Search options (Page 103 of 151)

No, but I do hear the other side of it.

We need honest assesment, and honest science.  We need them badly.

I was thinking of vocalists, and this seemed appropriate for the thread.  Man, she had a set of pipes. There's the same feeling of longing in there that Satchmo could do.  Actually, she still has them--there was a 50th anniversary ceremony in Fort Lauterdale.  Not all the power, but she still showed off the pipes.

Some inconvenient facts for the AGW alarmists.  And note, the A in AgW is the important part--Anthropogenic.

Book 1, Chapter 4, Erevain, Chapter 5, Nikkano.  I'm working on the next two chapters.

Once upon a time, children were immunized against this with the story of Chicken Little.  Now the wisdom of these old tales is Oldthink, and parents who dare teach their children are dangerous subversives.

Old joke: Why do KGB agents go around in threes?  They have one who can read, one who can write, and one to keep an eye on those two dangerous intellectuals.

And, speaking of fossil fools, this fossil recalls panics in the 1970's about global cooling, and claims in the 1980s that by 2010 the sea level would have risen three meters.  Or was it six?  Or nine?  Or two?  It depended on which The-End-Is-Near prophet you listened to.

Also today: The CSM is no right-wing organ.

Was the Little Ice Age a local phenomenon as well?

Given the amount of known fraud in 'climate science', as I cited above, I simply do not believe the claims that this group puts forward.  Given the politicization of the  science, with some of the most respected scientists losing their jobs because they disagree with the claims, I do not believe the claims.  Given the inconsistancies of the theory, I do not believe the claims, which have the effect of giving more power to government and allowing governments to argue for more control over more money.

What inconsistancies?  For one, that rising CO2 leads to higher temperatures.  In those places where our measurements are accurate enough to tell which came first, the higher temperatures came first.

I've already mentioned the 'compensation' for heat islands, which has the effect of accentuating rather than moderating the numbers.  In addition, our new numbers come from satellite measurements.  Have these been properly calibrated to the past numbers?  It could be done.  Maybe it has been done.  Maybe it's in good faith.

And maybe not.  Remember, the people pushing the theory from inside government, and funding it, are the same ones who told us that margerine was better than butter.  That probably cost tens of thousands of lives.  They're the same ones who pushed carbs over fats, a campaign followed by a great increase in Type II diabetes.  (To be fair, the biggest jump in the graph was caused by a redefinition of the threshold.)  These are the people still trying to reduce sodium intake even though we've probably passed the sweet spot and will be seeing more deaths due to low sodium than to high sodium.

This is government-paid science.  Critical voices are not welcome.  "I'm from tne government and I'm here to help you."

You've got a substantial barrier to overcome in convincing me.  It doesn't help that the people pushing 'renewables' have made Germany shut down their nuclear plants and burn millions of pounds of lignite, which is the dirtiest, most CO2-intensive fuel out there, or that every kW of solar and wind must be backed by an alternative source capable of rapid peaking.

This has the atmosphere of religious faith unhinged from reason.

Are they using the numbers that the Climate Institute in London made up?  (Their computer programs have comments explaining that computations were arbitrary, made to produce the results required.)  Or do they come from numbers supposedly adjusted for the heat island effects of cities, that somehow are more extreme than the raw data rather than less?  Do they account for or ignore the long-observed correlations of global weather with solar activity?   Were any of the authors scientists who lost their jobs for disagreeing, on scientific grounds, with the AGW orthodoxy?

You do realize that the earth is still cooler than it was during the Medieval Warm Period?  When the Vikings had colonies in Greenland--when Greenland really was green?

To be clear-- both Erevain and Nikkano are out.

These characters are walk-ons.  You don't want them in drama because of its compressed form, but there is room for them in a novel.  Naming a character isn't the same as bringing the character in.  If the character has as much as action as a table, the character isn't present at all; the character is a piece of the setting.
Look at all the 'underused' characters in Girl Genius.  Two characters who will probably never be seen again: Crispin and the cat-maid.

A kimg like Milwr is happy ruling a land that NEEDS his peculiar, amoral skills, and will leave the kingdom in the hands of the only ones who can rule it--the amoral among his heirs.