Archive for December, 2009

Worst Tweet of the year.

Yeah, those people who jumped out of the WTC, forced to choose between jumping to their deaths and the horrible prospect of being burned alive just found “Al-Q” to be a laugh out loud riot that sunny morning of 9/11/2001.  Attackerman is an idiot.  Unfortunately, the current administration is full of people who share his worldview.

Read Full Post »

If the gay Democratic Hillary supporters over at Hillbuz understand that Isalm is at war with the west, how can our current administration be so obtuse?  This part is sort of the funniest/saddest, depending on your perspective:

We don’t care how much hatemail we get from Liberals over this, or how many times they write in to say how they all hope we get AIDS and die (their favorite curse upon gay men who refuse to toe the Liberal line), because people need to wake up to the fact that Muslims are not the Care Bears.

Gee, I thought it was only us conservatives that were homophobic.  It’s not enough to be gay – you have to be the “right kind of gay”, I suppose.  Just like Condolezza Rice was a “house nigger“.  And Colin Powell, although I suppose he has been redeemed of house nigger status after proving his Obama bona fides this last election cycle.  And let’s not even get started on what Michelle Malkin is in the eyes of the left – a “little brown person with conservative values”?  Preposterous – she is to be vilified in the most vulgar terms possible.  Of course, if you’re just a plain old white guy conservative, the left will just hope you die a painful death.  Sure is easy to see why Charles Johnson left the mean old conservative side of the blogosphere for the compassionate, rational left, eh?

Read Full Post »

No one can resist the allure of BACON!

A Muslim who claimed he was forced to cook pork products has lost his discrimination lawsuit against Scotland Yard after it was discovered he enjoys a good bacon roll.

It really is true – Bacon makes everything better (and yes, Bacon should always be capitalized.  Always.).

Mmmmmmmm.  Cupcakes.

Read Full Post »

No Comment

The original title?  “Hundreds gather to protest global warming”

Read Full Post »

OK, so reading a scientific article written by a couple of German physicists is not your thing.  You’re more of a sensitive, artistic, visual type, right?  Well, in that case, head over to SDA and look at the pretty graph.  Take a cup of coffee, it’ll take a while to digest.

Climategate: 30 years in the making.

Go to the site, look at the timeline.  Read it.  Understand it.  And then tell me if you’re an AGW true believer, or a skeptic.  More importantly, are you ready to completely redistribute the world’s wealth to combat the “problem” of AGW after revieweing either/both of the documents that are the subjects of the lasts 2 posts?

Read Full Post »

What happens when junk science meets the hard, cold realities of physics?  Well, let’s just say that the results aren’t pretty. Here’s the abstract (emphasis mine):

The atmospheric greenhouse eff ect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which  is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fi ctitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is  radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system.   According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.  Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientifi c foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarifi ed. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fi ctitious atmospheric greenhouse eff ects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned diff erence of 33 C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsi fied.

Shorter version:  don’t screw with the second law of thermodynamics.

Full paper is here. I wonder if this counts as “peer-reviewed”?  Probably not, because it wasn’t peer-reviewed by the right people – that is, by true believers in AGW theory.  This is essentially the same argument that Steve McIntyre has been making over at Climate Audit.  He isn’t trying to pass himself off as a “climate scientist”(snicker). His argument is, and always has been, that the statistics used by Mann et all are applied inappropriately, that their data is bogus, and that their analysis is flawed.  McIntyre’s argument is that, as a statistician, he has evaluated their statistical methods, and found them wanting.  The RealClimate group’s response has been to denigrate his analysis (and Steve personally) by saying he’s not a climate scientist in academia that has been published in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals.  A peer review process controlled by, you guessed it, climate scientists with a very vested interest in AGW being “true”.

These German physicists aren’t claiming to be climate scientists either – but they are physicists who have looked at the physical underpinnings of the greenhouse gas effect necessary for AGW to be true – and found significant errors in the way the physical principles have been interpreted and applied.  More importantly, they have found that a greenhouse gas effect as postulated by AGW climate scientists requires a violation of a basic principle of the universe – the second law of thermodynamics.  Not sure what that means?  Well, there are many different statements concerning the second law of thermodynamics, most of them dealing with the concept of entropy.  The simplest, and most useful from an AGW standpoint, is what is known as as the heat formulation of the second law or the Clausius statement:

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

And what, pray tell, does THAT mean?  Essentially that, in order for AGW to work, heat must be transferred from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer ground of the Earth.  Something that cannot happen.  Ever.

Perhaps a Loren B. Thompson quote, slightly modified, is called for:

“What happened here is that the technology AGW enthusiasts got far beyond what the laws of physics would allow.”

Yep, I think that sums it up pretty nicely.  But what does it matter if you violate a few laws of physics to save the planet, eh?

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »