… what if … like … it was really that …

… like childhood obes-ity? … what if like the last thing you wanted to do was like … you know, fight childhood obesity, because it was like, what if it was our way of like, you know, thinning the herd?  … you know, culling the masses …  like survival of the fittest, natural selection, you know … like built-in population control? maybe it’s like, you know, necessary to like ev-olution … and what if, like, you know, global warm-ing? what if that was,  like …  necessary for our survival you know?  like, by causing some of us to be like, you know, like sac-rificed? for like the greater good?  wouldn’t that be like, fucked UP man?

This stream of epicurean consciousness is brought to you by the letters “E” and “D” for ‘eavesdropping on dumbasses.’

I actually did the whole thing …

No, I am not kidding.  I sat here and clicked on the damn thing and I “finished” it.  Want to know what the hell it is I’m babbling about?  Want to know what happens when you finish the damn thing I’m babbling about?  Here:  go try it.

Seen enough and want to know what happens without completing the damn thing?  Look under the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

In answer to a comment …

Earlier today, “Kievan Rus” left this comment on a thread about global warming:

OFF TOPIC NOTE TO BLOGGIST:

I notice you don’t bother to mention anything about the gun toting wingnut that went off at the Pentagon the other day.

If it had been a liberal who did the shooting you would be all over it, though.

I’m surprised. Not.

This is my response to “Kievan Rus” which is far too long for a comment window. Read the rest of this entry »

Inconvenient FACTS is a fibber

The other day someone named “Inconvenient FACTS” sent me an email rant in support of global warming — ’scuse me, “Climate Change,” to which he insisted it should more accurately referred. His rant included a link to a New York Times article wherein Al Gore was a bit pissed off about all the people ridiculing global warming by pointing to the mountains of snow in their yards.

In the article, Gore said: “The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.”

Well, I wrote a lengthy reply back pointing out some problems with their argument in support of Mr. Gore. My reply bounced, because the cowardperson who wrote me did so from behind a proxy and used a fake email address. I don’t understand the logic here — you sent me something in a clear effort to persuade me to see your point of view, something specifically requesting an opening of dialogue, but you left me no method of reply. How are we supposed to debate the matter, how are you going to convince me and sway me to your position, when I can’t reply? I don’t get it.

So, anyhow “Inconvenient FACTS” if you’re reading this, here’s what I tried to say to you:

Interestingly enough, I recently saw a report put out by the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) which stated that “Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average.” (Source: “State of the Climate” summary report for 2009.)

If current global precipitation hasn’t changed from what it was in 1961-1990, I believe Mr. Gore’s statement is factually inconsistent at best and complete garbage at worst. Either way, the result is the same: it’s incorrect.

As for your assertion about the thousands of collective scientific minds forming the foundation for Mr. Gore’s statement, I challenge you to name them. You may be able to produce a small handful of miscreants and imbeciles, but neither you or Mr. Gore can produce the plenitude of which you boast.

On a side note, you seem especially fond of the Mpemba effect. Tell me, do you believe in the Easter Bunny as well?

Right after my letter to you bounced, Derwood sent me a link to an article by Alan Reynolds of the Cato Institute, who not only mentioned that very same report, but also mentioned how in 2008, a report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — “Climate Change and Water” — stated that in high latitudes and the tropics, their climate models were projecting “precipitation increases.” Projecting being the operative word, and in “high latitudes and the tropics” being the operative area.

Mr. Reynolds says it far better than I can, so why bother paraphrasing?

In other words, the IPCC said that its models predicted some increases in rain or snow — not observed them. And only in high latitudes or the tropics, which hardly describes New York or Washington, DC.

In fact, recent research actually contradicts Gore’s claims about “significantly more water moisture in the atmosphere.”

In late January, Scientific American reported: “A mysterious drop in water vapor in the lower stratosphere might be slowing climate change,” and noted that “an apparent increase in water vapor in this region in the 1980s and 1990s exacerbated global warming.”

The new study came from a group of scientists, mainly from the NOAA lab in Boulder. The scientists found: “Stratospheric water-vapor concentrations decreased by about 10 percent after the year 2000 . . . This acted to slow the rate of increase in global surface temperature over 2000 to 2009 by about 25 percent.”

Specifically, the study found that water vapor rising from the tropics has been reduced, because it has gotten cooler there (another inconvenient truth). A Wall Street Journal headline summed it up: “Slowdown in Warming Linked to Water Vapor.”

Moisture in the lower stratosphere (about 8 miles above the earth’s surface) has been going down, not up.

Aside from clouds, water vapor accounts for as much as two-thirds of the earth’s greenhouse-gas effect. Water vapor traps heat from escaping the atmosphere — but clouds have the opposite effect (called “albedo”) by reflecting the sun’s energy back into space. And snow on the ground from the IPCC’s predicted precipitation in high latitudes would have the same cooling effect as clouds.

What the new research suggests is that changes in water vapor may well trump the effect of carbon dioxide (only a fraction of which is man-made) and methane (which has mysteriously slowed since about 1990).

This raises an intriguing question: Since the Environmental Protection Agency declared that it has the authority to regulat[e] carbon emissions because of their presumed effect on the global climate, why hasn’t the EPA also attempted to regulate mist and fog?

So, Inconvenient FACTS, if you would like to write back — with a *legitimate* email address this time — and respond, please feel free. Even better, why not just leave a comment, and let everyone participate in the discussion? Who knows, maybe you’ll eventually manage to convince me.

But don’t hold your breath.

First off, why on earth would you do this?

Secondly, why on earth would you TELL ANYONE you did this? Here, for your horrified fascination, is Jennifer Love Hewitt explaining … well … just watch it. Seriously.

Disco ball. OMG.

You can blame Durkin and Derwood for these.

But damn, what a creative way to use it!

Peter sent this one along.

Peter found it here.

Several times

All I can say is: “Busted!”

I almost feel sorry for her thinking about what happened after Dad turned off that webcam.

In the interests of full disclosure …

Have a look at this. It’s a power point presentation, so it will open a window asking if you want to run the file. You can either run it or save it and scan it first if you like. It’s virus free, but you certainly won’t offend me by checking for yourself!

Yeah, serious global warming. Durkin sent this one along.

Remember the school spying on their students with the school issued laptops?

I wrote about it the other day in this post: Reasonable Expectations.

Since I posted about it, the feces has hit the air circulating device. The school continues to insist they did nothing wrong. The software manufacturer of the remote viewing program used in the case is claiming that the software should never have been used for such a purpose but some computer security experts are arguing that their product is specifically designed to bypass Apple’s built-in protection features to prevent remote access of the webcam. The FBI is investigating. A federal judge has ordered them to disable the software and not use it again until the court order is lifted. Some parents are insisting that the school would not do such a terrible thing — I’ve even seen comments made by some parents saying that the boy who started this mess (seems to me it was the assistant principal who started it, but whatever) is a known troublemaker and his family are trash. (I’ve also seen ten times as many comments defending the family saying that’s a crock.)

I’ve also since learned that the laptops were not only issued to the students but the students were *required* to use them. Not only that, but they were forbidden to disable any of the software or hardware on the laptop (including the webcams) under penalty of expulsion from school and not only *that,* but they were forbidden to use their own computers, they *had* to use the school issued laptops. It just keeps getting worse and worse the more I read about it.

Well, my new hero “Stryde” has done some serious digging. I was going to quote him, but really it deserves a read. He and his buddy Aaron Rhodes did a shitload of research; Stryde.hax has the facts, links, copies and everything else to back up what he says and he deserves kudos for a job well done getting it all together. Go read it and even though it’s long, be sure to read all the updates on the page, there’s a wealth of new information included in them.