atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#1384: Let it go, Al.

Wait, is this 2000? Another Al refuses to believe he could possibly have lost an election!

He might as well be standing on a street corner in filthy clothes with an unkempt beard screaming, "I'm a senator! I'm a senator!"

...but he's still trying to steal the election.

* * *

WTF is up with kids these days? Cutting and "self-embedding disorder"? Jesus, when I was a kid, if you were screwed up you found a way to get booze or drugs and dealt with it that way. WTF.

* * *

Yes, the climate models are inaccurate. They don't take all the data into account, and--worse--given the appropriate starting conditions they do not duplicate real-world climate changes.

The problem is, the guy who is being interviewed says "Man-made climate change is real." On what do we base that assumption? Computer models. So the guy who is saying that the computer models aren't accurate is himself asserting that the results of the models are right.

So this guy is saying that climate "scientists" ought to discuss what they know, not what they don't know. Problem: if they do that, the entire assertion that human activity is driving climate changes goes out the window, because there is no proof that this is true.

Climatologists like to believe that they know that humans are driving current global climate change, but the causality has not--has never--been proven. Forget proof: they can't demonstrate causality; every time that causation has been demonstrated--every time--the demonstration has been proven to be flawed, or even fraudulent (ie Mann's "Hockey Stick").

The simple fact is that we don't know what causes the Earth's climate to change. WE DON'T KNOW. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.

* * *

Nutball left-wingers (wait, is that redundant?) still insist that Sarah Palin didn't give birth to Trig, that Trig is in fact Sarah Palin's granddaughter--and her husband's son, to boot, in some versions.

I'll let my man Buzz deal with this one:

* * *

The answer is very simple, dude. The Zion Nuclear Power Plant is in a blue state, and even though you think it's obvious that nuclear power is great, there are too many idiots who don't get it and who will never get it, no matter how much you explain it to them using brightly-colored pictures and words of one syllable.

Exelon, on the other hand, knows what it's up against. An old plant which needs at least half a billion in renovations before it can be restarted. A major city that's a stone's throw away just full of left-wing econazi types who would sue, sue, sue to ensure that the plant remains off, which would vastly increase the startup costs. An already-hostile regulatory agency (the NRC) which--in about six weeks--is going to be headed by someone who will be even more hostile to nuclear power than the NRC already is. An incoming administration which is beholden to the left-wing econuts, all of whom hate nuclear power for no logical reason.

The entire reason that nuclear power is "expensive" is because of politics. If it weren't for all the morons who opposed it, it would have been just as cheap as it was promised to be. If the spent fuel could be recycled instead of stored, if more reactors could be built, if, if, if. But when you have a 15-year legal battle just to be allowed to build a reactor, it's impossible for nuclear-generated kilowatts to flow at market price.

Exelon knows that any attempt it makes to recommission the Zion site is going to be met with strident and vicious opposition, opposition that will make the reactivation a very long and very, very expensive process--expensive enough to make it economically distasteful. There is no point to it.

* * *

So I'm going to miss another Christmas parade here in town tonight, dang it, because I was sick on Monday. I had intended, Monday night, to put my Friday on the shift-swap board and see if someone would take it; assuming that someone had, I could have gone to the parade. These local events remind me (somewhat) of the festivals I see in anime, and they're pretty entertaining.

I got to see one in 2004, and it was fun and interesting--but in subsequent years I had to work, because I never found out about the damn things until they were less than a week away.

Oh well.

* * *

So one of the Showtime channels actually had a movie on that I actually wanted to see: The World's Fastest Indian. And what time was it on?

4:05 AM.

Yeah, don't put it on at a reasonable time. No, save reasonable timeslots for In the Name of the King and a bunch of other crap movies that I have absolutely zero interest in, and re-run them 2x-3x per night and pad the ends with short crap so that the guide looks like this:

"Junk 1" "Junk 2" "Junk 1" "Junk 2" "Irrelevant" "Stupid" "Idiotic" "The World's Fastest Indian"

And whatever you do, only show it once.

When this trial period expires, I am just going to delete the channels from my favorites list. Thanks, but no thanks, douchebags.

  • #8259: Okay, that's a little better

    Flopped for about 20 min, had some ibuprofen and a shower; now I feel halfway functional. At least enough to eat dinner. Typing no longer hurts. This…

  • #8258: There is nothing left.

    I spent the last four and a half hours--with about a 20-minute respite--in motion. Pool is up. It's leaking, but I'm pretty sure I know where…

  • #8257: It really amuses me, in fact.

    He's right, this is their perennial response. "If we can't have abortions, then the men have to be sterilized." The theory is that the men must be…

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment