's and Georgia, not to mention the Southwest.
Years ago, when I was in Wertheim, Germany, I noticed marks on buildings that had a year and the words "Hoch Wasser." All the high water marks from the 1500's were higher than the flooding they experienced as a result of global warming. Wonder if more houses, parking lots, and more paved roads have anything to do with increasing the water run-off?
Are we in the midst of global warming. You betcha. I lived on a sandbar surrounded by deep holes left by retreating glaciers. The sandbar and one of the holes are fondly called "Michigan" by its inhabitants. I'll be a bit more convinced by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming when the computer models predict accurately the climate in the 20th century.
For those who heard all the horror stories of the great European warm period of the past couple of years and heard all the terrible tales of thousands dying from the heat and the great floods, it wasn't as hot in France as it was in the Carolina's and Georgia, not to mention the Southwest.
Years ago, when I was in Wertheim, Germany, I noticed marks on buildings that had a year and the words "Hoch Wasser." All the high water marks from the 1500's were higher than the flooding they experienced as a result of global warming. Wonder if more houses, parking lots, and more paved roads have anything to do with increasing the water run-off?
Environmental Dance
The "dance" is a very formal ritual in which all participants dance to their own music. Pick a topic or new initiative and, with a little observation and practice, you can write the script for any of the ritual participants. For example, the EPA proposes a new regulation. In their proposal, they gladly demonstrate that it is needed, implementation will save lives and it will cost so little to implement that we should be glad to do it. EPA, quite often, isn't bothered by actual science. They will tell you that this new regulation will save lives (I've even seen a proposed reg that would save 65 lives. You know, by the time they get to a busload, they ought to be able to give us the names of those who would be saved)
The environmental community enters the dance. Their tune is the regulation does not go far enough and that, as a minimum, civilization as we know it is doomed.
The regulated community enters the dance. Their tune is that the regulation is overly burdonsome, does not address the issues, is much to costly and, if promulgated, civilization as we know it is certainly doomed.
The media enters the dance and, since the science and environment writer cannot be hired if he/she ever took a science course, proceeds to publish the most outlandish quotes from both sices.
Once all the dance partners are doing their dance, the EPA takes the tunes (comments) and attempts to bring some order to the shindig. Of course, having made their decision, EPA gives in only on small matters and denies any comment of substance. If the regulation goes to a scientific review board and the SRB says the regulation is based on bad science, EPA decides to continue anyway.
The regulation must meet it's quota of arcane acronyms. Recently, the EPA promulgated the RICE MACT in, appropriately, Subpart ZZZZ. They don't offer No-doze. A RICE is not a little white or brown kernel in a bowl, it is a reciprocating internal combustion engine. This rule regulates RICE at major HAP sources (hazardous air pollutants). The best one, is a HON. People actually talk about their HON's (Hazardous Organic NESHAP (National Emission Standard HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant))). An acronym containing an acronym containing an acronym. Don't you feel safer already?
Once the regulation is promulgated (notice they are never put into force, they are promulgated), the trainers enter the dance. The trainers train those that have to write permits and enforce the regulation and try to entice those who have to comply with the regulation to go to some exotic place for an expensive training session. I've always liked the training sessions in a warm place in the winter. After about 5 years, half the regulators and half the regulated actually understand half the regulation. (but usually not the same half.)
The dance ends with a brand new regulation with permits written by folks who don't understand the regulation for people who don't understand the regulation, but get to spend loads of time and money complying with the regulation. Little is changed in the way of reducing pollution (remember this is why it all started), the regulated community doesn't go broke, the enviro-saviors find another cause and civilization as we know it somehow manages to survive.
The environmental community enters the dance. Their tune is the regulation does not go far enough and that, as a minimum, civilization as we know it is doomed.
The regulated community enters the dance. Their tune is that the regulation is overly burdonsome, does not address the issues, is much to costly and, if promulgated, civilization as we know it is certainly doomed.
The media enters the dance and, since the science and environment writer cannot be hired if he/she ever took a science course, proceeds to publish the most outlandish quotes from both sices.
Once all the dance partners are doing their dance, the EPA takes the tunes (comments) and attempts to bring some order to the shindig. Of course, having made their decision, EPA gives in only on small matters and denies any comment of substance. If the regulation goes to a scientific review board and the SRB says the regulation is based on bad science, EPA decides to continue anyway.
The regulation must meet it's quota of arcane acronyms. Recently, the EPA promulgated the RICE MACT in, appropriately, Subpart ZZZZ. They don't offer No-doze. A RICE is not a little white or brown kernel in a bowl, it is a reciprocating internal combustion engine. This rule regulates RICE at major HAP sources (hazardous air pollutants). The best one, is a HON. People actually talk about their HON's (Hazardous Organic NESHAP (National Emission Standard HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant))). An acronym containing an acronym containing an acronym. Don't you feel safer already?
Once the regulation is promulgated (notice they are never put into force, they are promulgated), the trainers enter the dance. The trainers train those that have to write permits and enforce the regulation and try to entice those who have to comply with the regulation to go to some exotic place for an expensive training session. I've always liked the training sessions in a warm place in the winter. After about 5 years, half the regulators and half the regulated actually understand half the regulation. (but usually not the same half.)
The dance ends with a brand new regulation with permits written by folks who don't understand the regulation for people who don't understand the regulation, but get to spend loads of time and money complying with the regulation. Little is changed in the way of reducing pollution (remember this is why it all started), the regulated community doesn't go broke, the enviro-saviors find another cause and civilization as we know it somehow manages to survive.
Environmental Reporting
I read today that USGS scientists have discovered abnormally high levels of methyl mercury in the Great Salt Lake and that they are worried. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1894&e=4&u=/ap/20050222/ap_on_sc/mercury_pollution
Interesting to note that the report indicates that there is no known affect of the 25 nanograms/L Me2Hg in the water. The brine shrimp are doing fine and there has been no waterfowl poisonings, no human or animal deaths or disease. The article has an abundance of "might's" and "worried" and other qualifiers. They do not opine as to where the mercury came from: is it naturally occurring or anthropogenic? And, by the way, you can eat the salt from this "poisoned water." The article makes the usual chemophobic splash without saying anything of consequence other than USGS scientists are surprised at the levels found. They don't even opine as to whether this is increasing over a period of years, or not. Maybe the Salt Lake Tribune should hire an environmental reporter who actually took a science class and knew some half-way intelligent questions to ask.
Interesting to note that the report indicates that there is no known affect of the 25 nanograms/L Me2Hg in the water. The brine shrimp are doing fine and there has been no waterfowl poisonings, no human or animal deaths or disease. The article has an abundance of "might's" and "worried" and other qualifiers. They do not opine as to where the mercury came from: is it naturally occurring or anthropogenic? And, by the way, you can eat the salt from this "poisoned water." The article makes the usual chemophobic splash without saying anything of consequence other than USGS scientists are surprised at the levels found. They don't even opine as to whether this is increasing over a period of years, or not. Maybe the Salt Lake Tribune should hire an environmental reporter who actually took a science class and knew some half-way intelligent questions to ask.
Getting Started
Thousands of bloggers, so why not another one.
"A bit more of the grape" is an order attributed to a Union Artillery Battery commander during the civil war calling for more grape shot to stave off an attack. There are times I'd like a bit more grape shot added to the fray.
"A bit more of the grape" is an order attributed to a Union Artillery Battery commander during the civil war calling for more grape shot to stave off an attack. There are times I'd like a bit more grape shot added to the fray.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)