atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#3446: Good thing I wasn't hungry!

Last night I went to bed right after Sunday's very short blog post. I didn't even brush my teeth or take any pills, and I normally don't feel right and can't sleep if I don't do those things. I slept like a rock until 4:30 AM or so.

I was up for a couple hours this morning, playing a little bit of WoW and chatting with Sailor V while eating a leftover hamburger (made Saturday night) with cole slaw and potato salad from Friday's dinner.

But I ended up in bed again around 7, and slept all freakin' day--until 4. I finally got more than 4 hours of sleep at a time!

So I fiddled with the LD player, getting hungrier and hungrier; finally I took a shower, and then went to K-mart for cat food, Pepsi, and cooking oil.

...Lemonzen brought with her a deep fryer she has never used. It sits on my counter waiting for oil, and once it's filled I can use it to make french fries and other deep-fried goodness. The place I get gyros from says they deep-fry their hot dogs; I'm going to try that, among other things.

* * *

Anthropogenic climate change! "The science is settled!"

Watt's Up With That? has posted a scathing column quoted from another source, "A response to Dr. Paul Bain’s use of ‘denier’ in the scientific literature".

The post is in its entirety a quote from Dr. Robert G Brown, and it begins thus:
The tragic thing about the thoughtless use of a stereotype (denier) is that it reveals that you really think of people in terms of its projected meaning. In particular, even in your response you seem to equate the term “skeptic” with “denier of AGW”.

This is silly. On WUWT most of the skeptics do not “deny” AGW, certainly not the scientists or professional weather people (I myself am a physicist) and honestly, most of the non-scientist skeptics have learned better than that. What they challenge is the catastrophic label and the alleged magnitude of the projected warming on a doubling of CO_2. They challenge this on rather solid empirical grounds and with physical arguments and data analysis that is every bit as scientifically valid as that used to support larger estimates, often obtaining numbers that are in better agreement with observation. For this honest doubt and skepticism that the highly complex global climate models are correct you have the temerity to socially stigmatize them in a scientific journal with a catch-all term that implies that they are as morally reprehensible as those that “deny” that the Nazi Holocaust of genocide against the Jews?
Emphasis his, and then it proceeds to utterly demolish the entirety of the "global warming=man made=apocalypse" notion.

"Please understand that by creating a catch-all label like this, you quite literally are moving the entire discussion outside of the realm of science...into the realm where people do not think at all!"

This is where the climatologists want the debate to occur, because if it remains inside the realm of science they will lose. What they are doing is not science, and everyone involved knows it.

Example: The climate models don't work but they are the basis for the entire claim that the planet is warming.

* * *

Anyway, short shrift on the rest of today's stories. Reason: I hauled my old nonworking LD player out of the basement and discovered that it has a different problem from the one I bought from Ebay.

It throws a U1 code and does nothing. This means it'll take a different part to fix it; but it also means I could take its perfectly usable M holder bracket out and put it into the one I got today.

The unit which arrived today? It is playing a laserdisk as I type this.

I'm gonna go dig out some LDs and binge on anime now.

  • 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.