We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Friday, July 19. 2013
I've Hired A New Life Coach. She Leads By Example
A Utah longhorn (dinosaur)
Douthat rightly criticizes GOP on farm bill
Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead
This guy wants you to turn off your A/C
Obama to Detroit: Drop Dead
The hierarchy of Democratic constituencies
Two-thirds of small businesses aren’t ready for ObamaCare, survey finds
Cloward-Piven and Detroit's bankruptcy
O'Reilly: The exploitation of Trayvon Martin
New York’s Creep-Off Election - Can’t the city do better than Weiner and Spitzer?
... what's more likely to kill 5,000 New Yorkers each year? Obesity in the abstract or making fat people take the stairs?
“The religious left; they were the biggest suckers of
Tracked: Jul 21, 10:24
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Jeffrry Folks: Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead
"There is considerable evidence for solar inﬂuence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the ﬁrst half of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an inﬂuence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
Lockwood & Fröhlich, Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proceedings of the Royal Society 2007.
Bird Dog: This guy wants you to turn off your A/C
That's not what he said.
Eric Klinenberg: I’m hardly against air-conditioning... What’s indefensible is our habit of converting homes, offices and massive commercial outlets into igloos on summer days, regardless of how hot it is outdoors.
I'd agree about the over-air conditioning. I think it's partly done to dehumidify more than to turn a place into a meat locker, though.
I know people, generally overweight, who begin to perspire when the temp climbs above 60. Perhaps it is for these people that a/c thermostats are set so low?
So don't turn your home, office, or commercial establishment into an igloo on summer days.
He stated HIS opinion that A/C is bad. Therefore, of course, the solution is: "
I’m skeptical that American businesses and consumers will reduce their use of air-conditioning without new rules and regulations"
I have an opinion.
There must be a solution.
The solution MUST be "new rules and regulations".
Regulation, schmegulation. All I know is that I am tired of walking into air-conditioned places that feel like meat lockers.
Jimmy Carter tried this around '77. I hired on as one of the "cops". What a joke.
Guy advocating getting rid of air conditioning writing from an air conditioned building on a computer, the sheer numbers of which are a large reason why so much cooling is needed. Moron.
And we must point out most restaurants are freezing (in the South at least) because they also have to cool the kitchen. They cannot raise the temperature without accusations of racism due to many kitchen restaurant worker being minorities.
NY election, bad choices. Apparently for the comptroller's office, the guy who frivolously spent thousands of dollars per hour to have sex with his socks on is poised to beat out the woman who figured out how to get him to do that.
Sunspots and the Great Cooling Ahead
The Sun is our largest source of energy and any scientist worthy of the title knows how the Sun can affect climate.
Zippy quotes Lockwood & Fröhlich's paper from 2007 in which they begin by stating the obvious - that yes indeed, the sun has a major affect on Earth climate, but not now - which makes no sense. Lockwood & Fröhlich's paper was soundly debunked as sloppy science, but the best presentation of just how wrong Lockwood & Fröhlich's paper was is Svensmark & Christensen. There are others, but the Svensmark & Christensen paper is the easiest to read.
I've often wondered how NASA and NOAA got caught up in the BS of climate change, when they had historical data which could correlate the Sun's natural cycle (and all the other cycles in varying time periods) with what was happening with the climate. Any Amateur Radio operator could have given you the same data and observations.
You don't understand, industrialists, nee man, at least the capitalists, have come to be more powerful than the Sun. The source of all life on earth is now powerless before us. Or rather them, them being those evil first world creators of machines and inventions.
Because the theories that global warming was not happening were just not true. Or so I was told by my boss in 1993, he incidentally had just left a position at the NOAA grant office that funded nominally "climate science" but realistically global warming supportive research only.
Tom Francis: Svensmark & Christensen
That's funny. Thanks.
Svensmark & Christensen: When the response of the climate system to the solar cycle is apparent in the troposphere and ocean, but not in the global surface temperature, one can only wonder about the quality of the surface temperature record.
Heh. When the data doesn't agree with your theory, disregard the data. But this is the real kicker.
Svensmark & Christensen: The lower panel shows the match achieved by removing El Nin~o, the North Atlantic Oscillation, volcanic aerosols, and also a linear trend (0.14 ± 0.4 K/Decade).
Take a look. It's nearly a perfect match! But, what, huh? That's only after they remove the linear trend. That means that the linear trend is not correlated with cosmic rays! Indeed, just the opposite. They are uncorrelated.
Again, thanks for the laugh.
Then I'd say the feeling is mutual.
Every time I read one of your inept responses, I laugh and laugh and laugh.
The Puritan article was pretty good. A leftist admitting to the neurotic authoritarianism of progressives is refreshing, but the admission at the end that being progressive is largely based on selfishness is even more surprising. The author clearly hasn't mastered the third pillar of progressivism: chronic dishonesty.
Read Bird Dog is on the trail of Howdy Doody.
Now, on the hunt for cash, Detroit’s hard-nosed creditors are pointing at the DIA like bird dogs flushing quail. The toughest are clamoring for the city to sell art or manhole covers — whatever isn’t nailed down.
The life coach clip - why does maturity so frequentily mean becoming Ambrose Bierce in spirit?
Disaster plans for a bunny - our government hard at work again and do I think a self employed magician will get an IRS audit notice?
The license plate scanners don't bother me too much, live in a small community where everybody knows where your car is anyway and your plate is on public display. What is bothersome is the notion that cash strapped cities might use this to send out zoning violation notices, increase tax assements and generally turn into a money machine.
And for the farmers, how about a [href=http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20130718-50907.html]Porsche tractor show[/url], courtesy of the local.de.
Detroit kept spending money it didn't have, and giving productive citizens reasons to leave.
Re: 2/3rds of businesses aren't ready for ObamaCare
The text of the article says, "The survey found that 30 percent of businesses were not ready to comply with the new rules. Roughly 25 percent reported not knowing what they had to do to follow the law." 30%+25%=55% is more like 1/2 than 2/3rds. And if the 30% of businesses that are "not ready" already includes the 25% who "don't know what they have to do" to comply with the law, then the unprepared group could be less than 1/2 and possibly as low as 1/3rd (i.e., 30%). I'm wondering what the real numbers are. Is the problem as serious as the headline article is trying to make out or is this just a bunch of folks whining for attention?
Why can't people and businesses hire and fire for any reason they see fit?
Not that I'd hire or fire based on looks (pleasant or otherwise), but I don't care of others do. In fact, if more people did, it would give me the advantage to hire some talented people.
If looks are the basis of hiring and firing, what's the problem? Maybe a manager feels a good looking person puts a better image on his business. It's kind've silly, but if that's what is important to them, let them find out what a poor policy hiring based on looks is...
Bulldog: Why can't people and businesses hire and fire for any reason they see fit?
Because it has been found that such behavior can create social inequities and political instability. That's why many countries have laws against racial, religious, and gender discrimination.
Do women make better senators then men? Hard to say. We may never know. Most women prefer to live their lives and not enter politics. Most women who enter politics have zero in common with most other women. They are their for a reason and it has little to do with their gender but much to do with their agenda. Sadly the same is true for blacks, hispanics and gays who choose to enter politics. True some white men enter politics with an agenda as well, far too many. But like most of the founding fathers many white males entering politics placed country and countryman ahead of everything else. Whereas black politicians place black agenda first, hispanic politicians place hispanic agenda first and women in politics place a feminist agenda first. It is because we have a majority of politicians placing their particular agenda ahead of what is good for the country that we have such a mess. Can we survive it? I doubt it. I truely think we are looking at the fall of America. It may physically survive (I doubt that too) but if it does it won't be America as envisioned by the founding fathers. It will be a democratic majority of special interest politicians agreeing to cut up the pie (the taxpayers) into equal portions for their fellow agendized supporters. The Women politicians will destroy the military, the black politicians will destory (have already) the budget with greater and greater welfare programs/benefits. And the hispanic politicians will destroy the schools with Spanish speaking classes, the country with an enormous influx of poor, ignorant immigrants immediately eligible for tens of thousands in benefits. None of them will see themselves as destroying the country they will just be playing the game as defined by the Democrat party. If you are old, as I am, it may not matter. But if you are young or have children and grandchildren then it will matter very much. It is unlikely that most will wake up before the end game plays out. What happens next depends on who takes power. If it is Russia or China I would expect a massive purge. Of course the trip wire could be tripped before the end game and it would all end in a couple thousand massive nuclear clouds. In the end the result for most of us will be the same.