A Facebook group to prove that there is no such thing as boobquakes.
Somewhere, the other day, I saw someone note on the Intertubes a tale of two religions. One believes that boobs cause earth quakes, and the other believes that global warming does.
A Facebook group to prove that there is no such thing as boobquakes.
Somewhere, the other day, I saw someone note on the Intertubes a tale of two religions. One believes that boobs cause earth quakes, and the other believes that global warming does.
Andy Borowitz: “I’m not sure if a gigantic oil rig sinking was the best way to celebrate Earth Day.”
But they’d been planning it for months!
[Update a few minutes later]
On this Earth Day, thank Big Oil.
…some national recycling experts have begun calling for government restraint in trash recycling, which can be more costly and environmentally damaging than dumping.
“We just assume recycling is always better,” said J. Winston Porter, president of the Waste Policy Center, an environmental consulting and policy organization. “But there’s a point at which you shouldn’t just recycle for recycling’s sake.”
I think we’re well past it. It’s become the new secular state religion.
My cynicism over it peaked a few years ago when (as I related in a blog post, but don’t want to look for it right now) I watched the recycling truck come by, and unceremoniously dump the contents of my yellow paper bin and my blue plastic and cans bin into the same repository on the truck, completely negating all of my entropy reduction efforts in sorting them. I do notice now, on my return to CA after five years, they’ve at least ended that fraud, and just have one big blue recycling bin.
Either way, give it up for Earth Day.
Does botox use deaden the emotions?
…in climate “science.” An extensive and even-handed report at Der Spiegel.
McIntyre’s findings did not make him very popular. In the hacked Climategate emails, he is referred to as a “bozo,” a “moron” and a “playground bully.” But with their self-aggrandizement, the climatologists made him into a legend on the Internet. A million people a month visit his blog, climateaudit.org. They include climate skeptics and the usual conspiracy theorists, but also, more recently, many academics who are able to do the math themselves.
McIntyre asserts that he does believe in climate change. “I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water,” he says, “but when I find mistakes, I want them to be corrected.”
He repeatedly bombarded Jones with emails in which he drew his attention to freedom of information laws. This tenacity would prove to be disastrous for Jones.
McIntyre doggedly asked for access to the raw data. Jones was just as dogged in denying his requests, constantly coming up with new, specious reasons for his rejections. Unfortunately for Jones, however, McIntyre’s supporters eventually included people who know how to secretly hack into computers and steal data.
Their target was well selected. Jones was like a spider in its web. Almost every internal debate among the climate popes passed through his computer, leaving behind a digital trail.
But the US media continues to ignore the fraud and loss of credibility.
…of Climaquiddick.
I’m struggling to say something polite about this. By way of an illustration, can you imagine the reaction if a scientist reported in the safety literature that there was a critical flaw in the design of a nuclear power station, but told policymakers that everything was fine? Do the committee really think it’s fine to hide important information from policymakers so long as you report it in the literature?
Astonishing.
Or it should be astonishing. Unfortunately, it’s become increasingly difficult to be astonished at these power mongers.
The historical slander against classical liberals (as opposed to “progressives) continues.
See, he was just trying to save the Nile delta. I’m even more amused at the leftist outrage in the comments. But then, leftists, and particularly watermelons, don’t have much of a sense of humor.
[Update a couple minutes later]
I love this comment from Bernstein:
Jon Stewart is funny because of the ways he bugs his eyes out, and otherwise makes funny faces. Can’t get that effect on a blog, I’m afraid.
It’s funny ‘cuz it’s true.
Here’ is the first report I’ve seen on the conference this past week on geoengineering. I would have like to attend, but didn’t have either time or money right now. I was a little disturbed by what seemed to be an absence:
Participants…split into groups representing the two broad kinds of geoengineering: methods which block solar radiation from the sun, like spreading aerosols in the stratosphere, and techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere, like growing algae blooms at sea.
…A vexing question for participants was the role of commercial companies in this controversial field. A breakout group devoted to the idea of blocking sunlight—by whitening clouds or the ocean surface, for example—couldn’t agree on whether it should propose barring for-profit companies from the enterprise.
Ignoring the issue of the role of private enterprise, what I’m reading seems very terracentric (which isn’t uncommon among the scientific community — I think it was one of the reasons that it there was so much skepticism about Alverez’ dinosaur-extinction theory). After all, if the goal is to block sunlight, the closer to the source you are, the easier the job might be. Maybe there were some space-based solutions discussed, but you can’t figure it out from this report. One of the reasons that I wanted to attend was to provide a perspective that might not otherwise be there, and it looks like my fears were born out.
I’d bet that if you proposed (say) Ehricke-type solettas, or sunshades, you’d be laughed out of the room, largely out of ignorance of space transportation economics. I would have provided a tutorial to explain why it’s foolish to extrapolate costs of current launch systems to future large-scale space access, because I’ll bet that’s exactly what most of them would do (because it’s what most people do now). I’ll look forward to a more detailed report on the conference, though, including a full list of presentations.
[Monday afternoon update]
It should be noted that I’m not advocating geoengineering. I’m just pointing out that for those who do, they shouldn’t exclude space-based solutions because of false preconceptions. It’s sort of like my attitude toward NASA. I wouldn’t weep much if the agency was defunded (other than the personal impacts on my friends who are employees and contractors). But seeing as how that’s unlikely to happen, I’ll continue to lobby to at least have the funds spent sensibly, in terms of actually advancing us in space.