atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3424: It may have been foolish, but I think I needed it

I feel unbelieveably good right now.

Over the past several days--a week at least and possibly longer--I have been feeling...out of sorts. I don't know how to describe it because I don't know what, exactly, was wrong, and in fact the only reason I can really say I was feeling crummy is due to how much better I feel now. Like coming into the air conditioned house after working outside on a warm summer day, the relief is palpable even though I wasn't consciously aware of any discomfort.

Reminder: "staying busy" is not a substitute for "have fun once in a while".

* * *

Gah...duh...

WorldCon is in Chicago this year. I'm not able to go; I have no money for such things. (And if I'm employed, I won't have the time.)

Well, anyway--good luck to Michael Flynn! Hope you win it, buddy.

* * *

"[F]or cryin’ out loud, lads, find an idea and stick with it!"

First Obama was cool. Now it's raciss to say he's cool, because, uh. Because! Yeah, you crackers just don't get it! You don't understand the oppression of institutional racism!

...you know why? Because lots of Obama's former supporters have realized that if there ever was (or ever will be) a President who's "cool", BHO is not he. The "cool" thing was entirely manufactured by the media, who desperately wanted it to be true, because that way they'd get the youth vote. But this time around the youth vote is having second thoughts because the economy is a total clusterfuck.

So if you say that Obama is cool, you're a racist, because he's not, and everyone has pretty much figured that out--and because it will no longer help him win the election.

* * *

Michelle Malkin has an article up about how the Obama bailout of the UAW totally screwed over the nonunion retirees of various auto and auto-related companies.

This is one I'm going to have to read later, because it's on the dense side.

* * *

But this one's dense for a different reason. Arse Technica sez that we're having colder winters because the Arctic ice is melting.

...

Yeah, that nasty global warming is melting the Arctic ice, and that in turn is shifting our climate so that colder winters are the new normal.

What I really like is the graph they include to prove that Arctic ice is melting. It doesn't show an entire year's cycle, oh no! It shows Jun 1 through Nov 1, because if it went any further than that it would show how arctic ice recovers during winter--and that doesn't fit the "global warming" template.

Further, the graph cherry-picks its data. We're not shown what sea ice did before 2007; why not? We have the "1979-2000 average" trend, but then we ignore six years' worth of data--and I'd like to know what that missing data says, wouldn't you?

Then there's this caption: "With the exception of 2009, all recent years have seen exceptional summertime ice melt." 2009 is not graphed. Where's the data for 2009? Why are you showing every year since 2007 except 2009?

The simple fact is, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever that's unique about the Arctic sea ice melting. It's happened before in history. There are old, old Chinese maps showing the Arctic without ice in it.

This is yet another example of warmistas trying to take examples of weather and telling us that we're changing Earth's climate.

The data set only goes back to 1979 because 1979 was the first time we had the capability to map Arctic sea ice with satellites. Prior to that we had to use ground observations and aerial photography to track it, and there was simply no good way to map all of the Arctic at any particular moment. It took weeks (months) to survey the extent of sea ice and by the time you finished, the data you'd collected at the start didn't match the stuff you collected at the finish.

A satellite can take a series of photographs that map the whole thing on one orbital pass, which not only lets you get an idea of what the entire Arctic is doing, but lets you do it several times a year. (Or per day if that's your bag.)

So, prior to 1979, we have no freakin' clue how Arctic sea ice responded to variations in global temperature. These guys are trying to convince us that 1979 was the "ideal" condition for the Arctic, and that any deviation from it is due to human carbon emissions, because We All Agree That Anthropogenic Global Warming Is Proven. The Science Is Settled.

*rolleyes*

Meanwhile the AGW guys are still making shit up. I'm going to blockquote what Borepatch said:
So the government funded a study to the tune of $300,000, and the study was so shabby that bloggers shot it to pieces in two weeks. But all you Deniers need to just shut up because the Scienciness is Settled™.
Emphasis his, and yeah! Shut up, you flat-Earthers! You guys are dicks!

* * *

This is why Jerry Brown wanted to exempt California's high-speed boondoggle from eco-lawsuits. Because they have to disrupt so many ecologies to build it, and the train to nowhere is important!!!!11one-one

It's so important that we must (temporarily) abandon all democratic principles and freedoms in order to build it, because we need it! We NEED!!! it! We need high-speed rail so badly, you hicks in the hinterlands can't even conceive of how badly we are suffering for lack of it!

If we can only build this one high-speed rail line, then people will understand how beneficial and necessary high-speed rail is! We just need to build one, and once the cities linked by it become unstoppable economic powerhouses, we can demonstrate all the benefits and joys of high speed rail and everyone will join us!

Eh? Oh. /idiot

I'll say it again: if it were economically necessary, we'd have it; we'd have corporations eagerly lining up to build a huge network of high-speed rail lines because they could make money on such an investment.

The fact that there is no money to be made in high-speed rail ought to be a freakin' clue how necessary it is.

But I've got another example to demonstrate how unnecessary passenger rail is in this country.

Amtrak was formed in 1971.

In 1971 passenger rail travel had become so unprofitable that the government had to step in and take over. If Amtrak had not been formed there would be very, very little intercity passenger train travel taking place in the United States.

The railroads simply could not make money schlepping people around the country, so they got out of the business. The government stepped in to keep intercity rail travel alive--but Amtrak has never turned a profit, not once in any of its 41 years of existence.

If you can't make money doing it--if people are generally unwilling to pay you for it--it's not economically necessary.

* * *

Note: my fingers kept trying to write "high-speed fail".

* * *

Anyway, I'm awake, the blog post is finished, and I've got chores and errands to attend to. I'd better get moving.
Subscribe

  • #7858: It must be true.

    Fatzbuub is "fact-checking" the hell out of the "green truck" story, so it's probably the truth: California's dumb econazi laws are causing a real…

  • #7857: Useless, worthless.

    So, the transportation secretary, Pete Buttplug, is on "paternity leave" with his husband, because they adopted two highly unfortunate babies, and…

  • #7856: Ah, so now they have produced a scapegoat.

    Boeing, I mean: Former chief technical pilot for Boeing 737 MAX project has been indicted. Boeing is throwing him under the bus so that none of…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    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