The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.
The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.
Unexpectedly!
Of course, they have to maintain the politically correct line:
“The new data does not mean that concerns about climate change are overblown in any way. It means there is a much larger uncertainty in high mountain Asia than we thought.
Yes. Now consider what else you don’t know that you thought you did. And yes, let’s spend trillions now to prevent the ocean from rising by one meter a century from now. Because that makes perfect economic sense.
Jeff Lord is disappointed with both Romney and Santorum’s lack of space vision, though more so with Santorum:
Instead of Bain bashing, Santorum is attacking Gingrich over the ex-Speaker’s vow to return America to space exploration with a vengeance — in the form of a moon colony. An obvious intent to carry forward with the Reagan space legacy made all the more potent by the Obama administration’s deliberate halt to the very idea of a serious 21st century American presence in space. Appallingly, if predictably, Gingrich’s decision to carry forward with Reagan’s vision has already been mocked by the Obama-lite Romney. But Rick Santorum? The would-be “Authentic Conservative”? Bashing Ronald Reagan’s vision?
Emphasis mine.
As is often the case, he doesn’t seem to understand the new policy, because this is a gross mischaracterization of it. If anything, it was the first serious policy for American presence in space, in that the goal was to finally make it affordable to do so, which the Congress not-so-promptly undid with its insistence on a NASA-developed heavy lifter that will not in any way advance the goal while underfunding or eliminating funding for the things that will. I wonder if he is aware that Gingrich was actually supportive of the Obama policy?
I’ve been doing this for about a year, though I haven’t gone whole hog (so to speak) on it. I still occasionally have a slice of bread, or potato, or legumes (though I’ve quit eating peanuts). And it’s tough to give up cheese.
The biggest problem with it is that most people in the world can’t afford it. Civilization happened because when agriculture happened, food became cheap, but not good for our health. If everyone started eating this way, prices of produce and meat would skyrocket — it’s just too inefficient, in terms of the acreage it takes to produce it, for everyone to be able to eat wild or range-fed meat and leaves. The ultimate solution may be genetic engineering that can produce healthy and good tasting foods in vats on a similar industrial scale to that of present-day refined grains. Of course, for many, the instant gratification of stuff that tastes good (sugar, bread, pasta), particularly when it’s cheap, will always overwhelm the long-term benefits of a better diet. But I think that the science is speaking very clearly on this issue now, and it’s time to end the war on fat and the nonsense of the FDA pyramid.
This is a textbook case for the Austrian business-cycle theory: Artificially low interest rates and loose money produce overinvestment, by both bankers and builders, in a bubble — this time, offices, apartment buildings, and retail space — that can’t be sustained once the artificial stimulation comes to an end, as it must. In this case, that malinvestment has to be worked out at two levels: At the financial level, among the lenders and borrowers, but also at the physical level: There’s going to be a lot of dark storefronts out there, with serious long-term consequences for nearby neighbors and for local real-estate markets: Foreclosures will put more property onto the market, driving down rents and subsequently making existing loans less tenable as the cashflow of commercial properties is diminished. They called the Depression-era tent cities “Hoovervilles.” The next time you see a mile of half-abandoned strip malls, think “Obamaville.”
This is just one of many things that could happen this year that will crater Obama’s reelection hopes.
…by the numbers. And yet we’re supposed to just go along with the “authorities,” and “settled science” when there is great political power and trillions of dollars at stake.
Mickey Kaus says that the Employee Rights Act doesn’t cut it:
The problem with Wagner Act unionism isn’t necessarily that unions aren’t democratic. It’s that they are granted a power–mainly the power to go on strike as the sole and exclusive bargaining agent of a firm’s workers without the strikers getting fired–that maybe they shouldn’t have. The UAW is a democratic union. That didn’t stop it from crippling the auto industry. The problem is that the wrong people voted in the UAW’s democratic elections–not the suppliers who would be hurt when UAW members decided democratically to win themselves inefficient work rules, not the mayors whose towns were decimated, not the taxpayers who had to bail them out (in part to save the suppliers and mayors), and certainly not the customers. Making even entrenched undemocratic unions more democratic might have the perverse effect of validating those unions’ exercise of their Wagner Act power. According to Barnes, Sen. Hatch “insists the ERA isn’t antiunion.” That’s not a feature. It’s a bug.