Thoughts on freedom, virtue and religion from Bill Whittle.
We Laugh
…so we can think better. Some interesting research on the role of humor.
America 3.0
Looks like an interesting new book will be out in a while.
The Unaffordable SLS
John Strickland makes the case against it over at The Space Review today. I don’t think this is right, though:
It is hard to imagine being able to quickly set up such a [lunar] base without a launch campaign of at least five HLV launches per year. To do this you will also need one or more cryogenic propellant depots in Earth orbit to assure that the propellant to support such a launch rate from LEO to the Moon or Mars is guaranteed to be available in LEO before the buildup begins. (Without the depots, the total cargo delivered to a base site for a given number of SLS launches would be cut about in half). The depots would also need to be launched by HLV boosters. Assuming a minimum of five SLS launches per year at $5 billion a launch, the total cost is $25 billion a year, far beyond NASA’s overall annual budget, let alone its human spaceflight budget. With a launch every two years, it would take a decade to provide the most minimal equipment for a surface base, and most of that would have been sitting there for many years and would thus likely be thermally damaged and unusable.
I really need to see the work here. On what is he basing the need for five launches per year? And how does the depot double the lunar payload? And why does the depot or depots require a heavy lifter? Is he assuming they will be launched full? The depot structure itself doesn’t weigh all that much and could easily go up on an Atlas or even a Falcon 9. And doesn’t that five billion per launch for the SLS assume a low flight rate? Presumably, if they really could do five a year, the per-flight cost would be much less. I’m not saying his numbers are wrong, but I’d need a lot more explanation to accept them. I do agree with this:
In addition to the political impasse over booster development, the nature of the current NASA planning system results in a vicious circle, seemingly created by deliberately not including advanced technology components into future mission plans. The reasoning behind these decisions are that the components do not yet exist, but the result is that the badly needed components are never developed, since there is never a specific mission designated where they will be used. Then when the mission is flown, its capabilities are greatly reduced due to the lack of the component. For example, NASA is currently budgeting money to develop cryogenic propellant depots in orbit, yet the depots are not included in or integrated into any plans for the BEO missions using the SLS. (This issue was the focus of a letter on September 27 to Administrator Bolden by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher.) Such delays and/or sapping of funds from technology programs for use by the SLS development by Congress allows mission planners to continue to exclude advanced technology solutions from future BEO mission plans.
This is the perennial institutional problem of technology development at the agency because, unlike its predecessor the NACA, technology development doesn’t seem to be viewed as NASA’s job, at least not enough to actually fund it. It’s always chicken and egg in that no one wants to put a new technology on the critical path for a mission, and because no mission requires it, the technology never gets the priority it needs for development. The solution to this is to refocus the agency on tech development, but that doesn’t provide enough pork in the right places.
It Is Not Unconstitutional
This article embodies two maladies of the mainstream media that Ramesh Ponnuru pointed out on another occasion also afflicts the Left: (1) they don’t really understand conservative arguments; and (2) they don’t really understand the Constitution.
It’s nothing new. Actually, I’d go further and say they don’t understand arguments, period. They’ve grown up in a propagandistic cocoon in which they’ve never had to actually make arguments, or rationally defend or question their own beliefs, because it is simply given by all around them that they are correct.
An Open Letter To Dr. Phil Jones
We are dealing with liars:
Your explanation of your statement is this:
At the end of the IPCC process, chapters, formal comments and responses are all published and that is the appropriate place for this information. It is important that scientists should be allowed free and frank discussion during the writing process. I might also point out that I decided not to take part in AR5 because of the time commitment it requires.
That sounds perfectly logical … if we were dealing with honest men. But if the Climategate emails have shown anything, they have shown that we are not dealing with honest men. Far too many of the leading AGW supporting climate scientists have been shown by their own words to be serial liars like yourself.
But in any case, only scientists with something to hide need privacy to have a “free and frank discussion” about science. Honest scientists have no reason to hide their views. Honest scientists discuss these scientific issues on the web in the full light of day. Why on earth would someone need privacy to discuss the intricacies of the climate models? Do you really have to go into a closet with your best friend to speak your true mind about atmospheric physics? Is it true that you guys actually need some kind of ‘private space’ to expose your secret inner ideas about the factors affecting the formation of clouds? From my perspective, these kinds of private discussions are not only not what is needed. This two-faced nature of you guys’ statements on the science are a large part of the problem itself.
This is quite visible in the Climategate emails. In your communications, you and many of the scientists are putting out your true views of other scientists and their work. You are expressing all kinds of honest doubts. You are discussing uncertainties in your and other scientists understandings. You are all letting your friends know which papers you think are good and which you think are junk, and that’s valuable information in the climate science discussions.
But you never say any of this in public. Not one word. For example, in public it’s all about how great Michael Mann’s science is, not a word of criticism, while in private some of you guys justifiably tear both him and his work to shreds.
I find this double-speak deceptive and underhanded. It has nothing to do with “free and frank discussion” as you claim. I think that if AGW supporting scientists actually broke down and told the truth to the public, you would fare much better. I think that if you disavowed your beloved Saint Stephen (Schneider) and his advice, and you expressed all of your doubts and revealed all of your uncertainties about the climate and told the plain unvarnished truth about your opinion of other scientists’ work, we’d be infinitely better off. Nobody likes two-faced people. You would be miles ahead if you said the same things in public you say in private, and so would the field of climate science.
But it wouldn’t serve “the cause.” When will people realize that the climate “scientists” have not been engaging in science? And they’re not just liars. I don’t know what the FOIA laws are in England, but I think that if Jones had done here what he did in East Anglia, he could be subject to criminal prosecution. And would be, at least under an administration that was more interested in enforcing the law than in maintaining politically correct pieties. I hope we’ll get an administration like that some day.
Simpsons Fail
A lot have been complaining about The Simpsons going downhill over the past several years. I agree that there have been some egregious moments in the series, but overall, I still have found each episode mostly enjoyable. But not tonight. It may be possible to spoof Mad Men, but they certainly didn’t succeed. It’s the first time I can recall watching The Simpsons and not laughing. And that’s saying something. Whoever the writers were, they clearly don’t understand what they were satirizing at all. They may be too young.
[Monday morning update]
OK, I exaggerated. This was funny: “Why can’t I be funny with just my words? Bill Maher doesn’t put dangerous things near his crotch, except when he’s off work.” – Krusty Clown
My Deepest Condolences
…to James Joyner. It has to be a staggering loss.
The Stink Of Intellectual Corruption
“…is overpowering“:
The emails paint a clear picture of scientists selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse scientific information.
‘Humphrey’, said to work at Defra, writes: ‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story.
‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the centre of the affair, said the group findings did stand up to scrutiny.
Yet one of the newly released emails, written by Prof. Jones – who is working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – said: ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden.
‘I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’
I wonder who at DOE that was, and if it was during the Bush administration?
Thanksgiving Thoughts On Marxist America
We have lost the balance:
Here’s what Marx said:
“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.”
Think about what this means. All of the money and power would be focused in the state, but then the state would not do anything with that concentration of power. The state was innocent. There would be no cronyism, no corruption, no bureaucracy, and no concentration of stupidity so as to make mistakes much bigger.
This is precisely — without the proletarian aspects — the Obama worldview. Good citizens with high levels of education will be the philosopher kings, telling everyone what to eat, drive, and do for their own good. Naturally, these people would have no interests of their own. Naturally, their learning from books and theories rather than from real life would not lead them into really big mistakes.
And naturally this system will make the economy grow (“increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible”) rather than collapse because the people running the state know nothing about creating jobs or meeting a payroll or actually producing anything.
Then, there is Marx’s view of what later became known as the withering away of the state:
“When…all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. … If the proletariat…makes itself the ruling class…then it will…thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.”
What we have here today is not the triumph of the proletariat but the triumph of the managerial-bureaucratic-intellectual-cultural elite. The best describer of this is not Marx but James Burnham, a former Marxist whose writings in the 1940s were the basis for George Orwell in writing 1984. Then there is Karl Popper, who pointed out that the greatest threat to freedom (the “open society”) were those who thought they knew everything.
And those who seek political power, with few if any exceptions, are people set on accumulating power, glory, and wealth. All the more reason to limit what they can do.
Nevertheless, this grasping elite views itself as disinterested. It does not act from selfish motives but because it knows better than anyone else how to promote the public good. And even with the best will and highest morality that mortals are capable of achieving, political leaders and bureaucrats are still limited by their own worldview, life experience, and specific role (where you stand is where you sit, as one popular Washington, D.C., maxim has it).
There’s nothing here that would surprise America’s founders, who knew that freedom always depended on restraining such people.
Let’s hope we’re not too far gone.