Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Chemtrails, DHMO, Why?
Anybody know of any research into why otherwise apparently intelligent people believe in chemtrails or want to ban DHMO? Or hundreds of other really stupid things - like almost anything they heard on XXXX XXXXX' (Don't want to advertise a loon.) radio show/youtube channel.
It can't be just a lack of education.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Lawn Madness, Part II
It's the end of April, 2012 and I have the results:
First, the neighbors. Lot of hunters on this street. Several asked if I was planting a deer plot last fall. Most of them looked at me like I was crazy when I explained.
It stayed hot and dry longer than usual so the fall crop in the lawn did not do well. However, winter was mild enough to allow radishes to over-winter. Spring brought flowers and seeds but no significant root growth. It also brought the "When you going to cut your grass" question.
Conclusion: Successful use of radishes to aerate soil like mine needs a wetter fall and probably much more nitrogen fertilizer. It may work on less concrete-like (At 200+ lbs, I can bounce on a spade when it is dry and it only goes in an inch.) lawns. Also try half again the recommended amount of lawn nitrogen.
(Did the "new" blogger eat line breaks? I can't make them appear.)
Sunday, July 03, 2011
Lawn Madness!
The Plan and the Trial Plot
We all know the “rules” for a purty lawn: Fertilize, add organic matter, mow regularly, aerate, and kill weeds and lawn insects by any means necessary. For some of us, add de-thatch.
Mea cupla. For several years, including a couple of hard winters following extra dry summers, I did none of those things.
Now, my once beautiful lawn growing in Yazoo clay (for the unfamiliar, think concrete), is a patchwork of Bermuda, Zoysia, St Augustine, weeds, and bare spots.
Lot of work ahead, right? Rent an aerator and walk around behind it for a couple of hours to make 2-3 inch deep holes. Bring in huge amounts of suitable material to fill the holes you just made and spend even more hours raking it into them. And the expense, both in dollars and time; too much.
So I got to thinking, “Is there a way to get the holes and add organics at the same time?” Plants! The only plants I know that are deep rooted and annual are carrots and radish. Carrots have teeny tiny seed, too hard to deal with, so I went on the hunt to see how deep radish roots go.
Turns out, I’m not the first one. Check the radish in this video.
It’s the biggest radish I’ve ever seen. You might use it in rotation to help garden soil but that’s too big for the yard. Time to contact some radish experts.
Gourmet Seed International, LLC suggested Icicle and Long Scarlet when asked about long rooted ones with greens no larger than common lawn weeds. Both are prime for eating when 6 inches long. That means they’ll get even longer when left alone.
Twice the depth of the machine with the organic matter already added. Perfect!
Perfect plans sometimes fail so there is a test plot in progress as I write this.
The Test Plot
Day 1. Early morning (before 10.) Scratch up ground with garden rake, broadcast seed, scruff it up again to help ensure good soil contact. Water. Water again in late afternoon.
Day 3. Watering 15 min. morning and evening to keep soil moist in 100 degree heat and less than 30% humidity. Despite radish being cool season plants, I see signs of germination.
Day 6. It's July 6, way too warm and it hasn't rained once. Germination has been excellent. Reducing watering to "as needed" which will probably be every 3-4 days if rains don't come. Harvest time is 25-28 days. Next update will be the end of July if nothing interesting happens.
Day 32. They're a great size for lawn weeds. Not too big, not so small they'll get lost. No radishes tho. Not unexpected since temps have been 10, 15, or even more degrees hotter than ideal. Will plant the front lawn in them 6 to 8 weeks before the first frost date.
May or may not do a contiuation on that.
We all know the “rules” for a purty lawn: Fertilize, add organic matter, mow regularly, aerate, and kill weeds and lawn insects by any means necessary. For some of us, add de-thatch.
Mea cupla. For several years, including a couple of hard winters following extra dry summers, I did none of those things.
Now, my once beautiful lawn growing in Yazoo clay (for the unfamiliar, think concrete), is a patchwork of Bermuda, Zoysia, St Augustine, weeds, and bare spots.
Lot of work ahead, right? Rent an aerator and walk around behind it for a couple of hours to make 2-3 inch deep holes. Bring in huge amounts of suitable material to fill the holes you just made and spend even more hours raking it into them. And the expense, both in dollars and time; too much.
So I got to thinking, “Is there a way to get the holes and add organics at the same time?” Plants! The only plants I know that are deep rooted and annual are carrots and radish. Carrots have teeny tiny seed, too hard to deal with, so I went on the hunt to see how deep radish roots go.
Turns out, I’m not the first one. Check the radish in this video.
It’s the biggest radish I’ve ever seen. You might use it in rotation to help garden soil but that’s too big for the yard. Time to contact some radish experts.
Gourmet Seed International, LLC suggested Icicle and Long Scarlet when asked about long rooted ones with greens no larger than common lawn weeds. Both are prime for eating when 6 inches long. That means they’ll get even longer when left alone.
Twice the depth of the machine with the organic matter already added. Perfect!
Perfect plans sometimes fail so there is a test plot in progress as I write this.
The Test Plot
Day 1. Early morning (before 10.) Scratch up ground with garden rake, broadcast seed, scruff it up again to help ensure good soil contact. Water. Water again in late afternoon.
Day 3. Watering 15 min. morning and evening to keep soil moist in 100 degree heat and less than 30% humidity. Despite radish being cool season plants, I see signs of germination.
Day 6. It's July 6, way too warm and it hasn't rained once. Germination has been excellent. Reducing watering to "as needed" which will probably be every 3-4 days if rains don't come. Harvest time is 25-28 days. Next update will be the end of July if nothing interesting happens.
Day 32. They're a great size for lawn weeds. Not too big, not so small they'll get lost. No radishes tho. Not unexpected since temps have been 10, 15, or even more degrees hotter than ideal. Will plant the front lawn in them 6 to 8 weeks before the first frost date.
May or may not do a contiuation on that.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
The Pizza Wars
They’re on! The big chains are at it.
Little Caesars may have fired the first shot with their 18 inch guns. Yes, that’s right, an 18 inch pizza when 14 is the normal size for a large pizza.
Domino’s joined in by changing both their crust and sauce. Rumor has it you can now tell the difference between the crust and the box.
Other chains joined the battle and then . . .
And then . . .
And then Pizza Hut dropped a nuke. In the history of nuclear warfare, names like Fat Man and Little Boy have now been joined by Any.
Any crust*, Any size, Any toppings, $10. And they mean it. (*Stuffed is not a crust. It’s cheese rolled into the edges of the crust. Probably because of the additional time needed to make one, it costs $1 more.)
More changes are coming; you can almost smell them in the air. Or maybe that’s the smoke coming from corporate offices melting down brainstorming their next steps.
What does this mean?
For you and me, it means eating more pizza, maybe better pizza, and it probably means more delivery drivers on the road. Watch out for them, the job’s dangerous enough without us on the road eating our picked up pizzas.
------------
SPAM ALERT
Anybody using their personal vehicle for business can deduct mileage from their taxes. I created it for others but those pizza drivers can use the Business Mileage Worksheet and save a lot of money. It’s under $2 here: travelersmassage.net
Little Caesars may have fired the first shot with their 18 inch guns. Yes, that’s right, an 18 inch pizza when 14 is the normal size for a large pizza.
Domino’s joined in by changing both their crust and sauce. Rumor has it you can now tell the difference between the crust and the box.
Other chains joined the battle and then . . .
And then . . .
And then Pizza Hut dropped a nuke. In the history of nuclear warfare, names like Fat Man and Little Boy have now been joined by Any.
Any crust*, Any size, Any toppings, $10. And they mean it. (*Stuffed is not a crust. It’s cheese rolled into the edges of the crust. Probably because of the additional time needed to make one, it costs $1 more.)
More changes are coming; you can almost smell them in the air. Or maybe that’s the smoke coming from corporate offices melting down brainstorming their next steps.
What does this mean?
For you and me, it means eating more pizza, maybe better pizza, and it probably means more delivery drivers on the road. Watch out for them, the job’s dangerous enough without us on the road eating our picked up pizzas.
------------
SPAM ALERT
Anybody using their personal vehicle for business can deduct mileage from their taxes. I created it for others but those pizza drivers can use the Business Mileage Worksheet and save a lot of money. It’s under $2 here: travelersmassage.net
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Three-Thirty
So I was sleeping soundly, I think, last night when I woke up wanting an olive or three. As I was standing there in front of the open fridge door, some questions came to mind.
Not the logical questions you might expect from a finely tuned mind such as mine: “Why did I wake up?” “Why Olives?” “Could this mean I am pregnant?”
Nooo, not those questions. These were much more insidious. Questions like: “Why these stupid skinny bottles you can’t get a spoon in?” “Who decided man should eat bitter, half ripe fruit?” “Red and green, should these be Christmas food?” “What madman said “Hey, let’s rip the seeds out and stuff these little red things in.’?” “What the hell is a pimento anyway?”
Not the logical questions you might expect from a finely tuned mind such as mine: “Why did I wake up?” “Why Olives?” “Could this mean I am pregnant?”
Nooo, not those questions. These were much more insidious. Questions like: “Why these stupid skinny bottles you can’t get a spoon in?” “Who decided man should eat bitter, half ripe fruit?” “Red and green, should these be Christmas food?” “What madman said “Hey, let’s rip the seeds out and stuff these little red things in.’?” “What the hell is a pimento anyway?”
Thursday, August 27, 2009
First They Came For . . .
To paraphrase Pastor Martin Niemöller:
In Obamaland they first came for the banks,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a banker.
Then they came for industry,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an industrialist.
Then they came for those who did not support single payer,
and I didn't speak up because I was uninformed.
Then they came for the media,
and I didn't speak up because I was a believer.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
In Obamaland they first came for the banks,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a banker.
Then they came for industry,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't an industrialist.
Then they came for those who did not support single payer,
and I didn't speak up because I was uninformed.
Then they came for the media,
and I didn't speak up because I was a believer.
Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Lies About Lies
Moveon.org recently sent out an email claiming to debunk lies about health care. Since the House bill is available online, their claims were easy to check.
The “lies” are listed by number. They are followed by the language from the actual bill as posted on the House of Representative’s official web site.
Here’s the web site for anyone who wishes to verify: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Line numbers are included for ease of reference.
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!
The bill has senior counseling by someone with a fiduciary responsibility to the state on this and more:
Pg 426-7
4 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—
12 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual’s family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require
23 ments of the State in which such individual re
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi
25 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
1 able to communicate those wishes, including re
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).
So the white coats who work for the government and have that responsibility to save government money, the white coats most elderly respect, even defer to, are going to come in and talk to them about death instead of life. And we already know borat favors letting the old die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
OK, technically it is not euthanasia but it is as close as you can get without putting the plastic bag over their heads.
Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!
Page 16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
Unless your current coverage pleases The Government, it will die because it is not allowed to enroll new members.
Pg 17
8 ( GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
And if it survives 5 years with no new members, The Chosen one will kill it or force it to change so that it is no longer the plan you had.
Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!
Page 71:
(ii) BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS.—
7 Amounts appropriated under clause (i),
8 and outlays flowing from such appropria
9 tions, shall not be taken into account for
10 purposes of any budget enforcement proce
11 dures including allocations under section
12 302(a) and ( of the Balanced Budget
13 and Emergency Deficit Control Act and
14 budget resolutions for fiscal years during
15 which appropriations are made from the
16 Trust Fund.
17 (iii) LIMITATION TO AVAILABLE
18 FUNDS.—The Secretary has the authority
19 to stop taking applications for participa
20 tion in the program or take such other
21 steps in reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.
There’s your rationing. With a planned $2 Billion cut to Medicare and 80 million baby boomers to hit the system in the next few years, the only question is 2 years or 5 years before it starts.
Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!
Secretly? They have made no secret about cutting Medicare funding. Under his proposed budget Medicare Advantage as we know it is a goner. See the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/26/obama-budget-cuts-medicare-advantage-helps-generic-biotech/
And the CBO chief’s testimony on these “savings”: http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2009test/022509detest.pdf
Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
Turbo Tax Timmy says we're so broke we need to go deeper in debt:
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged Congress to set new statutory debt limit, increasing it from the current USD 12.1 trillion limit.
In a letter to the US lawmakers, Geithner called on the US Congress to act swiftly before the current public debt hits its limits by mid-October.
"It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations," noted the US Treasury Secretary in his letter published on Monday.
Meanwhile analysts have expressed dissatisfaction with the management of the US economy, which has created uncertainty about the amount of additional debts that the world's largest financial hub can handle. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103098§ionid=3510203
Let us not forget The President Himself told us we are already broke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzGz1xR7DQ
The CBO, for those who can remember past last week, says obamacare will add an additional Trillion plus. If his own words and the need to increase the debt limit don’t indicate we are already broke, healthcare will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
The “lies” are listed by number. They are followed by the language from the actual bill as posted on the House of Representative’s official web site.
Here’s the web site for anyone who wishes to verify: http://docs.house.gov/edlabor/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf
Line numbers are included for ease of reference.
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!
The bill has senior counseling by someone with a fiduciary responsibility to the state on this and more:
Pg 426-7
4 ‘‘(E) An explanation by the practitioner of the
5 continuum of end-of-life services and supports avail
6 able, including palliative care and hospice, and bene
7 fits for such services and supports that are available
8 under this title.
9 ‘‘(F)(i) Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of
10 orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar
11 orders, which shall include—
12 ‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of
13 such an order is beneficial to the individual and
14 the individual’s family and the reasons why
15 such an order should be updated periodically as
16 the health of the individual changes;
17 ‘‘(II) the information needed for an indi
18 vidual or legal surrogate to make informed deci
19 sions regarding the completion of such an
20 order; and
21 ‘‘(III) the identification of resources that
22 an individual may use to determine the require
23 ments of the State in which such individual re
24 sides so that the treatment wishes of that indi
25 vidual will be carried out if the individual is un-
1 able to communicate those wishes, including re
2 quirements regarding the designation of a sur
3 rogate decisionmaker (also known as a health
4 care proxy).
So the white coats who work for the government and have that responsibility to save government money, the white coats most elderly respect, even defer to, are going to come in and talk to them about death instead of life. And we already know borat favors letting the old die. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-dQfb8WQvo
OK, technically it is not euthanasia but it is as close as you can get without putting the plastic bag over their heads.
Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you into a government plan!!!
Page 16
1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
Unless your current coverage pleases The Government, it will die because it is not allowed to enroll new members.
Pg 17
8 ( GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT9
BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
And if it survives 5 years with no new members, The Chosen one will kill it or force it to change so that it is no longer the plan you had.
Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!
Page 71:
(ii) BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS.—
7 Amounts appropriated under clause (i),
8 and outlays flowing from such appropria
9 tions, shall not be taken into account for
10 purposes of any budget enforcement proce
11 dures including allocations under section
12 302(a) and ( of the Balanced Budget
13 and Emergency Deficit Control Act and
14 budget resolutions for fiscal years during
15 which appropriations are made from the
16 Trust Fund.
17 (iii) LIMITATION TO AVAILABLE
18 FUNDS.—The Secretary has the authority
19 to stop taking applications for participa
20 tion in the program or take such other
21 steps in reducing expenditures under the
22 reinsurance program in order to ensure
23 that expenditures under the reinsurance
24 program do not exceed the funds available
25 under this subsection.
There’s your rationing. With a planned $2 Billion cut to Medicare and 80 million baby boomers to hit the system in the next few years, the only question is 2 years or 5 years before it starts.
Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare benefits!!!
Secretly? They have made no secret about cutting Medicare funding. Under his proposed budget Medicare Advantage as we know it is a goner. See the WSJ: http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/02/26/obama-budget-cuts-medicare-advantage-helps-generic-biotech/
And the CBO chief’s testimony on these “savings”: http://finance.senate.gov/hearings/testimony/2009test/022509detest.pdf
Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!
Turbo Tax Timmy says we're so broke we need to go deeper in debt:
US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has urged Congress to set new statutory debt limit, increasing it from the current USD 12.1 trillion limit.
In a letter to the US lawmakers, Geithner called on the US Congress to act swiftly before the current public debt hits its limits by mid-October.
"It is critically important that Congress act before the limit is reached so that citizens and investors here and around the world can remain confident that the United States will always meet its obligations," noted the US Treasury Secretary in his letter published on Monday.
Meanwhile analysts have expressed dissatisfaction with the management of the US economy, which has created uncertainty about the amount of additional debts that the world's largest financial hub can handle. http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=103098§ionid=3510203
Let us not forget The President Himself told us we are already broke: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzGz1xR7DQ
The CBO, for those who can remember past last week, says obamacare will add an additional Trillion plus. If his own words and the need to increase the debt limit don’t indicate we are already broke, healthcare will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
The Apology
The Obama recently accused, after admitting he did not know the facts, the Cambridge police of acting stupidly.
He then offered a public “apology.”
Those of us who are familiar with children know that was no apology. It was a string of excuses and an attempt to pass the blame for his own stupid comments. “But Mom, Tommy wouldn’t give me his truck.”
As I write this, some of the true believers are expecting borat obummer to offer a new version of his apology, one that may contain real apology words like “mistake,” “sorry,” or even “I was wrong.” I suspect, based on past experience with the Racist Rev Wright, that this new apology will be forthcoming in a few days. However, as with the children in our lives, this will be no more a real apology than when little Billy apologized to Tommy only after being threatened with missing dinner. Just as obummer only tossed Wright under the bus after realizing he could lose votes.
What have we learned from this?
Well, if Sgt. James Crowley were black and Henry Louis Gates white, anyone jumping to the conclusion the officer was wrong would be labeled a racist.
Do we call obama a racist? I’ll leave that decision up to you but at the very least, we have to realize barry is not the post-racialist he pretends to be. Especially in light of the way he tried to tie the racism of the past to the events with no knowledge of the facts.
--------------
As an aside, is it just me or when obama talks, does it remind you of the way real mouths are stuffed into anime cartoon faces
He then offered a public “apology.”
Those of us who are familiar with children know that was no apology. It was a string of excuses and an attempt to pass the blame for his own stupid comments. “But Mom, Tommy wouldn’t give me his truck.”
As I write this, some of the true believers are expecting borat obummer to offer a new version of his apology, one that may contain real apology words like “mistake,” “sorry,” or even “I was wrong.” I suspect, based on past experience with the Racist Rev Wright, that this new apology will be forthcoming in a few days. However, as with the children in our lives, this will be no more a real apology than when little Billy apologized to Tommy only after being threatened with missing dinner. Just as obummer only tossed Wright under the bus after realizing he could lose votes.
What have we learned from this?
Well, if Sgt. James Crowley were black and Henry Louis Gates white, anyone jumping to the conclusion the officer was wrong would be labeled a racist.
Do we call obama a racist? I’ll leave that decision up to you but at the very least, we have to realize barry is not the post-racialist he pretends to be. Especially in light of the way he tried to tie the racism of the past to the events with no knowledge of the facts.
--------------
As an aside, is it just me or when obama talks, does it remind you of the way real mouths are stuffed into anime cartoon faces
Sunday, July 19, 2009
IE 8: Malware from Microsoft
I "upgraded" to IE 8 yesterday because several sites had messages they were about to stop supporting 6.
Installation:
Tries to change your preferred search (to bing, of course)
Changes your homepage without asking.
Installs bing as a second homepage so both tabs open when you start IE.
Does not appear to have a way to delete temp files without deleting cookies too.
Hides the "Temporary Internet Files" folder in a way I haven't figured out how to undo - including making hidden and system files/folders visible and using the attrib command.
Has some new way for web pages to access your system.
Adds all the microcrap, radio, money, msn, etc to your "favorites" at the top of the list.
In short, another entry on the list of "Why my next computer will be a Mac."
Installation:
Tries to change your preferred search (to bing, of course)
Changes your homepage without asking.
Installs bing as a second homepage so both tabs open when you start IE.
Does not appear to have a way to delete temp files without deleting cookies too.
Hides the "Temporary Internet Files" folder in a way I haven't figured out how to undo - including making hidden and system files/folders visible and using the attrib command.
Has some new way for web pages to access your system.
Adds all the microcrap, radio, money, msn, etc to your "favorites" at the top of the list.
In short, another entry on the list of "Why my next computer will be a Mac."
Saturday, July 18, 2009
The Czar Letter to Obama
TO:
Barry Sorento
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Barry,
It has come to my attention that you have now appointed thirty-some individuals who may reasonably be called czars.
Clearly, this many individuals need some sort of supervision to make sure they stay on message and do not make conflicting statements.
Equally clearly, you do not have time to do this personally as you jet around the world apologizing for America and taking your wife on dates. If you did, Joe “The Gaffer” Biden would not be such an embarrassment to your administration.
I have, therefore, taken the liberty of appointing myself the czar coordinator, the czar czar if you will.
I now request you make use of some of that $787 Billion in stimulus to stimulate this unemployed American by making this a paid position at a salary commensurate with the duties.
Oh, and don’t worry about my fitting in with your other appointees. I can file fraudulent amended tax returns since tax fraud seems to be a job requirement under your administration.
Sincerely,
An American in Need of Real Stimulus.
Barry Sorento
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Barry,
It has come to my attention that you have now appointed thirty-some individuals who may reasonably be called czars.
Clearly, this many individuals need some sort of supervision to make sure they stay on message and do not make conflicting statements.
Equally clearly, you do not have time to do this personally as you jet around the world apologizing for America and taking your wife on dates. If you did, Joe “The Gaffer” Biden would not be such an embarrassment to your administration.
I have, therefore, taken the liberty of appointing myself the czar coordinator, the czar czar if you will.
I now request you make use of some of that $787 Billion in stimulus to stimulate this unemployed American by making this a paid position at a salary commensurate with the duties.
Oh, and don’t worry about my fitting in with your other appointees. I can file fraudulent amended tax returns since tax fraud seems to be a job requirement under your administration.
Sincerely,
An American in Need of Real Stimulus.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Celebrity Foundations Piss Me Off
I was watching TV earlier when I realized celebrity foundations piss me off. You can thank Michael J. Fox for this revelation.
I am sure most of us know he suffers from Parkinson’s. Many of us know he now has his own organization.
And that is what pisses me off. Why the hell should we support this foundation – or any other started by a celebrity - after they or someone close to them contracts a disease?
In Fox’s case, as with breast cancer, spinal injury, diabetes, and a host of other diseases, there are a number of existing organizations. The National Parkinson Foundation (http://www.parkinson.org/Page.aspx?pid=201) has been around since 1957.
Why does Fox need his own? Does it somehow improve on the efforts of existing organizations? Wouldn’t throwing his support behind then do as much or more good than starting his own? Does he receive some income form it or does it just feed his ego?
There are a few exceptions to this. Celebrities who have worked for others for years, given their time and effort, used their face and power to help others with no personal connection. Jerry Lewis comes to mind. Although he has suffered from prostate cancer, diabetes, and pulmonary fibrosis, he is best known for his work with the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) telethons. (Some great video clips from past telethons on the web site: href=http://www.mda.org/telethon/ )
I suggest when we see some celebrity starting a foundation we ask ourselves if they wouldn’t do more good by throwing their support behind others already doing the work. Then we find those existing foundations and support them.
I am sure most of us know he suffers from Parkinson’s. Many of us know he now has his own organization.
And that is what pisses me off. Why the hell should we support this foundation – or any other started by a celebrity - after they or someone close to them contracts a disease?
In Fox’s case, as with breast cancer, spinal injury, diabetes, and a host of other diseases, there are a number of existing organizations. The National Parkinson Foundation (http://www.parkinson.org/Page.aspx?pid=201) has been around since 1957.
Why does Fox need his own? Does it somehow improve on the efforts of existing organizations? Wouldn’t throwing his support behind then do as much or more good than starting his own? Does he receive some income form it or does it just feed his ego?
There are a few exceptions to this. Celebrities who have worked for others for years, given their time and effort, used their face and power to help others with no personal connection. Jerry Lewis comes to mind. Although he has suffered from prostate cancer, diabetes, and pulmonary fibrosis, he is best known for his work with the Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) telethons. (Some great video clips from past telethons on the web site: href=http://www.mda.org/telethon/ )
I suggest when we see some celebrity starting a foundation we ask ourselves if they wouldn’t do more good by throwing their support behind others already doing the work. Then we find those existing foundations and support them.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Global Warming: Saved By The Sun
An excellent article by astronomer David Whitehouse explaining why many scientists believe the the sun is behind global warming and why the current extended sunspot minimum may presage cooling, as much as 1 1/2 degrees C by 2020 - way more than the warming the GW people predict.
Lifted from The Independent:
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Something is happening to our Sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc. We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a while now with no sign it's on its way any time soon.
Sunspots dark magnetic blotches on the Sun's surface come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle of activity first noticed in 1843. It's related to the motion of super-hot, electrically charged gas inside the Sun a kind of internal conveyor belt where vast sub-surface rivers of gas take 40 years to circulate from the equator to the poles and back. Somehow, in a way not very well understood, this circulation produces the sunspot cycle in which every 11 years there is a sunspot maximum followed by a minimum. But recently the Sun's internal circulation has been failing. In May 2006 this conveyor belt had slowed to a crawl a record low. Nasa scientist David Hathaway said: "It's off the bottom of the charts... this has important repercussions for future solar activity." What's more, it's not the only indicator that the Sun is up to something.
Sunspots can be long or short, weak or strong and sometimes they can go away altogether. Following the discovery of the cycle, astronomers looked back through previous observations and were able to see it clearly until they reached the 17th century, when it seemed to disappear. It turned out to be a real absence, not one caused by a lack of observations. Astronomers called it the "Maunder Minimum." It was an astonishing discovery: our Sun can change. Between 1645 and 1715 sunspots were rare. About 50 were observed; there should have been 50,000.
Ever since the sunspot cycle was discovered, researchers have looked for its rhythm superimposed on the Earth's climate. In some cases it's there but usually at low levels. But there was something strange about the time when the sunspots disappeared that left scientists to ponder if the sun's unusual behaviour could have something to do with the fact that the 17th century was also a time when the Earth's northern hemisphere chilled with devastating consequences.
Scientists call that event the "Little Ice Age" and it affected Europe at just the wrong time. In response to the more benign climate of the earlier Medieval Warm Period, Europe's population may have doubled. But in the mid-17th century demographic growth stopped and in some areas fell, in part due to the reduced crop yields caused by climate change. Bread prices doubled and then quintupled and hunger weakened the population. The Italian historian Majolino Bisaccioni suggested that the wave of bad weather and revolutions might be due to the influence of the stars. But the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli speculated that fluctuations in the number of sunspots might be to blame, for he had noticed they were absent.
Looking back through sunspot records reveals many periods when the Sun's activity was high and low and in general they are related to warm and cool climatic periods. As well as the Little Ice Age, there was the weak Sun and the cold Iron Age, the active sun and the warm Bronze Age. Scientists cannot readily explain how the Sun's activity affects the Earth but it is an observational correlation that the Sun's moods have a climatic effect on the Earth.
Today's climate change consensus is that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the world and that we must act to curb them to reduce the projected temperature increase estimated at probably between 1.8C and 4.0C by the century's end. But throughout the 20th century, solar cycles had been increasing in strength. Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun's activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years. Other solar parameters have been changing as well, such as the magnetic field the Sun sheds, which has almost doubled in the past century. But then things turned. In only the past decade or so the Sun has started a decline in activity, and the lateness of cycle 24 is an indicator.
Astronomers are watching the Sun, hoping to see the first stirrings of cycle 24. It should have arrived last December. The United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted it would start in March 2007. Now they estimate March 2008, but they will soon have to make that even later. The first indications that the Sun is emerging from its current sunspot minimum will be the appearance of small spots at high latitude. They usually occur some 12-20 months before the start of a new cycle. These spots haven't appeared yet so cycle 24 will probably not begin to take place until 2009 at the earliest. The longer we have to wait for cycle 24, the weaker it is likely to be. Such behaviour is usually followed by cooler temperatures on Earth.
The past decade has been warmer than previous ones. It is the result of a rapid increase in global temperature between 1978 and 1998. Since then average temperatures have held at a high, though steady, level. Many computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years. But those projections do not take into account the change in the Sun's behaviour. The tardiness of cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun's reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020. This is larger than most sensible predictions of man-made global warming over this period.
It's something we must take seriously because what happened in the 17th century is bound to happen again some time. Recent work studying the periods when our Sun loses its sunspots, along with data on other Sun-like stars that may be behaving in the same way, suggests that our Sun may spend between 10 and 25 per cent of the time in this state. Perhaps the lateness of cycle 24 might even be the start of another Little Ice Age. If so, then our Sun might come to our rescue over climate change, mitigating mankind's influence and allowing us more time to act. It might even be the case that the Earth's response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man's influence on climate change. We don't know. We must keep watching the sun.
Lifted from The Independent:
Wednesday, 5 December 2007
Something is happening to our Sun. It has to do with sunspots, or rather the activity cycle their coming and going signifies. After a period of exceptionally high activity in the 20th century, our Sun has suddenly gone exceptionally quiet. Months have passed with no spots visible on its disc. We are at the end of one cycle of activity and astronomers are waiting for the sunspots to return and mark the start of the next, the so-called cycle 24. They have been waiting for a while now with no sign it's on its way any time soon.
Sunspots dark magnetic blotches on the Sun's surface come and go in a roughly 11-year cycle of activity first noticed in 1843. It's related to the motion of super-hot, electrically charged gas inside the Sun a kind of internal conveyor belt where vast sub-surface rivers of gas take 40 years to circulate from the equator to the poles and back. Somehow, in a way not very well understood, this circulation produces the sunspot cycle in which every 11 years there is a sunspot maximum followed by a minimum. But recently the Sun's internal circulation has been failing. In May 2006 this conveyor belt had slowed to a crawl a record low. Nasa scientist David Hathaway said: "It's off the bottom of the charts... this has important repercussions for future solar activity." What's more, it's not the only indicator that the Sun is up to something.
Sunspots can be long or short, weak or strong and sometimes they can go away altogether. Following the discovery of the cycle, astronomers looked back through previous observations and were able to see it clearly until they reached the 17th century, when it seemed to disappear. It turned out to be a real absence, not one caused by a lack of observations. Astronomers called it the "Maunder Minimum." It was an astonishing discovery: our Sun can change. Between 1645 and 1715 sunspots were rare. About 50 were observed; there should have been 50,000.
Ever since the sunspot cycle was discovered, researchers have looked for its rhythm superimposed on the Earth's climate. In some cases it's there but usually at low levels. But there was something strange about the time when the sunspots disappeared that left scientists to ponder if the sun's unusual behaviour could have something to do with the fact that the 17th century was also a time when the Earth's northern hemisphere chilled with devastating consequences.
Scientists call that event the "Little Ice Age" and it affected Europe at just the wrong time. In response to the more benign climate of the earlier Medieval Warm Period, Europe's population may have doubled. But in the mid-17th century demographic growth stopped and in some areas fell, in part due to the reduced crop yields caused by climate change. Bread prices doubled and then quintupled and hunger weakened the population. The Italian historian Majolino Bisaccioni suggested that the wave of bad weather and revolutions might be due to the influence of the stars. But the Jesuit astronomer Giovanni Battista Riccioli speculated that fluctuations in the number of sunspots might be to blame, for he had noticed they were absent.
Looking back through sunspot records reveals many periods when the Sun's activity was high and low and in general they are related to warm and cool climatic periods. As well as the Little Ice Age, there was the weak Sun and the cold Iron Age, the active sun and the warm Bronze Age. Scientists cannot readily explain how the Sun's activity affects the Earth but it is an observational correlation that the Sun's moods have a climatic effect on the Earth.
Today's climate change consensus is that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the world and that we must act to curb them to reduce the projected temperature increase estimated at probably between 1.8C and 4.0C by the century's end. But throughout the 20th century, solar cycles had been increasing in strength. Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun's activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years. Other solar parameters have been changing as well, such as the magnetic field the Sun sheds, which has almost doubled in the past century. But then things turned. In only the past decade or so the Sun has started a decline in activity, and the lateness of cycle 24 is an indicator.
Astronomers are watching the Sun, hoping to see the first stirrings of cycle 24. It should have arrived last December. The United States' National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted it would start in March 2007. Now they estimate March 2008, but they will soon have to make that even later. The first indications that the Sun is emerging from its current sunspot minimum will be the appearance of small spots at high latitude. They usually occur some 12-20 months before the start of a new cycle. These spots haven't appeared yet so cycle 24 will probably not begin to take place until 2009 at the earliest. The longer we have to wait for cycle 24, the weaker it is likely to be. Such behaviour is usually followed by cooler temperatures on Earth.
The past decade has been warmer than previous ones. It is the result of a rapid increase in global temperature between 1978 and 1998. Since then average temperatures have held at a high, though steady, level. Many computer climate projections suggest that the global temperatures will start to rise again in a few years. But those projections do not take into account the change in the Sun's behaviour. The tardiness of cycle 24 indicates that we might be entering a period of low solar activity that may counteract man-made greenhouse temperature increases. Some members of the Russian Academy of Sciences say we may be at the start of a period like that seen between 1790 and 1820, a minor decline in solar activity called the Dalton Minimum. They estimate that the Sun's reduced activity may cause a global temperature drop of 1.5C by 2020. This is larger than most sensible predictions of man-made global warming over this period.
It's something we must take seriously because what happened in the 17th century is bound to happen again some time. Recent work studying the periods when our Sun loses its sunspots, along with data on other Sun-like stars that may be behaving in the same way, suggests that our Sun may spend between 10 and 25 per cent of the time in this state. Perhaps the lateness of cycle 24 might even be the start of another Little Ice Age. If so, then our Sun might come to our rescue over climate change, mitigating mankind's influence and allowing us more time to act. It might even be the case that the Earth's response to low solar activity will overturn many of our assumptions about man's influence on climate change. We don't know. We must keep watching the sun.
Friday, March 07, 2008
An Open Letter to the UN
Be sure to check the credentials of the signers:
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line
by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Close
Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Dec. 13, 2007
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Secretary-General,
Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.
The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line
by government representatives. The great majority of IPCC contributors and reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.
Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:
z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.
z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.
z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.
In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.
The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.
Yours faithfully,
Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia
William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg
Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany
Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal
Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.
Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin
Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma
Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University
Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia
Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands
Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario
David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,' Australia
William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame
Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia
R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa
Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany
Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay
Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden
Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut
Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia
Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona
Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA
Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis
Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia
Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand
Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007
William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology
Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands
Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands
The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.
Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand
William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.
Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors
Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany
John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand
Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.
Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph
John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia
Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand
Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University
Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia
Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden
Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic
John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia
David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University
Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia
Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia
R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University
Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota
Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan
Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences
Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force
R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology
Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.
Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA
S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service
L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario
Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden
Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC
Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia
Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia
Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany
Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia
Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia
A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy
Close
Monday, December 24, 2007
Drive Like A Dumb Ass Day
Announcing the first annual “Drive Like A Dumb Ass Day” to be held January 31, 2008.
We dedicate the first annual event to the person driving the State Highway Patrol car, license MHP J46 northbound on highway 49 at about 15:30 on 21 December, 2007.
The honoree first came to our attention south of McGee as he rushed up on traffic still accelerating. Said driver was last seen headed in the direction of Mendenhall at speeds well in excess of 90 mph.
Potential defenders may save their breath. Passing through the town of McGee he slowed to the speed limit, clearing traffic only by tailgating dangerously.
Even though the distance described is far too great for lights or sirens to have given his presence away, the driver at no time so much as blinked his blues or blipped the siren.
The committee is now accepting nominations for other identifiable examples of “Above the law” officers at all levels of enforcement.
We strongly recommend notifying the appropriate authorities when such information is available however, we caution against including identifiable information about yourself, especially if you are routinely in the jurisdiction of the offender.
The appropriate address in this case, for those interested, is: ColonelMHP@mdps.state.ms.us
We dedicate the first annual event to the person driving the State Highway Patrol car, license MHP J46 northbound on highway 49 at about 15:30 on 21 December, 2007.
The honoree first came to our attention south of McGee as he rushed up on traffic still accelerating. Said driver was last seen headed in the direction of Mendenhall at speeds well in excess of 90 mph.
Potential defenders may save their breath. Passing through the town of McGee he slowed to the speed limit, clearing traffic only by tailgating dangerously.
Even though the distance described is far too great for lights or sirens to have given his presence away, the driver at no time so much as blinked his blues or blipped the siren.
The committee is now accepting nominations for other identifiable examples of “Above the law” officers at all levels of enforcement.
We strongly recommend notifying the appropriate authorities when such information is available however, we caution against including identifiable information about yourself, especially if you are routinely in the jurisdiction of the offender.
The appropriate address in this case, for those interested, is: ColonelMHP@mdps.state.ms.us
Sunday, November 18, 2007
A Convert
No, I didn't suddenly decide I believe man is the sole, or even primary, cause of global warming.
I have converted to Pastafarianism.
Now, can I have shrimp in my spaghetti tonight? I must ask others who are more familiar with the gospel.
For those who would know more about the FSM, I recommend this page:
http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidetopastafarianismpreloaded.swf
I have converted to Pastafarianism.
Now, can I have shrimp in my spaghetti tonight? I must ask others who are more familiar with the gospel.
For those who would know more about the FSM, I recommend this page:
http://www.venganza.org/flash/guidetopastafarianismpreloaded.swf
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Highway Safety: Safety Enforcement
We’ve talked a good bit about safety enforcement in Speed Limits. Now lets look at some of the other things they can do.
Work Zones They’re a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know of anyone with an intelligent argument against lowered speeds where people are working. Can’t find one myself.
I can and will argue work zones have to be controlled intelligently for the safety of both the workers and road users.
I’ll begin by defining a couple of terms. Work Zone: A short area where work is actually taking place. Construction Zone: An area of varying length, where the roadway is in normal condition, where work may take place anytime within the next 15 to 30 days.
Unfortunately, many states have confused a construction zone with a work zone. This leads to many miles of reduced speed marking with no sign of work. That often results in drivers forgetting or ignoring the temporary limit. Then, with no additional warning, they come across workers. Well, sometimes. We’ve all driven through construction zones, sometimes for months, and never seen so much as someone leaning on a shovel, places where modern descendants of the Shoemaker’s Elves must be doing the work. Is it any wonder those speed limits are ignored?
The solution is amazingly simple, only been around for a few decades. Mark the construction zones. Then post reduced speeds and other restrictions with portable signs where workers really are present.
Wonder how many worker lives that simple change could save?
LLBs are another peeve of mine. They’re the Left Lane Bandits squatting in the left lane causing other drivers to change lanes to get around them. Does anyone beside me remember most states have laws clearly saying the left lane is for overtaking? (MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, SEC. 63-3-603: (d) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.)
LLBs are a big segment of a whole group of traffic disruptors. Other members include trucks blowing stuff out of the bed causing drivers to dodge trash, rocks, and whatever else they’re spreading. These are particularly dangerous as trash flying towards your windshield may cause a flinch resulting in sudden hard braking or even a lane change without proper checking.
Neither last nor least, are those drivers jumping lanes, weaving, or otherwise driving erratically – at any speed – they’re about as dangerous to others as you can get.
My bet is redirection of “safety enforcement” from speed to traffic disruptors alone would increase safety by 20 percent. But it won’t happen.
Speeding tickets are too big a revenue source for the government to give up just for safety.
-------------------------------
First post in the series.
Work Zones They’re a pet peeve of mine. I don’t know of anyone with an intelligent argument against lowered speeds where people are working. Can’t find one myself.
I can and will argue work zones have to be controlled intelligently for the safety of both the workers and road users.
I’ll begin by defining a couple of terms. Work Zone: A short area where work is actually taking place. Construction Zone: An area of varying length, where the roadway is in normal condition, where work may take place anytime within the next 15 to 30 days.
Unfortunately, many states have confused a construction zone with a work zone. This leads to many miles of reduced speed marking with no sign of work. That often results in drivers forgetting or ignoring the temporary limit. Then, with no additional warning, they come across workers. Well, sometimes. We’ve all driven through construction zones, sometimes for months, and never seen so much as someone leaning on a shovel, places where modern descendants of the Shoemaker’s Elves must be doing the work. Is it any wonder those speed limits are ignored?
The solution is amazingly simple, only been around for a few decades. Mark the construction zones. Then post reduced speeds and other restrictions with portable signs where workers really are present.
Wonder how many worker lives that simple change could save?
LLBs are another peeve of mine. They’re the Left Lane Bandits squatting in the left lane causing other drivers to change lanes to get around them. Does anyone beside me remember most states have laws clearly saying the left lane is for overtaking? (MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, SEC. 63-3-603: (d) Upon all roadways any vehicle proceeding at less than the normal speed of traffic at the time and place and under the conditions then existing shall be driven in the right-hand lane then available for traffic, or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway, except when overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction or when preparing for a left turn at an intersection or into a private road or driveway.)
LLBs are a big segment of a whole group of traffic disruptors. Other members include trucks blowing stuff out of the bed causing drivers to dodge trash, rocks, and whatever else they’re spreading. These are particularly dangerous as trash flying towards your windshield may cause a flinch resulting in sudden hard braking or even a lane change without proper checking.
Neither last nor least, are those drivers jumping lanes, weaving, or otherwise driving erratically – at any speed – they’re about as dangerous to others as you can get.
My bet is redirection of “safety enforcement” from speed to traffic disruptors alone would increase safety by 20 percent. But it won’t happen.
Speeding tickets are too big a revenue source for the government to give up just for safety.
-------------------------------
First post in the series.
Friday, October 26, 2007
McAfee, You Call This Customer Service?
The following is an exchange with McAfee Customer Support when I tried to suggest they need a way to schedule updates for some time when it will not disrupt normal operations.
Let me preface this by saying I like McAfee better than the Norton/Symantec product it replaced.
The exchange:
RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
From: My Name
Sent: Fri 10/26/07 10:47 AM
To: McAfee Customer Support
I call this a completly useless response. It says:
"If you want technical support, you must join a chat board. In addition, you must know enough about our product to figure out which area your question belongs in."
"Alternatively, you can spend time in a chat mode even though all you want to do is drop a note requesting a product improvement."
To use a comon phrase, this is piss poor customer support.
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:34:06 -0700
> From:
> To:
> Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
>
> Dear McAfee Customer,
>
> My sincerest apologies for the inconvenience you have experienced.
>
> We encourage our customers to contact our Technical Support Team directly so that they can assist you real-time with resolving the issue. You can contact our Technical Support Team via free internet chat by following the steps below:
>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com/TechSupportHome.aspx?lc=1033&sg=TS
> 2. Run McAfee Virtual Technician before you go to Chat.
> 4. Click on Continue but disregard the FAQ search page
> 5. Click on Chat and Email icon (on the left side of the page)
> 6. Choose your Country from the dropdown list and click Next
> 7. Click on Free Internet Chat then Next
> 8. Fill in the required information and click on Submit
> 9. Click on Download Chat Client
> 10. Click on Run and follow the prompts
>
> If you require further assistance, please reply to this email with the previous correspondence. Your reference number for this incident is 47600302.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> _______________.
> McAfee CS-Tier 1
>
> Safe online? Avoid dangerous web sites using McAfee SiteAdvisor™ — a FREE download from http://www.siteadvisor.com?cid=27092
> Don’t search or surf without it!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: My Name
> Sent: Oct 25, 2007 10:49:59 AM
> Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
>
>
> It appears Cuatomer Support didn;t forward this to tech support when they realized that's where it needs to be.
>
> Might I suggest this is someething McAfee should consider a CS problem, the lack of internal communications.
>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:00:24 -0700
> From: >
To: >
Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)>
> Dear McAfee Customer, >
> Thank you for contacting McAfee Customer Service. >
> As much as I would like to help you resolve your issue, I deeply regret that I cannot personally assist you because we at Customer Service, are not trained to handle technical issues and do not have the tools to correct such errors. >
> McAfee offers free and comprehensive technical support options. To avail free solutions to your concerns, please follow these steps:>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com
> 2. Click on the Technical Support link
> 3. Choose the appropriate Free Technical Support Options available: McAfee Virtual Technician, Frequently Asked Questions/Search, and Chat/Email>
> If you wish to speak to our online Technicians, you may choose our Fee-Based Support Options available. To do so, please follow these steps:>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com/LocaleSelect.aspx?lc=1033&sg=TS&pt=2&st=PHONE
> 2. Choose your appropriate Country and click on the Next button
> 3. Select the service option available>
> Should you need further assistance, please reply to this email including the previous correspondence. Your service request number for this incident is 46390186. > >
> Sincerely, >
> McAfee CS-Tier 1>
> Safe online? Avoid dangerous web sites using McAfee SiteAdvisor™ — a FREE download from http://www.siteadvisor.com?cid=27092.> Don’t search or surf without it!> > >
-----Original Message----->
From:
Sent: Oct 24, 2007 7:57:05 AM
> Subject: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186>
> Thank you for contacting McAfee Consumer Support. >
> We have recently opened a Service Request for support based on the information you provided us at our support website. Below you will find the details of this request for your reference.>
> - Order #: > - Service Request #: 46390186> - Created Date:
> - Description: We need a way to set the time automatic updates occur. Download and install temporarly takes over the system. I want to move it to the middle of the nught.>
> If there is one, I can't find it.>
> Thanks>
> Please feel free to visit us at http://service.mcafee.com for all of your McAfee related support needs.>
> Sincerely,
> McAfee Consumer Support
> EN> >
Let me preface this by saying I like McAfee better than the Norton/Symantec product it replaced.
The exchange:
RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
From: My Name
Sent: Fri 10/26/07 10:47 AM
To: McAfee Customer Support
I call this a completly useless response. It says:
"If you want technical support, you must join a chat board. In addition, you must know enough about our product to figure out which area your question belongs in."
"Alternatively, you can spend time in a chat mode even though all you want to do is drop a note requesting a product improvement."
To use a comon phrase, this is piss poor customer support.
> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 20:34:06 -0700
> From:
> To:
> Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
>
> Dear McAfee Customer,
>
> My sincerest apologies for the inconvenience you have experienced.
>
> We encourage our customers to contact our Technical Support Team directly so that they can assist you real-time with resolving the issue. You can contact our Technical Support Team via free internet chat by following the steps below:
>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com/TechSupportHome.aspx?lc=1033&sg=TS
> 2. Run McAfee Virtual Technician before you go to Chat.
> 4. Click on Continue but disregard the FAQ search page
> 5. Click on Chat and Email icon (on the left side of the page)
> 6. Choose your Country from the dropdown list and click Next
> 7. Click on Free Internet Chat then Next
> 8. Fill in the required information and click on Submit
> 9. Click on Download Chat Client
> 10. Click on Run and follow the prompts
>
> If you require further assistance, please reply to this email with the previous correspondence. Your reference number for this incident is 47600302.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> _______________.
> McAfee CS-Tier 1
>
> Safe online? Avoid dangerous web sites using McAfee SiteAdvisor™ — a FREE download from http://www.siteadvisor.com?cid=27092
> Don’t search or surf without it!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: My Name
> Sent: Oct 25, 2007 10:49:59 AM
> Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)
>
>
> It appears Cuatomer Support didn;t forward this to tech support when they realized that's where it needs to be.
>
> Might I suggest this is someething McAfee should consider a CS problem, the lack of internal communications.
>
> > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:00:24 -0700
> From: >
To: >
Subject: RE: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186 (#6356-84950329-6680)>
> Dear McAfee Customer, >
> Thank you for contacting McAfee Customer Service. >
> As much as I would like to help you resolve your issue, I deeply regret that I cannot personally assist you because we at Customer Service, are not trained to handle technical issues and do not have the tools to correct such errors. >
> McAfee offers free and comprehensive technical support options. To avail free solutions to your concerns, please follow these steps:>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com
> 2. Click on the Technical Support link
> 3. Choose the appropriate Free Technical Support Options available: McAfee Virtual Technician, Frequently Asked Questions/Search, and Chat/Email>
> If you wish to speak to our online Technicians, you may choose our Fee-Based Support Options available. To do so, please follow these steps:>
> 1. Go to http://service.mcafee.com/LocaleSelect.aspx?lc=1033&sg=TS&pt=2&st=PHONE
> 2. Choose your appropriate Country and click on the Next button
> 3. Select the service option available>
> Should you need further assistance, please reply to this email including the previous correspondence. Your service request number for this incident is 46390186. > >
> Sincerely, >
> McAfee CS-Tier 1>
> Safe online? Avoid dangerous web sites using McAfee SiteAdvisor™ — a FREE download from http://www.siteadvisor.com?cid=27092.> Don’t search or surf without it!> > >
-----Original Message----->
From:
Sent: Oct 24, 2007 7:57:05 AM
> Subject: McAfee Customer Service - Service Request #46390186>
> Thank you for contacting McAfee Consumer Support. >
> We have recently opened a Service Request for support based on the information you provided us at our support website. Below you will find the details of this request for your reference.>
> - Order #: > - Service Request #: 46390186> - Created Date:
> - Description: We need a way to set the time automatic updates occur. Download and install temporarly takes over the system. I want to move it to the middle of the nught.>
> If there is one, I can't find it.>
> Thanks>
> Please feel free to visit us at http://service.mcafee.com for all of your McAfee related support needs.>
> Sincerely,
> McAfee Consumer Support
> EN> >
Monday, October 22, 2007
Global Warming Delusions (Lifted From the WSJ)
Because it's too important to risk losing when they rearrange:
BE NOT AFRAID
Global Warming Delusions
The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
BY DANIEL B. BOTKIN
Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20% to 30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming--a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age--saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe. But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, "Isn't this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?" Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food--an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life--I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating--especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period--A.D. 750 to 1230 or so--the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."
Ladurie pointed out that "it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland." Good thing that Erik the Red didn't have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.
We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes--wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.
My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.
Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science--even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.
Mr. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century" (Replica Books, 2001).
BE NOT AFRAID
Global Warming Delusions
The popular imagination has been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
BY DANIEL B. BOTKIN
Sunday, October 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT
Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.
Case in point: This year's United Nations report on climate change and other documents say that 20% to 30% of plant and animal species will be threatened with extinction in this century due to global warming--a truly terrifying thought. Yet, during the past 2.5 million years, a period that scientists now know experienced climatic changes as rapid and as warm as modern climatological models suggest will happen to us, almost none of the millions of species on Earth went extinct. The exceptions were about 20 species of large mammals (the famous megafauna of the last ice age--saber-tooth tigers, hairy mammoths and the like), which went extinct about 10,000 to 5,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, and many dominant trees and shrubs of northwestern Europe. But elsewhere, including North America, few plant species went extinct, and few mammals.
We're also warned that tropical diseases are going to spread, and that we can expect malaria and encephalitis epidemics. But scientific papers by Prof. Sarah Randolph of Oxford University show that temperature changes do not correlate well with changes in the distribution or frequency of these diseases; warming has not broadened their distribution and is highly unlikely to do so in the future, global warming or not.
The key point here is that living things respond to many factors in addition to temperature and rainfall. In most cases, however, climate-modeling-based forecasts look primarily at temperature alone, or temperature and precipitation only. You might ask, "Isn't this enough to forecast changes in the distribution of species?" Ask a mockingbird. The New York Times recently published an answer to a query about why mockingbirds were becoming common in Manhattan. The expert answer was: food--an exotic plant species that mockingbirds like to eat had spread to New York City. It was this, not temperature or rainfall, the expert said, that caused the change in mockingbird geography.
You might think I must be one of those know-nothing naysayers who believes global warming is a liberal plot. On the contrary, I am a biologist and ecologist who has worked on global warming, and been concerned about its effects, since 1968. I've developed the computer model of forest growth that has been used widely to forecast possible effects of global warming on life--I've used the model for that purpose myself, and to forecast likely effects on specific endangered species.
I'm not a naysayer. I'm a scientist who believes in the scientific method and in what facts tell us. I have worked for 40 years to try to improve our environment and improve human life as well. I believe we can do this only from a basis in reality, and that is not what I see happening now. Instead, like fashions that took hold in the past and are eloquently analyzed in the classic 19th century book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds," the popular imagination today appears to have been captured by beliefs that have little scientific basis.
Some colleagues who share some of my doubts argue that the only way to get our society to change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe, and that therefore it is all right and even necessary for scientists to exaggerate. They tell me that my belief in open and honest assessment is naïve. "Wolves deceive their prey, don't they?" one said to me recently. Therefore, biologically, he said, we are justified in exaggerating to get society to change.
The climate modelers who developed the computer programs that are being used to forecast climate change used to readily admit that the models were crude and not very realistic, but were the best that could be done with available computers and programming methods. They said our options were to either believe those crude models or believe the opinions of experienced, data-focused scientists. Having done a great deal of computer modeling myself, I appreciated their acknowledgment of the limits of their methods. But I hear no such statements today. Oddly, the forecasts of computer models have become our new reality, while facts such as the few extinctions of the past 2.5 million years are pushed aside, as if they were not our reality.
A recent article in the well-respected journal American Scientist explained why the glacier on Mt. Kilimanjaro could not be melting from global warming. Simply from an intellectual point of view it was fascinating--especially the author's Sherlock Holmes approach to figuring out what was causing the glacier to melt. That it couldn't be global warming directly (i.e., the result of air around the glacier warming) was made clear by the fact that the air temperature at the altitude of the glacier is below freezing. This means that only direct radiant heat from sunlight could be warming and melting the glacier. The author also studied the shape of the glacier and deduced that its melting pattern was consistent with radiant heat but not air temperature. Although acknowledged by many scientists, the paper is scorned by the true believers in global warming.
We are told that the melting of the arctic ice will be a disaster. But during the famous medieval warming period--A.D. 750 to 1230 or so--the Vikings found the warmer northern climate to their advantage. Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie addressed this in his book "Times of Feast, Times of Famine: A History of Climate Since the Year 1000," perhaps the greatest book about climate change before the onset of modern concerns with global warming. He wrote that Erik the Red "took advantage of a sea relatively free of ice to sail due west from Iceland to reach Greenland. . . . Two and a half centuries later, at the height of the climatic and demographic fortunes of the northern settlers, a bishopric of Greenland was founded at Gardar in 1126."
Ladurie pointed out that "it is reasonable to think of the Vikings as unconsciously taking advantage of this [referring to the warming of the Middle Ages] to colonize the most northern and inclement of their conquests, Iceland and Greenland." Good thing that Erik the Red didn't have Al Gore or his climatologists as his advisers.
Should we therefore dismiss global warming? Of course not. But we should make a realistic assessment, as rationally as possible, about its cultural, economic and environmental effects. As Erik the Red might have told you, not everything due to a climatic warming is bad, nor is everything that is bad due to a climatic warming.
We should approach the problem the way we decide whether to buy insurance and take precautions against other catastrophes--wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes. And as I have written elsewhere, many of the actions we would take to reduce greenhouse-gas production and mitigate global-warming effects are beneficial anyway, most particularly a movement away from fossil fuels to alternative solar and wind energy.
My concern is that we may be moving away from an irrational lack of concern about climate change to an equally irrational panic about it.
Many of my colleagues ask, "What's the problem? Hasn't it been a good thing to raise public concern?" The problem is that in this panic we are going to spend our money unwisely, we will take actions that are counterproductive, and we will fail to do many of those things that will benefit the environment and ourselves.
For example, right now the clearest threat to many species is habitat destruction. Take the orangutans, for instance, one of those charismatic species that people are often fascinated by and concerned about. They are endangered because of deforestation. In our fear of global warming, it would be sad if we fail to find funds to purchase those forests before they are destroyed, and thus let this species go extinct.
At the heart of the matter is how much faith we decide to put in science--even how much faith scientists put in science. Our times have benefited from clear-thinking, science-based rationality. I hope this prevails as we try to deal with our changing climate.
Mr. Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, is the author of "Discordant Harmonies: A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century" (Replica Books, 2001).
Sunday, October 14, 2007
Highway Safety: Speed Limits
So far, we’ve agreed states have a responsibility to provide safe highways. I think we’ve also agreed speed limits are one of the major ways of providing safe travel.
How are speed limits set?
Many things go into setting a limit. Traffic, road entries and exits (access), type of environment (expressway, city street, young family neighborhood), even vehicle capabilities are included.
In the space of a blog it’s impossible to talk about every aspect so this discussion will be limited to interstate highways, that is expressways. They are consistent across state borders, built to standards set by the federal government. The standards are available from AASHTO (http://www.transportation.org/) as part of their publication, A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System
Standards were developed as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Nineteen fifty-six. Yes, with limited modifications, the interstate highways you drive today are designed according to 50 years old standards. That includes the speed limits on those expressways.
Well, if 70 was good enough then, what’s wrong with it now?
Seventy is no longer the safest speed. Not the safest because it is too slow for your safety.
Huh?
Time for more background.
Highway safety engineers have known for decades that the safest speed limit is the 85th percentile speed. That’s the speed 85% of all drivers drive at or below when given an unmarked speed limit. As with many speed related things, the reason for this is complicated. However, we can make a simple but true statement that covers most of it:
Too low a speed leads to driver inattention.
I heard that. You’re wrong, it’s not bull shirt.
If you want a personal example of the dangers of a too-slow speed limit,, take a drive on I-20 East into Alabama from Mississippi. There’s a 20 plus mile stretch with a 50 mph limit. No construction equipment, no barrels, no workmen, just a nice, fresh blacktop section where the 50 mph signs are still up. If you drive it at 50, you’ll begin suffering highway hypnosis before you’re half way through. Unless you’re in panic because everything, including 18 wheel trucks, is blowing past you going 20 to 30 mph faster.
Wonder why 70 is no longer the safest speed? Take a look at the car of 1975. Compare it to the 21st century models.
In 1975 tires were bias ply. They were short lived and far more prone to going flat. Today, tires are radial, often have 40,000 mile guarantees they outlive, and provide far more adhesion (grip) in all kinds of weather than those old tires did even on a sunny day.
The cars themselves are far more controllable. In 1975 most cars wallowed like a boat on a choppy sea. By the 21st century every car sold had much improved suspension and ride control (shocks and struts), far better than anything available when the standards were set.
These two factors alone, radial tires and improved ride control, increased safe speeds over identical surfaces by as much as 30% for every car sold. In some cases, such as the 550i, vehicles are so improved even a beginner could drive safely at nearly twice the posted speed. For those familiar with the Jackson, MS area, the north entrance and south exit to I-220 are marked at 50 mph. In that car, even a normal drive can negotiate those ramps at 80 to 90 mph safely – barring other traffic of course.
For those that can’t get to Alabama, I-220, or don’t believe their own experiences, let’s look at some speed related statistics.
You may have heard of Autobahns. Those real high speed, sometimes unlimited speed, interstates in Germany. I’ll bet you’ve also heard how dangerous and deadly they are.
Not so according to statistics from the International Road Traffic and Accident database (IRTAD). Here are the numbers for 2006:
Injury Accidents per 100,000 Population.
Germany 408
USA 647 (2004, US 2006 numbers were not available)
Deaths per Billion KM
Germany 7.8
USA 9.4
Let’s also look at a report dating back to 1992 for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The report, titled Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html), makes a couple of very interesting statements. I quote.
Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent
And
Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent.
There we go. For 15 years, states have known setting speed limits too low could kill you. For at least as long, the policy makers have known of the improvements in cars After all, they do drive.
A few states have acted on this information, if in an unofficial way. One state has an 80 mph policy on interstates. The speed limit sign may say 70 but you won’t get a ticket unless you’re over 80.
Why haven’t the others acted? I suggest it’s a conflict of interest. They know, because their staff engineers told them, higher speed limits are safer. They don’t act because they want the ticket revenue.
What can we do about it?
I doubt educating our legislators will help. They’re the ones who get and spend the money from those tickets.
Our best bet is probably a young law firm, eager to make a name and a few bucks for themselves. A class action suit on behalf of traveling salespersons and others whose livelihood is affected by time lost to a ticket hungry state.
If they do it right, the results will be 3 speed limits. 80 for cars and smaller trucks, 70 for anything with a trailer or over some heavy weight, and, at last, a minimum speed because we all know how dangerous it is to come up on some moron doing 35 when you’re traveling at 70.
Lawyers, where are you?
------------------
First post in the series.
How are speed limits set?
Many things go into setting a limit. Traffic, road entries and exits (access), type of environment (expressway, city street, young family neighborhood), even vehicle capabilities are included.
In the space of a blog it’s impossible to talk about every aspect so this discussion will be limited to interstate highways, that is expressways. They are consistent across state borders, built to standards set by the federal government. The standards are available from AASHTO (http://www.transportation.org/) as part of their publication, A Policy on Design Standards -- Interstate System
Standards were developed as part of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Nineteen fifty-six. Yes, with limited modifications, the interstate highways you drive today are designed according to 50 years old standards. That includes the speed limits on those expressways.
Well, if 70 was good enough then, what’s wrong with it now?
Seventy is no longer the safest speed. Not the safest because it is too slow for your safety.
Huh?
Time for more background.
Highway safety engineers have known for decades that the safest speed limit is the 85th percentile speed. That’s the speed 85% of all drivers drive at or below when given an unmarked speed limit. As with many speed related things, the reason for this is complicated. However, we can make a simple but true statement that covers most of it:
Too low a speed leads to driver inattention.
I heard that. You’re wrong, it’s not bull shirt.
If you want a personal example of the dangers of a too-slow speed limit,, take a drive on I-20 East into Alabama from Mississippi. There’s a 20 plus mile stretch with a 50 mph limit. No construction equipment, no barrels, no workmen, just a nice, fresh blacktop section where the 50 mph signs are still up. If you drive it at 50, you’ll begin suffering highway hypnosis before you’re half way through. Unless you’re in panic because everything, including 18 wheel trucks, is blowing past you going 20 to 30 mph faster.
Wonder why 70 is no longer the safest speed? Take a look at the car of 1975. Compare it to the 21st century models.
In 1975 tires were bias ply. They were short lived and far more prone to going flat. Today, tires are radial, often have 40,000 mile guarantees they outlive, and provide far more adhesion (grip) in all kinds of weather than those old tires did even on a sunny day.
The cars themselves are far more controllable. In 1975 most cars wallowed like a boat on a choppy sea. By the 21st century every car sold had much improved suspension and ride control (shocks and struts), far better than anything available when the standards were set.
These two factors alone, radial tires and improved ride control, increased safe speeds over identical surfaces by as much as 30% for every car sold. In some cases, such as the 550i, vehicles are so improved even a beginner could drive safely at nearly twice the posted speed. For those familiar with the Jackson, MS area, the north entrance and south exit to I-220 are marked at 50 mph. In that car, even a normal drive can negotiate those ramps at 80 to 90 mph safely – barring other traffic of course.
For those that can’t get to Alabama, I-220, or don’t believe their own experiences, let’s look at some speed related statistics.
You may have heard of Autobahns. Those real high speed, sometimes unlimited speed, interstates in Germany. I’ll bet you’ve also heard how dangerous and deadly they are.
Not so according to statistics from the International Road Traffic and Accident database (IRTAD). Here are the numbers for 2006:
Injury Accidents per 100,000 Population.
Germany 408
USA 647 (2004, US 2006 numbers were not available)
Deaths per Billion KM
Germany 7.8
USA 9.4
Let’s also look at a report dating back to 1992 for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. The report, titled Effects of Raising and Lowering Speed Limits (http://www.ibiblio.org/rdu/sl-irrel.html), makes a couple of very interesting statements. I quote.
Accidents at the 58 experimental sites where speed limits were lowered increased by 5.4 percent
And
Accidents at the 41 experimental sites where speed limits were raised decreased by 6.7 percent.
There we go. For 15 years, states have known setting speed limits too low could kill you. For at least as long, the policy makers have known of the improvements in cars After all, they do drive.
A few states have acted on this information, if in an unofficial way. One state has an 80 mph policy on interstates. The speed limit sign may say 70 but you won’t get a ticket unless you’re over 80.
Why haven’t the others acted? I suggest it’s a conflict of interest. They know, because their staff engineers told them, higher speed limits are safer. They don’t act because they want the ticket revenue.
What can we do about it?
I doubt educating our legislators will help. They’re the ones who get and spend the money from those tickets.
Our best bet is probably a young law firm, eager to make a name and a few bucks for themselves. A class action suit on behalf of traveling salespersons and others whose livelihood is affected by time lost to a ticket hungry state.
If they do it right, the results will be 3 speed limits. 80 for cars and smaller trucks, 70 for anything with a trailer or over some heavy weight, and, at last, a minimum speed because we all know how dangerous it is to come up on some moron doing 35 when you’re traveling at 70.
Lawyers, where are you?
------------------
First post in the series.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Highway safety: An Overview
The first thing anyone has to say about highway safety is it’s you, the driver, who has the ultimate responsibility. You have to make sure your vehicle is safe. You must drive it in a safe manner. (Yo, you, the dumb ass in the black Honda SUV on 20 West in Birmingham. Just so you know, next time you cut someone off that close they may not back down. If it weren’t for the woman passenger, I would have let you put yourself into a Franchitti flip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3NO_zYCvb4 ) And you must make sure you watch out for that dumb ass and other incompetent drivers.
The states have a responsibility; a lawyer might say a fiduciary responsibility to provide highway users with a safe travel environment. They own the roads. Some states go so far as to charge a specific use fee. All the continental states and Canada collect use fees under the guise of gas taxes and the International fuel tax agreement, IFTA.
There are four main areas of state responsibility:
Speed limits. Neither too high nor too low.
Safety enforcement. Everything from whacked drivers like dumb ass to unsafe vehicles.
Road conditions. Good surfaces, de-iced and well drained, with safe crash barriers and good emergency spaces.
Licensing. Let’s face it. American driver’s licensing requirements are a joke. A very bad, dangerous, joke.
I’ll discuss each of those areas in future entries.
--------------------------------
Future entries:
Speed Limits
Safety Enforcement
The states have a responsibility; a lawyer might say a fiduciary responsibility to provide highway users with a safe travel environment. They own the roads. Some states go so far as to charge a specific use fee. All the continental states and Canada collect use fees under the guise of gas taxes and the International fuel tax agreement, IFTA.
There are four main areas of state responsibility:
Speed limits. Neither too high nor too low.
Safety enforcement. Everything from whacked drivers like dumb ass to unsafe vehicles.
Road conditions. Good surfaces, de-iced and well drained, with safe crash barriers and good emergency spaces.
Licensing. Let’s face it. American driver’s licensing requirements are a joke. A very bad, dangerous, joke.
I’ll discuss each of those areas in future entries.
--------------------------------
Future entries:
Speed Limits
Safety Enforcement
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)