|
|---|
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Liquid Glass: spray-on silicon dioxide nanocoatings to hit the market, annoying "Mr. Clean"
0 comments Posted by kotang at 8:42 PMCheck this out...
Spray-on liquid glass is about to revolutionize almost everythingI want a bottle of this stuff, stat. If any surface can be coated with "liquid glass" (and this stuff will actually stay in place for a year, until what, it wears off?) then my desktop, my telephone handset, my steering wheel, and...
(PhysOrg.com) -- Spray-on liquid glass is transparent, non-toxic, and can protect virtually any surface against almost any damage from hazards such as water, UV radiation, dirt, heat, and bacterial infections. The coating is also flexible and breathable, which makes it suitable for use on an enormous array of products.
The liquid glass spray (technically termed “SiO2 ultra-thin layering”) consists of almost pure silicon dioxide (silica, the normal compound in glass) extracted from quartz sand. Water or ethanol is added, depending on the type of surface to be coated. There are no additives, and the nano-scale glass coating bonds to the surface because of the quantum forces involved. According to the manufacturers, liquid glass has a long-lasting antibacterial effect because microbes landing on the surface cannot divide or replicate easily.
...
It repels bacteria, water and dirt, and resists heat, UV light and even acids. UK project manager with Nanopool, Neil McClelland, said soon almost every product you purchase will be coated with liquid glass.
What about my bullets? And my bores? Will my reloads now become 'super rounds' that can penetrate farther into materials? Will the layer of nano glass protect my bores against leading, and the buildup of unwanted powder residues? Or will high temperatures and pressures strip the coating off after the first round is fired? Here's a fascinating clue...
In the home, spray-on glass would eliminate the need for scrubbing and make most cleaning products obsolete. Since it is available in both water-based and alcohol-based solutions, it can be used in the oven, in bathrooms, tiles, sinks, and almost every other surface in the home, and one spray is said to last a year.OK,so it'll work in ovens. Ovens don't get nearly as hot as a chamber that's disgorging a .44 Magnum into a barrel.
I can't wait to get my hands on this stuff! If, that is, we are allowed to even see it...
Liquid glass spray is perhaps the most important nanotechnology product to emerge to date. It will be available in DIY stores in Britain soon, with prices starting at around £5 ($8 US). Other outlets, such as many supermarkets, may be unwilling to stock the products because they make enormous profits from cleaning products that need to be replaced regularly, and liquid glass would make virtually all of them obsolete."Mr. Clean", "409" and "Tide" aren't amused.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
A major fissure in AGW's support, this time from Democrats: Huffpo posts anti-AGW article!
0 comments Posted by kotang at 7:14 PMYou are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.Wow. Paging AlGore; talking points cleanup in your own back yard!
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
This is too sweet. I'm going to paste at length, just in case this gets flushed down the memory hole when Arianna gets that aggrieved phone call from Mad Al (emboldenings mine)...
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).OK, now, William, you better rally your troops to put this guy away. Forever. Under the bus.So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
Because, obviously, he's a Denier®, and must be immediately silenced.
The debate is OVER, you know...
Even more hilarity at the HuffPo. Bill Ayers has joined the Huffington Post team! Because Charles Manson was unavailable??
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Pro-Choice radicalism results in "Eugenic Abortions"; Barack Obama, squeezing science with Political Correctness?
0 comments Posted by kotang at 5:25 AMTrig Palin survived that which kills 90% of children diagnosed with Downs Syndrome...abortion. Michael Gerson, writing in the WaPo yesterday...
The wrenching diagnosis of 47 chromosomes must seem to parents like the end of a dream instead of the beginning of a life. But children born with Down syndrome -- who learn slowly but love deeply -- are generally not experienced by their parents as a curse but as a complex blessing. And when allowed to survive, men and women with an extra chromosome experience themselves as people with abilities, limits and rights. Yet when Down syndrome is detected through testing, many parents report that genetic counselors and physicians emphasize the difficulties of raising a child with a disability and urge abortion.Abortion is the easy way out for today's morals-shallow gene pool.
This is properly called eugenic abortion -- the ending of "imperfect" lives to remove the social, economic and emotional costs of their existence. And this practice cannot be separated from the broader social treatment of people who have disabilities. By eliminating less perfect humans, deformity and disability become more pronounced and less acceptable. Those who escape the net of screening are often viewed as mistakes or burdens. A tragic choice becomes a presumption -- "Didn't you get an amnio?" -- and then a prejudice. And this feeds a social Darwinism in which the stronger are regarded as better, the dependent are viewed as less valuable, and the weak must occasionally be culled.
Of note, Barack Obama in a just-surfaced 1994 NRP interview dissing The Bell Curve ..
NPRScientists who welcome open debate and research may fear an Obama administration. Take that, three-digits. HOPE, CHANGE and BANNED RESEARCH.
October 28, 1994
SHOW: All Things Considered (NPR 4:30 pm ET)
Charles Murray's Political Expediency Denounced
BYLINE: BARACK OBAMA
SECTION: News; Domestic
LENGTH: 635 words
HIGHLIGHT: Commentator Barack Obama finds that Charles Murray, author of the controversial "The Bell Curve," demonstrates not scientific expertise but spurious political motivation in his conclusions about race and IQ.
BARACK OBAMA, Commentator: Charles Murray is inviting American down a dangerous path.
NOAH ADAMS, Host: Civil rights lawyer, Barack Obama.
Mr. OBAMA: The idea that inferior genes account for the problems of the poor in general, and blacks in particular, isn't new, of course. Racial supremacists have been using IQ tests to support their theories since the turn of the century. The arguments against such dubious science aren't new either. Scientists have repeatedly told us that genes don't vary much from one race to another, and psychologists have pointed out the role that language and other cultural barriers can play in depressing minority test scores, and no one disputes that children whose mothers smoke crack when they're pregnant are going to have developmental problems.
Now, it shouldn't take a genius to figure out that with early intervention such problems can be prevented. But Mr. Murray isn't interested in prevention. He's interested in pushing a very particular policy agenda, specifically, the elimination of affirmative action and welfare programs aimed at the poor. With one finger out to the political wind, Mr. Murray has apparently decided that white America is ready for a return to good old-fashioned racism so long as it's artfully packaged and can admit for exceptions like Colin Powell. It's easy to see the basis for Mr. Murray's calculations. After watching their income stagnate or decline over the past decade, the majority of Americans are in an ugly mood and deeply resent any advantages, real or perceived, that minorities may enjoy.
I happen to think Mr. Murray's wrong, not just in his estimation of black people, but in his estimation of the broader American public. But I do think Mr. Murray's right about the growing distance between the races. The violence and despair of the inner city are real. So's the problem of street crime. The longer we allow these problems to fester, the easier it becomes for white America to see all blacks as menacing and for black America to see all whites as racist. To close that gap, we're going to have to do more than denounce Mr. Murray's book. We're going to have to take concrete and deliberate action. For blacks, that means taking greater responsibility for the state of our own communities. Too many of us use white racism as an excuse for self-defeating behavior. Too many of our young people think education is a white thing and that the values of hard work and discipline and self-respect are somehow outdated.
That being said, it's time for all of us, and now I'm talking about the larger American community, to acknowledge that we've never even come close to providing equal opportunity to the majority of black children. Real opportunity would mean quality prenatal care for all women and well-funded and innovative public schools for all children. Real opportunity would mean a job at a living wage for everyone who was willing to work, jobs that can return some structure and dignity to people's lives and give inner-city children something more than a basketball rim to shoot for. In the short run, such ladders of opportunity are going to cost more, not less, than either welfare or affirmative action. But, in the long run, our investment should payoff handsomely. That we fail to make this investment is just plain stupid. It's not the result of an intellectual deficit. It's the result of a moral deficit.
ADAMS: Barack Obama is a civil rights lawyer and writer. He lives in Chicago.
Political Correctness squeezes all equally, it seems.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
"It will be difficult for people to face the truth when their reputations, careers, government grants or hopes for social change depend on global warming, but the fate of civilization may be at stake.So, what is this must-be-fraudulent (or so will say every "the debate is OVER!" Goreacle-religioner fruitcake warmalist) scientist talking about? Why, an impending little ice age, "similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850". No way, you say, when
"In the famous words of Oliver Cromwell, "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."
"Phil Chapman is a geophysicist and astronautical engineer who lives in San Francisco. He was the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut."
Well, there is some new, inconvenient data...
"All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over.You would be wise to do so, if you value your career and hope to get a nice invitation to Gore's manse or to one of those splendid parties thrown by the True Believers. Surely, you have more than just those inconvenient data? Hmmm? Alarmism such as yours could never be accepted by any scientist or the community; after that embarrassing thing in the '70's...
"There is also plenty of anecdotal evidence that 2007 was exceptionally cold. It snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries, the winter in China was simply terrible and the extent of Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.
"It is generally not possible to draw conclusions about climatic trends from events in a single year, so I would normally dismiss this cold snap as transient, pending what happens in the next few years."
"THE scariest photo I have seen on the internet is www.spaceweather.com, where you will find a real-time image of the sun from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, located in deep space at the equilibrium point between solar and terrestrial gravity.Should there be more than one?
What is scary about the picture is that there is only one tiny sunspot.
"This is where SOHO comes in. The sunspot number follows a cycle of somewhat variable length, averaging 11 years. The most recent minimum was in March last year. The new cycle, No.24, was supposed to start soon after that, with a gradual build-up in sunspot numbers.Concern? You mean, Sunspot Credits? Should we purchase those before it's too late?
"It didn't happen. The first sunspot appeared in January this year and lasted only two days. A tiny spot appeared last Monday but vanished within 24 hours. Another little spot appeared this Monday. Pray that there will be many more, and soon.
"The reason this matters is that there is a close correlation between variations in the sunspot cycle and Earth's climate. The previous time a cycle was delayed like this was in the Dalton Minimum, an especially cold period that lasted several decades from 1790.
"Northern winters became ferocious: in particular, the rout of Napoleon's Grand Army during the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was at least partly due to the lack of sunspots.
"That the rapid temperature decline in 2007 coincided with the failure of cycle No.24 to begin on schedule is not proof of a causal connection but it is cause for concern."
It is time to put aside the global warming dogma, at least to begin contingency planning about what to do if we are moving into another little ice age, similar to the one that lasted from 1100 to 1850.
There is no doubt that the next little ice age would be much worse than the previous one and much more harmful than anything warming may do. There are many more people now and we have become dependent on a few temperate agricultural areas, especially in the US and Canada. Global warming would increase agricultural output, but global cooling will decrease it.
Millions will starve if we do nothing to prepare for it (such as planning changes in agriculture to compensate), and millions more will die from cold-related diseases.
There is also another possibility, remote but much more serious. The Greenland and Antarctic ice cores and other evidence show that for the past several million years, severe glaciation has almost always afflicted our planet.
The bleak truth is that, under normal conditions, most of North America and Europe are buried under about 1.5km of ice. This bitterly frigid climate is interrupted occasionally by brief warm interglacials, typically lasting less than 10,000 years.
The interglacial we have enjoyed throughout recorded human history, called the Holocene, began 11,000 years ago, so the ice is overdue. We also know that glaciation can occur quickly: the required decline in global temperature is about 12C and it can happen in 20 years.
The next descent into an ice age is inevitable but may not happen for another 1000 years. On the other hand, it must be noted that the cooling in 2007 was even faster than in typical glacial transitions. If it continued for 20 years, the temperature would be 14C cooler in 2027.
Well, I'm inclined to dismiss this as probable bullshite. Since we've been burned by 'Global Warming', and that other Embarrassing Thing from the '70's. And, Al Gore (who was/is lying? Who Knew?). We should, you know, wait for some more data.Unless, of course, we can persuade a failed politician to get on board and push for social change, maybe promote him/herself a Nobel Peace Prize or something. Form a new(er) religion, based on the imminent icing of the planet.
Maybe whoever loses this Democratic primary. That person will not be very happy, and will need a new role, a payback-sort of thing. Because he/she is grudgy.
Then, get some Hollywierd types onboard. And a theme song, for the inevitable global concert.
For now, this placekeeper dude, until we see who steps forward as...
The New, Inconvenient Truthiness IceCycler!
;D
h/t Ace
Monday, March 24, 2008
We're Doomed! (If you believe an 88-year-old Climate scientist, just one of the nearly 7 billion people on this planet)
0 comments Posted by kotang at 9:05 PMIf his provocative thoughts are correct, then we can do nothing at all about our future, because it’s beyond our control. Because, as I posted this morning, it’s not about us in America or Britain driving around in evil SUV’s and burning coal and such, it’s all about the numbers. Of People. Lovelock...
“I reckon there are about 80 per cent more people than the world can carry…”What he says makes sense. I've studied biology, and I know that we, humans, have limits. Just as any other species alive on this planet, we have to be checked to stay in balance. Lovelock believes we will be thinned by geological changes, starting as soon as 2040…
“By 2040, China will be uninhabitable.” Lovelock believes that the Chinese, because of their high levels of industrial activity, will be the first to suffer, with the death of all plant life.
“So I think the Chinese will go to Africa. They are already there, preparing a new continent - the Chinese industrialists who claim to be out there mining minerals are just there on a pretext of preparing for the big move.
“This is not science fiction. Mr Putin will colonise Siberia. Those who will have a very rough time are those in the indian subcontinent. You don’t need much of a sea level rise to wipe Bangladesh off the face of the Earth.”
Whether you believe Lovelock (an inevitable geological catastrophe) or Dr. Pianka (an inevitable biological catastrophe), the fact is that something is going to thin the herd.
“You couldn’t have stopped the evolution of Chinese industry. We have to stop thinking it is all our fault. We could have stopped it if we had all listened to Malthus in 1800 (the economist who said population would outstrip agricultural supply).So, short-term, what can we expect? Food in short supply, fuel unobtainable, people from the hottest regions of the world encroaching on the cooler, northernmost areas (Canada)?
“Everyone laughed at him, but he was right. A billion is about the right number of people for the Earth. We are nearly seven billion. Had we stayed at a billion we could have done whatever we liked with technology and there would have been no problem.”
Lovelock believes the subsequent ethnic tensions could lead to civil war.
In Great Britain. At least they are an island for the most part. Here, I don't get into much speculation. Bring over a six-pack and we'll talk about it.
Maybe we should stop worrying about Global Warming and start preparing for Global Shrinking.
Numbers, that is.
h/t SondraK
New NASA data shows that predicted runaway Global Warming was based on “a fundamental error”
0 comments Posted by kotang at 5:52 AMThere's fervor, almost to the point of religious faith, amongst the proponents of Global Warmalism. Look no further than the comments to Number 9's post yesterday, and you'll see vitriol directed at 'non-believers'. Anyone who challenges the accepted dogma is immediately subjected to attack. We who remain skeptical (somehow, we remember the 1970's promise of an impending ice age that didn't materialize, not to mention those silly pet rocks!) in the face of the warmologist's cacophony are deniers, we have our heads stuck up our posteriors, and we don't care about the future or little brown people or the joooooooooos....
Well, how about some nice Science that challenges your "the debate is OVER!" wide stance?
From The Austrailian, a reporter from ABC Radio National, Michael Duffy, interviews Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow at the Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Duffy asks Marohasy the question:
"Is the Earth still warming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."So. There are a "...lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide." But, but, that flies in the face of the Goreacle! How can anyone who has proclaimed 'the debate is OVER' be denied, again, His legitimateness and correctness (without even a recount?)
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognizes that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."
Duffy then turned to the question of how the proponents of the greenhouse gas hypothesis deal with data that doesn't support their case. "People like Kevin Rudd and Ross Garnaut are speaking as though the Earth is still warming at an alarming rate, but what is the argument from the other side? What would people associated with the IPCC say to explain the (temperature) dip?"
Marohasy: "Well, the head of the IPCC has suggested natural factors are compensating for the increasing carbon dioxide levels and I guess, to some extent, that's what skeptics have been saying for some time: that, yes, carbon dioxide will give you some warming but there are a whole lot of other factors that may compensate or that may augment the warming from elevated levels of carbon dioxide.
"There's been a lot of talk about the impact of the sun and that maybe we're going to go through or are entering a period of less intense solar activity and this could be contributing to the current cooling."
Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"
Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."
Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"
Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognize that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."
Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."
Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."
Again...there is room for debate. This planet has changed so much over the 4.5 billion years it's circled the sun; there is nothing we puny humans can do that won't be wiped away in the next billion years or so. We are transient!
If there is warming due to human activity, the only solution would be to de-industrialize and de-modernize; stop our forward societal evolution and become much like our betters, the Amish and the Mennonites. Let's tell India and China to stop their modernization programs, go back to the easy days of the past. I'll bet they will jump on board with that.
We, here, in the USA and other 'hypermodern' societies have the responsibility to find out exactly what should be done to both maintain and continue our advancement, and to make our world agreeable for our successors. We should start that by following China's lead and maintaining some sensible population stability. Not overreact and throw our economy under the bus to satisfy great Al's wounded ego.
(That's not my pshop, btw; I do admire the thing, though!)
h/t Ed Morrissey
Crossed from Tennessee Free
Saturday, March 1, 2008
OK, so this story is getting a few days old, but I had an animated .gif file in mind but didn't have time to get it done. Until today, that is...
Now, the bad news...
Prozac, used by 40m people, does not work say scientistsJust in time for the election, too.
Analysis of unseen trials and other data concludes it is no better than placebo
Prozac, the bestselling antidepressant taken by 40 million people worldwide, does not work and nor do similar drugs in the same class, according to a major review released today.
The study examined all available data on the drugs, including results from clinical trials that the manufacturers chose not to publish at the time. The trials compared the effect on patients taking the drugs with those given a placebo or sugar pill.
When all the data was pulled together, it appeared that patients had improved - but those on placebo improved just as much as those on the drugs.
What's a Kat to do?
;D
All these strange attractions to Obama...
263. Comment by nishizonoshinji on 2/27 @ 2:43 pm
look..im conservative by heredity.
im a constitutionalist, and i fervently desire smaller government and lower taxes.
GW did a fine job on nat’l defense.
but i dont see that he was conservative anywhere else.
and up to 1/3 of the republican party is now percieved to be theocons.
theocons are nannystatists…they want to restrict my right to die if my parents should want to keep my nonsentient flesh doll/animated corpse going. theocons are not constitutionalists….they attempted to overturn judiciary branch rulings with the emminently sillie “terri’s law.” theocons want to restrict science–most generally biotech, including cloning, ESCR, genetic engineering and research chimeras. theocons want to restrict my reproductive choices. theocons have convolved religion with government, and would like to impose the teaching of quaint faery tales in high school science programs.
the republican party has been the anti-science party for the eight years.
my definition of theocon is someone who seeks to impose religious values on others thru the political process.
so im voting O.
Nishi is by trade a genetic engineerist, and seeks to chip away at the restrictions of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, obviously blaming Republicans for their 'theo' restrictions. I believe there's some ethicicism required in science; if not rooted in religion, then from what deep well will moral sensibilities flow? Surely not from Government; if anything, both parties lack morality by their very natures. We see our 'freedoms' to treat unborn children (given time; give some of the latest-term aborted fetuses as little as a few days, then yes, you will have a squalling human child) as mere 'nonsentient cell clumps', which result in what may be horrific soul-murders. That's probably not going away, no matter what fearmongering Democrats rouse up in their ranks of feminazis.
My only point is to ask, what bank of ethics do you want to draw from when you confront new and exciting genetic research? That ancient wellspring based on what limited religion we allow in our society today, or simply the easy-out of selfish adults and paid-for politicos who see only the benefits to their own lifespans (and pocketbooks)?
This pshop started months ago as a "Diversity Man" idea Dan had (long before Obama became the phenom in 'ultimate spiritual diversity'. The thing languished until this morning. The 'elf troll' implanted on the right is how Nishi self-describes (leaving a link to that pic, I can't find the link, though) in comments, somewhere in PWland.
cross-posted from TennesseeFree.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Suicide watch! An atheist cries for help (or, "Non-survival of the least fit")
0 comments Posted by kotang at 9:58 PMOut there in blogworld, we've seen lots of strangeness. This, sadness and strangeness, and a good example of our American culture going south.
We have a young girl on a 90-day countdown to suicide...
"I am going to kill myself in 90 days. What else should i say? This blog is not a cry for help or even to get attention. It's simply a public record of my last 90 days in existence. I'm not depressed and nothing extremely horrible has lead me to this decision. But, does it really have to? I mean, as an atheist I feel life has no greater purpose. My generation has had no great depression, no great war and our biggest obstacle is beating Halo 3. So, if I feel like saying "game over", why can't I? Anyway, I hope you enjoy my thoughts as the clock runs out. Also, if blogspot takes this down before i'm gone just go to www.90dayjane.com. Please don't attempt to "help" me. If you want to truly help, please send me ideas on how to do the deed. thx-Jane"
I think she lacks the nervitude to do it. Kids, nowadays and all that.
If she does, well, my second points. Selected just for this post.
Today, Darwin is 199 years old. Happy birthday, ya old coot!
From a post discussing Darwin's contribution to Hitler, I found a better scapegoat...
"But what about artificial selection for superior genotypes? Darwin’s cousin Galton was the first to suggest that by proper selection one could and should improve mankind even further. Galton coined the term “eugenics.” People from the far Left to the far Right at first readily endorsed this ideal, conceiving of eugenics as a way to lift the human species toward greater perfection. It is sadly ironic that this noble original objective eventually led to some of the most heinous crimes that humankind has ever seen. When it was interpreted typologically, it became racism, and eventually led to Hitler’s horrors."
Ernst Mayr, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology, Emeritus, at Harvard University. From his book “This is Biology”, p. 246.
We've completely run away from selection in the human race. There's no more progress towards betterment...
"Modern humans, by contrast, constitute a mass society, and there is no indication of any natural selection for superior genotypes that would permit the rise of the human species above its present capacities. Indeed, many authors claim that we are currently experiencing a deterioration of the human gene pool. Considering the high variablity of the human gene pool, genetic deterioration of the species is not an immediate danger. What is far more frightening and threatening to the future of humankind is the deterioration of the value systems of most human societies..."
Ibid, and there is no more truth spoken than the last sentence.
So, young lady, if you must, then do so with the knowledge that you probably would make Galton a happy man.
h/t SondraK, and SondraK
