7 to 2
So far this year we have seen two named Atlantic storms. By this time last year, there were seven (wunderground.com). The MSM who gloated with glee earlier this year when predictions were for an above average number of named storms needs to find some other weather phenomenon to blame Bush for; and they found it - heat in California! Yes! It's true! Hot weather in July! Why, that must be Global Warming! C'mon, admit it, it was never hot in July when you were a kid, was it?
There has been a change in the naming of the seasons. Now it's winter, spring, global warming, and autumn. Saying the word "summer" will soon be deemed politically incorrect.
In this sum, er, global warming season, the MSM is making a big deal of the record energy usage in California. I thought Californians were more sophisticated than the rest of us. I thought their liberalism enabled them to set trends for the rest of us to follow. If that is true, then why the record energy usage? I thought they were supposed to set an example on how to cut energy consumption and pioneer paths to alternate energy sources, sources, they say, that will counter the affects of the Global Warming Bush caused?
Of course, the answer is easy: more people, more gross energy usage. California's population increased by 6.7% from 2000 to 2005 (census.gov). The MSM wants us to believe that record energy usage is a result of Bush's policies rather than a normal population gain. Campaign 2006 is in full swing.
11 Comments:
So far this year we have seen two named Atlantic storms. By this time last year, there were seven (wunderground.com).
Conclusions drawn from a single hurricane season (actually, not half of one) do not a scientific analysis make. Predicting weather at any time has been known to be notoriously difficult since Lorenz, but we do know that the last hundred or so years have marked a significant increase in global temperature, with this year (thus far) and the last among the warmest on record.
And indeed, for a number of other places in the world as well, for the 97.85% of Americans unaware that there is a world outside their borders. This holds true for many parts of Europe and the Pacific, among others. That and four years worth of Arctic ice shrinkage. And not-so-permafrost in Canada. If it were a piddly little variance in statistics, it wouldn't be much to speak of, but it isn't.
Yes! It's true! Hot weather in July! Why, that must be Global Warming! C'mon, admit it, it was never hot in July when you were a kid, was it?
Vague appeals to pathos also do not qualify as science. How often does temperature in Britain teeter on the century mark? The last time that happened was in the teens. The only difference this time is that it is not so much an anomaly as it is part of a trend. Which is why climate scientists almost unanimously agree that human activities have a role in climate change. True, their opinion on the extent of it varies...but it doesn't look good.
There has been a change in the naming of the seasons. Now it's winter, spring, global warming, and autumn. Saying the word "summer" will soon be deemed politically incorrect.
Political correctness does not exist everywhere. Savan will always be called savan. I suspect, however, that various swear words will be applied to it more frequently these days.
Of course, the answer is easy: more people, more gross energy usage. California's population increased by 6.7% from 2000 to 2005 (census.gov).
High energy usage in California isn't exactly new. But even that 6.7% increase in population probably doesn't account for all of it, given that peak demand in ~2000 was something like 36,000 megawatts, and this year it was in the neighborhood of 46,000. The difference is something like 28%. That doesn't even take into account that not all population increases (e.g., a newborn child) require the purchase of a house, and thus air conditioning equipment.
Now I'm used to July being hot...but not 118 degrees. This doesn't have so much to do with Bush (who, despite nominating himself to the Son of God at a speech in Lancaster, does not control the weather) or the 2006 campaign, as it has to do with the truth, a truth of which we were forewarned well in advance. Didn't you read or see 'Cosmos'? The U.S. are not the only ones responsible for the change. The developing world plays a somewhat smaller role in deleterious climate change, but a very important one nonetheless.
There's no such thing as global warming...tell that to those Pacific islanders who will find their homelands completely unhabitable in the next hundred years.
"Conclusions drawn from a single hurricane season (actually, not half of one) do not a scientific analysis make"
It did last year; at least 'journalists' thought it did. So it's a hot summer, that doesn't mean it's 'Global Warming.' The phrase 'heat wave' existed long before the polictical phrase 'Global Warming.'
As for the energy usage in California; sounds like they need to produce more energy. More energy (be it gasoline or electric) means we need more production. On the other hand, again, I thought California was to supposed to lead the way in energy conservation. I guess that's just a myth. What we need is someone to lead the way in energy production.
To elicit that kind of response I must have really struck a nerve somewhere. Thanks for reading1
By the way I don't read or watch Cosmos but I am old enough to remember the predictions that were being made in the 1970's of the coming Ice Age. The earth got into a long cooling cycle from the early 1950's until around 1980. Maybe this warming is just countering that period.
By the way I don't read or watch Cosmos but I am old enough to remember the predictions that were being made in the 1970's of the coming Ice Age.
I should address this up front. Few, if any reputable scientific journals suggested an imminent Ice Age in that time. In contrast, the artificial impact on climate change is taken seriously by the vast majority of climate scientists, and a considerable number of them express deep concern regarding the issue.
Cosmos, the book and television series, were both produced in ~1980 IIRC. One of the more eerily accurate predictions was the a kind of positive feedback cycle in the albedo of the polar ice. If carbon emissions (of which there are too much now) increase, then the polar ice will begin to melt (as it is doing now). Because water does not reflect the light of the sun as well as ice, it is more susceptible to absorb the energy of the sun, which causes further degradation of the ice. What the book didn't take into account is the release of methane from melting permafrost, which contributes more to the same cycle.
It did last year; at least 'journalists' thought it did. So it's a hot summer, that doesn't mean it's 'Global Warming.' The phrase 'heat wave' existed long before the polictical phrase 'Global Warming.'
Yes, but regular occurence of highly unusual temperature-related events, throughout the world, is more than just a 'hot summer'. As said before, the average temperature in the U.S., which has been recorded since before the turn of the 20th century, has been increasing and is bound to increase.
I remember hot summers when I was a kid. But I don't remember anything like Europe's heatwave of 2003, which killed over 30,000 people. Obviously, there will be political battles over an issue like this. But that does not make it any less real.
What we need is someone to lead the way in energy production.
My sister pretends to care about various quality of life issues: environment, economics, etc. She had some book called 'Take It Personally', regarding various outrageous issues that are taking place all over the world. I looked at it with a jaded eye: two-thirds of the world will suffer water shortage by 2025 (half of it's starving right now), people being sold into slavery, corruption, Panjabi farmers swilling pesticide due to debt, etc.
I concluded that nobody is going to do anything about any of this, and it's only going to get worse, except for a relatively minor set of the population.
But because I'm a Caucasian male from a middle-class American family, with a nominally Christian background, who is recognized by his peers (if not always by himself) as highly intelligent and ambitious, there's not much for me to worry about. A lot of people have said things to me like: "you understand my culture better than I do", "you'll probably know more than your professors", and, very unusually in my estimation, "you seem to have a much better understanding of mathematics than the rest of us." That's one I didn't expect to hear. So, with that, I can write all of that off as things that happen to other people.
When Katrina hit, I gave money to charity. A year later and I still see the same wasteful habits and the same extreme stupidity (not even climate-related...just stupidity), all over again. Next time, I'll just tell them that I don't gave a damn, that I'm made out of Laffy Taffy, and walk away with a few extra dollars.
So my vehement dispute is not so much with the lack of willingness to act against climate change (most of the people on the receiving end of all these storms, draughts, heatwaves, etc. were probably a bunch of oxygen thieves anyway), but with the fact that it is happening, something that agrees with intuition and scientific findings alike.
"most of the people on the receiving end of all these storms, draughts, heatwaves, etc. were probably a bunch of oxygen thieves anyway"
Well maybe not thieves but perhaps victims of Malthusian theory?
Maybe the earth is warming up but you must admit the left-leaning MSM spin machine is really looking to blame Bush for this. The heat wave of 1995 in which over 700 people died in Chicago alone was not blamed on Clinton and I don't recall the term "global warming" coming up. So far, the 2006 heat wave pales by comparison.
For example, type "1995 heat wave clinton global warming" into Google and you get 174,000 hits. Type "2006 heat wave bush global warming" and you get 1.57 million hits. Yes, Google leans left but try it in Yahoo and the latter still returns more than the former.
As for the 2003 heat wave in Europe - Europe is supposed to be a social utopia with quality health care available to all, I don't see how such failures can occur. The terms 'ineptitude' and 'overdependence' come to mind. I like the Europeans and wish no harm on them but 30,000 deaths from a heat wave means something is seriously broken over there.
Maybe it is hotter in 2006 than it was in 1995 (or 1936 or 1955) but less people are dying.
Besides, the harum-scarum approach to this reminds me of the other chicken-little stories over the years - coming Ice Age, Swine Flu, SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu, Global Warming, and so on. I trust science but it's the media that blows everything out of proportion. Yes, it may be getting warmer but we will be able deal with it. People will adapt.
Maybe the earth is warming up but you must admit the left-leaning MSM spin machine is really looking to blame Bush for this.
If they want to blame Bush specifically, they are plainly wrong. Clinton pulled out of a number of environmental treaties IIRC. Thanks a lot, Clinton.
Besides, I don't exactly believe in the concept of the 'liberal media', which conservatives bring up frequently. To be fair, except for FOX News (Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, John Gibson, Neil Cavuto, Steve Doocy, E.D. Hill, Brian Kilmeade, Brit Hume), Clear Channel, Laura Ingraham, Dr. Laura, Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Ann Coulter, Newsmax, G. Gordon Liddy, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, The New York Post, Sinclair Broadcast Group (WLOS13, Fox 45, WTTO21, WB49, KGAN, WICD, WICS, WCHS, WVAH, WTAT, WSTR, WSYX, WTTE, WKEF, WRGT, KDSM, WSMH, WXLV, WURN, KVWB, KFBT, WDKY, WMSN, WVTV, WEAR, WZTV, KOTH, WYZZ, WPGH, WGME, WLFL, WRLH, WUHF, KABB, WGGB, WSYT, WTTA), David Horowitz, Rupert Murdoch, PAX, and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, they're right.
Most media, liberal or conservative, or anything between, is a bunch of saturated, scare-oriented junk. The only media outlets I really follow at all are NPR and BBC World Service. I've heard NPR being accused of liberal tendencies. I've heard it being accused of conservative tendencies as well. If the Heritage Foundation are willing to underwrite them, they can't be that far left. And on BBC, I hear the same interviewer taking opposite positions within the same fifteen minute span; they tend to be very aggressive devil's advocates in any case.
Presidents and their familes will always be treated unfairly by the media. If I had a moral compass, I would imagine that screwing around on your wife is bad. Even so, the media paid an undue amount of attention to Clinton's philandering, not because it was a left or right issue, but strictly because it sold. This was even before the perjury charge that got him impeached.
I think boozing and partying your way through kolluge while riding on your daddy's reputation would also be considered morally wrong by most mature adults. I don't why, but I aspire to teach CS at a university level and/or mathematics at secondary school level some time, so such behavior therefore bothers me. I take academics fairly seriously.
The Bush family and associates have also known their fair share of moral oversights. If I were the president, I wonder how I would feel having a degenerate brother who sexually exploits khonjon (the poor people).
As for the 2003 heat wave in Europe - Europe is supposed to be a social utopia with quality health care available to all, I don't see how such failures can occur. The terms 'ineptitude' and 'overdependence' come to mind.
Katrina.
Besides, the harum-scarum approach to this reminds me of the other chicken-little stories over the years - coming Ice Age, Swine Flu, SARS, Y2K, Bird Flu, Global Warming, and so on.
I was sceptical of all of them but the last. For many, the environmental disaster is now, not some vague future calamity. The water crisis alone, completely unrelated to climate change, is enough on its own.
But I don't really care. I have well water.
"Besides, I don't exactly believe in the concept of the 'liberal media'...."
Most of the people you list are commentators and, some would argue, entertainers. Aside from the Big 3 (Wash Times, LA Daily News, NY Post), most other newspapers are mainly liberal; especially the ones worth reading like the Boston Globe, NY Times, LA Times, Wash Post, and SF Chronicle.
FoxNews probably has more liberal personalities than CNN and MSNBC have conservative. MSNBC has Scarborough and CNN HN has Glenn Beck but Fox NEws has such liberals as Colmes, Geraldo, Wes Clark, Juan Williams, and my observation indicates that Shepp Smith leans left too. Give Bill O'reilly credit for seeking and getting liberals into his studio. And forget about the dinosaurs - ABC, CBS, and NBC. To them. "fair and balanced" means "no conservatives allowed."
As for Katrina, it was less deadly than it could have been. The only ineptitude was those from the local leaders and people who did not understand what "get out" means. For a Cat (high) 3 hurricane to score a direct hit on a metro area that has 1.4 million people and only 1500 die, that's tragic, yes, but it could have been worse.
Math is important. We need more students to focus on math and science courses and less on (insert 'protected' group name here) studies programs in colleges.
FoxNews probably has more liberal personalities than CNN and MSNBC have conservative. MSNBC has Scarborough and CNN HN has Glenn Beck but Fox NEws has such liberals as Colmes, Geraldo, Wes Clark, Juan Williams, and my observation indicates that Shepp Smith leans left too.
In essence, it's a big mix. If every single personality in television, radio, Internet, and newspaper media were considered, it would probably just be a microcosm of what things are really like. Some institutions undoubtedly have a leftist bent, but the Left by no means exert a cabalistic control over the media. There are so many alternative outlets, including foreign ones, that any such control would be impossible. I watched NHK when they carried it on DirectTV. Being as that's from Japan, it doesn't fit into American political cliques at all. I thought it was very objective. But my favorite will always be BBC, whose impartial torture of interviewees borders on the comedic.
Give Bill O'reilly credit for seeking and getting liberals into his studio.
O'Reilly is one of those particularly foul asshats who gives me no choice but to assume a misanthropic attitude towards humanity. I would let him off the hook and say something like: "Mai bpen rai; boys will be boys" if he weren't such a vindictive prick. But that's not the case. He should receive some of the strict punishment he wants for others.
For a Cat (high) 3 hurricane to score a direct hit on a metro area that has 1.4 million people and only 1500 die, that's tragic, yes, but it could have been worse.
A year later, it's still a mess.
Math is important. We need more students to focus on math and science courses and less on (insert 'protected' group name here) studies programs in colleges.
I don't think those are the biggest problems with education at any level by any means.
One of the biggest is these students who spend most of their college career hard drinking. FTR, I'm a teetotaler, but I'm not against the occassional use of soft drugs by anyone, including students. I personally have better things to do.
The former President James Garfield presented a unique proof for the Pythagorean Theorem. What happened since then? It doesn't bode well that someone can piss away his academic career partying hard and then become the President of the United States.
The next thing is the overemphasis on athletics. I'm not really against this at a collegiate level for pragmatic reasons, because it's a huge source of revenue and perhaps pays for itself. I will be attending Penn State University Park, which seems to derive a huge amount of revenue from football, and I guess it's justifiable. But I think it should be eliminated from K-12 altogether for a number of reasons, including the disproprotionate cost.
Last, but not least is the MTV 'culture', which helps explain a lot of the dips--- sophomores that we got in Salisbury High School last year. STFU, you're not cool, nobody cares that you got totally drunk last weekend, the all-girl metal bands you listen to all suck, and your actual talents are infinitesimal with respect to your nearly infinite appreciation of them. HHHHRRRRAGGGH!!!
I can't wait for, say, the 10th Reunion. After finding a parking spot for my vimana, I will check out all the losers who now suffer with crummy jobs and measurable sagging. LOL.
I'm not really against x Studies courses so much. I'm in favor of 'hard' sciences, and I'm also in favor of the English and social sciences, in general. There's nothing wrong with a Renaissance-style education, IMO, even if it isn't for everyone. Some people are just not good at math; some are just not good at humanities. When I was on Scholastic Scrimmage, I tended to answer the arts and humanities questions the most, though I got a fair number of science ones as well. I found that the players tended to be specialists in one area or another. Allentown Central Catholic, for instance, will nail you on literature.
I took AP Euro in my senior year and found it pretty much enjoyable even if I got lazy towards the end; that's not for a protected group, and you won't hear me tacking '-American' to the end of European any time soon. Ethnic studies have a long tradition well outside the Mickey-Mousing that now plagues American education; consider that the British School for Oriental and African Studies was founded in 1916. But Tolerance and Diversity is an annoying class. I'll 'tolerate' whomever I please.
FWIW, I am going for a CS major with a minor in Linguistics and will go for a second Maths degree if I have the time later on. There is a need for linguists, philosophers, and historians just as there is for engineers, mathematicians, and programmers. I am fortunate enough to develop my abilities in several of these fields, although I will always be bad at the physical sciences. I have always considered myself most inclined towards language and computing, but I may soon develop a similar affinity for numbers with a little practice.
I don't think those are the biggest problems with education at any level by any means.
Oh, and lest I forget, 'scientific' creationism, which now goes under the intellectually dishonest label 'intelligent design', despite being pushed by the same people who failed to drag religion into the science classroom overtly. That's a big one.
Don't get me started on the MTV culture. The MTV culture is just one subset of what I call the entitlement generation. Between TV, politicians, poor schooling, and poor parenting, we've created a society of people who think they're entitled to anything and everything from instant citizenship for immigrants to free health care to high quality of living jobs to gasoline under $2/gallon; and so it goes. Nothing is supposed to be challenging because if it is, we are told, it's discriminatory against _____________ . If a person fails it's not his/her fault; some entity has oppressed them or discriminated against them. Again, the entitlement generation - the "it's not my fault" subset is a part of that too and we've seen that take a new path in the 'Blame Bush' for _____________." Ray Nagin isn't to blame for the mess in N.O.; Bush is. Why should the mayor or governor be responsible for anything?
Well, there you have it. Between the pathetic people unwilling to lift a finger for themselves and the self-righteous who harangue everyone (many of whom are not beyond reproach; see the detailed sexual harrassment report against O'Reilly I linked to above, G.W.'s kolluge partying, and his brother's illegal patronization of financially disadvantaged prostitutes), I find the easiest way out is to crack open that textbook for good times, the more cerebral substitute for Nietzsche's hashish. Because both groups are intolerable IMnsHO.
If a man wishes to rid himself of a feeling of unbearable oppression, he may have to take abstract algebra.
the "it's not my fault" subset is a part of that too and we've seen that take a new path in the 'Blame Bush' for _____________."
A lot of stuff is really out of any president's hands whether people know it or not. There's only so much even the executive part of the federal gov. can really do.
I suspect that this position gets singled out because it's basically represented by one person, where the Supreme Court is nine (now), and Congress is scores of people. The idiotic things Bush says exacerbate this condition.
"What they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over."
If God is speaking through this guy, then He's really gone down hill as the author of the Song of Solomon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Gospel of St. Matthew, the Upanishads, the Qu'ran etc., usw. ...
Post a Comment
<< Home