Cranky-D

Here. Share and enjoy.

There is an online article referencing a paper here which would put the AGW via CO2 theory to rest if anyone involved actually cared about science. Basically, the AGW theory violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics. It actually requires heat to flow from a colder region to a hotter region. If I had known this sooner, I would have said something. Heat can only flow from a higher temperature region (or body) to a lower temperature region (0r body).

So, AGW theory basically violates our current understanding on how the universe works.

SCIENCE!!

Go here for all five parts.

A quote I pulled (hopefully correctly):

“… We are not interested in reforming the left. We’re not interested in compromising with the left. We’re not interested in understanding the left. We’re interested in replacing the left.”

Good stuff. If you don’t have the time to watch it all, watch parts 5, then 4.

I’ve tried to understand them, and I think I do. I understand that they make all their decisions from emotion rather than reason. I can’t think of a single idea they have had that is worth “trying again, and maybe this time we’ll get it right.”

More:

“… The country believes increasingly that the stimulus is just a waste of money, and just politician payoff. … We’re going to have a big fight over the economy starting in January. They’re going to try to ramp through another stimulus. ‘Cause they don’t know anything else. These are people of stunningly limited capacity. They get up every morning, they know the answer is government, they just don’t know what the question is yet.”

No compromise. No surrender.

One more quote, which is very necessary, and is Newt paraphrasing Orwell:

If you cannot describe something accurately, you cannot think about it. And you can always tell when you have bad policy because you cannot use language clearly to explain it.

I found the full text of Orwell’s essay to which Newt was referring here.

BTW, I have a new mantra which I’m working on. “Principles, not values.” It fits nicely on a bumper sticker, and I think it might have legs. I should do a workup for cafe press, maybe. It should work on shirts as well.

You can find some links for some of the best of commentator Charles Krauthammer (from things he has written for The Weekly Standard)here.

He is one of my favorite political commentators. I don’t agree with him all the time, but I know that he has given some thought to his positions.

Here. Go read if you’re interested in another take-down of the results that have appeared after those emails were released.

If you go here you can see a breakdown of the timeline of some of those emails. The story they tell looks pretty damaging to me.

This instance of apparent deception by “scientists” damages all science. One scientist needs to be able to trust the results of others completely, because science cannot advance through the efforts of just one person or group of people. And if someone along the way is lying, it sets the entire thing back because someone has to go back and re-do everything.

Why people cannot simply tell the truth, whether it damages their theory or not, is beyond me.

Here. I find it unbelievable that anyone would possibly believe that scientists could ever be wrong about anything. They are all honest and true. Except of course for the ones who think AGW is a hoax. They, my friends, are LIARS!!

Well, that’s what I think the AGW proponents think in their heart of hearts. And just where is this heart of hearts anyway? This implies you have more than one heart, and one heart reigns supreme.

One heart to rule them all, etc.

One of my favorite political bloggers, before he quit due to health reasons, jumps back in every now and then. Here is the latest from him. A sample:

One way to compare and contrast those two world views [materialism and teleology] is to consider what they think about socialism. Materialists look at history since Marx and point out that socialism has been tried many times, in many nations, in various forms, and it has always failed. In places where it was fully implemented the result was decline and economic collapse. When it was only partially implemented you got slower decline. It often looks like it’s working in the early stages, but in the longer term it has never succeeded.

So to materialists, it’s apparent that socialism is a nice idea, but one that doesn’t work and shouldn’t be adopted.

To teleologists, none of that matters. What matters is the fact that it’s a beautiful idea. It’s how things should be. In a world in which socialism was implemented and which worked the way the teleologists think it should work, you really would have a utopia. The fact that it’s invariably failed when used doesn’t change any of that. (When asked to explain all the failures, usually the answer is, “They didn’t do it right.” But for teleologists, a long string of failures doesn’t matter because fundamentally teleologists don’t believe things like that make any difference.)

It’s teleologists who drive around with bumper stickers that say, “Imagine world peace.” I can imagine it just fine. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime, though. Why would they want me to imagine it?

Go read it all. Absorb it if you are the type who likes to argue politics (and unfortunately science has been politicized as much as anything else) with teleologists.

The transcript of a speech by Michael Crichton here is, I think, good reading. A sample:

Cast your minds back to 1960. John F. Kennedy is president, commercial jet airplanes are just appearing, the biggest university mainframes have 12K of memory. And in Green Bank, West Virginia at the new National Radio Astronomy Observatory, a young astrophysicist named Frank Drake runs a two week project called Ozma, to search for extraterrestrial signals. A signal is received, to great excitement. It turns out to be false, but the excitement remains. In 1960, Drake organizes the first SETI conference, and came up with the now-famous Drake equation:

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.

This serious-looking equation gave SETI an serious footing as a legitimate intellectual inquiry. The problem, of course, is that none of the terms can be known, and most cannot even be estimated. The only way to work the equation is to fill in with guesses. And guesses-just so we’re clear-are merely expressions of prejudice. Nor can there be “informed guesses.” If you need to state how many planets with life choose to communicate, there is simply no way to make an informed guess. It’s simply prejudice.

As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless, and has nothing to do with science. I take the hard view that science involves the creation of testable hypotheses. The Drake equation cannot be tested and therefore SETI is not science. SETI is unquestionably a religion. Faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof. The belief that the Koran is the word of God is a matter of faith. The belief that God created the universe in seven days is a matter of faith. The belief that there are other life forms in the universe is a matter of faith. There is not a single shred of evidence for any other life forms, and in forty years of searching, none has been discovered. There is absolutely no evidentiary reason to maintain this belief. SETI is a religion.

What passes for science today in some cases started back then. Crichton also talks about “consensus” and the repercussions that have resulted from relying on consensus rather than looking at scientific results, and that trick started a whole lot longer ago.

It might open some eyes, or at least provide more ammunition for those whose eyes are already open.

Update: another article you might want to look at, on “post-normal” science, can be found here

from here

Go here to read something about climate change from a guy who seems to know his stuff. MIT thinks he does, anyway.