Quote

People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it. Welcome to From On High.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Your Gov't Working For You

A Roanoke Times headline this morning:


And just in the nick of time:


Kinda reminds me of that movie about the Alamo where the American military rides to the rescue just in the nick of time to ... save ... well, you know how that story played out.

Well, thank God that the shelf life of the H1N1 vaccine allows for it to be warehoused till next year anyway.


Oops.

For the love of God.

Headline Of The Day

He's a lefty. He's not supposed to be consistent:

[Nobel winner Paul] Krugman 2005: Religious extremists will try to kill the filibuster. Krugman 2009: Let’s kill the filibuster.

Idiot.

Harmonic Convergence

Amusing.

What species on this planet is most likely to be driving one of those tiny, ugly, extremely expensive, low-range electric cars?

Liberals.

And what group generally is most likely to buy into We're-All-Doomed! health/life/cosmos scenarios? (global warming, secondhand smoke, electromagnetic radiation, caffeine, ozone holes, sugar, the arms race, Malthusian overpopulation, x-rays, Y2K, DDT, PCB's, genetically engineered foods, fossil fuels, chicken flu, butter, light pollution, swine flu, Christianity, Big Macs, animal growth hormones, Sarah Palin, radon, plastic baby bottles, nuclear energy, little hunks of metal that go bang! ...)?

Liberals.

Well, what's going to happen when those who (a) love their electric cars and (b) go through life frightened of just about everything find out that there's a good likelihood that they are going to die from ...

... electric cars!
Do Electric Cars Cause Cancer?
By Matthew DeBord, Slate

Obviously, however, an EV [electric vehicle] running off an electric motor with a battery that can weigh 600 lbs. raises the health-hazard issue: Does the electromagnetic field generated by the car pose a threat to drivers and passengers?

This question has been bandied around the blogosphere, and answered as best as can be, given limited research, much of which is extrapolated from EMF studies of the fields generated by power lines, cell phones, household appliances, and so on. The National Cancer Institute says that there are indications that EMFs can cause certain cancers, but the research is far from conclusive. EVs and hybrids haven’t been in the market long enough for studies to be done, although automakers have tested their vehicles for EMFs (conventional cars as well as hybrids and EVs), and found them to be within accepted limits. [link]
"The research is far from conclusive."  That means we're all going to die!  It's now a certainty!  Aaaaagggggghhhhh!

Liberal wieners.   They're such easy targets.

- - -


* And then there's range anxiety.

Aaaaggggghhhh!

The Numbers Tell The Story

I find myself watching "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News quite a bit these days.  Not at its normal 8 pm time but each morning when the show is rerun at 5 am.  Though watching may be too strong a word.  It's on while I'm reading the papers, swilling coffee, and hammering out my pithy cerebrations, acerbic admonitions, and insightful prognostications here on the weblog.

In a word, Bill O'Reilly is a hoot.  I enjoy him.

And I'm not alone.  Check out the evening (8pm to 9pm) cable ratings in that critical 25 to 54 demographic over the last two years (as supplied by "TV by the Numbers").  Click on the image to enlarge it:



You'll notice that TV viewership jumped dramatically during the November election campaign (that peak in the center of the "dot plot" graph), but immediately thereafter Campbell Brown's (CNN) show and Keith Olbermann's (MSNBC) show and Nancy Grace's (Headline News) show fell more or less back to where they began.  What's startling about this is the fact that O'Reilly's show, though experiencing something of a fall-off as well right after the presidential coronation, his viewership has steadily risen since.  "The O'Reilly Factor" dominated its competition before; it is absolutely annihilating the others now.

Fascinating.

Neither O'Reilly nor I would characterize him as being "conservative."  At least not across the board.  But he does make sense (which puts him head and shoulders above that NBC sports analyst/lefty MSNBC loon).  And he's a take-no-prisoners kinda guy, which I particularly like.  Couple that with the fact that he's very entertaining, and you have a hit show.  And a growing number of people are getting in on it.

Here's to Bill O'Reilly, man of "the folks."

But This Can't Be!

"Al Gore may have some recent trouble with stats, but in "An Inconvenient Truth," [he] has projected with scientfic backing that if we emit only twice the amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases we do now, and if the temperature increases by only a couple of degrees, the almost three-kilometer thick Greenlandic inland ice will melt away. Global sea level will rise over twenty feet, causing world catastrophe. The horizon for such a scenario is a few thousand -- or even a few hundred years -- depending on which researcher you ask."
-- Lea Lane, Huffington Post, December 16, 2009

NASA: "More than 2 trillion tons of land ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska have melted since 2003, according to new NASA satellite data that show the latest signs of what scientists say is global warming."

-- Associated Press, December 16, 2008

Greenland is melting because of global warming.  So say NASA and some dingbat who posts to the Huffington Post.

A question for both: If "global warming" is real and is causing an unprecedented melting of Greenland ice, how is it that "Greenland temperatures were higher in 1930 than today"?

Another question that will go unanswered in this non-debate.

You Were Duped

How quickly we went from "hope and change" to "elected" and "business as usual":
Lobbyists on pace for record year
By Victoria McGrane, Politico

Main Street has had a tough year, losing jobs and seeing little evidence of the economic revival that experts say has already begun.

But K Street is raking it in.

Washington’s influence industry is on track to shatter last year’s record $3.3 billion spent to lobby Congress and the rest of the federal government — and that’s with a down economy and about 1,500 fewer registered lobbyists in town, according to data collected by the Center for Responsive Politics.

Many lobbying firms have escaped the worst of the corporate belt-tightening, thanks, in large part, to the ambitious agenda set out by President Barack Obama — who, ironically, came to Washington with a pledge to break what he considered the undue influence of special-interest lobbyists. [link]
As we are all painfully aware, Obama pledged a lot of things, including reducing the influence of lobbyists in Washington, none of which he really meant.  They were all empty lies used to get elected.  This is just another example.

Lobbyists are stronger than ever.  Disappointed yet? 

I Go With 'Intuitive'

I was going to make mention of this headline that appears on the Space.com website,"Earth's Upper Atmosphere Cooling Dramatically," until I read further into author Andrea Thompson's article. In it she writes:
When the sun is relatively inactive — as it has been in recent years — the outermost layer of Earth's atmosphere cools dramatically, new observations find.

The results could help scientists better understand the swelling and shrinking of our planet's atmosphere, a phenomenon that affects the orbits of satellites and space junk.

Knowing just how the energy flowing out from the sun naturally impacts the state of the thermosphere also will help scientists test predictions that man's emissions of carbon dioxide should cool this layer. (While that may seem to contradict the idea of global warming, it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere.)

This same cooling effect is expected to happen (somewhat counterintuitively) as carbon dioxide concentrations increase from emissions at Earth's surface. So understanding the natural variability of this layer is important to detecting any changes from carbon dioxide increases. [link] [emphasis mine]
First, a definition:

Counterintuitive: (adj.) Contrary to what common sense would suggest

Common sense tells us that what this person is suggesting (and regardless what has "long been known") is fantasy.  It's an effort to make known facts about atmospheric (and thermospheric) temperatures fit the current hypothesis about global warming.  Thus the "carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere and cooling in the upper layers of the atmosphere."  What?  It's not only counterintuitive, it's silly.

And flat wrong.

I wonder how Andrea, and the planet's scientists who have bought into this idiocy, explain the fact that while the earth's CO2 concentrations continue to rise, the planet's atmospheric temperatures have not risen at all this century. How do they square that with "it has long been known that carbon dioxide causes warming in the lowest part of the atmosphere"Intuition tells us that there is something wrong - seriously wrong - with the postulate.

Thus the use of the word "counterintuitively."  Because it makes no sense.  But it allows for the acceptance of the hairbrained postulate.

How does one deal with that?

- - -

One way might be to prove the theory (that which has "long been known" about CO2 causing warming) to be dead wrong.

It is clear that neither science nor intuition is on the side of the fantasists.