Nom de plume: Rivrdog

The wrong way to solve climate problems

...Is shown by this article in the WaPo, which, in turn was listed in the Junk Science website.

You'd be tempted to have a good laugh, but don't, because your very way of life is threatened by the idiots in the Climate Science field who have allied themselves with Socialists everywhere to generate the alarmist Global Warming Scare and generate political and economic change based on it. Those changes WILL cause you severe pain if you are in the producing class of citizens, not so much pain if you are in the gimme-mine class.

BTW, if the "solution" to this issue is done the same way the last "solution" was forced on us, there will be a huge monetary penalty.

When this took place the last time (replacement of Freon with non-CFC products), the alarmists allowed the global refrigeration corporations to tell us that it wasn't as simple as replacing the gas in your refrigeration equipment.

Of course it was. But a gas was foisted off on us that was deliberately formulated so that it couldn't be used in systems with the same seals used for Freon machinery. That caused MUCH un-necessary replacement of perfectly good refrigeration equipment, around the globe.

The Swedes saved us. Despite their forever Socialist government, Swedish laboratories developed a refrigerant gas which COULD be used in older equipment, and that gas is now standard in the industry. Was ANY investigation done as to why OUR labs couldn't have done the same thing?

No.

Now that it's all going to Version 3 with refrigeration gas, does anyone want to bet against the fact that the "wizards" will tell us that we have to scrap our "old" equipment yet again, instead of just replacing the gas in it?

They'll get to see the business end of a 12-gauge if they come around here to try to enforce that. I just replaced an old Freon unit in my house with the latest new equipment 2 years ago, and I'll be damned if someone is going to tell me that I have to do it again (to the tune of another $20K). 

This nails it down...

...and from the Christian Science Monitor, no less.

Best debunking of anthropogenic global warming I've seen yet. The CSM also calls a spade a spade in the article, and refers to the entire "cap and trade" system as a means to redistribute income and consolidate Federal power, nothing more.

It seems to me, on logical analysis, that minus completely hypothetical "tipping point" arguments (no "tipping points" can be proven from the past), no scientist could ever sign on to AGW as anything but a theory such as someone the likes of Velikovsky could espouse.

"Cash for Clunkers"

This is one of the stupidest ideas ever foisted off on the public. Here's why:

• The cars involved aren't "clunkers". Almost all of them which will be turned in will be perfectly serviceable automobiles which will be towed to the crusher.
• What the proponents won't tell you is that this measure upsets the marketplace. Right now, cars are in oversupply in relation to demand, so the price of new cars has dramatically dropped, with some classes of cars selling for a third less than previously, and all but hybrids being discounted somewhat. When this law comes in, the automakers will remove the sale tags and jack up the car prices to their full "manufacturer's suggested retail price" (MSRP), THEN you will get the $4.5K deduction from THAT. If you need a new car, buy it now and you will be way ahead of this Government "gimme" offer.
• "Cash for Clunkers" has been tried in several other places, and it hasn't worked to meet it's goals anywhere it was tried (kind of like gun buy-back programs). Notably, the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Los Angeles, CA area tried such a plan in the 80's. Locals quickly learned that they could buy curbside junkers for $100 from the low-income owners, take these clunkers to SCAQMD and get the $800-1100 offered. The SCAQMD was trying to get REGULARLY-DRIVEN, heavily polluting cars out of the airshed, so the program was a failure when they crushed thousands of junkers that hardly ever turned a tire.
• In today's case, most of the people who have an older car and are still driving it are probably doing so out of the necessity borne of being unable to afford a new one, and giving them 20% off the price of a new car does not make it any more affordable for them.
• There are a FEW people out here who drive older cars just because they see no need to have a spiffy new one if the older one still serves. I am one of those people, driving a 1999 Mazda B2500 (four-cylinder) pickup (same as a Ford Ranger 4-cyl) that averages 23 mpg at 115,000 miles old. There are no other pickups that do that well, so I can't improve my gas mileage and/or pollution numbers (my truck just passed it's smog inspection with a perfect score, BTW) by buying a new one, even though I might be able to afford it. I'm not ready for a geezer sedan quite yet, and I won't subject myself to a shoebox car just to impress someone with my green creds. My Little Black Truck is still running, so I'm keeping it.

So, for these reasons, what we have here is another Government program that is nothing but window dressing. It can't solve the problems it intends to, one,  because the car-buying public is more savvy than the (D)onk leaders think we are, and we aren't going to fall for the canard of 20% discount being better than 30% and two, because the law isn't comprehensive enough.

The law will undoubtedly have loopholes in it that will be used to the advantage of a few, such as fleet managers, to improve the dollars-per-mile figures of their fleets, but this does nothing for either the Average Joe, or for Detroit, which is down some 6-7 MILLION automobiles per year from profitibility, not ONE million.

Again, just like gun buy-backs, this is a "feel-good" measure without any sort of reality check behind it. Since it will cost $4.5 billion bucks up front, not including administrative costs sure to add to that, it should be left on the table.

Ethanol bites

...and bites me in the wallet, hard, this month.

In all the Ethanol talk, no one has mentioned anything but automobiles and how Ethanol affects them and the atmosphere.

By now, we have decided that Ethanol is a loser as far as total expense to the atmosphere goes (carbon trail).

...but wait, as Billy Mays would say, There's More.

At least $750 more for me, and maybe more after that.

I have 3 pieces of gas-powered equipment that I use quite heavily: An outboard motor that pushes my shore-boat around (that ugly, twin-hull Livingston dinghy hanging on the stern of my cabin cruiser), a Honda EU-2000i generator set and my Honda power mower.

The boat motor and the generator are both in the shop now, the victim of Ethanol poisoning. The 99 Mercury 5 hp outboard got the worst of it, with most of it's fuel system, including the carb, ruined by the Ethanol in the gasoline I fueled it with. The generator is still running well, but it's hard to start and now uses about twice the fuel it used to. It has about 500 hours on it since new, not a lot of time for this equipment. I've put maybe 20 hours on the boat motor in the 3 years I've owned it, and the previous owner probably no more than twice that, so it should still be in new shape, but it's now getting an expensive carb overhaul (maybe replacement) and new fuel system everything (except the remote tank, which seems to have survived the lousy gas).

I haven't recommissioned the power mower, a Honda HR-214 of ancient vintage and many, many engine hours, so I don't know if the re-formulated fuel killed it, also.

The Ethanol used in the motor fuel seems to react badly with chemical components in the fuel storage, transport and carburation systems of even modern small gas engines. That's an unforecast cost for the use of Ethanol in fuel.

I can get non-reformulated fuel at a marine fuel dock, if I swear it is not going in my cars, and I will now start doing that, but to fire up a boat and go to the fuel dock with jugs just to fuel these small motors is bullshit, not to mention there is some hazard in storing and transferring the fuel.

Technically, there seems to be unforecast problems with the re-blended oxygenated blend (unleaded fuel). First, it separates chemically much faster than advertised, maybe within the first month after formulation, and second, it loses it's octane number in that first month also.

I've had mechanics tell me that RBOB fuel loses an octane grade per month in storage, and the use of fuel stabilizer additive won't prevent that (it just prevents gummy varnishes from forming). The only way to get around this is to buy a higher octane rating than you need. Adding octane boosters MAY help.

The culprit for damage is evidently the separation. When separation of the Ethanol and the gasoline occurs, the Ethanol, now concentrated, begins to erode and corrode the fuel systems immediately. It doesn't take long, in a high-precision fuel system, for engine performance to be affected by the damaged components, and the only solution at that point is overhaul and component replacement.

I remember my Dad talking about a problem that happened during the Korean War. When the Commies fled as we got organized to drive them from South Korea, they left behind large stocks of MoGas, or military-grade motor fuel.

Our supply Sergeants grabbed this supply and started using it in Jeeps and trucks, but had to stop the process quickly because the Commie gas wouldn't run US military equipment properly (most infantry vehicles were still gasoline-driven in those days, the dieselization of US equipment had just started). It didn't take long for our equipment to be messed up by that bad gas. This Ethanol thing is very similar in it's potential for damage.

Word to the wise: if you can't get un-blended fuel, you will have to start emptying your small-engine equipment of RBOB fuel every time you finish using it. That includes running the equipment out of fuel after emptying the tank, and opening the carb drain screw, if installed.

What a pain in the ass. Thanks a lot, Al Gore and all you Ethanol fuckwads.

Will Obama use "Scientific Integrity" on AGW?

So, Obama gets in a dig at Bush43 for his religion-based decision not to allow the use of embryonic stem cells for medical research. Good. Obama, of course, promised us during the campaign that he would reverse this policy.

Interestingly enough, though, Mr. Obama's people couch the reversal in even broader terms:

"President Barack Obama will reverse the U.S. government’s ban on funding stem-cell research today and pledge to use sound, scientific practice and evidence, instead of dogma to guide federal policy, an adviser said."

Very interesting. "Sound, scientific practice and evidence", yes, we definitely need that.

We need it in stem cell research and above all, we need it in climate science, the political adulteration of which has been and still is being used to change the world's economies and redistribute income.

This snippet from the article sounds fairly promising towards cleaning up other science as well:

"Harold Varmus, co-chair of a science advisory group to the President, said Obama will ask the White House Office of Science and Technology to create guidelines to incorporate ‘scientific integrity’ into decision-making by U.S. agencies."

OK, Mr. Obama, your Science Advisor has set the tone, and even appears to have made a promise on behalf of your Administration. Most of us on the Right are going to congratulate you now, and continue to congratulate you as "Scientific Integrity" is restored to Federal Policy.

We certainly encourage your Office of Science and Technology to investigate abuses of "Scientific Integrity". There are plenty of them to investigate. It would seem that you are the first politician of any stripe to value "Scientific Integrity" in a long while, and the clean-up job will be daunting.

Of course, we will assist you by reminding you in our pages just where that lack of integrity currently exists. There are several outstanding sites already out there for that purpose, Mr. Obama, and perusing a Google Search on "debunking global warming" will offer a good start.

I just did such a search, and up popped MY favorite site, run by the renowned de-bunker of "junk science", Steven Milloy. It will be as good a place to start on cleaning up the Federal applications of science as any, Mr. President. If you're really keen on cleaning up abused science, Mr. President, perhaps Mr. Varmus might even offer a position to Mr. Milloy.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of "Scientific Integrity", Mr. President, can we have your Integrity Monitors run down the hall and talk to Rahm Emanuel? There have been reports that he will be running the upcoming US Census from his office, and those reports have suggested that he might involve a Community Organizing Organization, "ACORN", in "helping out" the Census-takers. Your people will probably not tell you this, Mr. President, so I will: ACORN has been known to use unscientific methods, such as registering dead people to vote and registering live people twice.

Surely such a loss of integrity in the scientific counting of the US population would damage your efforts to clean up science as it is used in Federal Policy, don't you think, Mr. President? Perhaps you might issue an instruction to Rahm Emanuel to reject ACORN's offer of help on the Census, and just use the Census Bureau, which is presently set up under a charter which requires it to use an Advisory Committee which oversees the use of the most scientific counting methods ONLY.

Well, Mr. President, I didn't want to put too much on your plate, but these two simple ideas of using Scientific Integrity in processes the whole country knows and understands will help you continue to be known as an effective Bringer of Change.

Good-bye, Sir, and thanks for stopping by my humble blog. I hope the rest of your day will be as productive as mine.

Tech President or Witch Doctor?

It's damn hard for Mr. Obama to present himself (as he sold himself) to us as the tech-savvy President, when his political party is about to force the unproven "greenhouse gas" theory (aka Anthropogenic Global Warming) of Climate Change down all our throats.

In 1970, the Endangered Species Act was sold to us as a means of man nobly trying to preserve the biodiversity of lesser species on this planet. Since then, it's actual use has turned out to be as a political tool to redistribute income by means of stifling the development and use of natural resources by the use of unproven and scientifically unsupportable claims of damage to biodiversity.

That's about to happen again with this polar bear issue. This whole business of trying to change the politics and economies of the entire 200+ nations on the planet is absurd on it's face. Saying that polar bears need more ice, and the only way we can give them more ice is to lower the level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, stopping a lot of our industrial processes in their tracks, is non-scientific by definition.

Here's how science SHOULD play out in politics:

First, you ask the question whether or not the science behind a political decision has been proven, completely proven. There are standard logical tests for proving science. The theory called "Anthropogenic Global Warming" passes none of these tests, because the vast amount of "scientific" support for this theory was NOT derived through actual processes of science which can be reliably repeated using the same approach but different proven instrumentation and data gathering.

Next, you ask the question whether or not changing processes involved in that proven science will produce a different, desired result. This remains unproven because most historical CO2 data suggests the exact opposite of what the AGW theorists claim, and there is actual data at least suggesting that increases in atmospheric CO2 have preceded the last four global cool-downs in the recent history of climate change, including the one we appear to be entering now.

Only then, after getting positive, proven results from the two processes of proof, do you change societal behavior. THAT'S application of true science.

If the science is unproven by being un-repeatable, you stop right in your tracks and go no further.

To expect any logical results later when the science of the first results cannot either be proven nor repeated is not a logical process. Such an expectation is more properly aligned with adoption and adherence to a religion or belief system.

If the theory continues to be supported despite it's illogical standing, then it cannot remain categorized as science, and must be re-categorized as either politics or religion, or both, depending on the ultimate use of such a theory.

In this polar bear case, both political AND religious uses are envisioned by our Democratic Party masters. We are doing unscientific things in the name of science, but those who point this out are and will be treated exactly as though they have disobeyed established and accepted religious canon in a society which demands such establishment and acceptance.

I am not a religionist, and even if I were to adopt a religion, it wouldn't be one which which insisted on twisting science, then declaring it to be moral and good.

The Christian religion as practiced by the evangelicals, and the Anthropogenic Global Warming religion as practiced by the Democratic Party BOTH meet my definition of religions which twist science to conform to canon.

As long as my Constitution continues to prohibit the establishment of State religions, and attempts by the GOP to establish Christianity and the Democrats to establish Anthropogenic Global Warming appear to violate that Constitution, my blood oaths still require me to bring conflict upon such establishments. My conflict with the Christians is dormant, because they appear to have been defeated politically, and are now unable to enforce their canon. That leaves only the AGW religion to conflict with.

For me, the question is not WHETHER to conflict with the bringers of the AGW religion, it's what level of conflict to bring. 

The RivrFrau predicts:

That Obama will come up with a "clunker law" which will force all of us to scrap our old "gas guzzlers".

Kalifornistan tried such a law (voluntary), some twenty years ago. It failed miserably, because lots o'folks decided that they could make a fair street living dragging non-running street hupdies in for the reward, and few running autos were actually gotten out of the Los Angeles airshed.

I won't bet against the gudwife on this one.

She will probably be correct, although I expect that the clunker law will be tied up with all sorts of sparkly deals to have the gummint guarantee auto loans for new cars, etc, etc. Maybe even a return to tax deductability of auto loan interest?

So, getting ahead of the process, what will be involved? My guess is that any car predating the OBD-II emissions control diagnostics system (started in 1995) will be involved. There will probably be a 40-year exemption for "antiques", but also a driving limitation for them (my '68 VW Bug should skate by).

Here's the rub: forcing us to get rid of property against our will without direct compensation makes the gummint involved in an illegal "taking".

That's un-Constitutional.

Oops.

Sorry about that "oopsie", Mr. President. I'm sure Mr. Holder will help you figure out a way around that pesky Constitution, he's good at that sort of thing.

Let's make a deal, Mr. President: you give me a rebate certificate good for three years, for $5,000 off the price of ANY new car made in the US of A, a rebate which is good IN ADDITION TO any dealer or manufacturer discounts, and I'll give you the pink on my restored VeeDub, UNLESS I can get more from a collector for it.

You know where to find me to close this deal.

Missing a bet

...are the Church of Holy Anthropogenic Global Warming folk. Mostly they're missing it because there is increasing evidence that they're wrong, but there's another angle: the world's Socialists could be tweaking us for even more moolah, because as expensive as all this hooey for cutting carbon emissions is, imagine the future cost of moving most of the Earth's northern populations much farther South. Talk about the need for a supra-government!

These AGW people are pikers.

The future will see a "world messiah" who will have The Plan. Any bets on how much longer we will hang on to the 180-degrees-out AGW bulltwaddle?

AGW, current proof that P.T. Barnum was correct.

When they finally give up, from inside their igloos in Florida, can we sue them for damages?

Al Gore & "AGW" denied

...we're gonna freeze soon, not roast, according to this analysis of climatology presented by Pravda.

Yes, THAT Pravda. Denying THAT Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory.

In the article, which cites European authorities in the field of climatology, a much more extensive record of past atmospheric changes is examined than Al Gore presented in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth". Whereas the infamous "hockey stick graph" showing startling rise in temperatures is taken from an analysis of data covering 1,000 years, Dr. Milutin Milankovich based his analysis on data from much farther back, in the micro-paleo record of ocean sediments.

The Milankovich data was available to Gore and his writers of the film, but they evidently ignored it for some reason (guesses for this ignorance have ranged widely in motive).

There's only one thing missing from this compilation of Russian data. That would be the work of Dr. Oleg Soroktin, a noted climatologist from Russia who has made some startling predictions in the close term, predictions of cooling which, over the past two years, have come true. His predictions are based on a solar minimum that we are in right now. His data suggest that such minima last at least 25 years.

Soroktin's work deals with current climate and very near-term trends, whereas this essay in Pravda deals with the macro-climate.

If Soroktin's and Milankovich's work were taken together, and not being a climatologist, I don't have a grasp of what data would properly demonstrate that, it would appear that we are already going into the next Ice Age, with the solar minimum accelerating our entry into it, and the huge problems we are facing will have to do with the displacement of population and agriculture towards the equator, not away from it as demographic theories based on anthropogenic global warming would suggest.

The question devolves to the political arena then: just how much evidence will it take to convince the world's socialists that we are, in fact, cooling and not warming? That would be the same socialists who have seized upon preparations for AGW as an opportunity to kill off the governments which embrace world capitalism and replace them with centralized Socialist governments. With this evidence taken as Pravda presents it, and adding the evidence that Dr. Soroktin brings us, it appears that those pushing theories of AGW are marching (and marching us) towards the wrong horizon.

In my knowledge of basic global history, I have not known of such a vast judgment error being made in the past. The diversion of global resources to "fight AGW" is an actual threat to humankind's very existance, if the above data is correct. At some point, we will have to realize that and take the appropriate action that the universal right of self-defense gives us, and resist further forcing in the wrong direction.

Mankind's future WILL depend on winning that struggle.

H/T to the EllTee, who sharpens his thinking when the climate cools in Dakota.

While you were distracted...

...by the Theater of the Absurd (aka the US Elections), the Global Warming Death Cult was up to their usual tricks, i.e., cooking the books to trump up data supportive of their cause.

I suggest having your Pepto Bismol close at hand.

Link here.

I wonder if there is any court, in any land, anywhere, which would accept a lawsuit against the principals of the Global Warming Death Cult.