Archive for June, 2010

IPCC: Consensus of One

June 24, 2010

Judith Lean wrote the chapter in the IPCC report on the effects of solar activity on climate. She quoted only one paper—a paper she wrote. (link) (hat tip: ClimateDepot)

If this is the kind of “consensus” that the IPCC uses for its science, then it is no more political than it is scientific.

Global Warming: Not Science

June 23, 2010

If you want to be a real scientist, you have to separate yourself from the science. For instance, a theory you put forward, according to the scientific process, should be questioned and challenged and aggressively attacked, scientifically, by your worst ideological foes before becoming accepted as a worthy theory.

Global Warming scientists, or rather, those people who claim to be scientists and try to push forward the idea, through political means, that mankind is causing the earth to warm through economic activity, have published a “peer-reviewed” “scientific paper” which is nothing more than a blacklist of scientists who happen to actually think for themselves and have, at times, questioned parts of the Global Warming theory. (link)

Now, if Global Warming scientists want to do real science, they will have the Global Warming skeptics review every paper they publish, and consider their work speculative at best until it has been thoroughly reviewed and challenged.

A comparative example is the introduction of Quantum Mechanics in the Physical Sciences. As the theory grew in popularity, the people behind the theory sought out for and openly worked with people who questioned the theories. They wanted to have their assumptions challenged and their math questioned. Einstein, who never believed Quantum Mechanics, proposed some of the best experiments that ultimately proved Einstein’s thoughts on the matter incorrect. He did this because he was pestered by the QM people to share his thoughts and concerns on the subject.

Even today, QM adherents are still looking for good challenges to the theories that QM proposes. Any funding for QM research is usually in an area where QM and reality seem to diverge—things like quantum teleportation and such.

Imagine that! Global Warming scientists spending their time trying to disprove Global Warming! What an incredible, and seemingly quaint, concept!

Global Warming: Hoax

June 19, 2010

You may have heard of people claiming you can run a car on ordinary water, or that if you arrange machine components in a certain way you can get infinite energy, or any number of other things. A lot of people fall for these things when they come around, because if they were true so many of life’s problems will disappear.

Physicists have a number of tools in their bag of tricks, but none so well-used and useful as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. It is simply this: There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. If you want to take energy and do something useful with it, you are going to have to pay a dear price for that privilege, no matter how you transfer the energy from one place to another. Breaking even is out of the question. The only question is how much do you pay.

Global Warming, it turns out, has been based on the pseudo-scientific term called the “Greenhouse Effect”. This tricky term sounds scientific, since there are things called “effects” out there, and it seems like it has an easy, clear explanation. However, real physicists have done their homework and shown that no such effect exists, and can never exist. (link)

You see, the “Greenhouse Effect” relies on violating the Second Law of Thermodynamics. That, in and of itself, is enough to get yourself labeled a “crackpot” in the physics community. In fact, you almost have to produce theories that violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics to earn the title outright. If you understand and adhere to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, there’s hope that you’ll make a fine physicist one day. But if you violate it, you get classified as a “crackpot” and that’s that.

Folks, from here on out, anyone who considers Global Warming and the Greenhouse Effect with any more reverence than the theory of bug-eyed space aliens invading earth or machines that can power the world on a single teaspoon of ordinary tap water or people who claim to have mastered cold fusion. At least, in the case of the latter crackpots, they didn’t consume billions of dollars of public money on funding their “research” or nearly bankrupt the entire planet with their hare-brained ideas to drive humanity back to the stone-age.

If you can’t let go of the scam that you were entrenched in, I’d like you to consider one thing: If Global Warming violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, how can they claim to be scientific at all?

Things That Genuinely Scare Me #1: The Sun

June 7, 2010

The Sun has been dormant for an unusually long time. Man has recorded the sunspots and noticed the correlation between them and our earth’s weather. When unusual events occur, bad things happen.

This may sound like a bit of ancient sun-worshiping fear mongering. I assure you, it is not. My understanding of our modern society, especially our electrical grid, and my understanding of the sun lead me to conclude that we can experience some very nasty events, events that most people don’t bother to think about or prepare for.

NASA is well aware of the possibility of disaster, and thankfully, we have assets in place to help us mitigate the damage from these disasters by predicting when they will happen. (link) However, nothing is perfect, and there is a good chance that even these preparations will be too little, too late.

Given the above, you won’t find me cowering under my sofa or building a concrete bunker underground. I doubt these things would even help the situation. If we did experience a national blackout that lasts months due to unusual solar activity, we would need to revert to our pre-electrical grid way of living. This doesn’t mean we’ll do away with electricity altogether, or go back to munching on nuts and weeds. It does mean some of the things we rely on every day—things like the internet—may not be there for us during this time.

What you will find me doing is doing what I have always been doing: Preparing for the worst by building up my food stores in my own home. I also keep a cash reserve of small bills. I have also prepared for losing my job for a period of time by staying relatively debt-free and keeping a nice reserve of cash in the bank. I could, after all, lose my job at any time.

On the food storage issue, this is a behavior that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are famous for. However, the way it is practiced in the church is very different to the way you see it practiced by the kooks. We build up our stores with food we eat every day. Rather than having a week’s supply of food on hand like most everyone has, we have a month or two months, minus the fresh meats and vegetables. Costco is one of my favorite stores, because I can buy in bulk and everything is nicely packaged. Even though it may take us a month to eat through any one of the items we buy, food storage is as simple as making that purchase a little in advance of when I would normally need it.

Lately, we’ve been stockpiling commodities we eat everyday. We have several bags of sugar (brown, white, powdered, etc..) and bags of flour and rice. I am pretty sure we could go a month on our supply as it is. These commodities are much cheaper when bought in bulk. A 50 pound bag of flour costs much less than 50 1-pound bags of flour.

We have little to no effect on how our national electric grid will respond to increased solar activity. We do, however, control our purchasing and eating habits, and we can easily prepare ourselves for the worst if we do a little planning ahead every day.

Walt Schrader

June 2, 2010

Walt Schrader wasn’t a close friend of mine. I only knew him a little through my work in the 30th District in Federal Way. I heard a few unkind rumors about him, but there was nothing about him that I could see for myself to inspire the least bit of distrust.

I refer you to Mark Knapp’s post on Walt Schrader. I don’t have much to add beyond what has already been said, except to bow my head in reverence and whisper an “Amen.”

Walt had that charm and charisma that made you feel like he cared. I can’t say this for everyone in politics, but in the few moments I had with Walt, I could tell that he really did care.

His face in my memory will always burn with that smile he beamed when he saw something difficult and challenging that required lots of people to work together as volunteers. When we faced certain defeat in the 2006 elections, he smiled a lot. When we all knew that no matter what we did, we could never get the die-hard republicans to lift a finger to support our slate of candidates, Walt smiled and cheered us on. When PCO meetings were sparsely attended and motivation was at an all-time low, Walt smiled and pointed out what we needed to do. Perhaps if I knew him in better times, I would have seen him without a smile on his face.

While Lloyd’s passing was sad, Walt’s passing is a tragedy. It is said that God raises up leaders among men. Apparently, He takes them from us, too. We have been robbed.

I cannot speak to the suffering and tragedy that Walt’s friends and families are experiencing. I hope that my positive memory of him will give them a little comfort. Walt’s life wasn’t tragic because of who he could have been, it was tragic because we will not have what he was freely giving us anymore.