First we were told that "sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century." (And not to put too fine a point on it, if you can't get your estimate narrowed down to less than an order of magnitude, you're nowhere near anything which even makes an attempt at approximating "settled science".)
Now? Well, they don't know. The major change, however, is that at least they are admitting that they don't know, which is a definite improvement over "the science is settled".
* * *
...yet this nonsense persists: "Warming to bring stronger hurricanes".
So let me understand this: there has been no warming since 1995, yet "Top researchers now agree that the world is likely to get stronger but fewer hurricanes in the future because of global warming, seeming to settle a scientific debate on the subject."
Why "fewer"? If the climate is going to increase the ferocity of storms, why would it also not increase the frequency? This doesn't make any sense--but there's a reason for that.
You see, over the past decade and a half, we've seen more damage from hurricanes while the frequency of hurricanes has decreased. In order to fit the "global warming will be an unprecedented disaster" to observed reality, these alleged "scientists" are now telling us that what we have seen is the result of global warming--the same global warming which has not been taking place since 1995.
The issue of hurricanes and global warming splashed onto front pages in the summer of 2005 when MIT's Emanuel published a paper in Nature saying hurricane destruction has increased since the mid-1970s because of global warming, adding it would only get worse.But that paper completely ignored the fact that more people are living in hurricane zones than in the past, and that the construction of their houses tends towards frame buildings which do not tolerate hurricane weather all that well. The "increased damage" statistic must take these things into account, and that paper did not. Property damage is not a good proxy for hurricane strength.
* * *
Boortz is calling him "Epic Beard Man" too. This is most amusing, and the comments are good too.
There's an interesting comment farther on down which I'll quote in its entirety, but edit for clarity:
fact you see the old guy go to the front of the bus carrying a bag. who picks old guys bag up on the way to the back of the bus and says go through that shit..obviously the person doing the recording ripped the guy off.If this is accurate, then it means the young black man (YBM, "ol coolio" in the above narrative) took exception to something EBM said to someone else.
well anyways you follow the story and find out ol coolio was actually wanted for murder and robbery it made the news in oakland california as well as obviously the rest of the country.
the old guy was a vietnam vet preparing to attend his mothers funeral and was talking to a friend about going to see his boy to get his shoes shined thats when ol coolio decided to interrupt and yip yap about brothers shining shoes because this guy said he was gonna go see his boy to get his shoes shined. (The boy could have been anybody!)
the bus driver triggered a silent alarm which alerted the police. Charges against the old guy were dropped. didnt say if the police got the old guys bag and belongings back though. [I'm] willing to bet they didnt.
If that's so, then EBM didn't start anything whatsoever. YBM took exception to something EBM said, because he perceived it as racist, and escalated it into a fight. And it turns out the guy is wanted for murder and robbery?
Dude, there's something you should be aware of: you might be a real badass down in the 'hood where no one has ever had any formal training in fighting, but the guy you were picking on was a veteran of Vietnam. Not only had he seen fighting that would leave you shitting in your drawers; he was trained to fight, both with weapons and hand-to-hand. Going after him with your fists, you didn't have a chance, and his attitude should have been enough to clue you in that he wasn't afraid of you solely because you're a young black man with gangsta props and a cheering section.
To be honest, I think that's why this video has gone viral: a lot of people are getting thoroughly sick and tired of guys like that punk getting away with behaving like complete animals. It's not PC, but gosh, the world just flat-out refuses to be racially sensitive, doesn't it?
* * *
Do I really need to say this again? We are getting ObamaCare whether we want it or not. The Democrats don't give a rat's ass about what we think; they need it, so we're going to get it. (Hoo boy are we going to get it.) The Democrats don't like losing control of Congress; they want to put measures in place which will ensure they can hold onto power the next time they've got it.
...and if you think Obama's plan isn't designed to insure that, you're either a Democrat yourself or a fool. (Not that those are necessarily exclusive.) Sure, Obama's plan doesn't have "the public option" in it; but once the thing is law, anywhere down the line, Congress can modify it however the hell they please, and given a President of the right temperament, get it signed into law. (Without that, Congress needs only a 2/3 majority to override the veto.)
If we get ObamaCare in any form, socialized medicine is then just the merest hop away. And everyone knows it.
Meanwhile Obama's shills are doing their best to quell the fears of anyone who opposes it. The Democrats are openly planning to use the reconciliation process to ram ObamaCare through the Senate. It's a slimy trick, but it's legal, and they only need a simple majority to do it.
Striking out in one fresh direction that should have wide appeal, Obama would give federal regulators new powers over the insurance industry, a reaction to a rash of double-digit premium hikes that have infuriated policy holders in California and other states.There is nothing "fresh" about advocating government regulation, particularly not coming from a Democrat. And the problem we have with our health care insurance system is due to government regulation in the first place, such as the prohibition against selling health insurance across state lines, which limits competition.
Rachel Peepers comments at Eternity Road.
* * *
Breda was the victim of a hit-and-run. But the perpetrator left his front license plate behind; and the cops got him. Heh.
* * *
Democrat tries to look tough and fails. On many levels. One of them being "BASIC FUCKING GUN SAFETY".
Okay, if you are not standing at the range and ready to fire, you take your booger hook off the bang switch. You never, never, EVER put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire the weapon.
He also should not have that weapon aimed anywhere near that photographer. I don't care if the gun is unloaded; one of THE cardinal rules of handling any firearm is ALWAYS ASSUME THE WEAPON IS LOADED. I take it to an extreme: even if the gun is out of battery and couldn't possibly chamber a round much less fire it, I still am very careful to treat it as if it were loaded and in battery with the safety off.
The pose may look really cool from that angle, but it for damn sure isn't safe.
The politician probably knows nothing about firearms; but the two policemen right next to him presumably had weapons training some time in their respective pasts and they should not have let that photograph be taken like that. If the idiot politician insisted, they should not have posed with him, particularly not with such goofy grins on their faces.
Still: "Anyone who knows gun knows this is a PR setup, and anyone who doesn't know guns is likely to be wetting themself in the corner at the sight of a Democrat holding one." Of course it's a PR setup. And the second picture with the article--a paper target with three bullet holes in it--is also a PR setup.
The pol is holding a 9mm semiauto pistol, yet if that target is approximately man-sized the holes in it would have to be made by 20mm anti-aircraft shells. Damn it, I've shot targets at the range, and a 9mm bullet leaves a 9mm hole. And why are there only three? Most semiauto pistols hold 8-11 rounds in a magazine (more or less) and who shoots just three bullets from a magazine?
Maybe all the other shots missed. Or, more likely, it's all PR BS and none of it is real.
* * *
Roger Smith in Big O has something like this, only his is a lot smaller and the probe forms the key. Well, give 'em time.
* * *
What a big shocker: Toyota tries to get favorable terms for itself even when it comes to compliance with safety regulations. This doesn't make Toyota bad.
I understood why Ford decided it was cheaper to pay out lawsuits than to fix the Pinto: first off, Pintos only tended to explode if they were missing their gas caps, and second, recalling a million cars for a safety defect which caused a few fatalities out of thousands of crashes would cost a hell of a lot more than paying off a few lawsuits. A corporation must always answer to its stockholders.
In the same vein, I understand why Toyota did all this. It's not evil or wrong, particularly since most of the issues mentioned in this article are not ones which led to fatalities.
Even the problems Toyota is having with unintended acceleration have occurred only in a very tiny fraction of their total production run, and fatal incidents represent an even smaller subset of those incidents. The only "perfectly safe" automobile is the one which is never driven; there are fatalities in the safest cars on the road the same way there are fatalities in the most hideous deathtraps imaginable.
Toyota's the largest automaker in the world; and when you're #1, everyone piles on you.
* * *
I never thought I'd have to defend Toyota. Jesus.
* * *
Vox Day gives us a highly technical description of what's going on with the economy. To be honest, I skimmed it, but found this quote useful:
"This ongoing credit contraction indicates that debt-deflation and economic contraction will continue in the foreseeable future despite the growth of the money supplies and regardless of what the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis happen to report."
"Economic contraction" means our economy is shrinking, not growing. (Three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics--and GDP is a proxy statistic, the worst kind.)
* * *
Around 2:00 is where this BMW motorcycle engine is run at its redline of around 14,000 RPM, and that's when I noticed the rotation of the valve springs. That's why I linked the video.
You rarely get to see a valvetrain in operation, much less at full operating speed. Think about the engine in your car; when you're cruising down the road with your engine running at 2,500 RPM, the valves of one cylinder open and close 1,250 times per minute, which is twenty times a second. 2,500 RPM is a fairly typical cruising speed for most modern engines; it places the engine comfortably within the power and torque bands of the engine and allow for good acceleration (such as for passing) without using an excess of fuel.
At 14,300 RPM, the valves for this cylinder are opening and closing 7,150 times per minute, or 119 times per second. That's at wide-open throttle, of course. This would be where you'd run the thing in a race, where you're trying to go as fast as possible, and a race engine would be designed to maximize horsepower at high RPM.
If you take a look at the tach in your car (assuming it has one) you can expect the redline for your car's engine to be under 8,000 RPM. Most American-made cars will have redlines beneath 6,000, in fact. Both my Escort and my Jeep, for example, have redlines around 5,500.
It takes a lot to build a valvetrain which can last at high RPM. An overhead cam is only the beginning; the springs must be strong and durable, the valves must be made stronger, the keepers, the tolerances, everything must be built with great precision and care, and using premium materials.
The springs must be strong, because otherwise the valves will float; there must be enough spring tension to slap those valves closed before the cam can revolve and open them again. The valves must close in order to contain combustion within the cylinder, but at 14,300 RPM, after your intake stroke you have about 70 microseconds to get the valve shut before the piston reaches top dead center and the spark plug fires.
The fact that air has mass and therefore inertia helps you here. Really: the piston just got done pulling in a charge of air; it's moving back up but the air at the inlet port is still trying to get into the cylinder. You have time to slap the intake valve shut because air has mass and it can't reverse its flow quickly enough to escape from the cylinder before the valve spring has time to close the valve.
...this is the kind of thing which makes machinery so interesting to me. Valve float is another one: the cam is rotating so fast that the valve's inertia works against the tension in the valve springs. The cam pushes on the valve, opening it; and before the valve has even finished rebounding against the spring's tension the cam is opening the valve again. The inertia of the air coming into the cylinder works to contain the explosion, though not well, and some escapes through the exhaust port anyway because the air is flowing that way. But the engine still runs because air has mass.